Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisforpm
They have large intersections with pedestrian traffic in major cities such as New York and London. I'm sure they can figure out something here. Not saying it'll be easy, but people will get used to it. In London all lights go red and pedestrians can cross. I'm sure they will make it work.
|
Beg to differ.
Many international cities integrate major street crossings into their rapid transit system. Pedestrian traffic is often forced underground through the subway entrances or above ground (common in Asia). One could argue that the concourse was forward thinking in the 1970s. What hurts us is the lack of critical mass downtown. That is, too few people over too large an area. It's improving, but I doubt opening P&M will result in thousands of people hanging around outside, especially in winter. Vehicular traffic, including buses will move slower, resulting in bottlenecks at Fort and possibly Graham. Likely result in more CO2 emissions.
I get where urban planners are coming from, but the realities of Winnipeg are different from most cities owing to climate and lack of existing infrastructure.
I'd like to use the Disraeli overpass to illustrate: let's spend an extra $25 M to build a bicycle / predestrian bridge and keep the vehicular bridge narrow with non-existent shoulders. Cyclists can still use the roadway, bottleneck traffic and risk injury. Would it be more sensible to place one sidewalk and two wide shoulders for cyclists (or stalled cars) and have omitted the "active transportation" bridge? Political correctness rules over pragmatism and safety.
Hopefully the politicians will properly assess P&M and make the safe decision, not the political one. Not holding my breath.