Because I simply can't keep up with you quick people, another... *drumroll* MULTIPOST... *minimmal excitement*
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar
So people can't walk one block over to cross Portage?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban recluse
But why should they?
|
This. Having the borders up is the status quo, so I get the inclination to defend it, but it's only the status quo for this. one. intersection.
So really, can't we just acclimate to the reality shared by 99% of our other intersections? Without borders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote
And why should us taxpayers have to pay for them to NOT walk one block to cross?
Issues that seem to be fake news to some but are actually real.
1- it WILL make traffic a lot worse. I see posts in other threads her of some of you bitching about how long it takes now.
2- it WILL mess up transit and cost us tax payers more.
3- it WILL cost a lot of money seeing that those barricades are structural. Yet that weasel Mayer forgot to look into that before he pledged his little pipe dream.
4- the mall under it will die a slow death. But hey. You don't care as you don't see it.
5- it's still dangerous. Stop telling me it's the same as crossing a block down. It isn't. No where is there all the crazy lights and turns and the traffic load that this intersection has. And tiny little islands to stand on. Sure you can make them wider. That should improve traffic right ......
What's so exciting across the street ? Offices. I'm going to for sure head down there for the exciting offices.
Build it and they will come. Lol. Ummmm the Richardsons towers was there before the barricades went up. And guess what. It looks the same today. No store fronts as you dream of.
When the barricade went up. It was a totally different era. And totally different buildings that had small offices and stores and whatnot. It's just 3 big towers now. It's a different beast.
People will use it to get to the forks? Well they can walk a block. Plus not one really takes this route to the forks anyway. There are much better routes in place now.
They will flock to the museum through Portage and Main. Ok. Like any of you flock to it now right.
Baseball games. Oh come on. You all drive to them.
It will becomes Times Square. Ok. I think we heard this pitch before. We got one screen.
It will spur a new hotel in that gravel parking lot. Kinda like how it took 30 years to get Pad B built and that isn't even started yet.
Let's be real. This city has much bigger issues then a pet project. This money can be spent on better mass transit. Better signage. Renovate the underground walkway. Renovated the entrances to it. Lighting in the area. These will be a bigger boost then some office worker crossing the street at 5pm.
|
1. No, traffic won't get a lot worse. Besides, traffic through P+M is RAPID compared to "biggest intersections" in smaller cities. We have many worse intersections for traffic, and if any has some seconds to give, then it's this one.
2. I staunchly hate taxes and the cost here is minimal. If anything, the cost here should be higher to actually MAKE something of the place rather than just remove the barricades.
3. Mayor is a major weasel, but the increased economic and social vitality of downtown, while un-quantifiable, has an equally un-quantifiably higher ceiling than before.
The problem with Winnipeg is it constantly gets in its own way! we are leaving something in our downtown development's way... the benefits exceed the tax cost strongly
4. The mall won't die. First off, we have 2, maybe three mega-developments connected to the walkway system. It's still winter half the year, and a major draw in all of those places are the banks and food, which you always need anyway if you work in those towers.
Yes, they could take a hit in passive traffic... if downtown doesn't grow. This should remove a barrier to economic activity downtown, which increases traffic. If mall traffic goes down as a percentage but downtown pedestrian traffic goes up as a number, it may not sink much at all, and stand the chance to climb again.
Toronto and Vancouver walkways and underground passageways are packed despite mild weather and no barricades.
5. If we all give our heads a shake and decide, collectively, to reach the bare minimal requirments to cognitively operate a motorized vehicle, then this shouldn't be a challenge. Millions of more dangerous intersections in the world, probably hundreds more in Canada.
6. Re - Richardsons - You're not getting it... in 40 years it had NO CHANCE TO GROW. After Richardsons came THREE more towers, you don't think a few storefronts couldn't have sprung up? Of course they could have, but that was decided against with the barricades. It was a different time back then, it was the 70's... except P+M is thus still in the 70's
7. Tons of people park at P+M and walk to the games. Half the spectators go to games from work.
8. It won't become Times Square, but that's like locking a horse in a stable claiming "because you'll never win the derby"... Maybe it will atleast jump over a log or something, let's give it its best shot.
9. The money needed for this isn't nearly enough to help mass transit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
People should be able to cross the street. It's as simple as that. The goals don't have to be any loftier to make it worth it.
|
Theoretically... there is only one valid reason to keep the barricades up (and I'm sure you agree):
It is legally required through binding agreement with the landlords. It makes sense why Trizec wanted it, but not why the City caved into that without legally requiring the second tower.
All the landlords are ready to cooperate, and technically, that's all that matters. It shows that a) they believe there can be a positive trend in our downtown livelihood, and b) that they don't want to be the bad guy, the want to be the good guy.
So if the "big bad corporations", previously the drivers behind the barricade construction, can be the good guys, why can't little friendly Manitobans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway
Newsflash: Pedestrians pay taxes too!
Why should us taxpayers who don't live in the north of the city subsidize the Peguis expansion? Why should us taxpayers who don't live in the south of the city pay for the Waverley underpass or the Kenaston widening?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
I doubt the trivial amount of congestion that opening up Portage and Main is likely to generate will send anyone fleeing for suburbia... at least, not on its own.
But that said, if someone is that bothered by having to wait an extra 30 seconds at a red light, I'm guessing they'll probably reroute their commute to get them around Portage and Main. It's not exactly unavoidable.
|
It would bother the hell out of me, but not at P+M. We keep talking about P+M as if it
IS something... if it is something noteworthy, then for that one intersection, sure, 30 seconds is fine.