Winnipeg | Portage and Main

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by Bdog

This is the exact attitude I'm referring to. It's more pervasive in this debate than many care to admit.

How does this attitude reflect the attitude of Vote Open or the anti-barricade side generally?

Seven posters responded to your initial criticism with some worthwhile observations, including someone who is arguably the public face of the pro-pedestrian side, and you pick the one nutty Leninist outlier response and some five year-old concern about the SWRTC routing to hold up as evidence? For someone so concerned about a proper and respectful debate, this is a little insulting of all our intelligence here.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

This is the exact attitude I'm referring to. It's more pervasive in this debate than many care to admit.

There's a lot of talk about "facts" and the No side being "ignorant" and "uninformed". I find it somewhat ironic that the exact same people who denounced the Dillon rapid transit route alignment study as "wrong", "politically motivated", "full of inaccurate information", now take the Portage and Main report by the same firm and engineers as gospel. Maybe the "put BRT down Pembina" camp should stick to the "facts" in the alignment study, and show their support for the dog leg?

Well there's a strawman if I ever saw one. Personally I like the SWBRT alignment and I want P&M open. But go ahead and tell me how I apparently want BRT on Pembina, and while you're at it maybe explain to me how that's in any way relevant to P&M. You're trying to win one argument by insisting your opponents are making a totally different argument about a totally different topic and then having that argument instead ...

[Ando]

A quick review of Bdog's past posts show that he had criticized the Yes group in the past. He clearly has an issue with them, although he is hiding behind his "friends" who apparently have decided to vote "NO" - even though they were going to vote Yes - just because they don't like the Yes group.

[Bdog]

Hey, it's all good. Like I said, I'll be voting Yes. I get that this site is a bit of an echo chamber, where the majority of us are somewhat like-minded on many urban type issues (as evidenced by the 90% + of us supporting the opening on this online poll). However, it's not ourselves who we need to convince, is it? It's the general public, who may not have a background in urbanist theory, planning, etc. I try to bring other perspectives to this site, including playing devil's advocate on some of these issues.

My point in bringing up the BRT report is related to the cherry picking of "facts". Two engineering reports by the same firm. One has conclusions supported by urbanists, one has conclusions opposed by urbanists. One is fact, one is folly? See the irony?

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Hey, it's all good. Like I said, I'll be voting Yes. I get that this site is a bit of an echo chamber, where the majority of us are somewhat like-minded on many urban type issues (as evidenced by the 90% + of us supporting the opening on this online poll). However, it's not ourselves who we need to convince, is it? It's the general public, who may not have a background in urbanist theory, planning, etc. I try to bring other perspectives to this site, including playing devil's advocate on some of these issues.

My point in bringing up the BRT report is related to the cherry picking of "facts". Two engineering reports by the same firm. One has conclusions supported by urbanists, one has conclusions opposed by urbanists. One is fact, one is folly? See the irony?

Well you can't prove that every single person who supports the P&M study opposes the BRT study. I think folks here are much more mixed on their opinion of the dogleg route vs. opening P&M. Also just because a person believes one report got it wrong doesn't mean they automatically have to believe every report that firm ever does is wrong. People opposed to the dogleg have cited a lot of tangible reasons why they disagree with it. Good reasons. But when it comes to the P&M study, TeamClosed basically just says "Yeah right, whatever."

I have yet to see any real evidence from TeamClosed that there will be traffic chaos and mass pedestrian deaths when the corner opens. If I see any actual scientific, evidence-based reason to disbelieve the study then I'll listen. But so far all the Closed people have to offer in this debate is hysteria based on preconceptions.

[The Unknown Poster]

Originally Posted by trueviking

yeah, I've heard this a couple times...I have never seen it to be honest. I think people don't like to have their preconceptions to be challenged and maybe see that as an attack. I'm not sure how you debate without rebutting. I haven't seen anyone formally attack anyone. Maybe on the internet.

100%. The people with an open mind who havent decided yet, Im sure they see no negativity with the "open" side. Those who have their heels dug in and are covering their ears yelling nah nah nah I cant hear you, dont like hearing all the logical and reasonable reasons in favour of opening. But they wont change their minds anyway.

[scryer]

The fact that grown men are losing their shit on the internet over such a tiny change in this city, shows how much work we still need to do to properly educate the public on city-planning for people - not cars.

This wouldn't even be a thread in the other city forums.

[Ando]

Elitism is the slur directed at merit by mediocrity. -Sydney J. Harris, journalist (14 Sep 1917-1986)

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Bdog

While I'll personally be voting "Open", as clearly most SSP forumers will be, here are my unsolicited two cents about this whole thing.

Several people I have talked to have been very turned off by what they feel is the over-the-top rhetoric and condescension from *some* in the Team Open camp. Instead of making a strong, cohesive case for opening up the barricades, there's been a lot of finger pointing and name calling of the "No" camp. They're "uninformed", "uneducated", "selfish", "afraid of change". They don't care about the city. They just want to drive their huge SUV to Bridgewater.

