Friday, November 27, 2009

Parking is the problem, not answer

This article was published in the Free Press today, on the subject of a growing preoccupation with creating more parking facilities in the East Exchange District, and the delusional theory that new parkades cancel surface existing parking lots.

This seems more pertinent of an issue today, when I learned that Centre Venture Development Corp. is in meetings with Man-Shield Construction about building more parkades in the Exchange District. Maybe this is the one planned for around James Avenue, maybe it's a different one, but one thing is certain, it is obvious that none of these people charged with "revitalizing" the Exchange District live there, or in a neighborhood anywhere remotely close to it.

***
Bill Redekop's story on streetcars that the Greater Winnipeg Transit Commission sold off in 1955 (and likely earlier), the year when the last routes the city: Portage, Main, and Osborne (which were also the first routes to be built) were converted to buses. Since no other city was in the business of buying aging cars for use in transit systems, they were sold for other uses. Steven Stothers, who out of his own interest has done more research on Winnipeg's street railway than anyone else, has photographed numerous cars that once rolled down Winnipeg streets, but now sit out in the country in various stages of disrepair. These photos, along with an extensive collection of archived photos of Winnipeg transit, are available on his Flickr page.

53 Comments:

Blogger John Dobbin said...

Sadly, I know people who won't go downtown for any reason because they are not confident drivers, don't know the downtown well enough to park on the street far from where they want to go, don't know how to parallel park when they do find a space or don't want to risk getting smashed from behind if they do know how to park properly. Some don't feel safe on some of the darkened gravel surface lots.

A few people who do go downtown for shopping, events often choose parkades.

10:00 PM  
Blogger Spugsley said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:56 PM  
Blogger Spugsley said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:57 PM  
Blogger Spugsley said...

Cars will continue to dominate our planning until they become prohibitively expensive. Some of the costs are already huge, but people don't realize cars are the cause. Take health care costs for example. How many people suffer from ailments that stem from a lack of exercise? If people simply drove less and walked more, it would result in huge savings in our health care system.
Unfortunately, the automobile is so deeply ingrained into our lives, it will take some serious economic shocks before we start looking to alternatives (denser living arrangements, transit, etc.)

10:58 PM  
Blogger Mr. Nobody said...

Spugsley, autos are evolving as they have since the first day they rolled off the assembly lines.

They will not go away. In fact, they will begin to become cheaper in cost and dispensability.

Your wish for denser living requires major shifts an example would be , to move the UofM downtown. Even among all these few urbanites frequenting these blogs, that is a no no. So go figure. No wonder the parking lots are the University are bursting at the seams.

11:13 AM  
Blogger Spugsley said...

@Mr. Nobody
Cars will not go away? Certainly as a mode of mass transit, they will and they must. Future resource scarcity will demand it. Or you a techno-triumphalist who assumes humans can somehow defy the laws of nature?

7:04 PM  
Blogger Mr. Nobody said...

LOL, you missing the electrical revolution taking shape in the automotive landscape.

The laws of nature will be leveraged 100 times in order to make electrical storage common place.

Think the sun charging your vehicle. What do you think will come first, your scenario of "resource scarcity" or my scenario of humans abilities to make things happen.

Less than 100 years ago who would have thought we could make tons of steel "float" and cover millions and millions of miles carrying millions and millions of people all over the planet...ahem not to mention, getting to the moon.

Cars go away, dream on. Perhaps work on getting the Uof M to move downtown and have the thousands commute and live there instead of a suburb.

10:08 PM  
Blogger Louis Riel said...

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/11/19/new-study-quantifies-high-personal-costs-of-building-ca-cities-for-cars/

2:04 AM  
Blogger Louis Riel said...

Furthermore, downtown Minneapolis is surrounded by massive (and I mean, really really massive) parkades.

And their downtown is deadsville too.

Admittedly not as bad as ours, but nowhere near as busy as Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal or any coastal city.

STOP PLANNING FOR CARS. START PLANNING FOR PEOPLE.

2:07 AM  
Blogger Spugsley said...

