TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FOR THE TRUE NORTH CENTRE: PERCEPTION VS. REALITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new multi-use entertainment complex, the True North Centre, is currently under construction in downtown Winnipeg on the site of the former Eatons building. Before construction of the complex could begin, several approvals were applied for and granted by the City of Winnipeg. Among the application supporting documents was a review of transportation issues related to the proposed facility. A common public perception existed that insufficient parking and traffic capacity was available to support this type of facility in downtown Winnipeg. Traffic, parking, transit, and pedestrian issues were examined in order to report on the actual situation as opposed to the perceptions. This paper looks at specific issues that were evaluated for the True North Centre from the perspective of fitting a facility of this nature into a well-established downtown area. For patrons of a multi-use entertainment complex, parking is a primary consideration that can a facility's viabilitiy. Patrons are looking for parking that is available close to their destination, easy to access and reasonably priced. One of the primary obstacles that needed to be overcome with the True North Centre was the perception that a large supply of reasonably priced, accessible parking was not available close to the proposed facility. To overcome perceptions regarding parking at a downtown entertainment complex, the proponents had to take advantage of inherent excess capacity in the downtown system that would be available during off-peak hours. Numerous concerns were also raised that streets would be over capacity if a large facility were built in the downtown instead of a suburban location. The study identified excess capacity in the downtown arterial system that was built to handle weekday peak volumes. The paper will illustrate how the existing excess capacity can accommodate the expected demand with the new complex without requiring construction of new parking facilities or additional street capacity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".