Why take this approach of attacking and mocking opponents, in many cases very publicly, instead of taking a more positive approach? A few of my friends work right there, were on the fence, but will now be voting "no" as they are so fed up with that attitude. It's the same attitude that says a church is "selfishly destroying the neighbourhood" because they wanted their parking lot replaced.

I love urbanism as much as most forumers do. But, we might want to be careful about our approach, as not to permanently turn people off to what may be very good steps towards a more urban city.

People who post on internet forums frequently are lonely. It's better to enjoy life, and volunteer, or expand your social circle. The internet has been the downfall of humanity for 20+ years.

[buzzg]

My parents wouldn't listen to any of the "yes" arguments I was putting out – but they didn't have a main reason why they were "no" other than "it's just a bad idea." They just kept spitting out false things about safety, and that safety was the reason they closed it...

Had a family event with 30 people last night. My uncle, in his 60s, doesn't have any vested interest in downtown or go much other than Jets games, but "doesn't see any reason why people would vote no." He made all the same arguments myself and many others made – he converted the entire room of 60+ "no" crowd to "yes" fairly easily.

I think one of the main issues is most of the vocal yes crowd is "younger" and/or urbanists, and many people don't see anything in common with them so they immediately right it off. @ TV – the vote open campaign needs to get some more vocal older suburbanites to talk about the benefits, so people can see themselves in them and relate more.

Also TV I own a business on Main Street and made a "VOTE OPEN" sign in the window – you should be encouraging others to do the same, similar to what happened with the Jets playoffs signs.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

People who post on internet forums frequently are lonely, and possibly mentally ill. It's better to enjoy life, and volunteer, or expand your social circle. The internet has been the downfall of humanity for 20+ years.

bud you have "sjw slayer" under your username and a corporation in your location - you're the downfall of humanity

you identify more with a corporate entity than the community you live in and consider societal progress and advancements in scientific knowledge as something worthy of scorn

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by headhorse

bud you have "sjw slayer" under your username and a corporation in your location - you're the downfall of humanity

you identify more with a corporate entity than the community you live in and consider societal progress and advancements in scientific knowledge as something worthy of scorn

That seems mildly unprovable.

[Jets4Life]

I just noticed we have another "No" vote. The gap is narrowing.

[GlassCity]

Ultimately, a lot of this comes down to poor street network planning in Winnipeg overall. If the very heart of downtown wasn't a major highway intersection this conversation wouldn't even be happening.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by glasscity

ultimately, a lot of this comes down to poor street network planning in winnipeg overall. If the very heart of downtown wasn't a major highway intersection this conversation wouldn't even be happening.

thank you

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Ultimately, a lot of this comes down to poor street network planning in Winnipeg overall. If the very heart of downtown wasn't a major highway intersection this conversation wouldn't even be happening.

Yeah but to be fair we're one of the only major NA downtowns that doesn't have freeways running through it either. Obviously having major roads on the outskirts of downtown would be ideal, but I'd say we lucked out in this situation.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Yeah but to be fair we're one of the only major NA downtowns that doesn't have freeways running through it either. Obviously having major roads on the outskirts of downtown would be ideal, but I'd say we lucked out in this situation.

Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Hamilton, Ottawa don't have freeways downtown either. The difference is Winnipeg's radial pattern emanating right from Portage and Main makes it that Portage and Main becomes a hub from crosstown travel, when that really doesn't happen in other cities. I don't know if the Chief Peguis extension will help with that, but it's very unusual for the road network to direct people through downtown to go somewhere else in other cities.

I am very much in full support of opening Portage and Main, I'm just saying there's a reason this is harder than it has to be. Long-term, I'd love to see a plan in which dependency on Portage and Main for vehicular through-traffic could be reduced.

[ywgwalk]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Hamilton, Ottawa don't have freeways downtown either. The difference is Winnipeg's radial pattern emanating right from Portage and Main makes it that Portage and Main becomes a hub from crosstown travel, when that really doesn't happen in other cities. I don't know if the Chief Peguis extension will help with that, but it's very unusual for the road network to direct people through downtown to go somewhere else in other cities.

I am very much in full support of opening Portage and Main, I'm just saying there's a reason this is harder than it has to be. Long-term, I'd love to see a plan in which dependency on Portage and Main for vehicular through-traffic could be reduced.

I'd love to see a plan in which dependency on Portage and Main for vehicular through-traffic could be reduced.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ywgwalk

I'd love to see a plan in which dependency on Portage and Main for vehicular through-traffic could be reduced.

Haha me too, but that's much more ambitious! Giving drivers options to avoid downtown is something drivers should support as well I'd imagine.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Hamilton, Ottawa don't have freeways downtown either. The difference is Winnipeg's radial pattern emanating right from Portage and Main makes it that Portage and Main becomes a hub from crosstown travel, when that really doesn't happen in other cities. I don't know if the Chief Peguis extension will help with that, but it's very unusual for the road network to direct people through downtown to go somewhere else in other cities.

I am very much in full support of opening Portage and Main, I'm just saying there's a reason this is harder than it has to be. Long-term, I'd love to see a plan in which dependency on Portage and Main for vehicular through-traffic could be reduced.

Ottawa has the 417 running right through the city.