Thank you Riel! Here's another article from that same source that punctures the myth that electric cars will be a cure-all:
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/19/a-decidedly-dim-view-of-electric-vehicles/
Even if we could wave a magic wand to create limitless energy with no side effects (perhaps you think this is on the horizon, Mr. Nobody?), I still would be opposed to using cars for mass transit.
Cars are bad because they squander precious energy and pollute our air, true, but they also contribute to the degradation of our communities in numerous other ways, too. Think of how cars negatively affect land use. Think of how cars have negatively affected architecture. (Or perhaps you like the aesthetics of the strip mall and the Wal-Mart?)
I wish I had your boundless optimism about our future, Mr. Nobody. I fear, however, it it simply hubris to claim that technology will solve all our problems.
As for moving the U of M - why go to all the bother? We seem to agree that the downtown must densify. Why should we accomplish that goal by moving the university from it's current location? It would add extra costs and complications to a problem already fraught with plenty of the same.

9:54 AM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

The car will remain the main form of transportation in Winnipeg for some time to come. It may be expensive but it will have to rise to ever higher levels before Canadians turn away from it.

Comparing cities like Minneapolis and Toronto is always a tricky thing. Toronto never had to contend with a twin city rivalry like Minneapolis-St. Paul which has affected density levels.

As for the parking garages in Minneapolis, the city there has embarked on a robust light rail transit system to address that.

Winnipeg has to consider multiple options on attracting and keeping people downtown so that density levels rise. As I have mentioned, there are some people who won't come downtown at all because of parking. To ignore that would probably do more harm than good for the city.

The Exchange housing proposed could be a great thing. I am not going to get hung up on a parkade so long as it doesn't tear down an existing building when so much surface parking exists.

Given how busy it can get around the Concert Hall, Pantages, MTC and Warehouse, a parkade could address the issue of people endlessly circling around.

This was the issue around Health Sciences Centre. Despite opposition to the parade there, people were even angrier with the endless circling around in their neighbourhoods looking for a space.

11:21 AM  
Blogger Mr. Nobody said...

Coming from 2 cities that have massive, modern and efficient transit systems ( Montreal since 1968 and Toronto ) I can tell you without a doubt that vehicular traffic has increased in each city.

That tells us no matter how efficient we try to make a system work in this river bisected,cash strapped and tilted City, we will never have an efficient transport system the likes of most modern cities.

What we can do is make intelligent decisions. But Spugsley's response is perhaps the single biggest reason we will never have a chance.

WHY BOTHER.


Why, its simple, if you are to beleive the Uof M press, they have 25 thousand plus students attending the campus. Assuming only 10000 students go there per day, thats 50000 a week. Do the math, extrapolate all you want, in the end , the conclusion is, those people would be better served with a downtown campus, and by default, downtown would reinvent itself.



Move the Uof M, yes difficult, but not as difficult as trying to build a subway for example. A major catalyst is needed.

ANother catalyst would have been an IKEA downtown. But thats another story.

As for magic wands, how many times do you have to be knocked in the head to see that technology's pace is increasing. In less than 2 generations we went from horse and buggy to living in space. Perhaps this isn;'t impressive enough for you Spugsley, but for me, I am more than confident within 50 years we will have tackled issues that plague us today.

But I do appreciate the debate

1:22 PM  
Blogger Spugsley said...

Suburbanites don't come downtown for a lot of reasons and parking is one of those reasons. Some believe (wrongly) that there is a lack of parking. Others simply can't deal with having to look for a spot. For most, the main problem is having to pay. If given a choice, people will choose the place where parking is free, and that is the suburban mall or "power center" (big box development).
Many people are also turned off by past experiences. Lots of people go downtown, and because they are unfamiliar with the rules (or because they can't decipher the signage) they get a ticket, or worse, get towed. It's a classic case of once bitten twice shy. At the suburban mall there are no such complications, and it becomes a very simple decision.
In my opinion we have to basically give up on the idea of attracting suburbanites downtown (if we haven't already). Instead we need to focus our planning to make the downtown more habitable for the people who already live and work there. A second prong of attack is to provide more quality housing downtown. Of course, this approach requires subsidies. To those who think this is a bad plan, I would point out that suburban sprawl and automobiles already recieve massive subsidies in various forms.
In the end it is a matter of majority rule, and in my humble opinion we are already approaching the time when the car-dominated city stops working for the majority. The trick will be to educate that majority and get them to the polls come election time!

