HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3501  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 3:37 PM
wardlow's Avatar
wardlow wardlow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacman View Post
Agreed, there's no doubt that the City "decision makers" are short sighted and they screw up long term plans on their own, I don't know how to change the processes to prevent that from happening in the future and in the end that is not what we have on the table to sort out. The mess we need to sort out is what to do with this Sterling Lyon alignment now that there is a neighbourhood developing where it SHOULD and would go if there was nothing in the way.
There’s really no good guys in this issue: Winnipeg’s traffic engineers often work under a veil of secrecy and I’m sure there’s lots more roadway extensions or widenings we don’t know about; councillors are often parochial and shape their decisions based on the first 10 residents who call their office.

Part of the public works department’s level of secrecy, I would guess, is because they figured out long ago that if councillors knew about their plans, they would shut them down, put on their engineer hats and redraw routes themselves, or try to have a key property sold off to a real estate developer.

The City (and the RM of Charleswood before it) had a complete lack planning when it repeatedly allowed subdivision and the construction of these gaudy mcmansions on rural land north and south of Wilkes. That’s why Our Winnipeg (which came into effect in 2011 or so) does not allow new development in areas like this, where there is no secondary plan in effect, and where there isn’t a full range of municipal services (ie, no paved roads, piped drainage). To the City’s credit, Our Winnipeg tries to rein in this kind of bad unplanned development.

With or without expropriation for expressway extensions, property owners south of Wilkes (and in similar unplanned, unimproved areas of the city) can expect three things they may not like:
  1. development pressure is going to continue to grow on the city's edges as the city continues to grow (eg, Qualico and other developers are going to keep on buying up everything they possibly can),
  2. this unplanned area is going to be planned and improved one day. Drainage ponds and arterial roads will have to go somewhere, and this sometimes mean expropriation,
  3. property taxes or local improvement charges are going to go through the roof.

These aren’t secret surprises sprung on unwitting residents: Winnipeg has been growing at a modest pace for some time, and Our Winnipeg has been a legislated plan for 5-6 years now. Unlike established urban neighbourhoods of the city (West End, North Kildonan, St. Norbert, whatever), things are not likely going to stay more or less the same here. These are wealthy, apparently powerful, and presumably literate people, so it’s tough to feel sorry for them. I would say they could sell and enjoy the same semi-rural life in a neighbouring RM, but I don’t even think the development of this kind of dirt-road suburbia is allowed in many areas of the capital region anymore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3502  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 3:38 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,717
Apologies for the crappy quality, this is a screengrab from Photobucket as I couldn't download or save my own image properly... What a piece that site is.

This is essentially what a built out Winnipeg freeway system would look like. I don't show route 90 as a freeway and only show Sterling Lyon west of the William Clement Parkway.

There is supposed to be a third inner ring road which is essentially in the areas of Cncordia to Inskter to Route 90 to Sterling Lyon. But that was squashed before the beltway plan came about.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3503  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 3:57 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by wardlow View Post
The City (and the RM of Charleswood before it) had a complete lack planning when it repeatedly allowed subdivision and the construction of these gaudy mcmansions on rural land north and south of Wilkes. That’s why Our Winnipeg (which came into effect in 2011 or so) does not allow new development in areas like this, where there is no secondary plan in effect, and where there isn’t a full range of municipal services (ie, no paved roads, piped drainage). To the City’s credit, Our Winnipeg tries to rein in this kind of bad unplanned development
Definitely agree, terrible planning from the past has led to this mess. The one silver lining I can think of is that this might be the last major clusterfuck within perimeter that would involve this degree of expropriation for the beltway, until decisions are made about plessis and moray which are decades away.

The likely scenario is that the beltway is completed in the future with moray and plessis maintained as 'residential streets' at 50 or 60kmh. Eventually traffic will be a gong show at those segments which will reduce proprety values. Some residents will move away at which time the city should buy up the land and keep it for proper widening.

