The Endless Debate

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"?

Yup. While you always seem to stand in the way of progress. You believe the street does not need to be widened. Don't need it - that is the entirety of your position.

Show me a viable alternative. I've asked for clarity on your traffic light comment. No response? Maybe too busy making T.O. 'rush hour' comments eh.

You've also stated traffic is decreasing. Based on what? A CJOB report? Show me the stats.

We can both stand to lose the smugness and glibness as well.

I'm not a fan of people who stand in the way of every single effort to progress. Sometimes there is merit to oppose, but most of the time it's the "It's too fancy, it's too much of a change, it's too much money and not needed" whining that occurs.

In the meantime, I"m off to Cuba 'til Feb 9th for a much needed holiday.

Let the debates live on!!!!!

Enjoy the trip...

The debate will still be here as this and rapid transit have been going strong for 45 years . Typical Winnipeg

So right about that. As rosen said it only took 45 years to build the Kenaston underpass.

This typical Winnipegger thing is really beginning to fricking annoy me. One of our major-contributors to the sandbox really embodies the typical Winnipeg motto: change is evil... I think I'll start calling him J2P.

You figure out what the P represents...

Yes I agree but this city has a adversion to desicions .

umm it only took 45 years to build the underpass cause nobody lived there. And what use has that underpass got us anyway? stupid massive development of the area that fricks everything over completely...
bastards... now what was this thread about again?

I lived there twenty-five years ago. Traffic was bad then. Add in the trains... Which would completely bugger up traffic and delay 15 minutes and more. But I guess if it does not impact some people it's not a problem eh?

But we are talking about one small section of roadway that is buggered up. Add in all the other roads that are buggered up because of poor traffic management or population spurts or expanding bottlenecks. But it's only 10 minutes here. And ten minutes there. And of course the city's population is not growing.

After years of denial I'm coming to a frightening conclusion. Winnipeg has the problems we deserve. We don't want change. Ever. And our politicians hear us loud and clean.

Congratulations.

Kenaston does not need to be expanded today... but considering we are moving how many thousand people into waverly west..... why would we not expand it?

Because some one will want there community club kept open 24 hrs and there is only so much money , besides you ever had Harry Lazarenko after you for money . Don't wish it on your worst enemy .

If people living in the south section of the city are no longer using the facilities at Polo Park as much, because of the new facilities that have been built in their area for them, and, as the arena has been relocated, traffic counts being lower make perfect sense.

But why let facts get in the way when there is so much kool-aid to drink.

What facts? You've not posted a single fact on this thread. You've posted a lot of opinion. I will attempt to address your major facts one by one.

If people living in the south section of the city are no longer using the facilities at Polo Park as much, because of the new facilities that have been built in their area for them...

That is quite possible. It does ignore entirely the increased traffic from OTHER PARTS of the city by-passing Polo Park on their way to Kensaton big box stores. Guess that traffic does not count eh? Oh, and do we have anything to support peeps are abandoning Polo Park? Polo Park is expanding and growing. Yeah, let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.

...and, as the arena has been relocated, traffic counts being lower make perfect sense...

WTF? The Jets left 13 years ago. Other arena traffic was??? But okay. I'll play your game. Please advise how reduced arena traffic (now THAT is a joke) has impacted morning and evening rush hour? How has reduced arena traffic (now THAT is a joke) impacted day time traffic?

Facts my ass. How about getting serious? Maybe then I can take your position seriously.

What facts have you presented?

The guy had the facts. If you wish to ignore them, that's your problem.

If you wish to challenge, or not believe them, that too, is your right.

What I have always said was to get the facts before proceeding. You seem to be saying, to hell with the facts, let's do it anyway.

Those two positions will never merge.

I went to OB's audio file:

http://www.cjob.com/StationShared/AudioVault.aspx

Thurs. Jan. 29 @ 10:30 am.

A guy named Ken Klassen has been looking into the problem. He has the traffic counts at 70K when they peaked 14 years ago compared to <69K currently.

...for what it's worth. :party 005:

This is all I could find on traffic.