1:29 PM  
Blogger Mr. Nobody said...

Cars are bad because they squander precious energy and pollute our air

Look FORWARD Spugsley


Cars have evolved due to an experiment called the American way of life . This period began shortly after the war and raced forward for the next 50 years. Jimmy Carter's comments on oil dependency, in hindisght, may have signalled the beginning of a shift.

What we now see is smaller cars, where 3 now take the place of one large "boat" ( think Chrysler Newport circa early 70's ). What we also see is the car is fast becoming a must have personal item. Every one wants one.

That being the case, the vehicles will become smaller, think Smart Cars, lighter, and cheaper.

Vehicles will no longer be the polluters they were. But if we keep sprawling, we do nothing to help the cause. Those new residences at the U of M would have been great downtown, don't you think.

1:36 PM  
Blogger Mr. Nobody said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:36 PM  
Blogger Mr. Nobody said...

To those who think this is a bad plan, I would point out that suburban sprawl and automobiles already recieve massive subsidies in various forms.



Its not a bad plan, but yet its difficult for you to envision moving a campus that in its very existence goes completely against everything you want.

The U of M is in a suburb. Its a whore to vehicles with its massive parking lots. It sucks people out of the core every day wihtout copntributing anything to the core. And it is contributing to pollution in a major way. Building a BRT to it is a waste of precious dollars and promotes continued sprawl. If the RRC experiment has been a monumental success, why not repeat it on a grander scale.

Personally I don't get it. We have the potential to create a new core and leverage one of our biggest industry's, education.

1:43 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Since when does one line of LRT qualify as a "robust light rail system"?

How many BILLIONS would be involved in moving the U of M downtown? And for what? I hear there is already a university downtown.

How is it that Vancouver—a city smaller than Winnipeg before WWII—managed to transform a sleepy downtown into a crowded one with a population of 100k? All this with no university headquartered there.

Think before you type people.

2:02 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

Think before you type.

Minneapolis has two rail lines, the most recent finished two weeks ago. And all this started since 2004.

As for Vancouver, it was smaller than Winnipeg proper around 1901. It soared past Winnipeg long before the war in part due to the Panama Canal.

I don't recall Vancouver's downtown being sleepy. It has always been a fairly active port city.

Much of Vancouver's sprawl has been restricted by being in between the water and the mountains.

Since 2001, Vancouver has had a growing branch of UBC downtown in part because of the needs of students were not best served by the 12 kilometer commute to the main campus.

3:54 PM  
Blogger Mr. Nobody said...

How many BILLIONS would be involved in moving the U of M downtown?

I'm not sure. But you' think someone would have spent a little bit of time considering that very question before making half billion dollar bets on a bus route and god forbid , a new stadium.

How many faculties would be housed in a Hydro type Tower( 300 Million ) , 2 / 3 '/ 4...how about 6 of those towers...thats , what, 1.8 Billion.

Not a shabby addition to the core. But I don't think you can visualize what that would mean to the City's next 100 years.

11:37 PM  
Blogger urbandude said...

There have been too many owners trying to find thier own solutions to parking. Their future needs need to be coorindated.

If anything the lack of planning to parking has been the issues, and not parking itself.

Sorry, but peeople will always need to park their cars. The city just needs to do a better job.

9:39 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Hai guise! I drive too. Everywhere. Whether I'm in Manhattan, downtown Toronto, the Chicago Loop, or the Exchange District, one thing remains constant—I never park in private lots. Always on the street. For free. Anytime I feel like. Anyone with a modicum of patience and instinct can save himself a few bucks that way.

Parking is not even an issue in downtown Winnipeg. Anyone who says there's a lack of parking downtown must be a fat lazy retard that should probably be jogging instead of driving anyway.

