Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by cheswick

I see. So the Louise bridge which has the Disraeli closer than anything by the Arlington bridge should be replaced by the Arlington bridge just closed. Hmm maybe cause the Arlington bridge serves a predominantly aboriginal population while the Louise serves a white one.

The Louise Bridge and Disraeli serve completely different areas of the city, even though they are geographically close to each other. Try getting to Disraeli if you're driving from Transcona to Downtown.

For an area pushing 100,000 population there's the Louise Bridge and Provencher to cross the river toward Downtown.

Race-baiting is ignorant too. Population of the people you're talking about is quite diverse, as is the area around the Arlington Bridge. It's not as black and white as you're trying to make it. A better question might be motives related to median income.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

The Louise Bridge and Disraeli serve completely different areas of the city, even though they are geographically close to each other. Try getting to Disraeli if you're driving from Transcona to Downtown.

For an area pushing 100,000 population there's the Louise Bridge and Provencher to cross the river toward Downtown.

Race-baiting is ignorant too. Population of the people you're talking about is quite diverse, as is the area around the Arlington Bridge. It's not as black and white as you're trying to make it. A better question might be motives related to median income.

Not only that but the distance between crossing the CP rail yards from McPhillips to Salter where two good crossings are located is less than half the distance between the Redwood and the Chief Peguis Red River bridge crossings or even between the Norwood-Osborne bridges or even Osborne and Bishop Grandin Bridges!

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by cheswick

It’s 55% more traffic. That’s not nearly twice as much. Which incidentally would be about what the traffic count of a mcphlllips underpass handling all that Arlington traffic would exceed the Disraeli bridge traffic.

Cost of the Louise was Pegged at $100mm in 2011. Not sure how much that would be today.

I was looking at the numbers from a few years ago. 15,000 for Arlington, 25,000 for Louise. That's 66% more....so I guess not quite close to double, but your mileage may vary.

Even with inflation it would still be much cheaper then an Arlington bridge replacement. And as I said before, Mcphillips and Keewatin could be expanded by 1 lane each way (hopefully) to compensate for the loss of Arlington.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Totally agree, spending $300M to replace a two lane bridge that is less than a kilometre away from McPhillips is ridiculous, the Slaw Rebchuck Bridge isn’t that far the other way and isn’t exactly a heavily used bridge either! You could eliminate the Arlington Bridge and no one would notice in the long term!

How this became a race thing, a rich-poor thing or a North-South thing is completely ridiculous, it should be a common sense thing and the elimination of a vehicle crossing point between McPhillips and Salter won’t be a big deal!

Exactly.
Funny part is the alot of the north end is white seniors. So blowing the race card as its blown every single day in this province starts to lose its value.
People of aboriginal decent and now the metis ( well the fat cheif ) think using the race card will get them what they want. It does when its with the feds, but you people dont make ANY headway with the current population here always pulling the race card.
Im metis myself, and im sick of this crap. Any aboriginal person has just as much of not more help succeeding in life since school is free and grants galore. Ask any asain who are actually a huge majority of the north end if they get these perks, because tbey dont, yet they all make a living and never play the race card.

This birdge should just be turned into a bus and pedestrian bridge. Its insanity to build a huge bridge that serves a road on either side that is esentially a 1 lane each way road. Except for the section south of the bridge to mcphillips. After that its 1 lane each direction. Yes we use it as two lanes. But look it up, its just a 1 lane road.
The bridge can be repaired for buses and bikes and people onlg for a fraction of the cost. It can even be part of a rapid transit system. Leave it open to emergency vehicles. But cars can use the Salter or Mcphillips underpass.

Same as the Louis, make it a bus and ped bridge only. And eventually when that new bridge from Nairin that is supposed to connect to Higgens ever gets built, then traffic flow is solved.

I bet for the cost of the new Arlington bridge you can get the two older ones as mentioned rehabbed for what i said and get the new ridge from Nairin to Higgens done.

[Curmudgeon]

The routes providing access to McPhillips (Notre Dame and Logan) and Salter (Balmoral and Isabel) are already near or beyond capacity and certainly can't be widened. The Arlington Bridge is needed, giving McPhillips an extra lane in each direction is not sufficient. The northwestern portions of Winnipeg are growing and although not as rapidly as southwestern portions, growth in the north rural areas is much higher than that in the south. And yes, they use the roads, yes they pay taxes and yes they contribute significantly to Winnipeg's economy.

