Site Accessibility Information Access Key 1 to Skip to Top Navigation Access Key 2 to Skip to the Three One One link Access Key 3 to Skip to City of Winnipeg Main Menu Access Key 4 to Skip to Left Navigation Menu Access Key 5 to Skip to Content area Access Key 6 to Skip to Right Sidebar content area Access Key 7 to Skip to Footer Links
City of Winnipeg
|  Link to the City of Winnipeg French websiteFrançais  |

Public Works

Public Open House #1 Summary

Preliminary Design and Public Consultation for Route 90 from Taylor Avenue to Ness Avenue

Public Open House #1 Summary

Public Open Houses for the Route 90 Study were held at Carpathia School on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 and at CanadInn Polo Park on Thursday, January 29, 2009. Story boards were displayed at the open houses providing background on the study and displaying five options for accommodating current and future demands on Route 90 between Ness and Taylor. The five options are available for viewing on this web site. Approximately 400 people attended the Open Houses and about 200 feedback forms were submitted on the corridor plans. About 140 feedback forms were submitted on the Active Transportation elements. Information submitted on these feedback forms and through this website will provide valuable input into the study. General Comments provided by attendees of Open House #1 are available in the project documents section on the right side of this page.

Road Improvement Options:

Participants viewed project information concerning five general options for widening Kenaston Boulevard. These options included:

Respondent Information

  • 86% of respondents indicated they use the corridor frequently (almost every day or several times a week).
  • About 65% of respondents indicated they live immediately adjacent to or within 3 to 4 blocks of the study corridor. Another 19% of respondents indicated they lived in various locations throughout Winnipeg.
  • Relatively few respondents indicated that they work in the area (about 10%) and also only a few work in southwest Winnipeg (about 10%).

General Response to Roadway Upgrades

  • Over three quarters (77%) of respondents felt roadway upgrades should be made to improve traffic flow. About 1 in 10 (10%) felt that no improvements should be made.
  • Over two thirds (67%) of respondents felt roadway upgrades to improve non-vehicular access should be made. Only about 1 in 5 (19%) felt that no non-vehicular improvements should be made.
  • About 8 of every 10 respondents (81%) felt upgrades to improve transit either ‘should be made’ (60%) or ‘maybe’ should be made (21%).

General Preferences

  • The results of option ranking exercises indicate that Option 1 (Widen West Side) and Option 4 (Widen on Alternating Sides) were the two most preferred (or least opposed) options by respondents.
  • Option 3 (Widen Both Sides) was consistently identified as the ‘middle preferred’ option, with a moderate number of respondents indicating either that they preferred or did not prefer the option.
  • While many people indicated Option 5 (One Way Pair) was a very attractive option, an approximately equal number of respondents indicated it was a very unattractive option.
  • Option 2 (Widen East) was the least preferred option.

General Rationale for Preferences

General verbal commentary provided to the Study Team by respondents suggests that there is likely a direct relationship between respondents’ home location and how they perceive the various options; based on the potential of losing their home (through acquisition) or the potential of increased or decreased traffic near their home.

Numerous comments were provided concerning all five of the options by various respondents. These included concerns regarding the effect of each option on various topics including:

  • Property values
  • Impact to adjacent homes
  • Impact to neighbourhood
  • Noise
  • Pollution

A number of respondents also questioned the need for the project for reasons including:

  • Scepticism regarding the potential to accommodate traffic volumes and increased flow.
  • Desire to encourage other forms of transportation.
  • Desire to spend municipal funds on other forms of city improvements.

The table below summarizes some of the key specific reasons respondents cited for supporting or objecting to the various options.

Option Reasons Cited for Supporting Reasons Cited for Objecting
Option 1 (Widen West) Fewest losses of homes. Least disruption. Houses on west are in poorer condition. DND acquisition easier. Least expensive. Loss of homes. Effects on MB Youth Centre. Poor connectivity for Active Transportation. Bridge access not as good as Option 2.
Option 2 Widen East) No substantial supporting reasons offered. Extensive acquisition. Impacts many homes. High density housing difficult to remove. Displacement of two storey homes – difficult to find comparable in neighbourhood. Ignores more readily available DND lands. Poor Connectivity for Active Transportation.
Option 3 (Widen Both) Best opportunity for buffering. Provides most opportunity to ‘do it right’ - already disrupting anyway. Provides further expansion opportunity for future. Expropriation too extensive. More than needed.
Option 4 (Alternating) Impacts fewer occupied homes. Acquisition is mainly government lands. No impact to multi-family, Manitoba Youth Centre or Canada Post. Loss of homes. Limited opportunity to ‘do it right’ [vs. Option 3].
Option 5 (One-Way Pair) Fewest buildings removed. Least impact during construction. Opportunity for more than 3 lanes in either direction. Opportunity for Active Transportation. No road there now. Effects people living on quiet streets. Highest number of affected properties. Creates an ‘island effect’. Access to Carpathia School and access to side streets more difficult. New construction taking place. One-ways not preferred. Limited buffer opportunity.

Overview of Respondent Suggestions

Numerous respondents made specific suggestions concerning ways to improve traffic flow other than widening. These included:

  • Synchronization or other adjustment of signals, including removal of signals.
  • Adjustments to left turn storage lanes (including removal).
  • Removal or reduction of truck traffic on this section of Route 90.
  • Limiting access on and off Kenaston Boulevard.
  • Adding grade separations at key intersections.
  • Adjustments to speed limits.
  • Adjusting the alignment of bridge approaches.

Numerous respondents made other specific suggestions regarding Route 90 including:

  • Traffic calming measures on adjacent streets.
  • Noise attenuation.
  • Landscaping and berming within an expanded corridor.
  • Construct changes to anticipate future growth.

There was significant support for making transit operational improvements as well as specific suggestions regarding transit operations, including:

  • More frequent service.
  • Allow for future Rapid Transit improvements.
  • Use of the former CN Rail line for transit operations.
  • Allow express buses only.
  • Add bus lanes and pull-outs.

On July 16, 2009 a very productive Active Transportation Workshop was held at the Viscount Gort. The results of this workshop will be used to develop Active Transportation opportunities within the study area and will be presented at the next Open House event.

Next Steps

Over the coming months, the options for improving Route 90 will be evaluated and conceptual designs will be prepared.

Option Evaluation:

The five (5) options for road improvement are being subjected to “matrix evaluation” employing quantitative and qualitative criteria including: traffic operations, intersection alterations, access implications, St. James Bridge impacts; pedestrian accommodation, safety and convenience, vehicular safety, transit improvements, Active Transportation opportunities, street aesthetics, property impacts, and neighbourhood impacts. Each of the options will be assigned a numerical ranking indicating their success in meeting the evaluation criteria. This evaluation, along with the ideas and information obtained from the feedback forms, will be used to short-list three (3) options for further consideration. This step in the planning process is currently underway.

Conceptual plans for the options judged to be superior in terms of achieving the study goal of improving Route 90 for all users of the corridor, along with details on the evaluation process, will be reviewed with Study Stakeholders and with the general public at Open Houses to be scheduled for sometime in the autumn of 2009.


Further Information

For inquiries, please contact
Phone, email, fax: 311

Media Inquiries Please Call: 204-986-6000


Last update: January 18, 2016