Winnipeg | Osborne Village & Corydon area

[sleepyeyed]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Wait a new proposal that actually looks good?

River Ave is a special street for this city, and I’m liking all the development next to Fort Rouge Park. If they can get that AT bridge connecting Fort Rouge to McFadyen, as well as the new bike lane on River that becomes an enticing car-free location.

That bridge doesn't make sense to build from a commuter perspective. They should be taking space on the osborne bridge and turning it into cycle lanes and completely rebuild Osborne and Roslyn

Like if I want to go from west Broadway to osborne, which would be a popular route, why would I want to cycle a km out of the way each way?

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by sleepyeyed

That bridge doesn't make sense to build from a commuter perspective. They should be taking space on the osborne bridge and turning it into cycle lanes and completely rebuild Osborne and Roslyn

Like if I want to go from west Broadway to osborne, which would be a popular route, why would I want to cycle a km out of the way each way?

Why not both and even add AT infrastructure on MidTown Bridge as well? A bridge at Fort Rouge Park would cut commute times for the thousands of people that live on or adjacent River that work in the CBD. It also gives people access to a north corridor on Carlton which will have protected bike lanes in the future.

But if I were to prioritize one, then absolutely Osborne bridge should have bike infrastructure first and make the slip lane on River a bike only path similar to a Dutch junction in a way. It already has that nice connection to Assiniboine Ave and West Broadway across the river.

[sleepyeyed]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Why not both and even add AT infrastructure on MidTown Bridge as well? A bridge at Fort Rouge Park would cut commute times for the thousands of people that live on or adjacent River that work in the CBD. It also gives people access to a north corridor on Carlton which will have protected bike lanes in the future.

But if I were to prioritize one, then absolutely Osborne bridge should have bike infrastructure first and make the slip lane on River a bike only path similar to a Dutch junction in a way. It already has that nice connection to Assiniboine Ave and West Broadway across the river.

Yeah, there's no reason that the bridges into downtown shouldn't all have infrastructure. It would have made more sense to widen and rehab the midtown bridge rather than the osborne bridge when they did. My priorities would be similar to yours, osborne is the priority then the new ped bridge and then midtown.

[trueviking]

Except widening Osborne Bridge would be so ridiculously expensive that it could never be justified. Both those bridges are terrible.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Except widening Osborne Bridge would be so ridiculously expensive that it could never be justified. Both those bridges are terrible.

Would it need to be widened though? Imo there’s already too many lanes on Osborne Bridge especially southbound. Pushing the barrier 1 lane left too make room for AT would be how I would approach it. Especially with how well it could transition to the future bike lane on River.

[Biff]

I agree the Osborne Bridge could easily loose a traffic lane to increase the size of the active transportation portion. The Mid-Town Bridge on the other hand is too narrow for the lanes of traffic it carries. The Mid-Town would need a separate active transportation option.

[pegster]

Donald and the Midtown Bridge seem made to be the main point of egress to the south west from Downtown. I'd be happy to sacrifice it to the car gods if it meant making Osborne and its bridge (not to mention the horrible underpass on the other end) more friendly to cyclists, pedestrians, and transit.

The planned AT bridge between River and Assiniboine seems like an expensive compromise to avoid really talking about changing Osborne.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

I agree the Osborne Bridge could easily loose a traffic lane to increase the size of the active transportation portion. The Mid-Town Bridge on the other hand is too narrow for the lanes of traffic it carries. The Mid-Town would need a separate active transportation option.

I wonder when the Midtown is due for replacement? It is a really sub-par bridge now that you mention it. Four narrow traffic lanes, a narrow sidewalk on each side and no AT. Not good enough.

A replacement should have six lanes, wider sidewalks and AT. This way Donald south of the bridge could be turned into six lanes and it could relieve some of the pressure from Osborne. That is a necessary precondition before putting Osborne on a road diet.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by sleepyeyed

That bridge doesn't make sense to build from a commuter perspective. They should be taking space on the osborne bridge and turning it into cycle lanes and completely rebuild Osborne and Roslyn

Like if I want to go from west Broadway to osborne, which would be a popular route, why would I want to cycle a km out of the way each way?

Right, but the midtown bridge is *also* a cyclist nightmare. So if you completely rebuild Osborne and Roslyn (including appropriating parts of the the Shell station land at huge cost), you still have the AT dilemma of the midtown bridge to fix.

