Councilor Browaty opposes key AT Through Pass
Cyclists who live in Councillor Browaty’s riding should call him to set him straight about the need for a safe way to get across the North Perimeter.
During the last election, the NDP promised to build a safe AT crossing of the North Perimeter between Henderson and Highway 59.
We were consulted on the design on of this crossing, and agreed that the proposed plan made most sense within the economic constraints of the larger intersection project. It offers a safe and convenient route, and provides for both emergency access and access by people on foot or bike.
Councilor Browaty’s campaign to cancel the AT crossing to build more facilities for motor vehicle commuters pushes the wrong priorities. People who appreciate the virtue of promoting travel by bicycle must make their opinions heard by calling him and tell him to make cycling facilities more of a priority, not less.
I’m confused, Browaty seems to be against a bike+car tunnel and instead for the bike-only bridge. Why would we not agree? I don’t want to share a tunnel with cars.
Hi Brendan, to quote today’s Free Press, “Browaty said he always questioned the need for an AT link across the north Perimeter, adding the money would be better spent on other traffic improvements”. He is opposed to all options for an AT crossing of the Perimeter, whether or not they include access for emergency vehicles or for the two lane roadway that is being proposed.
The RM of St. Paul requires access across the Perimeter Highway for emergency vehicles, which is why the through-pass has been proposed over a bike/pedestrian bridge. The fact that PTH101 will now be going over PTH59N instead of the other way around also makes this option more palatable.
The benefit for people on bikes is that the through-pass will not require the climb over the roadway. The clearance requirement was 7m, which lead to a 9m grade change for anyone waling or biking across the highway. We were told that the rather boxy drawing of the through-pass that has been put out was only a very rough conceptual drawing. I suspect that the end product will likely be a lot more airy, and that people walking or biking beneath the highway will experience something much more akin to what you experience when you walk or bike beneath the St. James Bridge on Wellington or Assiniboine. I do not think that fumes or noise will be much of an issue.
Will there be an increase in traffic in North Kildonan? Yes, but no where near the levels that Councillor Browaty has quoted. The traffic volume of 30,000 vehicles per day is for the PTH 59N/PTH 101 interchange, not for Raleigh (the 2033 population projection for all of East St. Paul is 11,260). 30,000 vehicles per day would be far beyond the capacity of a two lane road.
If Councillor Browaty is interested in reducing the level of traffic in North Kildonan and in Winnipeg, the solution does not lie in more lanes leading into the city, which is exactly what he proposes as an alternative to the AT crossing. That traffic is not headed to Steinback, its headed into Winnipeg.
Is the tunnel really for VEHICULAR traffic as well as Bike and Ped?
Yes, the through-pass that is currently being proposed will allow for both AT and vehicular traffic. See me reply to Brendan above for a fuller explanation. The RM of East St. Paul will pay for the incremental cost of adding the vehicular lanes.
Councillor Jeff Browaty seems to oppose any measure that expands public transit and active transportation. If he had his way, Winnipeg would become a sea of automobiles — and eventually one large parking lot. His lack of vision for a greener, healthier Winnipeg — not to mention his constant grandstanding — should not be allowed to prevail.
Just to give a sense of why this through-pass is needed for people on bike or foot, here is some background information.
Destinations north.south of the Perimeter Highway that will attract people on foot or bike:
• Gateway Recreation Centre – 1.2 km (4 minutes) south of PTH 101
• The Skylight Complex (home of the Winnipeg Indoor Soccer League)– 2.0km north (7 minutes) north of PTH 101
• East St. Paul Recreation Complex – 5.2km (17 minutes) northwest of PTH 101
• Bunn’s Creek Trail – 1.8km (6 minutes) south of PTH 101
• Chief Peguis Trail AT pathways – 2.2km (11 minutes) south of PTH 101
• Red River Floodway Trail to Bird’s Hill Park – 5.25km (18 minutes) northeast of PTH 101.
• Kilcona Park – 3.6 km (12 minutes) south of PTH 101
Without access to a safe, convenient crossing, a person who chooses to bike to these destinations would be forced to travel on PTH 59. That would include crossing numerous long, high speed merge lanes that would have peak traffic flows in excess of 900 vehicles per hour. That is clearly unsafe.
I am also confused by Bike Winnipeg’s position in support of a vehicular tunnel. My impression that the Provincial Government (and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation in particular) are not capable of or willing to consider any bike/pedestrian specific project. They seem to insist that any infrastructure for bikes must be paired up with a motor vehicle infrastructure project of some kind. I think Bike Winnipeg needs to tell the government that bike-specific projects are acceptable, desirable and affordable. I do not understand how “the proposed plan made most sense within the economic constraints of the larger intersection project” as compared to a bike/pedestrian fly-over crossing. Obviously a tunnel large enough for vehicles adds a lot of cost and delay, which explains why the Provincial Government has still not made good on its one and only active transportation election promise from last election. If Browaty supports a pedestrian/bike bridge for the Northeast Pioneers Greenway, that is a good thing. Given his ad, how could be oppose it? Yet Bike Winnipeg seems to oppose a pedestrian/bike bridge in this location, by making this public statement opposing Councillor Browaty. Bike Winnipeg seems to support adding motor vehicles and a tunnel to the pedestrian/bike infrastructure, adding a lot of expense, and adding a lot of delay. Wouldn’t a pedestrian/bike bridge be less expensive and happen far more quickly? Is Bike Winnipeg opposed to this option? By saying Bike Winnipeg agrees with the tunnel + motor vehicles option, and by attacking Councillor Browaty, it implies that Bike Winnipeg is opposed to the bike/pedestrian bridge option. That is why I am confused about Bike Winnipeg’s position on this.
Tom,
Sorry for the slow response. An AT overpass would have required a 9m climb to clear the highway, which will be raised at this point for technical reasons related to the Highway 59/Perimeter Highway Interchange. We feel that the through pass, which could allow for people on bikes and on foot to avoid this climb is the better option. We are also supportive of the fact that the through pass will allow for the passage of emergency vehicles, and for transit once Rapid Transit is extended along the Raleigh/Gateway Corridor.
The access for transit will be critical for the City of Winnipeg as it will allow for those commuting in from exurban areas the option of connecting to rapid transit prior to reaching the City of Winnipeg.
Councillors Broadway’s position that no money should be spent on an AT grade separation (through pass or overpass) was at odds with our objective of creating a safe, convenient connection from the Forks to Birds Hill Park.
Thanks for your comments, I hope this clears things up.