Outisde the city is similar, with only the St Pauls (East and West) looking to be an issue with some future highway to selkirk if that city continues to grow. Too many fancy houses with big lots in the way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3504  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 4:33 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,814
^The problem with waiting til property value lowers (it won't) is costs will just continue to climb.

I definitely feel bad for the homeowners, and the city clearly fucked up, but I really think at this point the city has no choice it has to be done. The amount of homeowners affected is minuscule compared to the amount of people that will be affected long-term by building the road improperly. The city should own up and admit they made a mistake. Suck it up and pay the homeowners fairly for their troubles, and move on. Expropriation happens in other cities all the time, and here too at times as well.

Shitty situation, but unfortunately shit happens. What people don't really realize is that buying property is essentially buying a life lease. The government has the right to take it back (with fair compensation) at any time. That's the reason they can impose zoning rules and standards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3505  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 3:05 AM
Bluenote's Avatar
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
Outisde the city is similar, with only the St Pauls (East and West) looking to be an issue with some future highway to selkirk if that city continues to grow. Too many fancy houses with big lots in the way.

Wait what? Selkirk is growing ? Since when.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3506  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 3:27 AM
LilZebra's Avatar
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Spiritual
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fort Garry, Man.
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
Wait what? Selkirk is growing ? Since when.
Selkirk, Manitoba...(not incl. East. Selkirk.


SOURCE: Stats. Can. & Wikipedia

While there looks to have been a period of "negative (population) growth" in the past, since about 2011 the City of Selkirk has added new people.
__________________
Visit LilZebra.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3507  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 5:03 AM
The Jabroni's Avatar
The Jabroni The Jabroni is offline
Go kicky fast, okay!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Kingdom of Skeletor
Posts: 2,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
Outisde the city is similar, with only the St Pauls (East and West) looking to be an issue with some future highway to selkirk if that city continues to grow. Too many fancy houses with big lots in the way.
For arguments sake, let's say that Selkirk suddenly has an economic boom. New houses are built, people are moving into the city, by the busloads, etc.

Highway 9 as it stands right now, is obsolete by design. It will remain that way as more of a regional road and may need to be improved upon by building it as a divided expressway, but that's it.

Highway 8, and more importantly, Highway 59, can support Selkirk for high speed road traffic if the city decides to pull a Steinbach or Winkler. Highway 59 and Highway 4 can support Selkirk from the east, and Highway 8 can support Selkirk from the west.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3508  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 6:24 AM
LilZebra's Avatar
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Spiritual
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fort Garry, Man.
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jabroni View Post

Highway 8, and more importantly, Highway 59, can support Selkirk for high speed road traffic if the city decides to pull a Steinbach or Winkler. Highway 59 and Highway 4 can support Selkirk from the east, and Highway 8 can support Selkirk from the west.
But if nothing is done and more and more live in or commute to Selkirk via Hwy. 59, then that 2 lane dinky bridge between Selkirk and E. Selkirk will have to be replaced with a higher capacity one. It's sort of an historic bridge, but some future politician or PMCR is gonna have to sell people on the need for a wider crossing.

In fact, the planning should start now.
__________________
Visit LilZebra.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3509  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 12:10 PM
vjose32 vjose32 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 558
It is stupid to waste money on extending Sterling Lyon west when they should actually be extending Bishop and I believe they actually have room for that. That would hopefully clear up some traffic from route 90
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3510  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 1:59 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilZebra View Post
Selkirk, Manitoba...(not incl. East. Selkirk.