Between 1992 and 2002, residential growth in South Winnipeg contributed
to a 16 per cent increase in traffic along Kenaston Boulevard, north of
McGillivray Boulevard.
http://www.winnipeg.ca/cao/pdfs/backgrounder-kenaston.pdf

Here is what Klassen said in a recent Free Press quote.

Traffic volumes on Kenaston have actually dropped over the past decade,
countered green planning consultant Ken Klassen, claiming city traffic
counts show a decline in Kenaston congestion since the Charleswood
Bridge opened in 1995.

What we have is a "green planning consultant" versus a City of Winnipeg report. For the sake of argument let's say Klassen is right. Using Klassen's figures in a decade traffic has dropped 1.43%.

Now is when it gets subjective. I believe traffic is too heavy today even with a 1.43% reduction in traffic in the last decade. I wonder what traffic would look like had the Charleswood bridge not been constructed.

How will traffic change when Waverly West begins to be populated? How will traffic change when the other new developments begin attracting traffic? Should we wait until that traffic is actually traveling the road or should we begin planning for the inevitable now?

That's what I'm saying. We have to begin planning today. If that means closing a few cross streets fine. If it means we expropriate only fine. Or build the southbound lanes now fine.

But traffic will increase (IMO) and our reactionary ways do not serve us well. Not well at all.

With Waverley West only growing in the future, and the conntinued growth in the south end of the city you'd have to be seriously intellectually impaired to argue against widening Route 90.

I was actually shocked to hear someone at city hall had enough common sense to get the ball rolling before the situation get's any worse. Route 90 along that stretch sucks from 8am to 6pm, and is a complete nightmare at the 2 rush hours.

We need MORE options from getting to the north to south (and vice versa) quickly, not less.

Klassen claims that traffic peaked 14 years ago, using the city's traffic count numbers from what I gathered he said.
The rest is opinion and conjecture.
Anyone basing an argument of the belief that traffic is increasing is wrong according to Klassen...I have to agree if what he said is correct.

This ain't rocket science girls.

It has always been terrible along there, even when I was a kid . Doe's not justify the immediate fix of it though . So what it takes longer to get in out of IKEA. There are to many pressing problems ahead of it .

Maybe the traffic jams helped lower the census results...

Sure, if what Klassen say's is true. Then again I posted a link to what can only be surmised as a report based on city traffic counts. Who is right?

Is it even possible for traffic to NOT increase due to Waverly West? Or due simply to the city growing?

What about the peeps that aren't trying to get in out of Ikea. How about the peeps that are simply trying to go home or get to work?

I don't get it.

Do it in stages like over 10 yrs there are other pressing problems grumpy , Louise Bridge and the Disraeli for two. What about all the streets that need paving . Keniston inconveniences so few of the city population , you moved out there knowing the traffic problems

Big difference is Kenaston services growth within the south end of the City of Winnipeg. Disraeli and Louise bridges serve growth outside the north perimeter. I know which I'd rather support with my taxes.
Kenaston has been in need of widening for a very long time, they should have done it along with the underpass. Only thing the underpass solved was moving the bottleneck further north along Kenaston.
Once they widen it, along with the St.James bridge trafiic might actually flow all the way through that stretch.

How do you widen the north end of the bridge there is a 2 tower apartment block in the way and a hotel which could not and would not sell to the city when it was built , the bridge that is . You will still have 2 lanes going south bound to Keniston .

Any Idea how much it will cost to expropriate the properties on Academy um . Yes this project needs to be done but it is a long term project and I sorry don't see the rush to do it all at once .

Pavolo wrote:...Do it in stages...

Ummm, that is precisely what I have said at least twice in this very thread. It is also a position I have taken many times previously.

Pavolo wrote:...there are other pressing problems grumpy , Louise Bridge and the Disraeli for two. What about all the streets that need paving...

Someone needs to decide what is more pressing. I don' know if the Disraeli or Louise Bridges or Kenaston are more urgent. I'm not that smart.

Pavolo wrote:...Keniston inconveniences so few of the city population...

Check out the linked 2007 Winnipeg traffic flow map. It would appear to be a very busy thoroughfare.