Absolute nonsense that a four lane single span bridge replacement would cost $300 million. That is about as much as the cost of the entire Disraeli Bridges project. That figure is put out for political purposes only, ie. to persuade people to reject replacement in order to facilitate further new major infrastructure projects in Fort Garry and encourage further unsustainable urban sprawl in that part of the city.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

The routes providing access to McPhillips (Notre Dame and Logan) and Salter (Balmoral and Isabel) are already near or beyond capacity and certainly can't be widened. The Arlington Bridge is needed, giving McPhillips an extra lane in each direction is not sufficient. The northwestern portions of Winnipeg are growing and although not as rapidly as southwestern portions, growth in the north rural areas is much higher than that in the south. And yes, they use the roads, yes they pay taxes and yes they contribute significantly to Winnipeg's economy.

Absolute nonsense that a four lane single span bridge replacement would cost $300 million. That is about as much as the cost of the entire Disraeli Bridges project. That figure is put out for political purposes only, ie. to persuade people to reject replacement in order to facilitate further new major infrastructure projects in Fort Garry and encourage further unsustainable urban sprawl in that part of the city.

Question: do you think that the sprawl in the northern part of the city is also unsustainable? Or do you also conveniently omit that just like that "figure is put out for political purposes only, ie. to persuade people to reject replacement in order to facilitate further new major infrastructure projects in Fort Garry and encourage further unsustainable urban sprawl in that part of the city". Asking for a friend thanks.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Question: do you think that the sprawl in the northern part of the city is also unsustainable? Or do you also conveniently omit that just like that "figure is put out for political purposes only, ie. to persuade people to reject replacement in order to facilitate further new major infrastructure projects in Fort Garry and encourage further unsustainable urban sprawl in that part of the city". Asking for a friend thanks.

Unsustainable to a lesser degree as new development in the north is far closer to the city centre and has not required massive new infrastructure like similar development in the south which was started miles away from exisiting urban development. Services are cheaper to provide for that reason as well.

Exurban development is entirely unsustainable no matter the location if the expectation is to have services on an urban level. It wouldn't be as prevalent if people didn't want to leave the city because of its myriad problems. Nothing is going well here of late, the perception of out-of-control crime, the hideously ugly developments, infrastructure falling apart even just a few years after being replaced (we're getting ripped off), weeds everywhere, even street cleaning can't be done right. Just talking to an American visitor (nice to see some are making the trip!) on the weekend and was asked why the city is so dirty and dusty. Yes, it's been a slow start to spring, and it's been relatively dry, but it's almost fuc*in' June, the clean up should be done by now.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Unsustainable to a lesser degree as new development in the north is far closer to the city centre and has not required massive new infrastructure like similar development in the south which was started miles away from exisiting urban development. Services are cheaper to provide for that reason as well.

Exurban development is entirely unsustainable no matter the location if the expectation is to have services on an urban level. It wouldn't be as prevalent if people didn't want to leave the city because of its myriad problems. Nothing is going well here of late, the perception of out-of-control crime, the hideously ugly developments, infrastructure falling apart even just a few years after being replaced (we're getting ripped off), weeds everywhere, even street cleaning can't be done right. Just talking to an American visitor (nice to see some are making the trip!) on the weekend and was asked why the city is so dirty and dusty. Yes, it's been a slow start to spring, and it's been relatively dry, but it's almost fuc*in' June, the clean up should be done by now.

Not sure I totally agree. There are problems yes, but there is still a lot of positive momentum. Insofar as the ugly developments and crumbling infrastructure are concerned (same with the late af spring cleanup), you are totally right. There simply is no excuse for that shit. I've seen enough of Fargo and Grand Forks to know that it isn't rocket science to keep a city clean and nice in our soil and climate. Ugly developments are simply on the city not keeping and enforcing better design standards and facilitating good projects when they arise.

[CoryB]

What people are failing to realize when they rush to try to minimize the northern part of Winnipeg is the south is almost 100% built out in Winnipeg. It isn't an option of just opening up a new subdivision there. And as much as you urbanists are going to put your right hand on your city planning text from university and saw "we need to put an end to sprawl" that does nothing to stop people from building new homes. If Winnipeg does a 100% veto on new home construction the folks that want it are going to go to every bedroom community just outside the Winnipeg legal boundary and build there.

It is better to allow sprawl to continue within the boundaries of Winnipeg and control where it is happening.

If you want to see sprawl outside Winnipeg's boundaries stop I would love to hear your detailed plan...

[Curmudgeon]

^^^ By no means am I saying that Winnipeg has not improved from its nadir in the early 90s, but I palpably feel that problems, which have been with us for decades, are intensifying once again in the last couple of years. Worst decision possible for the city to reduce infrastructure spending in this year's budget.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Unsustainable to a lesser degree as new development in the north is far closer to the city centre and has not required massive new infrastructure like similar development in the south which was started miles away from exisiting urban development. Services are cheaper to provide for that reason as well.

