^yup. The reason they went Rothesay over Chief, instead of vice versa, was so people and kids don't have to go under the bridge. They deem it safer for people to go over, so there is no potential for being trapped by hooligans.

I didn't think that would really be an issue around there? I figured they went that route because it's just cheaper to go over.

The designers told me it was for pedestrian safety. Instead of going through a tunnel like structure, they went over so it's more like the street on either side. That was the reasoning.

Either way is better than traffic lights though!

Absolutely.

I wonder, did it have something to do with how all these regions were their own cities before the Unicity thing? Like each city prior developed however they wanted and then after Unicity there was a patchwork sort of thing that happened which explains why modern day/era Winnipeg has the roads the way it does?

Or am I completely mistaken here :haha:

Most if not all of the land required for the inner ring road way was acquired by the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg who had the role of providing regional street services pre Unicity days. Some of the routes were suppose to line up with existing streets that I guess would have been widened with buyouts / expropriation.

The Twin Cities metro is made up of over 200 incorporated municipalities, roads in the metro are efficient, modern and generally well kept, there was never any kind of amalgamation. Winnipeg suffers from poor planning or lack thereof, the road system here is quite frankly embarrassing. Winnipeg's road system is designed for a city of 500K, at some point politicians foolishly came to a conclusion here that roads weren't important.:koko:

Agreed.

And is home to almost 4M people. It's in no way comparable to Winnipeg.

What is relevant is that proper planning was done in the Twin Cities, in 1980 Minneapolis had a population of 370K while St. Paul was 270K, Winnipeg at that time was around 560K.

Not sure the relevance of populations of St. Paul and Minneapolis to the above posters inference that a metro area of 4 million isn't comparable to Winnipeg. St. Paul current population is only 385k and minneapolis is 400k.

Exactly. I mean Boston's population is technically smaller than Winnipeg if you're just looking at what is technically "Boston" — the metro is 4 million and the capital region is 8 million.

I wonder how the costs would compare to trench Moray between Portage and Ness and leave the houses there vs expropriating everything. It would certainly go a long way towards not ruining the neighborhood.

They also bought those properties knowing full well that sooner or later that was going to be built there.

Expensive because of the drainage and pumping station needed.

They built their homes their knowing that maybe in a century a Hwy would be built. Maybe.....
And it's not the lowest traffic volume street right now anyway. It's like the homes on Route 90 that have to put up with the traffic and when they were built it didn't exist. Not talking about the base homes. But the older parts. And now they to will be expropriated when and IF they ever widen route 90.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...tion-1.3504206

So the NDP is pledging to really speed up some infrastructure projects. Not only that but the amount promised has doubled!!!! I wonder where this money is coming from!

The NDP is desperate and it shows. We promise to speed up projects we promised years ago and couldn't get around to doing until now.

It's really no different than the PCs promising to lower taxes and increase investment. No one is being realistic.