Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[dmacc]

Progress might be slow but at least the south perimeter is starting to move in that direction.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Progress might be slow but at least the south perimeter is starting to move in that direction.

Yup, in ten years we should have infrastructure in the city to bring it into the 1960's.

[esquire]

I get that Winnipeg doesn't technically have a freeway, but really, outside of the US and a handful of other countries, most cities don't really have a ton of urban freeways. Calgary is a pretty classic example, it's a city of over a million people that until recently, only had one bona fide major freeway (they have since added another). So it's not like all the other Canadian cities are wildly ahead of Winnipeg in that regard.

And more to the point, there are just as many awful stroads in places with freeways. It's not as though having a few freeways necessarily gets you a much better urban environment.

I think many of the issues that result from Winnipeg not having freeways could be rectified with improved transit, but I guess we never bothered with that either.

[Luisito]

All Canadian cities have freeways. Even Regina and Saskatoon.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Biff

Winnipeg - the only city of any significant size on the planet (developed or developing nation) that doesn't have a single stretch of freeway - urban or suburban or in the rest of the province for that matter. I challenge anyone to try and find one.

I am not advocating for the 50's and 60's style of neighborhood destruction, but I find it inconceivable that our leaders - municipal and provincial keep plodding out the same slogan that we want to be a leader in transportation when we don't have one instance of a limited access roadway....anywhere.

Winnipeg has to be the most anti infrastructure and antitransit city in North America.

I agree we should not destroy any neighborhoods to build freeways but there are certain areas that could be turned into freeways.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Never seen a need for it I guess. There were plans for a handful of Downtown routes that would have leveled the Exchange District, which is now cherished.

I doubt there would be an appetite for a freeway running through Downtown, now that the negatives of bulldozing entire neighbourhoods for the sake of moving cars are much more apparent and publicly known. Better to focus on public transit.

The only thing that might become a freeway in Winnipeg is the inner ring road. Bishop Grandin Boulevard, extended west and then north to William Clement Parkway, which becomes Moray. Then extended to Sturgeon Creek rd and Centreport. From there, it runs north and connected to Chief Peguis trail, which will likely connect to Plessis and then back to Bishop.

There are a lot of missing segments to the inner ring road and many sections are not suitable for freeway upgrades unless there is a huge amount of money spent on it. There were also a lot of sections where poor choices of intersection locations will mean a lot of reorganizing of neighbourhood roads, even where there is a nice ROW for interchanges.

Lag and Bishop Grandin are good candidate's to be turned into freeways.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Lag and Bishop Grandin are good candidate's to be turned into frewways.

It would also be good to have something that for you most of the way downtown as a freeway

[Biff]

Originally Posted by esquire

I get that Winnipeg doesn't technically have a freeway, but really, outside of the US and a handful of other countries, most cities don't really have a ton of urban freeways. Calgary is a pretty classic example, it's a city of over a million people that until recently, only had one bona fide major freeway (they have since added another). So it's not like all the other Canadian cities are wildly ahead of Winnipeg in that regard.

Glenore, Crowchild, Deerfoot, a Ring Road, Hwy 1 (East and West) and Hwy 2 (North and South). That is 6 compared to Winnipeg 0.

That is a lot of ability to move goods, services and people around without having to travel on city streets.

[drew]

^ yeah. Freeways are great until they aren't. When you rely solely on Freeways to get around a city, any type of accident, construction or other disruption is a traffic nightmare and there are no options for a quick work around.

At the current respective size of Cities - I would take Winnipeg miserable network of grids and half finished "freeways" any day of the week. Driving in Calgary (for me anyway) is unenjoyable.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

It would also be good to have something that for you most of the way downtown as a freeway

Yeah that would be great but I don't see that as a real possibilty now.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by drew

^ yeah. Freeways are great until they aren't. When you rely solely on Freeways to get around a city, any type of accident, construction or other disruption is a traffic nightmare and there are no options for a quick work around.
.

Rely solely on freeways? I don't think anyone is advocating for that. Things are a nightmare as it is. It took me 40 minutes to get from marion and st marys up to about city hall a few days ago. I could have walked that much faster, in less than half that time.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Rely solely on freeways? I don't think anyone is advocating for that. Things are a nightmare as it is. It took me 40 minutes to get from marion and st marys up to about city hall a few days ago. I could have walked that much faster, in less than half that time.

The epic amount of construction and lane closures is certainly not helping things at the moment.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Rely solely on freeways? I don't think anyone is advocating for that. Things are a nightmare as it is. It took me 40 minutes to get from marion and st marys up to about city hall a few days ago. I could have walked that much faster, in less than half that time.

Have you driven in Calgary?

My views are obviously distorted from my location in the City, as I live in Wolseley and work downtown. I don't deal with traffic that much, but when I do, I appreciate the availability of a good work around.

