The Endless Debate

or someone can just post a huge message that will move this discussion to the next page

Any money spent on quick bus service is a waste of resources, with the streets being in eternally poor condition, and our red light system not on any computer control to make traffic move more efficiently rather than stopped at stupid lights.
A perfect example is route 90, which is supposed to get traffic moving quickly, if you start at Inkster Avenue going south and get to the mint, you will notice that you were stopped at 11 of the 17 red lights.
That is a perfect example of how far behind this city is in traffic control.
If the city spent 50 million dollars on a fast bus system, it would be mostly wasted because the lights are not timed to kep the traffic flow moving.
Stop talking about a rapid transit system that would be used by 14% of the population.

14% is an extremely high estimate

Now there is talk of blowing away houses along Kenaston and making it into 6 lanes...although trafic flows have decreased in the past years along that street.
Now there's good thinking.

Traffic flows may have decreased (I doubt it though) but with Waverly west underway and the new development for Ikea and future growth NOW is the right time to make those decisions.

We constantly bitch about poor long-term planning and now that some planning is evident we want to slag it? I don't think I understand how Winnipeggers think.

The traffic flows are a matter of fact and not debate.

People are not using Kenaston as much as before. The arena is gone and Polo Park has box competition in the south end of the city...no reason to go north as before.
Facts are facts, but let's not let them get in the way of
progress" eh.

"The traffic flows are a matter of fact and not debate.

People are not using Kenaston as much as before"
thats cause traffic flow sucks

try using that street at rush hour in the evening...might as well pull your eyeballs out and mail them to your destination.. they will get there first.

Show me the facts... I actually believe traffic has increased. That arena might have had some impact on traffic but mostly in the evenings and on the weekends. It is kinda funny that you say Polo Park traffic is down because of the new big box stores. That might simply have only reversed the flow of traffic.

I live near Centennial and Taylor and have significant daily first hand experience with the volume of traffic on Kenaston. It needs relief. Even at noon today traffic is quite heavy.

What about forward thinking: does that not matter?

I'm only repeating what was said on 'OB yesterday during the discussion concerning this.

Trafrfic has decreased.

Rush hour traffic is two hours a day...should we design for peak periods?
When you throw a party for 50 people, you don't build an addition for them do you?

In terms of forward thinking...if the flow is decreasing why build for an increase? That's not forward thinking, that's not thinking.

Kenaston SHOULD be redesigned as a "heavy flow" corridor.

Since noone (or few people) are living in the base housing anymore...they should widen the road, remove the traffic lights, and just put on/off ramps in for the couple of major intersections.

From Portage Avenue down to the rail line is a nightmare during most busy "rush" hours.

The addition of Sterling Lyon has helped, as people can now cut down Waverley & Wilkes and come in from that side...and many people have found alternate routes for travel because of the construction building the rail underpass took so long.

But there's big housing developments surrounding that area, and huge business office & retail development still to come (not including IKEA). Planning ahead for the increased traffic for these would be a no-brainer.

What about the hundreds of millions it would take to buy up all the hoiuses along the rest of the route?

This, with traffic decreasing.

I DON'T BELIEVE traffic is decreasing. Prove it. Just because CJOB say's so? Here is what CKY say's. Who the frick do I believe?

City begins public hearings on Kenaston expansion

The City of Winnipeg is looking for your input on the expansion of Kenaston Boulevard.

The plan is to widen the 3.8 kilometre stretch between Taylor Avenue and Ness Avenue.

An open house is being held on January 28, and 29, and is open to anyone who wants to attend.

The City calls Route 90 a vital transportation corridor, linking major residential, employment and commercial areas.

It is Already one of Winnipeg's busiest thoroughfares, and is expected to become busier when Neighbourhoods like Waverley West begin to grow, and shopping projects like the proposed Ikea take form.

The vacant Kapyong Barracks will also see development sooner than later, and that means greater volumes of traffic on Route 90.

On top of that development of an inland port at James Richardson International Airport will also contribute to north-south volumes.

JTF wrote:What about the hundreds of millions it would take to buy up all the hoiuses along the rest of the route?

This, with traffic decreasing.

Buy up what? it's all part of the base...the city can have the feds "grant" it to them.

And traffic is not decreasing, it's relocating...temporarily.

Traffic in general does not decrease...new routes are formed and people find alternate routes/times to run. Add to that they are comparing numbers against different circumstances...like when the base was actually OPEN.

But you're not taking into account the additional construction being conducted in that general area. They are building houses and apartment complexes...with people who have to commute downtown. They are building offices and retail, and people will have to commute from downtown to get there.

Nobody is suggesting creating a superhighway through there...but traffic flow stalls quite often for several reasons:
1) road is too narrow (should be at least 2 lanes in each direction PLUS a shoulder on each side so when a vehicle breaks down or there is an accident...it doesn't block traffic.
2) speed limit is too slow...raise it to 70...it's not residential anymore...the houses are empty
3) too many poorly spaced & poorly timed traffic lights...there should be AT THE MOST 1 light between portage and sterling lyon...but with the base down...they could even build in on/off ramps on either side where the major intersections are now.
4) STUPID CAMERA LIGHTS...i don't know how many times i've been down that road and seen idiot after idiot SLAMMING on their brakes when that light turns yellow. I've even seen a couple of rear-end collisions caused by those idiots...because no one should expect someone to stop in front of them at a YELLOW light...and thus we go back to #1.

