NDP loaning David Asper 75M or 90M - Good or Bad idea?

Phase II, no?

At least at Polo Park, there's a major route going in every direction within a few blocks.

And yes, you could go south to the Perimeter, but the only reason you'd do so was because of Pembina being clogged.

Plus, if parking is at the UofM itself, that leaves University Crescent and Chancellor Matheson as narrow exit routes.

Admittedly, I'm biased. I lived on campus for 5 years, and then just south of Pembina and Bishop Grandin for another 5 years, and found the traffic absolutely unbearable at the best of times. And ask DeanK, I'm a pretty easy going guy.

And I don't mind unbearable traffic for the arena or current stadium, because it's at least in a central location. If I have to get stuck in traffic and THEN still drive another 30 minutes to the north end of town, I'm a gonna be cranky, especially if the Bombers lost.

phase Two. NO.

Phase two goes to Pembina and bison drivish....

where is the stadium going to be again?

Yeah, but if the Bombers are losing, the beat-the-rushers leaving early will make the exiting traffic a little lighter

Deank wrote:phase Two. NO.

Phase two goes to Pembina and bison drivish....

where is the stadium going to be again?

On the loop where the bus turns around to get back on the BRT???

This announcement should have been made today......har de har har har.....being that it will be a big joke on the taxpayers if Davey Boy cannot repay that "bridge" loan.

FlyingRat wrote:

Deank wrote:phase Two. NO.

Phase two goes to Pembina and bison drivish....

where is the stadium going to be again?

On the loop where the bus turns around to get back on the BRT???

not even close

You don't think the buses will go into the campus? They'll just drop the university students off on Pembina and do a U-turn?

FlyingRat wrote:You don't think the buses will go into the campus? They'll just drop the university students off on Pembina and do a U-turn?

that is indeed the current actual plan with "shuttles" running from the end of the RT to the uni

hmm.. looks like they may have changed the plan

Anybody know what the plans are for the area around Queen Elizabeth Way? Presently, the 'roadway' ends abrubtly at the overpass...looks really weird.

I have been meaning to ask that question for a while now. I saw something on the other side of St. Mary's which lead me to think the roadway will go under the roadway there?

JTF you wrote:

Anybody know what the plans are for the area around Queen Elizabeth Way? Presently, the 'roadway' ends abrubtly at the overpass...looks really weird.

Doesn't the city have some plans in the background to eventually take Queen Elizabeth Way right up to the Perimeter?...

JTF wrote:Anybody know what the plans are for the area around Queen Elizabeth Way? Presently, the 'roadway' ends abrubtly at the overpass...looks really weird.

Just looked it up. It becomes a surface route just west of that that point and heads down to Main Street. The BRT rejoins the BRT at St. Mary's Road and heads south at that point.

http://myride.winnipegtransit.com/assets/49/5_-_Southwest_Rapid_Transit_Corridor_context_Map.pdf

GGF wrote:JTF you wrote:

Anybody know what the plans are for the area around Queen Elizabeth Way? Presently, the 'roadway' ends abrubtly at the overpass...looks really weird.

Doesn't the city have some plans in the background to eventually take Queen Elizabeth Way right up to the Perimeter?...

The QEW is a tiny piece of roadway that "joins" Main Street to St. Mary's Avenue. St. Mary's already go all the way to the Perimeter Highway.

He may be confusing QEW with Charleswood Parkway.

What I meant with Queen Elizabeth Way is that it will turn into something like #1 Hwy and then Fermor, Osborne, Balmoral and then Salter which almost reaches the Perimeter because something changed over the years otherwise it would have made it to the perimeter...And what I meant is the joining up of different streets to get from one end of the city to another...and up to the perimeter...

Don't forget Isabel.

grumpy old man wrote:

JTF wrote:Anybody know what the plans are for the area around Queen Elizabeth Way? Presently, the 'roadway' ends abrubtly at the overpass...looks really weird.

Just looked it up. It becomes a surface route just west of that that point and heads down to Main Street. The BRT rejoins the BRT at St. Mary's Road and heads south at that point.