Just for fun I measured using Google Maps. The difference is not that vast. Sage Creek is only about 1 km farther from Portage and Main than Amber Trails in the NW. Bridgewater Centre is about 2 km farther.

Sprawl in the north requires just as much infrastructure spending as sprawl in the south... that's why we're hearing about Chief Peguis Trail extensions. That won't come cheap.

[bomberjet]

It goes in cycles. The City is gearing up for large projects, such as the north end wastewater plant. The City is also facing funding "challenges" from the province. I do not see where they can find $500 million for CPT. Let alone the smaller infrastructure projects.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

What people are failing to realize when they rush to try to minimize the northern part of Winnipeg is the south is almost 100% built out in Winnipeg.

There is room for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of new people in the south end of the city, without even having to extend city limits.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by CoryB

What people are failing to realize when they rush to try to minimize the northern part of Winnipeg is the south is almost 100% built out in Winnipeg. It isn't an option of just opening up a new subdivision there. And as much as you urbanists are going to put your right hand on your city planning text from university and saw "we need to put an end to sprawl" that does nothing to stop people from building new homes. If Winnipeg does a 100% veto on new home construction the folks that want it are going to go to every bedroom community just outside the Winnipeg legal boundary and build there.

It is better to allow sprawl to continue within the boundaries of Winnipeg and control where it is happening.

If you want to see sprawl outside Winnipeg's boundaries stop I would love to hear your detailed plan...

Suburbanization is not new, it's been ongoing for about 140 years in North America, in Winnipeg compare 1910s to 1950s suburban design to today's poorly designed and visually depressing suburbs with curvilinear beige streets and located far from existing commercial thoroughfares. There's a reason why you never see anyone walking in those areas.

Who's saying that we have to stop building houses in the City? No one. Let's manage growth better and also encourage infill as much as is possible, more density yes, but still suburban in quality of life for those who prefer to have a house (or townhouse, I think they will become an ever increasing share of the housing stock as the maintenance of a large single family home is becoming too expensive with increased energy and water costs) with a yard. Developing rail-based transit along existing heavily used corridors (Portage, Henderson, Main, Corydon, St. Mary's) would encourage sustainable development in existing suburbs where there's still plenty of land available for infill and increased density of population along and adjacent to the corridors themselves.

It's those blinders again, Winnipeggers seem to think that everyone else must be doing the same thing, and aren't Calgary and Edmonton (really, who wants to emulate them anyways)? Look across the Atlantic and in many American cities, there's been a shift to much more sustainable suburban design and development.

[buzzg]

It sickens me walking around downtown, Marion, Corydon, Osborne, etc. and seeing the complete and utter disregard by snowplows this past winter. The damage to curbs, sidewalks, bike racks, and street furniture is a punch in the gut.

So many brand new curbs were put it the Exchange last year (many in fall!) and they're destroyed. The city HAS TO do something about this, it's getting out of control. Even if the contractors are responsible for damage (I have little faith the city ever goes after them) there's no way they'll be able to repair everything this year.

There's huge hunks of street light bases all over the sidewalks still. So many of the decorative ones on Portage and on Main are completely destroyed.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by buzzg

It sickens me walking around downtown, Marion, Corydon, Osborne, etc. and seeing the complete and utter disregard by snowplows this past winter. The damage to curbs, sidewalks, bike racks, and street furniture is a punch in the gut.

So many brand new curbs were put it the Exchange last year (many in fall!) and they're destroyed. The city HAS TO do something about this, it's getting out of control. Even if the contractors are responsible for damage (I have little faith the city ever goes after them) there's no way they'll be able to repair everything this year.

There's huge hunks of street light bases all over the sidewalks still. So many of the decorative ones on Portage and on Main are completely destroyed.

Yeah that's a giant problem. I think politics is at the root of all our issues. There's no reason we should be doing any worse than any other city nearby.

[bomberjet]

Call the councilors, the Mayor, let them know. Email, phone, whatever. Call public works.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Unsustainable to a lesser degree as new development in the north is far closer to the city centre and has not required massive new infrastructure like similar development in the south

Having a residential street as the sole main road for the northwest part of Winnipeg is not acceptable. The closest I can think of in south Winnipeg terms is if Dunkirk was the only route with St Marys, St Annes, etc not existing.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Having a residential street as the sole main road for the northwest part of Winnipeg is not acceptable. The closest I can think of in south Winnipeg terms is if Dunkirk was the only route with St Marys, St Annes, etc not existing.

What on earth are you even talking about?!?

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

What on earth are you even talking about?!?

I believe he's talking about the fact that if you're travelling west across the northern part of the city after hitting main st on chief peguis cars must continue down a residential road, generally Leila. Other options may be Murray which is also residential.