TAX suburban parking spots!... now there is an idiotic idea if I ever heard of one.

Deank wrote:I am sorry but I am CANADIAN and I have a family. As such I want to live in a house with a yard. A yard big enough for me to enjoy myself in. Anyone who thinks myself and the other 80% of Winnipeggers will be forced to live in dense condo/apartment housing just to satisfy the whims of the urban sprawl whiners is themselves very dense.


"A RT system allows for in-fill housing to be built along it whose residents don't require cars. Quite the opposite of urban sprawl. "

POPPYCOCK!

We already have transit through the areas that infill housing is targeted at.

RT (I will ignore the non rapidness of it for now)
will at most put a couple of more high rise apartment buildings near it. houses themselves will not spring up because of it.

We have 'transit' in those areas, but not good transit. Nothing worth promoting development. Highrise apartment buildings are high density housing. Exactly what you want as in-fill in a city. You wouldn't want individual houses built along it because their density is too low to make sense as in-fill. Better than nothing but overall not very efficient. If a RT system actually brought a couple of additional high-rise apartments, that would be a pretty good step.

Deank wrote:yeah.. some cities of 26 million people.....

Many much smaller European cities.

"You wouldn't want individual houses built along it because their density is too low to make sense as in-fill."

which is why it aint gonna happen.

Just how many tens of thousand people do you think want to move to winnipeg to live in a highrise?

There have been some pretty big improvements to some highrises downtown to get new residents over the past few years and they seem to be filling up pretty well. I suspect you could get a lot of student housing on the line and it would probably be a good location for people who are new to the country and may not have a drivers license, etc.

"people who are new to the country and may not have a drivers license, etc"

I thought they just became cabbies?

Ha

one has to wonder.... Even if on the outside chance some developer wanted to throw in a multistory building along the path. would the residents who live there already let them?

Deank wrote:yeah.. some cities of 26 million people.....

Well Toronto is one city that see's significant density immediately surrounding subway stops. The value of houses (and rents) increase the closer one lives to a subway stop.

This is a chicken/egg thing. If we've determined some sort of RT is required we ought to ensure developers have it a little easier to build near the stops. And make it more expensive to build out.

except the chicken AND egg are both adding 500K people to our city... minimum

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like to live as far away as I can from train tracks, be they Via or Transit Tom, or any busy route for that matter.

So, the argument that people will move to adjacent apartments or houses seems wrong. imo anyway.

If the city tried to "tax the hell" suburban shopping malls, the malls would just move outside of city limits.
I would bet the councilors of West Kildonan would love to have a mall in their area.
And they would get a bigger residential tax base to support the mall too.
Maybe the city should STOP WASTING the money they already get.
Questions.
Just how many jobs did implementing 311 really save?
Has service through 311 really improve for the caller?
Another benefit of 311 was getting rid of the STUPID calls to 911.
Did anyone see any news reports about how many 911 calls were reduced through implementation of 311?
Why did the city build 25 (twenty-five) curb bumps on Fleet avenue in a ONE mile stretch? (go count them if you don't believe me.)
Why does the city do road improvements 2 or 4 blocks at a time on the same streets YEAR after YEAR?

I hate those f'n curb bumps

curb bumps?

Wouldn't curb bumps be a good thing? so you don't hit the curb?

no

well then what's a curb bump? cause i know i hate hitting the curb with my tires.

page 3
http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/MajorProjects/ActiveTransportation/PDF/GuideToCyclingTreatments.pdf

basically at every intersection they "bump" the intersection out to cut off an entire lane from proper traffic flow

Following are several different traffic calming tools:
• Curb Extension (Curb Bump Outs): A mid-block or intersection
widening of the boulevard, which narrows the travel lane(s).
Curb extensions may be used in conjunction with pedestrian
crosswalks.

Traffic Calming Tools???? WTF!!

So that's the point of them eh. To "calm" traffic.

These commie bastards are getting way way out of hand imo!!

OH...ok...yeah, that's what they are doing on Portage too.

And inside the bumps (between bumps) is new parking area.

CERTAINLY NOT CALMING!!! as now the buses don't have their own lane...so they are obstructing the right travel-lane, and quite often are jumping into the middle lane in order to leapfrog other buses, so then they are obstructing two lanes.

very costly idea with little (if any) benefit to be seen. Almost shiat myself when I saw them putting one of these on route 90/saskatchewan.

completely totally and insanely useless there

One good thing about them is that they clearly point out the drivers that should not be on the road....when people stop because they think their car won't fit between the curb and another car.

dont get me wrong, traffic calming is a great idea IN CERTAIN SELECT LOCATIONS, but this is not one of the good traffic calming devices even in those situations.

Hell why would we want to calm traffic on Portage avenue? Its one of the places we want traffic to flow barely any disruptions.

the problem for me on Portage isn't the curb bumps...it's the pushing the buses into traffic.

To be fair though...most of Portage from Main to Kennedy was already only 3-lanes, with curb bumps creating small parking pockets along the route.

Perhaps extending them further down Portage was originally part of the plan? And they are scrambling now to secure whatever funding was offered?

What I DO have a problem with though, is that they spent the thousands of tax dollars putting up "bus/cycle" lane signs through that area, and are now removing them (at more expense) to put in these curb bumps....AND...

They aren't doing it with any planning for infrastructure...as they SHOULD be pulling short of the right lane with the curbs...so the bikes riding in that new "parking" lane will still have a "lane" to ride in without having to pull into traffic. But the curbs are going right to the edge, which means a bike has to pull in front of moving traffic in order to get through safely...either that...or be forced ON to the sidewalk...neither of which is acceptable.

"
They aren't doing it with any planning for infrastructure...as they SHOULD be pulling short of the right lane with the curbs...so the bikes riding in that new "parking" lane will still have a "lane" to ride in without having to pull into traffic. But the curbs are going right to the edge, which means a bike has to pull in front of moving traffic in order to get through safely...either that...or be forced ON to the sidewalk...neither of which is acceptable."

That is indeed the most disturbing idiotic part of these curbs.

They are doing that on Grosvenor as well. Another perfect example of the piss-poor traffic planning in Winnipeg.

grumpy old man wrote:They are doing that on Grosvenor as well. Another perfect example of the piss-poor traffic planning in Winnipeg.

I am pretty sure I saw a couple of "bumps" on Wilton between Corydon and Grant the other day.

Outsider wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:They are doing that on Grosvenor as well. Another perfect example of the piss-poor traffic planning in Winnipeg.

I am pretty sure I saw a couple of "bumps" on Wilton between Corydon and Grant the other day.

Are you sure that wasn't that lil ole lady from around the block taking her pet chihuahua for a walk???