Downtown Walkway Expansion

We were watching Global News last night, and they had some interesting photo displays of new enclosed elevated walkways being installed throughout downtown Winnipeg.

It seems they plan on attaching most of the downtown area together with elevated/heated walkways.

Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea. It's too bad they can't add a "lower level" while they are building, for bicycles only. It could be a completely unique approach to pedestrian & bipedal traffic.

Of course, the people that ride bicycles would be the ones paying for that eh?

JTF wrote:Of course, the people that ride bicycles would be the ones paying for that eh?

We deserve our own path...

/sarcasm

AGEsAces wrote:
It seems they plan on attaching most of the downtown area together with elevated/heated walkways.

Interesting. Now the panhandlers can travel further in a nice heated environment.

AGEsAces wrote:We were watching Global News last night, and they had some interesting photo displays of new enclosed elevated walkways being installed throughout downtown Winnipeg.

It seems they plan on attaching most of the downtown area together with elevated/heated walkways.

Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea. It's too bad they can't add a "lower level" while they are building, for bicycles only. It could be a completely unique approach to pedestrian & bipedal traffic.

It's about time.

Yes levy a tax on bikes to pay for it just like cars.

Pavolo wrote:Yes levy a tax on bikes to pay for it just like cars.

why Bikes?

Cyclists, Drivers and Pedestrians have this hate-hate-hate relationship. My slant is cyclists demand equal access but don't pay for the access nor follow the same rules as drivers.

This is one of my favourite debates in these pages...

grumpy old man wrote:Cyclists, Drivers and Pedestrians have this hate-hate-hate relationship. My slant is cyclists demand equal access but don't pay for the access nor follow the same rules as drivers.

This is one of my favourite debates in these pages...

That debate is what got me started (originally) on the forums.

And what do Pedestrians pay for their "access"? Or what do motor-vehicle drivers pay? The same as cyclists...the same taxes, the same expenses.

And yet...the drivers of vehicles try to run the cyclists off the road.
And the pedestrians are desperate to get the bikes off the sidewalks.

So, if a new area is being built for pedestrians, which is OBVIOUSLY NOT designed for cyclists...then why shouldn't something be built to accommodate the cyclists too? Something which will get them off the streets AND the sidewalks?

I know it's a major expense...unless it's part of the design. Since they are planning on building "up" anyway...why not just add a level as they go? Since EVENTUALLY, they will probably expand the walkway again to include MORE of the city...and we may eventually have the majority of they city covered in an elevated walk-zone. Do it for bikes...they can move faster, and it may encourage more people to use bicycles for travel to and from work downtown.

"And what do Pedestrians pay for their "access"? Or what do motor-vehicle drivers pay? The same as cyclists...the same taxes, the same expenses."
ummm no.. not even close to the same..
gas taxes... tire taxes... both of which go towards funding roadways..and to funding bike paths and walkways too.

and quit stealing my ideas of raised bike paths in the downtown area...
( okay.. granted you want the bike paths raised and covered... I guess I can give you that.. )

The owners of the buildings these walkways connect pay their share of the cost. They are not entirely taxpayer funded. That said our municipal and provincial taxes were intended to build roads and sidewalks for their citizens so fundamentally we all have "paid" and all should have safe and equal access.

BUT... The same governments made rules and regulations. Cyclists, more than any group, ignore them, mostly, selfishly, because they can. They ride on sidewalks. They ride through red lights and stop signs. The drive on the wrong side of the road. Pass on the right...

Someone will say so too do motorists. Motorists are not perfect but there would be complete anarchy on our roads were motorists to behave like cyclists.

And things are not entirely fair. There are several other taxes and fees motorists pay that cyclists do not: gas taxes; driver license and vehicle fees; air conditioning fees; tire fees...

A civilized society provides such things as pike paths providing greater safety for all. But I guarantee you that despite the presence of these pathways cyclists will continue to ride recklessly on sidewalks and ignore the rules on the road. At the same time I can also guarantee you no motorists will be driving on the bike paths.

I agree I pay a whole bunch of fees to supposedly fix and build roads hehe . But the cyclist wants all the goodies and pay nothing um seems not right . The idea of a path for them to get off the roads is great but they should help to pay for it over and above what they now pay .
Which is the same for all a licence or insurance , and a fee to use the path. Enforced by the local police when they are through beating someone up.

Great, a perfectly good thread about the skywalk system hijacked by bicycle issues.

Its about time the walkway is expanded. I think this is great, considering our climate. This will encourage further circulation of pedestrians throughout the downtown.

I would like to see the underground concourse under Portage and Main connected with the centennial centre-city hall-parkade, and extended to RRC (downtown campus, obviously), while we're at it.

" The idea of a path for them to get off the roads is great but they should help to pay for it over and above what they now pay . "

snowmobile enthusiasts of this province saw a need for paths. So what did they do? Charged a path fee to pay for the upkeep of using the path and got a law enforced that would levy a hefty fine on people using the path without the permit.
seems to work for other groups.. why not cyclists?

I think the big problem with the cyclists issue, is the perspective people (and most of government) has on the issue.

Most people consider bicycles as a form of "recreation" instead of "transportation".

For so many years, riding a bicycle has meant simply a form of exercise. Bike paths? They don't GO anywhere. How many cities (not just Winnipeg) have constructed "bike paths" through their parks and communities...that do what? Go around in a circle.

Winnipeg is STARTING to adjust this. If you look at most any new road construction, there is a designated "bike lane" being painted on the ROADS near the curb. Usually in the bus lane.

I realize cyclists don't SEEM to follow the rules...but that's more a problem with education and enforcement than the cyclists themselves. I was walking downtown last week, and asked a couple of people who were riding their bikes on the sidewalk and had stopped at a road waiting for a light to change at the crosswalk..."you DO know it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk...right?"...and they said "No...I didn't...where am I supposed to ride"...and I explained..."In the road, with the cars. the lane is yours if you're there, no matter if the cars are honking or ticked....that's where bikes are required to be...with other wheeled traffic.".

The couple actually said "thanks", and when the light changed, they moved into the lane of traffic and continued their trip.

I actually expected an "FU" response...but apparently, sometimes they are where they aren't supposed to be from ignorance. So educate...and enforce.