Check your stats Mr. Dobbin. It's widely known that Winnipeg was Canada's third largest city until WWII. One look at the housing stock in each city makes that glaringly obvious.

MPLS/St. Paul built an extension to their single LRT line, not a second line. If you're talking about the Northstar commuter rail that has only ONE STOP in the city of MPLS, why don't you just include AMTRAK as part of their "system" too?

If you don't think that pre-Expo '86 Vancouver was deadsville compared to today, you should try researching Jane Jacobs's thoughts on this topic.

Rob G. is pretty much the only "urban" commentator in Winnipeg, in print or on the web, who backs up his know-it-all attitude with actual knowledge & understanding. The rest of you consistently reveal your cluelessness with nearly everything you type.

1:50 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

Dallas,

Afraid I did look at the stats on population. Vancouver's population surpassed Winnipeg in 1920. That's from Statscan.

Tourism Vancouver among many other sources repeats that information.

http://www.tourismvancouver.com/media/media_kit/background/vancouvers_timeline

My argument was that Minneapolis has had a robust LRT program based on the cash that has been put into it since 2004 and how successful it has been in ridership. You seem to disagree it has been robust but I don't know what you are measuring it against.

I was talking about the Northstar line and the expansion of the Hiawatha Line when speaking about Minneapolis in regards to rail. You have said the Northstar has one stop in Minneapolis but it serves 5 stations in communities surrounding the city and is expanding to two more.

By most standards that is a fairly robust program of mass transit serving a big city. Why so dismissive of it?

The reason I don't include Amtrak is because it is not a commuter train in Minnesota.

I have read Jane Jacobs and her concern was about the expansion of the suburbs in respect to Vancouver. The downtown was still a fairly vital area but under threat. It certainly wasn't dead. You'd have to quote me where she said such a thing.

As for the rest of your commentary, it seems you wish to act like out and namecall. You have been presented with facts and dispute them. Feel free to debate areas you think are debatable but please don't think you are on solid ground when you say Winnipeg's population was bigger than Vancouver's until World War II. You are just plain wrong.

6:38 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Nice try Dobbin. If you want to know where Jacobs said Vancouver's downtown sucked in the 1970s, try using Lexis-Nexis or something, because it was in the Globe & Mail around 2001.

In what year exactly Vancouver's CMA surpassed Winnipeg's in population is moot because it depends on what municipalities you include in those figures but there's no disputing that Winnipeg was larger into the 1930s. Wikipedia even says, "The canal reduced reliance on Canada's rail system for international trade; the real estate market slowed down, and the increase in ship traffic helped Vancouver eventually surpass Winnipeg to become Canada's third-largest city in the 1950s.[23]"

It's funny. I used to live, for 7 years, on Vancouver's Commercial Drive, where I was exposed to scores of historical photos showing comparatively dormant streets & sidewalks c.1920. In Toronto it's the same thing—look at historical photos of Queen or Yonge streets. But with Winnipeg's historical photos, it's always, "Wow! Look how lively Main Street [or Portage Ave] was back in the '20s! The overall being, other cities have advanced while Wpg keeps backsliding.

Finally, how can you call one commuter line and one LRT line a "robust" program of rail transport? What am I measuring it against? How about metro Vancouver, which has a similar population to the Twin Cities metro area and not only boasts a commuter rail line but THREE metro rail lines?

I'm also LOLing at your "circling endlessly" comment about parking around HSC or the Concert Hall. Within a New York minute I'll find a free place to park within a five minute walk of either any time of day, any day of the year

7:55 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

Nice try yourself. Please show me where Jacobs said what she said. You made the claim. Back it up.

I'm afraid Wikipedia is wrong and the footnote does not check out. Think I will stick with Statscan and continue to say you are wrong.

It is certainly debatable about whose downtown was more lively. Still waiting to see what Jane Jacobs had to say about Vancouver downtown...

Vancouver's system started in 1985 and indeed sets the world standard. Minneapolis still has a robust system based on its start in 2004, how much money has been spent and how they have surpassed its ridership goals. You seem dismissive of how much they have achieved in a short time. I wish we had as robust a system.

