Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[Riverman]

I was merely pointing out how silly the post I quoted was.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

I don't think the fly-over was necessary. Our gas tax is too low to be doing stuff like that. Using property tax to pay for things like this is stealing from car-less people.

Interesting point, how do you feel about bicyclist having their own lane to ride in on the City Streets?

[cslusarc]

Originally Posted by alittle1

You do realize that there is a portion in-between that is privately ownered, namely where the pavement stops on Reenders EB and the blacktop begins and unlike as in Moldova, the State doesn't own everything. Sky, you been living in the North(end) too long. Take the red pill now.

But here in Manitoba the law allows for expropriation like what the Province is proposing with my parents' home. In the case of extending Reenders Dr to Peguis St, it makes sense because doesn't the City want to barricade Almey Ave to through traffic at its intersection with Ravelstone Ave W.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by cslusarc

But here in Manitoba the law allows for expropriation like what the Province is proposing with my parents' home. In the case of extending Reenders Dr to Peguis St, it makes sense because doesn't the City want to barricade Almey Ave to through traffic at its intersection with Ravelstone Ave W.

The City is making the developer (Shindico) pay for the road extension of Rendeers as a term of their agreement for the construction of Shops of Kildonan Mile. So it likely wont get constructed until Shindico gets some leases signed for their development.

[bomberjet]

Didn't the City pay $48M to subsidize transit last year?

[bomberjet]

http://winnipeg.ca/cao/media/news/nr...20140918.stm#2

Bridge at the Kenaston Boulevard/Bishop Grandin intersection opens

Released: 3:26 p.m.

Winnipeg, MB – The public is advised that the new bridge at the Kenaston Boulevard/Bishop Grandin Boulevard intersection will open to traffic on the afternoon of September 21, 2014.

With the opening of the bridge, traffic travelling southbound on Kenaston Boulevard to eastbound Bishop Grandin Boulevard will now use the bridge, as shown in this diagram of the intersection.

While the rest of the intersection is open, the northbound right turn from Kenaston Boulevard to eastbound Bishop Grandin Boulevard will be closed temporarily to allow for completion of intersection construction.

The grand opening of the Waverley West Arterial Roads Project will be held once the project is completed.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Didn't the City pay $48M to subsidize transit last year?

Define subsidy -- do you mean that the city gave transportation service for below cost and took on the rest of the bill with property tax? In that case I would agree.

In the same year, how many projects were built for single occupancy vehicles and how much have you paid to use them?

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Define subsidy -- do you mean that the city gave transportation service for below cost and took on the rest of the bill with property tax? In that case I would agree.

In the same year, how many projects were built for single occupancy vehicles and how much have you paid to use them?

Yes, the City subsidizes the cost of transit. When you don't bring in enough money to pay for the service, and the government pays the rest, I would call that a subsidy. Even if they don't charge enough for the service. Just like the Jets are subsidized, Bombers, opera, etc.

And yeah, just like the City spent $100M or $200M or more on roads last. I'm not denying that. Just saying that the Transit system, in any city not just Winnipeg, isn't totally self sufficient like a lot of people make it out to be. I'm 100% pro Transit, just stating the facts.

[rypinion]

The government "subsidizes" transit of all forms from personal vehicles to public transit to active transportation.

You'd think a government that is trying to be efficient would favour/prioritize the more efficient and cost/space effective modes of transportation. I.e. mass public transit and active transportation.

[bomberjet]

That's all I was pointing out. Who else would pay for the roads, right? And buses still use the roads too. So if there were no roads, no buses. Unless you go LRT.

[biguc]

I've been pretty into a pay to play system of road funding for a while now. It would be very easy to directly charge drivers for how much they use the roads.

And on the topic of Winnipeg transit's subsidy, from what I understand it has the best cost-recovery rate (ie, lowest subsidy) of prairie transit systems.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Just like busses are stealing from people with cars.

Yes. If I were in charge, your property tax would only cover garbage pick-up, snowplowing, and sidewalks. Then people would have enough money to pay a 40 cent per litre gas tax, or a $5 bus fare.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by alittle1

Interesting point, how do you feel about bicyclist having their own lane to ride in on the City Streets?

AT is a tough thing to figure out where the taxes should come from. It gets people out of the hospitals, so it doesn't really matter where the money comes from, as long as it is getting well used.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by biguc

I've been pretty into a pay to play system of road funding for a while now. It would be very easy to directly charge drivers for how much they use the roads.

Don't gas taxes already have that effect?

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

Yes. If I were in charge, your property tax would only cover garbage pick-up, snowplowing, and sidewalks. Then people would have enough money to pay a 40 cent per litre gas tax, or a $5 bus fare.

Good call, we don't really need libraries, community clubs, insect control, parks, by-law enforcement, cops, or fire protection anyway.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Good call, we don't really need libraries, community clubs, insect control, parks, by-law enforcement, cops, or fire protection anyway.

Your use of those services has nothing to do with the value of your property, besides fire protection. Sales tax can pay for most of those things.

Although, I think I should have added parks and insect control to that list...

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

Yes. If I were in charge, your property tax would only cover garbage pick-up, snowplowing, and sidewalks. Then people would have enough money to pay a 40 cent per litre gas tax, or a $5 bus fare.

Sounds like a trailer park.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

Sounds like a trailer park.

?

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

Yes. If I were in charge, your property tax would only cover garbage pick-up, snowplowing, and sidewalks. Then people would have enough money to pay a 40 cent per litre gas tax, or a $5 bus fare.

Let's just say you wouldn't be in charge for very long.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

?

Trailer park.. pay lot fee that covers water/sewer, garbage and snow clearing...no other services.

Don't know any cities that operate that way.