Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[vjose32]

Originally Posted by headhorse

the only reason we would have injuries is because of cars. we should be looking to vision zero as a model and reducing car use at every chance. want a shorter commute? we need less people driving. want lower taxes? we need less people driving. want to pay less into carbon taxes? we need less people driving. want a healthier population with less health problems? we need less people driving. want a less alienated society? we need less people driving.

but all most people actually care about is their selfish desire to be able to drive wherever they want, whenever they want, at whatever speed they want.

Yeah well maybe if they didn’t keep jacking up transit fares then a lot more people would use that instead of their cars. But apparently they need a bunch of managers earning $50K to keep things running.

And perhaps if we didn’t have winter for half a year more people would ride their bikes. We don’t exactly live in the most pedestrian friendly climate, like say Vancouver or LA do. We go from extremes in cold to extremes in heat, wouldn’t want to bike or walk in either.

[vjose32]

Originally Posted by headhorse

you have figured out that by adding traffic you create more traffic. you are so close!!

Yeah and you want to increase foot traffic

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Andy6

But will survival consist of a steady drain of employment from downtown as it becomes harder and harder to attract employees to a place that is not only perceived as somewhat dangerous, but is now also increasingly difficult to get to? We have this problem in Toronto, obviously on a larger scale, but there are real consequences to adding 10 minutes to peoples’ commutes.

I can't say that I've heard of any employers having a hard time attracting employees because of a downtown location. The only place that I've heard people kvetch about is the WRHA, whose head office is right on the North Main strip. But even there, the employment rolls are still full.

Working out in an office park along Kenaston isn't really a joyride for most either... unless you live in the immediate vicinity of Tuxedo, Linden Woods or Whyte Ridge, you will be trudging along in rush hour stop and go traffic that is no better than downtown. And you better have a car, because transit service is negligible out there, unlike downtown.

[vjose32]

Originally Posted by headhorse

the only reason we would have injuries is because of cars. we should be looking to vision zero as a model and reducing car use at every chance. want a shorter commute? we need less people driving. want lower taxes? we need less people driving. want to pay less into carbon taxes? we need less people driving. want a healthier population with less health problems? we need less people driving. want a less alienated society? we need less people driving.

but all most people actually care about is their selfish desire to be able to drive wherever they want, whenever they want, at whatever speed they want.

No let’s not blame the pedestrians. Often times they get hit because they aren’t watching out for traffic or decide not to wait for the light change.

[vjose32]

Originally Posted by windypeg

I'm pretty sure the engineers that did the study would have modeled that. Are you a traffic engineer, or in a directly related field? Because otherwise you're just speculating wildly. You can't get mad at people for calling you uninformed when you're relying on completely speculative doomsday scenarios instead of real data.

No, just someone whose done a lot of driving and just someone whose seen the consequences of making changes to traffic flow, like for instance adding diamond lanes on McPhillips, don’t tell me that hasn’t affected traffic flow through there. When you see 2 lanes heading north backed up for 4 blocks while one is empty, you know that the diamond lane is making things worse. That is what happens when people make unnecessary changes. Has something like that even really improved transit times?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by wardlow

There is a lot of turning movements at Portage and Main -- it's not simply two major crosstown corridors that intersect. But I would point out that Main and Broadway, three blocks south, is another major intersection that is eight lanes wide, has very high traffic volumes and a high amount of turning movement, but is open to pedestrians. Pedestrians crossing Main at Broadway do indeed slow down rush-hour traffic racing home to St. Boniface or St. Vital, and it's not a comfortable place to be a pedestrian, but life does indeed go on.

And again, this was not a traffic management solution, but was the result of a very unusual real estate agreement. If it was a traffic management solution, I would assume it would be applied elsewhere at the time, in Winnipeg or in other cities. If anyone wants to do some digging and find pro-closure sentiment from planners, engineers, architects, the general public, or even the CAA or some brash headline-seeking alderman *before* it became a possibility vis-a-vis the Winnipeg Square real estate deal, I'm all ears.

I don’t have any citations to offer but as I recollect it was seen as a very modern and progressive idea that was solving a number of problems simultaneously, including traffic flow, and I certainly remember the little blurb about how the closure had “virtually eliminated the 5 o’clock traffic jam at Portage and Main”. That was a stock phrase that used to appear often on publicity materials of some sort, but I don’t recall what exactly.