[url=http://myride.winnipegtransit.com/assets/49/5_-_Southwest_Rapid_Transit_Corridor_context_Map.pdf

http://myride.winnipegtransit.com/assets/49/5_-_Southwest_Rapid_Transit_Corridor_context_Map.pdf[/quote[/url]]

I've seen those blueprints. They look horrible. I though for once they would do it right, and build an overpass over main and the River, parallel to where the rail tracks are. However, this IS the city of Winnipeg, so I cannot say i'm suprised.

toban71 wrote:

Pavolo wrote:Alot of these arguments were present when the ACC was built in TO for that matter in Quebec with their new stadium . I do not hear you all complaining about that one , tax dollars in one form or another will go into it . Just like most major sites in the US of A .

Well, the reason people were complaining about the situation in toronto is because the Maple Leafs were upset that the original design of the ACC was not to their liking, and actually threatened to build their own arena and leave the ACC for the Raptors, while demanding the same concessions from the city.

As for the Quebec situation, there is tons of opposition to funding a $400 million arena with public money. In fact, it probably will not happen. If the government is dumb enough to subsidize the new $400 million arena in Quebec, NHL teams like Edmonton, Calgary, and even non-NHL teams like Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Kitchener will be demanding the same.

It will not stop there. Cities wanting football stadiums like Regina, Calgary, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, halifax, etc will demand the same concessions. Quebec has no chance of hell of acquiring $400 million from public funds to build their arena.

Its okay you have never heard of buying the Quebec vote have you.

Bark and Bite wrote:Its okay you have never heard of buying the Quebec vote have you.

I have heard of the fed's buying the Quebec vote Bark old chum, but I don't think in this instance the Feds will go there. Not this current party anywho.

There is an enormous appetite around Canada for new stadiums and arenas. The precedent this would set would be impossible to deny and I don't think Harper needs to fight that fight.

Bark and Bite wrote:

toban71 wrote:

Pavolo wrote:Alot of these arguments were present when the ACC was built in TO for that matter in Quebec with their new stadium . I do not hear you all complaining about that one , tax dollars in one form or another will go into it . Just like most major sites in the US of A .

Well, the reason people were complaining about the situation in toronto is because the Maple Leafs were upset that the original design of the ACC was not to their liking, and actually threatened to build their own arena and leave the ACC for the Raptors, while demanding the same concessions from the city.

As for the Quebec situation, there is tons of opposition to funding a $400 million arena with public money. In fact, it probably will not happen. If the government is dumb enough to subsidize the new $400 million arena in Quebec, NHL teams like Edmonton, Calgary, and even non-NHL teams like Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Kitchener will be demanding the same.

It will not stop there. Cities wanting football stadiums like Regina, Calgary, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, halifax, etc will demand the same concessions. Quebec has no chance of hell of acquiring $400 million from public funds to build their arena.

Its okay you have never heard of buying the Quebec vote have you.

Weird. Your sentence structure is remarkably similar to someone else who posts on this forum. I've been noticing the similarities in all of your posts. Do you have an alter-ego or second personality?

LivingDead wrote:Weird. Your sentence structure is remarkably similar to someone else who posts on this forum. I've been noticing the similarities in all of your posts. Do you have an alter-ego or second personality?

You noticed that too eh? Sounds like an old chum of mine. Hmmmmm. Nah. Just a coinkidink I'm sure.

Bark and Bite wrote:
Its okay you have never heard of buying the Quebec vote have you.

That statement is carrying less and less weight:

Parliament overhaul boosts strength of Ontario, B.C. and Alberta
Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau


OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has given Ontario two surprise gifts – 18 additional members of Parliament and an admission that the province was badly treated in previous attempts to overhaul the Commons. Many of the new MPs will likely be in the GTA, particularly in the suburbs, where Conservatives have been keen to form a strong base in Ontario.

In legislation unveiled on Thursday by Steven Fletcher, Minister of State of Democratic Reform, Ontario was given 18 additional seats – nearly double the 10 that were offered the last time the federal government tried to adjust representation in the Commons. “Canadians living in Ontario were saying they were being treated differently than Canadians in other faster-growing provinces,” Fletcher said. “We reflected on that and it turns out that there was a case to be made.”