This bridge, halfway between Osborne and Donald, can serve both. Plus, it takes two parks and doubles each one's catchment area.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by esquire

I wonder when the Midtown is due for replacement? It is a really sub-par bridge now that you mention it. Four narrow traffic lanes, a narrow sidewalk on each side and no AT. Not good enough.

A replacement should have six lanes, wider sidewalks and AT. This way Donald south of the bridge could be turned into six lanes and it could relieve some of the pressure from Osborne. That is a necessary precondition before putting Osborne on a road diet.

See, this is why I want them to build the pedestrian/AT bridge.

The default approach for Winnipeg would almost certainly be some bullshit like this (i.e., dump the entire AT budget into a road widening project on Donald).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

See, this is why I want them to build the pedestrian/AT bridge.

The default approach for Winnipeg would almost certainly be some bullshit like this (i.e., dump the entire AT budget into a road widening project on Donald).

Rebuilding the Donald Bridge isn't an AT project, though. It should be funded by the road budget. If you do that first, then you can talk about reducing Osborne's traffic capacity by expanding AT, reducing Osborne to one lane each way through the Village, etc. Plus you get the benefit of turning the (new) Midtown Bridge into a viable AT corridor.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by esquire

Rebuilding the Donald Bridge isn't an AT project, though. It should be funded by the road budget. If you do that first, then you can talk about reducing Osborne's traffic capacity by expanding AT, reducing Osborne to one lane each way through the Village, etc. Plus you get the benefit of turning the (new) Midtown Bridge into a viable AT corridor.

Sure, but this is Winnipeg we're talking about. This city poured AT budget into the Arlington Bridge project, of all fucking things. They will always redirect AT funds toward projects that are primarily being done for car traffic reasons.

I'm of the cynical belief that AT projects attached to road projects in this city will almost always be a total waste of money in terms of actually improving cycling infrastructure, and will always make cycling considerations a distant second to the needs of drivers.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Sure, but this is Winnipeg we're talking about. This city poured AT budget into the Arlington Bridge project, of all fucking things. They will always redirect AT funds toward projects that are primarily being done for car traffic reasons.

I'm of the cynical belief that AT projects attached to road projects in this city will almost always be a total waste of money in terms of actually improving cycling infrastructure, and will always make cycling considerations a distant second to the needs of drivers.

Arlington Bridge project?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Sure, but this is Winnipeg we're talking about. This city poured AT budget into the Arlington Bridge project, of all fucking things. They will always redirect AT funds toward projects that are primarily being done for car traffic reasons.

I'm of the cynical belief that AT projects attached to road projects in this city will almost always be a total waste of money in terms of actually improving cycling infrastructure, and will always make cycling considerations a distant second to the needs of drivers.

Not an unreasonable conclusion to draw based on experience, tbh

[bomberjet]

The Mcfayden-Fort Rouge AT bridge is precisely to have a dedicated pedestrian connection from Osborne to downtown. So you don't have to cozy up to the cars. And it connects the neighbourhoods on a more local level.

If you want to fly through as a commuter, it might not make sense depending upon where you're going. But that's gets pretty specific to you and your routing. If the AT upgrades in Osborne are any good. You should be able to get from Osborne to downtown core fairly nicely.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Biff

They have turned down all advances to have Wal-Mart and Superstore relocate to lands along the Perimeter and Lagimodiere. Not all RM's with greenfield land is YIMBY.

Honestly somewhat surprised Walmart and Superstore haven't approached Springfield about staging those developments in their RM near the north Perimeter and Lag. Springfield seems to have few objections to any sort of development that is essentially in Winnipeg.

[borkborkbork]

A mere $15M will buy you what may well be the worst development decision the city ever made for South Osborne

https://capitalgrp.ca/wp-content/upl...sborne-365.pdf

[esquire]

^ Ugh. Such a letdown. I'd like to think that it would have looked much different had the site been developed 10 years later, but maybe I am just being naively optimistic...

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Ugh. Such a letdown. I'd like to think that it would have looked much different had the site been developed 10 years later, but maybe I am just being naively optimistic...

The question is what kind of money would you have to make on a project to redevelop that into something better?

[zalf]

"The Property offers an inherent value backstop through a feasible and
compelling multifamily redevelopment opportunity. The Vendor has
completed a feasibility study for future RMFL density options, buyers
will have access to the study for review in the data room"

That is modestly encouraging.