[vjose32]

Originally Posted by wardlow

There is a lot of turning movements at Portage and Main -- it's not simply two major crosstown corridors that intersect. But I would point out that Main and Broadway, three blocks south, is another major intersection that is eight lanes wide, has very high traffic volumes and a high amount of turning movement, but is open to pedestrians. Pedestrians crossing Main at Broadway do indeed slow down rush-hour traffic racing home to St. Boniface or St. Vital, and it's not a comfortable place to be a pedestrian, but life does indeed go on.

And again, this was not a traffic management solution, but was the result of a very unusual real estate agreement. If it was a traffic management solution, I would assume it would be applied elsewhere at the time, in Winnipeg or in other cities. If anyone wants to do some digging and find pro-closure sentiment from planners, engineers, architects, the general public, or even the CAA or some brash headline-seeking alderman *before* it became a possibility vis-a-vis the Winnipeg Square real estate deal, I'm all ears.

Yes but Broadway is only 6 lanes unlike Portage and Broadway doesn’t go straight through unlike Portage. Also I’m fairly certain there is more traffic and Portage and Main. The intersection is not the same.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by vjose32

No, just someone whose done a lot of driving and just someone whose seen the consequences of making changes to traffic flow, like for instance adding diamond lanes on McPhillips, don’t tell me that hasn’t affected traffic flow through there. When you see 2 lanes heading north backed up for 4 blocks while one is empty, you know that the diamond lane is making things worse. That is what happens when people make unnecessary changes. Has something like that really improved transit times?

Obviously it's improved transit times. You just said the lane is empty. So transit can bypass traffic easily instead of sitting in 2 blocks of backed up traffic. Considering there's a bottle neck at the underpass anyway, opening the diamond lane won't even make much of a difference.

[vjose32]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

It cannot be stressed enough that downtown needs to be reclaimed by pedestrians.

Then reclaim it! One freaking intersection shouldn’t make a difference!

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by vjose32

Yeah well maybe if they didn’t keep jacking up transit fares then a lot more people would use that instead of their cars. But apparently they need a bunch of managers earning $50K to keep things running.

And perhaps if we didn’t have winter for half a year more people would ride their bikes. We don’t exactly live in the most pedestrian friendly climate, like say Vancouver or LA do. We go from extremes in cold to extremes in heat, wouldn’t want to bike or walk in either.

yeah, I agree with transit prices. we should be working to lower them and honestly, thinking of transit as a public good. people have a right to be able to move around their city, we need to be able to offer multiple ways for people to do that.

the issue isn't managers's making 50k, it's a severe lack of funding by both the municipality and the province.

you should check out Oulu, Finland. slightly more moderate temps but just as much snow. with proper infrastructure and equipment you can bike all year round.. there are hundreds of people here already doing that. one thing that would make it a lot more feasible is shorter trips - but this means building more dense communities and activity nodes to increase connectivity.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by vjose32

Then reclaim it! One freaking intersection shouldn’t make a difference!

traffic calming is going to be a big part of it, sorry. that's going to include re-configuring most intersections.

[CoryB]

^^ Exactly. There have already been cases of businesses moving out of downtown Winnipeg over lack of parking and other issues. So let's make it more difficult for the executives that make those decisions to get to/from their office and see what happens long term...

[headhorse]

executives don't power the economy, workers do, so I don't really care how many BMW"s are stuck in traffic trying to get downtown. they can change and adjust or be left behind by society. their desires are unreasonable and we should stop bending over backwards to accommodate a small and insignificant portion of the population.

the only thing that will positively affect the economy for everyone is a robust, multi-faceted transit system that doesn't prioritize parking or suburban delusions of how the city should function.

[Curmudgeon]

I would like to see results of the ballot question by ward but I can't seem to find them. Anyone able to locate them?

In particular, was the Yes vote significantly stronger in the six inner city wards and especially in Daniel MacIntyre and Pt. Douglas (which between them house the entire downtown population)? I don't think the arguments the Yes side made were clear or tangible enough to persuade suburban voters. Strength in the inner city though would mean it's worthwhile to keep the issue alive and see if there's any desire for a reconsideration in 2022.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I would like to see results of the ballot question by ward but I can't seem to find them. Anyone able to locate them?