Our local government until recently has shown very little interest in rapid transit.

I'm surprised at you for thinking that people don't circle around the hospital and Exchange looking for free parking or in some cases: meters. I have stated clearly what the problem is for those drivers in my first response.

At the hospital, it is not unusual for the parkades to be filled and every meter taken within a few blocks of the hospital. Try visiting a family member there every day and see if you are lucky enough to find a space every time

It is no wonder some of their neighborhoods there complain about the endless circling of drivers.

In the Exchange, the problem is usually concentrated on nights when there are four or five events happening at the same time. Most times, I don't have a problem finding street parking but on busy nights, I sometimes opt for a parkade.

In any event, you can debate what I've said. Perhaps you can disagree without namecalling or acting belligerently. I can't imagine this is something you do pubicly without being called on it.

8:38 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

OMG! I have to park at a METER! Sometimes it even takes a few minutes to find and empty spot! Or I'm forced to walk a few blocks!

That mentality would be hilarious if it weren't such a transparent example of the bumpkin mentality that's Winnipeg's primary obstacle to urban revitalization despite the low unemployment and steady GDP growth.

On Jacobs: Yeah like I'm gonna dig through Lexis-Nexis for an eight-year-old G&M article just to satisfy some dude commenting on a blog. Pffft. I have it clipped at home in Winnipeg and can email you a scan when I visit this Xmas but since you're so keen to read it maybe you'll locate it yourself before then.

"Our local government until recently has shown very little interest in rapid transit."

The local government still has no interest. If you think a busway to the U of M can legitimately be called "rapid transit" then you have just 100% confirmed you're infected with the aforementioned yokelish mindset.

11:20 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

...and if you don't know how to parallel park you shouldn't be driving. FACT.

11:23 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

Dallas,

Sometimes there are no meters available around the hospitals. The Emily Street parkade and William parkades often are filled by 8 AM. Tecumseh was just built and it is often filled as well. Meters and non-metered spaces can be filled for blocks around the hospital.

It is generally easier to find meters downtown except where I have mentioned previously.

I'd still like to see the Jacobs comment. Vancouver's certainly struggled business-wise in the 1980s and mills, shipyards and foundries closed along the waterfront. The eastside is listed in Statscan even today as Canada's poorest neighbourhood. However, Vancouver never did have the mass exodus that happened in Winnipeg and a few other cities during the 1970s and 80s.

Both Vancouver and Winnipeg started development projects in the 1980s. Vancouver's has seen more success because it really focused on housing downtown.

I certainly don't think that a bus rapid transit to the U of M is the end all. It is Winnipeg cheap in terms of approaches. The only really useful aspect of it is the land purchases that create a transit corridor.

12:35 AM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

Lastly, some people can parallel park just fine. Some people who drive downtown pull up right behind you so you can't parallel park.

12:36 AM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Dobbin if you'll try Google Street View there's a (free) parking spot on Bannatyne that's 65m from the hospital. I'm sorry if that's not close enough. Maybe the helipad would suit you better.

5:47 AM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

How many times did you circle around to find it? And after 2 hours waiting in the ER, will you be able to find another as easy or will you keep circling around?

Seems to me that if you go round and round with Google Streetview, you'll find it isn't so easy.

This blanket denial that there is a problem for neighbours, staff, patients and other visitors ignores the fact the rising complaints over the issue. Try living in the neighbourhood since they made it quite clear it happens at council meetings. You would tell them it isn't happening and that people find spots right away and are not having problems?

10:14 AM  
Blogger dhansen said...

People can complain all they want but that doesn't validate their whining. Winnipeggers crying about how hard it is to park in the inner city makes about as much sense as Los Angelenos cursing the winter cold in LA. Again, I submit to you that the only ones who are "having problems" finding parking are people who are certainly impatient and most likely fat & lazy.

And if you can't stand traffic and noise then perhaps suburban living is more your style. Maybe these residents should've considered that traffic could be a factor before they moved next to the city's largest hospital.