[optimusREIM]

I think a lot of people are treating this proposition as a zero sum game. It isn’t really. We can have both good grids and secondary roads and some freeways to make getting across town easier or relieving pressure from what should really be local collectors during rush hour. And btw we also need a far more robust transit system. We need all of these. Freeways aren’t the great Satan nor are good transit and the maintenance of a good local road network some sort of silver bullet. We’re at a serious disadvantage in this city because none of our infrastructure is good. We really need all those things to work together to have effective transportation. There’s no reason why all three of the above stated things need to be in opposition to one another. They’re not mutually exclusive. Thankfully there’s still a lot of industrial and lightly developed land that runs quite near downtown which would allow for freeways to be developed to get people in and out effectively, we also have most of the rights of way required for our inner ring and access to the perimeter. We need to strengthen the arterial network of local roads as well and build serious rapid transit, not this gobbledygook that they’ve put together for the swt. Hopefully future lines are better planned.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I think a lot of people are treating this proposition as a zero sum game. It isn’t really. We can have both good grids and secondary roads and some freeways to make getting across town easier or relieving pressure from what should really be local collectors during rush hour. And btw we also need a far more robust transit system. We need all of these. Freeways aren’t the great Satan nor are good transit and the maintenance of a good local road network some sort of silver bullet. We’re at a serious disadvantage in this city because none of our infrastructure is good. We really need all those things to work together to have effective transportation. There’s no reason why all three of the above stated things need to be in opposition to one another. They’re not mutually exclusive. Thankfully there’s still a lot of industrial and lightly developed land that runs quite near downtown which would allow for freeways to be developed to get people in and out effectively, we also have most of the rights of way required for our inner ring and access to the perimeter. We need to strengthen the arterial network of local roads as well and build serious rapid transit, not this gobbledygook that they’ve put together for the swt. Hopefully future lines are better planned.

Good post, i agree. Cars are not going anywhere. Going from no freeways to having one or two is not going to hurt anyone. Specially considering the way the city is growing. They are needed.

I am curious though, where do you think there is room for a freeway to get people close to downtown? I was thinking a good idea would be to transform routes that already exist like Lag, Bishop grandin, cheif peguis etc. into freeways.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Biff

Glenore, Crowchild, Deerfoot, a Ring Road, Hwy 1 (East and West) and Hwy 2 (North and South). That is 6 compared to Winnipeg 0.

That is a lot of ability to move goods, services and people around without having to travel on city streets.

I’m being picky here biff and I don’t mean to be crass
But To be fair to esquire I think he meant fully free flowing of which Deerfoot and Stoney trail really are the only ones

Glenmore, crowchild have (in some cases) multiple points of intersections, highway 1 aka 16th ave is smaller than portage in the middle and it’s not fair to call a fully free flowing freeway, as there are plenty of lights along the route,
and highway 2 in Calgary is Deerfoot. Did you mean another one of Shaganappi? McLeod trail? McKnight? John Laurie? Country hills? Beddington? Sarcee? Southland? Blackfoot? Barlow? Bow? Etc etc yes Calgary has an absolute ton of “bishop grandin” road ways but in terms of free flowing from one end to another without a traffic light in sight, I don’t think other than Stoney and Deerfoot I can recal a major roadway in the city that didn’t eventually have a traffic light

Could winnipeg do with less lights and more interchanges along the busy suburban roads?

Absolutely

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by drew

Have you driven in Calgary?

My views are obviously distorted from my location in the City, as I live in Wolseley and work downtown. I don't deal with traffic that much, but when I do, I appreciate the availability of a good work around.

When there were accidents in Calgary on major routes yes it was an absolute nightmare being stuck especially in the winter when it got dark early and felt even longer

But when the traffic is flowing, it’s is great and very quick to get around. I found it faster by 10 mins on avg going from North of the city to 22X (very south end) Vs North to South in Winnipeg during peak hours simply because there was flow at higher speed and not at much start and stop traffic

Shorter distances are even quicker. Loved driving around there late at night in the summer when there was little to no traffic - very easy and quick to get around the city

[Biff]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I think a lot of people are treating this proposition as a zero sum game. It isn’t really. We can have both good grids and secondary roads and some freeways to make getting across town easier or relieving pressure from what should really be local collectors during rush hour. And btw we also need a far more robust transit system. We need all of these. Freeways aren’t the great Satan nor are good transit and the maintenance of a good local road network some sort of silver bullet. We’re at a serious disadvantage in this city because none of our infrastructure is good. We really need all those things to work together to have effective transportation. There’s no reason why all three of the above stated things need to be in opposition to one another. They’re not mutually exclusive. Thankfully there’s still a lot of industrial and lightly developed land that runs quite near downtown which would allow for freeways to be developed to get people in and out effectively, we also have most of the rights of way required for our inner ring and access to the perimeter. We need to strengthen the arterial network of local roads as well and build serious rapid transit, not this gobbledygook that they’ve put together for the swt. Hopefully future lines are better planned.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. We need all modes to work together. Unfortunately, as said we have none. Half assed Transit, half assed highway network, half assed active transportation network.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by Biff

I agree wholeheartedly with this. We need all modes to work together. Unfortunately, as said we have none. Half assed Transit, half assed highway network, half assed active transportation network.

"Half-Assed - the Made in Manitoba solution!" (tm)

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Grump

"Half-Assed - the Made in Manitoba solution!" (tm)

Someone has finally successfully defined what "Made in Manitoba Solution" really means!