British Columbia has been given 7 new seats and Alberta 5 additional MPs, in further recognition of the need for the fastest-growing provinces to be better served in Parliament. That’s a gain of 30 seats overall in the Commons, bringing the total up to 338 MPs. The added clout for regions, in particular the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario, which are more known as Liberal strongholds, raises questions about why the Conservatives would want to hand their opponents added strength.
But much will depend, says Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc, on how the new electoral map is drawn. “I certainly don’t think Mr. Harper is Mr. Popularity in Ontario,” LeBlanc said. “But if Steven Fletcher and some … fundraisers and pollsters are allocating the seats, it will be a lot less legitimate.” LeBlanc also quipped that Harper has to do more than add seats to Parliament to show his regard for it. “Mr. Fletcher can keep adding seats to the House of Commons, but if his boss keeps shutting it down, it just creates longer lineups at Ottawa airport when everybody’s scrambling to get out of town.”

The new riding boundaries, however, won’t be drawn until 2011 and are unlikely to come into force until at least 2012, which means that there will probably be at least one election before the expansion of the battlegrounds in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta.

At Queen’s Park, Ontario Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Monique Smith, who learned of the proposed changes from reporters in a scrum, said “on first blush it’s looking like it’s fair. But we do want to look at how the numbers roll out province by province before we determine whether or not we are getting our proportional fair share on a national level,” Smith said.

“Originally, we were looking for a total of 127 (federal seats, up from 106); this brings us to a total of 125, so we think it’s in the range,” she said. Fletcher says he hopes the opposition parties will endorse the bill. LeBlanc called it “a much better effort” than the last bill, which drew anger from the Liberal caucus especially because so much of its caucus comes from Ontario, especially the GTA.

Last month, the Mowat Centre in Ontario released a study showing that Canada was one of the worst countries in living up to the principles of representation by population. It found that 61 per cent of Canadians were actually under-represented in the Commons, particularly visible-minority communities in large urban centres. “Canadians deserve better. Our government deeply believes that each vote in Canadian elections should carry equal weight to the greatest extent possible,” Fletcher told reporters.

Matthew Mendelsohn, author of the Mowat Centre’s report, said Thursday that the new legislation almost completely replies to the concerns raised in their findings. He says that the new force of Ontario, B.C. and Alberta could have interesting implications for politics in Canada – affecting the delicate urban-rural balance, especially. “I do think the politics of Canada has overemphasized the concerns of smaller regional populations, because they had more voting power,” Mendelsohn said. “But now governments have to pay attention to the concerns of those voters (in the strengthened provinces) in a fairer and more proportional way.”

Fletcher wouldn’t be drawn into questions about why only 10 new seats were offered in 2007, saying only that it was an improvement over the mere four originally envisioned in the overhaul. The new figure of 18 was obtained when the Harper government simply decided to throw out the old formula for determining Commons expansion – devised in 1985 – and come up with a whole new way of adding numbers to the chamber to reflect the growing population.
Pure representation by population is almost impossible in Canada because the Constitution guarantees that no province can have fewer MPs than it has senators. That means Prince Edward Island, with about 141,000 people, is assured of four MPs — or one for every 35,000 people. If that ratio were accepted nationally, it would require more than 970 MPs.

The controversy surrounding this new bill may come from Quebec, which will lose proportional clout as Ontario, B.C. and Alberta gain strength in the Commons. Fletcher insisted that Quebec’s seats are protected and that Quebec’s citizens actually will still have a relative advantage over many other provinces in terms of voters per riding. Mendelsohn says Quebec’s reduced proportion is inevitable for the plain reason that the province’s population is shrinking, relative to other provinces.

Fletcher said he’s not worried about criticism about growing the size of Parliament, arguing that citizens care about fair democratic representation. Nor is he concerned about the difficulties of squeezing more MPs into an already crowded Commons, saying he’s been told that the current chamber could accommodate around 374 MPs.
With files from Rob Benzie and The Canadian Press

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/788873--ontario-to-get-18-more-seats-in-house-of-commons

Grumpy your are getting pariniod ,,

Pavolo wrote:Grumpy your are getting pariniod ,,

Just me eh Pav old chum? I'd say your bark is getting worse than your bite eh? heh heh heh