In particular, was the Yes vote significantly stronger in the six inner city wards and especially in Daniel MacIntyre and Pt. Douglas (which between them house the entire downtown population)? I don't think the arguments the Yes side made were clear or tangible enough to persuade suburban voters. Strength in the inner city though would mean it's worthwhile to keep the issue alive and see if there's any desire for a reconsideration in 2022.

Point Douglas is a weird ward since it extends from downtown into the far suburbs of Inkster gardens. It was majority No. Two wards were majority yes.

Daniel MacIntyre 56.9% Yes
Fort Rouge 57.1% Yes

Highest subdivisons within each were north of 76%. Top two were an area south of portage in the woseley area and the area encompassing so bro east of the legislature west towards the towers of Osborne village.


Lowest yes was Transcona at 20.4%

Other wards with above average yes %:
River Heights - Fort Gary 47.2%
Point Douglas: 36.5%
Waverly West: 37%

Daniel MacIntyre also has the lowest average and median income of any ward (2011 census), but lets stick with the notion it was the "elitists" that wanted this open.

I don't think the majority of people who voted did any research on the question or knew anything about it. The city should have been educating people well in advance of anything, not some grass roots effort who quite frankly couldn't reach enough people to make a difference.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by headhorse

executives don't power the economy, workers do, so I don't really care how many BMW"s are stuck in traffic trying to get downtown.

But that is just it, people that care about downtown should care about those executives regardless of what kind of vehicle they drive (or don't drive).

When that Class A office lease comes up downtown and that executive making big coin sits down and calculates out how much time they are losing in traffic each day and puts a dollar figure to it based on their own salary they quickly have the start of the cost-benefit analysis to justify relocating the whole office to a suburban business park. Further, when they see that with their own lost time value they could turn easily term to their accounting team to find out how much it would cost to lease office space in the suburbs (hint it's less). And bam, another business leaving downtown.

[ywgwalk]

Originally Posted by CoryB

^^ Exactly. There have already been cases of businesses moving out of downtown Winnipeg over lack of parking and other issues. So let's make it more difficult for the executives that make those decisions to get to/from their office and see what happens long term...

Ya, downtown is definitely quickly becoming deserted *Cough* Skip *Cough* because of lack of *Cough* Ubisoft *Cough* parking. There's definitely a long term *Cough* True North Square *Cough* trend of less and less *Cough* Richardson Innovation Centre *Cough* investment in downtown because of it becoming harder to find parking and other *Cough* 300 Main *Cough* issues.

[esquire]

^ Well put. It really doesn't seem as though there is any significant exodus of offices from the downtown area.

But that said, with population growth and continued sprawl, traffic will get worse regardless of what happens with Portage and Main. That intersection is a drop in a bucket compared to the prevailing population and commuting trends.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Daniel MacIntyre also has the lowest average and median income of any ward (2011 census), but lets stick with the notion it was the "elitists" that wanted this open.

I don't think anyone said that it was only the "elitists" -- but clearly youngish upscale people who ride bikes and worry about the environment (and who hold managerial and other desk jobs where getting stuck in traffic doesn't have much potential to affect your livelihood) were among the strongest supporters.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by ywgwalk

Ya, downtown is definitely quickly becoming deserted *Cough* Skip *Cough* because of lack of *Cough* Ubisoft *Cough* parking. There's definitely a long term *Cough* True North Square *Cough* trend of less and less *Cough* Richardson Innovation Centre *Cough* investment in downtown because of it becoming harder to find parking and other *Cough* 300 Main *Cough* issues.

Try taking some Buckley's Mixture!

Generally if you make something more expensive and more difficult to access, people will buy less of it. However, Winnipeg is so conservative and its business community so small-scale that downtown is pretty "sticky" as a business location -- for one thing there isn't really a lot of profit out there for someone to try to create an alternative "business district" in a big dramatic swoop, the way that (say) North York Centre was built in Toronto with office towers similar to Portage and Main in the space of a couple of years in the 1980s.

So I doubt there is a huge likelihood of much business moving out of downtown, but eventually (if the price of being downtown, in time and money, increases too much) Winnipeg will start to be more like Toronto, where it is getting hard to find employees in certain types of position who are willing to trek downtown when there are far more employment opportunities closer to the suburban areas they live in. That's why downtown businesses tend to be financial and professional services (where workers are mostly very well paid) or youngish hipster businesses (where employees are young singles who like the downtown lifestyle and aren't yet bothered by living in a 550 square foot box and/or with roommates).