3:05 PM  
Blogger dhansen said...

Oh and no circling required. That spot on Bannatyne was on the first block I looked at. I'm sure I could find dozens more within a 5 minute walk of the hospital. If it's an emergency, the ER has a driveway.

http://www.truwinnipeg.org/2009/12/03/street-view-reveals-the-truth-street-parking-abounds-downtown

3:09 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Dobbin, I guess you hadn't counted on Google Street View to destroy your argument, but for anyone capable of walking 300m there are about a dozen empty spots on Elgin Avenue just east of Sherbrook.

3:28 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

I guess you didn't count on the fact that Google was seen in downtown and surrounding areas on early week days and weekends to avoid traffic jams that would obstruct views of street scenes.

Check out some of the times listed on the Google photos.

As for your comment that people should move away from the hospital because people are circling their street, I thought you were interested in preserving neighbourhoods. Many of these people lived in areas that have been only in recent years affected by increases in traffic.

10:23 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Putting words in my mouth buddy. Nice try. You're basically a clueless hick. Stop posting.

2:05 AM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

It is pretty obvious why you were dismissed from the Free Press writing. You do seem to get angry a lot.

2:08 AM  
Blogger Dallas said...

You try 15 years of writing about downtown Winnipeg only to see it consistently get worse and see how much patience you have for people who complain about the lack of the very thing that has destroyed downtown Winnipeg.

8:11 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

Belligerence and insults will not go very far.

I believe in downtown development and believe the public and private sectors have let people down by spreading cities out and not protecting arable land in the surrounding areas.

I think we have wasted time in past years by not accruing land for rapid transit and bike paths for present and future needs.

I think we should do more to protect heritage buildings and make efforts to get more people to live downtown.

Still, I recognize the car is not going anywhere too soon and if housing in the Exchange goes more smoothly by converting a surface lot to a parkade, I am not going to stand in the way except to say that the city needs to be more firm on design sympathetic to the surrounding area. I certainly don't support tearing down other heritage buildings for parking when the surface lot stands near by.

There has to be an understanding of why people go downtown, what they look for, what are their needs and what prevents them from staying and living in the area.

Insulting people for having a car certainly doesn't help things.

It is like those people who say that fears about downtown security are overrated. As someone who has been assaulted or threatened downtown right beside my school, I can tell you my concern is not overrated.

8:36 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Who insulted anyone for having a car? I said I have a car. You really don't get it. It's no wonder I lost patience several posts ago.

There's no mystery why people drive from the suburbs to hang out in urban neighborhoods. They arrive to be stimulated. Parking garages aren't stimulating, and they're not going to help, and they're surely unnecessary when we have a ton of them already and plenty of parking on the street.

11:52 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

Actually, you did insult people with a car. You used inflammatory language in regards to mental health that I find repugnant and offensive. Your general belligerence and anger is something I have seen in a numerous posts. I'm not sure why you don't see it.

I have already indicated what the problem is for people coming downtown. The transit system as it now stands isn't as convenient, fast or feel as safe as a car.

For those who do come downtown, many prefer a parkade for a variety of reasons including better shelter from the elements, more spots to choose from and better security. In many safety audits, surface parking lots don't rank high with the public.

I certainly have not advocated for massive parkade building. I think I have been pretty clear that a variety of choices have to be offered to the public top create a vital downtown.

Acting out with hostility and insults does not solve the problem.

11:49 AM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Please explain what, in your expert opinion, would comprise a transit system that is as convenient, fast and as safe as a private car.

9:46 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

For shift workers who need to get to shifts before 6 am, it is not convenient to use transit. It isn't available many places. I once worked a shift that started at 6. No bus service.

For people who want fast transit, the express routes only really run certain hours on certain days from some departure points.

For safety, I can point to my own encounters at bus stops. They were not imaginary responses to crime but actual contact with it.

Having said all that, bus service here is better than some cities I have been in. However, it isn't as convenient as a car in many cases.