It also comes down to driver education.

At Kenaston & Grant, there actually IS an onramp when turning North on Kenaston from Grant. A lane about 100m long which is designed for people to use to accelerate and match speed with vehicles and then merge in with traffic. But I've seen dozens of morons who come around the bend there...and then STOP to wait for an opening to get onto Kenaston. (there's a couple more of these around the city too)

I'd love to get one of those "push bumpers" they are putting on the cop cars (finally)...but I'd be too tempted to use it to push idiots like that out of the way.

What would be the point of widening only a part of Kenaston and leaving that portion of the street from Corydon to Academy as is?

If the reason for widening the street is predicated on future traffic flows, and models indicate less traffic, explain the reason for doing the opposite of that which seems rational. (I'm slow).

What models J2F? All sarcasm aside I don't believe that traffic is reduced and will continue to drop.

My understanding of the Kenaston plan includes widening up to and including the St. James Bridge.

As for doing it in stages? If that is what it takes then I'm all for it.

Kenaston traffic even if it was decreasing, would be decreasing because people have given up trying to use it! Anytime of the day it is jammed going both ways. 8 A.M. is as exciting as 4:30 P.M.
The need for 6 lanes and the same on the bridge has been there, but the $ hasn't. The good news is that it is estimated to take the 35 years it took for the Kenaston underpass to be built, just to 2045, when Mayor Sam will be retiring

I didn't get the guy's name, but he has done the research. I suppose he spent the $50/hr. to get all the traffic counts as he quoted the exact numbers...71,428 vs. 70,698, 69,974 etc.

I, too, was surprised at the facts he presented. He was trying to seperate fact from emotions to make a case against widening.

Seems a few people think much of the rush hour traffic troubles would be remedied with proper signal-light coordination, saving millions of dollars. I tend to agree at this point, as I haven't seen an arguement that changes my mind.

Statistics don't lie, Statisticians do!

Are we making any decisions on the fact thet the number count is down from 71,428 to 70,698??
How about the fact that above 47,000 the traffic is way too high because the road is set to take 41,287 as a maximum??
Numbers hat mean crapola! Does anyone remember someone posting the Mayor's phone number where the Kenaston traffic was stalled because the damn trains were blocking the road for 15 minutes at a time? And it took 35 years to get built.
Numbers showing a decline, and some idiot tells us that we do not need a 3rd lane? Did they count the 1500 people who died of heart attacks in their car, stuck in the traffic??

rosencrentz wrote:Statistics don't lie, Statisticians do!

Are we making any decisions on the fact thet the number count is down from 71,428 to 70,698??
How about the fact that above 47,000 the traffic is way too high because the road is set to take 41,287 as a maximum??

What is "set to take"?

How many cars will a road hold/take is the same as asking how long is a string.

The road itself is build to take a specific load/weight (truck route), but other than that, traffic lights (and speed zones) determine how fast cars can travel through a specific area (able to take) no?

...at least that my "take" on it.

able to take, means the number of vehicles before the "older drivers" (J2F, GOM) , lose their patience at the long line-ups, the red light to red light frustration, and start to drive down the sidestreets like Centennial, to avoid the traffic congestion. That is the street I use! I cannot stand the route 90 slow moving stuff!

That was the point that this guy was making. It's not the concrete that's to blame...it's the traffic lights.

There are people that live on that street that say it is jammed for a couple of hours each day and the rest of the time, the traffic is 'ordinary' (meh).

It doesn't make any difference if you're sitting and waiting, either two or three cars abreast.

Bizarro JTF. The 401 in Toronto is 16 lanes wide through most of Toronto. Based upon your logic it needs to be only 2 - 3 because "It doesn't make any difference if you're sitting and waiting, either two or three cars abreast".

Of course traffic three lanes wide will move through the same space much more efficiently than through two lanes.

That said the traffic lights are indeed a problem. Other than Grant and Corydon block all other streets E-W access to Kenaston. That will force all cross traffic to Corydon and Grant. All that will do is put a greater demand on the roads and their need to cross Kenaston. How do we deal with the lights and cross traffic on Grant and Corydon?

Comparing to T.O.'s 'rush hour', our is a joke.

Do we need to spend millions to reduce our times by 10 minutes, that is, from 25 minutes to 15?

Do you believe I was actually comparing our traffic to Toronto's? Read the post again. You completely missed my sarcasm.

Brodbeck uses that kind of convoluted response to distract peeps in his posts as well. Maybe you really are brodbeck? That would make a great deal of sense.

Know what J2F? Let's do absolutely nothing from now to eternity. No new roads. No new bridges. No new museums. No stadiums. No new day care centres. No new development of any type. No new nothing. Will that make you happy?

You ought to consider running for office J2F. Most politicians are pylons too.

Sheesh.

You always fall back on the "progress argument" and miss the point.

If we don't need to widen a street, why do it...even if you want to label it "progress"?