While there looks to have been a period of "negative (population) growth" in the past, since about 2011 the City of Selkirk has added new people.
It's interesting to see how Selkirk was a fast growing place until sometime in the 70s or 80s, at which point the growth pretty much stalled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3511  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 2:29 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjose32 View Post
It is stupid to waste money on extending Sterling Lyon west when they should actually be extending Bishop and I believe they actually have room for that. That would hopefully clear up some traffic from route 90
Isnt that the plan, to extend Bishop (to the Perimeter??)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3512  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 2:49 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjose32 View Post
It is stupid to waste money on extending Sterling Lyon west when they should actually be extending Bishop and I believe they actually have room for that. That would hopefully clear up some traffic from route 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster View Post
Isnt that the plan, to extend Bishop (to the Perimeter??)
To me it'd actually make way more sense to do the Bishop extension first... be able to completely bypass the nightmare that is south Kenaston if you want to get to the west side of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3513  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 3:27 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
To me it'd actually make way more sense to do the Bishop extension first... be able to completely bypass the nightmare that is south Kenaston if you want to get to the west side of the city.
They should connect Bishop and William Clement right away, no interchanges or Sterling Lyon extension for Charleswood. Bridge without ramps over grant and wilkes. Too much NIMBYism going on. Let them have their pretty rural sized lots and houses but no access to the major thoroughfare
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3514  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 3:47 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,814
^Yup.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3515  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 4:42 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jabroni View Post
Highway 8, and more importantly, Highway 59, can support Selkirk for high speed road traffic if the city decides to pull a Steinbach or Winkler. Highway 59 and Highway 4 can support Selkirk from the east, and Highway 8 can support Selkirk from the west.
HWY 59 between Selkirk and Winnipeg is a poor alternative to a true four lane Selkirk corridor route. It is really too far east to capture most of that traffic. There is also not a direct route linking Selkirk and HWY 59. Even if you want to make a claim that they could just use HWY 44 that would mean a new bridge over the Red River and to twin HWY 44 between Lockport and HWY 59.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilZebra View Post
But if nothing is done and more and more live in or commute to Selkirk via Hwy. 59, then that 2 lane dinky bridge between Selkirk and E. Selkirk will have to be replaced with a higher capacity one.
Ah yes, the infamous "bridge to nowhere" built in the 80s as a replacement for the old E Selkirk bridge. I can't recall where that bridge is but it already exists. Perhaps someone even older than me can recall better its location. It was called the "bridge to no where" as it was built well outside of town and one side had left the connecting road as a "future consideration".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3516  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 4:55 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,794
^ I would like to hear the rationale behind that Highway 4 bridge. Was it supposed to be the first leg of a longer route? It really seems to serve no particular purpose... are there that many people driving from Gimli to Pine Falls that they had to build a route that bypasses Selkirk?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3517  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 5:05 PM
BigG's Avatar
BigG BigG is offline
Ignore these four words.
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
To me it'd actually make way more sense to do the Bishop extension first... be able to completely bypass the nightmare that is south Kenaston if you want to get to the west side of the city.
I agree 100 percent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3518  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 5:12 PM
wardlow's Avatar
wardlow wardlow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 288
The Highway 4 bridge (to nowhere) was built by the Schreyer government in the 1970s as part of developing a masterplanned urban centre north of Selkirk. I've never seen plans for it (and it may have never even got to the planning stage), but I remember reading it was envisioned to be 300,000-400,000 people. The bridge was to link it up to Highway 59, which I think was being twinned at the time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3519  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 5:19 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,794
^ It was actually built in the 80s during the Pawley era.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3520  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2017, 5:44 PM
MG922 MG922 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ I would like to hear the rationale behind that Highway 4 bridge. Was it supposed to be the first leg of a longer route? It really seems to serve no particular purpose... are there that many people driving from Gimli to Pine Falls that they had to build a route that bypasses Selkirk?
Ah, now this is a good story! Built in 1987, I'm almost positive it's the longest bridge in Manitoba at 850m (~1/2mile!!) long from end to end. I'm not sure on the rationale for the bridge in the first place, but I do know the reason that it's so tall and long.

Someone lived in the area owned a large sailboat. This person knew a provincial politician, who apparently had an in with the premier at the time. Somehow they managed to swing a deal and forced MIT to increase the height of the bridge to allow for the sailboat to go under. Increasing the height meant having to add a few more spans to each end to maintain acceptable grades. All for a sailboat.

Who knows if that sailboat ever went under that bridge?!

Devil's advocate tho, it does make sense to have a bridge there, as there are farmers and people living along the river. This bridge is also the northernmost bridge over the Red River. Edit: location makes sense, the sheer size does not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.