The things that buses do have going for them is that they are for people who don't have a licence or who don't drive, they are cheaper than actually owning and operating a car and paying for parking, they go to most major destinations on a regular schedule and they are better for the environment.

10:49 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Dobbin, that is a total non-answer, unless you actually think that having some 24-hour bus routes is all we need to do.

3:15 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

Never said I think buses should run 24 hours. I just believe a car is more convenient for some people who work earlier and later than the buses run. Or do you disagree?

10:53 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

"Please explain what, in your expert opinion, would comprise a transit system that is as convenient, fast and as safe as a private car."

You never answered. I'm beginning to think you have problems with reading comprehension.

12:29 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

I'm beginning to think you have a problem of being abusive. What is it with the insults?

I have answered your question and you are certainly free to disagree but I certainly don't want to have anything to do with you if you act like a boor.

1:23 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

The "insults" are merely accurate adjectives outlining what a pretentious buffoon you are with no opinion of any substance.

And a liar, unless you honestly, truly believe that you answered the question above. And if you still think that, re-read it.

Under the circumstances, and given the steady stream of moronic statements emanating from your keyboard, I've been more patient than anyone should be.

3:52 AM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

Once again, it is easy why the Free Press parted with you.

Abuse and insults seem to be part of every one of your responses. Perhaps you believe it is the norm given the political situation we see on Parliament Hill. I'm not quite sure.

You appear to be quite angry so I doubt anything said would quell that.

I have had to use transit quite a few times over my life as my main form of transportation. It hasn't always been convenient. I had no bus for 5 in the morning so I could arrive at 6 some place. I had a 30 minute or so wait between rush hours. Long enough that I walked along the route rather than stand in the cold if I had just missed a bus. There were no heated shelters along my entire route. A few of my stops were not exactly safe even in daytime hours since I had been assaulted at them.

What do I consider convenient? A public transit system than runs earlier than 6 am from my place. What do I consider fast? A transit system that will get me to where I want to go faster than alternatives such as a car or taxi. Let's not forget frequency of the service as part of the equation. What do I consider safe? A transit system where there are far better heated shelters given our climate and better security around some of the more frequently used bus terminus shelters.

Now, if you can't see that this is what I have been telling you a couple of times about what I consider convenient, fast and safe then nothing will.

Since we are not likely to get the gold standard of Tokyo's subway lines, the least I can hope for is a service in Winnipeg that improves on the basic items I listed.

Acting like a boor and a bully has probably landed you in trouble more than once. I have no idea why you do it but I'd rather not have anything to do with you when you do.

10:06 AM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Vague, vague, vague. Once again, a non-answer. Once again, you've described what a good transit system isn't, not what it is.

And you're the boor. You're the guy with problems. Because you're the one with the ad hominem, off-topic attacks. I don't know a thing about you, and if I did I wouldn't be like, "No wonder your wife left you—look how annoyingly arrogant you are." Nope, I'm just criticizing what you've written and the way you think, both of which would accurately be described as unclear, uninformed, and indeed arrogant, given the way you try to posture as authoritative while revealing your overall ignorance of your subject.

And you call yourself "a writer"? You're simply jealous because even if you tried you couldn't come close to accomplishing what I have in publishing. You might want to consider that I might have been completely over writing about the decline of downtown Winnipeg week after week. I think I'd rather jump off the Louise Bridge than make a 70-year career out of it like Val Werier. But it's fun to come here on occasion and spar with the clueless bumpkins who post their say-nothing "opinions" as though they were gospel.

6:19 PM  
Blogger John Dobbin said...

It does seem you have anger issues and other problems. I wish you well but I certainly won't have anything to do with you from here on in.

6:48 PM  
Blogger Dallas said...

Haha—couldn't resist one last ad hominem dig after getting your ass handed to you huh Dobbin?

You'd be wise not to debate with me, especially when you can't even accurately articulate your position.

1:25 AM  
Blogger MacD said...

Comparing Vancouver to Winnipeg is like comparing San Francisco to Des Moines. Pointless.

6:38 PM  
Blogger henrylow said...

Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.


www.onlineuniversalwork.com

8:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home