Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure - Page 275

OTA in Winnipeg · #**5481** Posted **May 4, 2020, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Weren't a bunch of houses already demolished along Kenaston. Not sure if it was for the widening or just related to the barracks thing. Maybe a bit of both.

Yes. A lot of them. A few sticking out that are probably still to go. Looked like they were still lived in. Demolition still going on at the former barracks. Drove by last weekend.

rrskylar · #**5482** Posted **May 5, 2020, 3:18 AM**

So the city has decided to patch together the Arlington Bridge for under a million instead of going ahead with a replacement to the tune of $320 M on route that aside from the two rush hours see's minimal traffic.

buzzg · #**5483** Posted **May 5, 2020, 3:38 AM**

Good

cllew · #**5484** Posted **May 5, 2020, 12:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

So the city has decided to patch together the Arlington Bridge for under a million instead of going ahead with a replacement to the tune of $320 M on route that aside from the two rush hours see's minimal traffic.

Cost less to fix the Arlington bridge for another few years, than demolish it if they can't find the money to replace the bridge?

YWG-RO · #**5485** Posted **May 5, 2020, 12:34 PM**

With traffic down so much, the potential for a long term change in business practices (work from home) and less commercialism / materialism; this makes a lot of sense. Not to mention there’s no money and governments are spending at 10 x previous deficit levels.

esquire · #**5486** Posted **May 5, 2020, 12:41 PM**

Replacing the Arlington Bridge seems like silliness when there is a bridge less than one mile west and an underpass less than half a mile east. It would make more sense to use a portion of that amount to widen the McPhillips underpass to six lanes and then use the savings elsewhere.

If the Arlington Bridge didn't exist absolutely no one would be arguing to build it, but since we inherited it there is a feeling that it should be maintained for all time even though there is no great need for it given the practical alternatives nearby.

Authentic_City · #**5487** Posted **May 5, 2020, 2:15 PM**

I think it’s important to maintain a pedestrian crossing at Arlington, but for sure, vehicles can easily go around. Why not convert the Arlington bridge to a pedestrian and cycling route. Surely that would be less costly to maintain and it would provide a useful connection in the cycling network.

esquire · #**5488** Posted **May 5, 2020, 2:25 PM**

^ I would agree with that. Turning the Arlington Bridge into an AT route would allow it to remain in use by the people for whom detouring to the other crossings would be most impractical (pedestrians and cyclists), while drivers could easily zip over a short distance east or west to get past the CP line. Arlington is so lightly used by cars that I just don't think it makes sense to spend all that money on a costly bridge there, of all places.

pspeid · #**5489** Posted **May 5, 2020, 2:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

I think it’s important to maintain a pedestrian crossing at Arlington, but for sure, vehicles can easily go around. Why not convert the Arlington bridge to a pedestrian and cycling route. Surely that would be less costly to maintain and it would provide a useful connection in the cycling network.

It's a good idea, but remember how some drivers squealed indignation at the thought of merely being delayed at Portage & Main? Telling some drivers to take an alternate route would cause a loud and annoying backlash, and unfortunately Bowman has shown he doesn't deal with backlashes well.

Yep, still bitter.....

buzzg · #**5490** Posted **May 5, 2020, 3:33 PM**

I like the widen McPhillips option as well.

rrskylar · #**5491** Posted **May 5, 2020, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Replacing the Arlington Bridge seems like silliness when there is a bridge less than one mile west and an underpass less than half a mile east. It would make more sense to use a portion of that amount to widen the McPhillips underpass to six lanes and then use the savings elsewhere.

If the Arlington Bridge didn't exist absolutely no one would be arguing to build it, but since we inherited it there is a feeling that it should be maintained for all time even though there is no great need for it given the practical alternatives nearby.

Completely agree, McPhillips and Salter can handle any traffic that no longer will go over the Arlington Bridge!

The city foolishly spent money on the McPhillips recently without increasing capacity, they should have killed two birds with one stone and spent money on upgrading it to 6 lanes while/when they were doing the work lowering the roadway! More piss more planning from your City of Winnipeg.

Biff · #**5492** Posted **May 25, 2020, 2:38 PM**

There will be more former PPCLI houses demolished along Kenaston Blvd shortly. 13 more will come down this summer along the west side of Kenaston. That will leave 21 remaining out of approximately 61 on the west side.

plrh · #**5493** Posted **May 25, 2020, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

There will be more former PPCLI houses demolished along Kenaston Blvd shortly. 13 more will come down this summer along the west side of Kenaston. That will leave 21 remaining out of approximately 61 on the west side.

I thought those houses would have had some value in being moved to new properties and not just torn down. Perhaps I am naive.

esquire · #**5494** Posted **May 25, 2020, 3:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by plrh

I thought those houses would have had some value in being moved to new properties and not just torn down. Perhaps I am naive.

Those are pretty small and modest houses with around 60 years of wear and tear on them... it's hard to imagine that it would be more economical to move them than to just build new ones to modern specs.

buzzg · #**5495** Posted **May 25, 2020, 4:18 PM**

Many of them also had no basement, they were just built on slabs after the war.

buzzg · #**5496** Posted **May 27, 2020, 8:34 PM**

Has anyone come across the actual designs for Carlton and Hargave north of Portage yet? Both being ripped up now and I'm curious to see how the bike lanes are being integrated.

ywgwalk · #**5497** Posted **May 28, 2020, 1:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg

Has anyone come across the actual designs for Carlton and Hargave north of Portage yet? Both being ripped up now and I'm curious to see how the bike lanes are being integrated.

There's so much room to work with on Carlton. Won't happen but they could easily fit a treed "boulevard" between a bike lane and traffic. Right now Carlton north of Portage is void of street/sidewalk trees.

buzzg · #**5498** Posted **May 28, 2020, 3:48 AM**

Hargrave is also way overbuilt.

The Jabroni · #**5499** Posted **May 29, 2020, 5:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Completely agree, McPhillips and Salter can handle any traffic that no longer will go over the Arlington Bridge!

The city foolishly spent money on the McPhillips recently without increasing capacity, they should have killed two birds with one stone and spent money on upgrading it to 6 lanes while/when they were doing the work lowering the roadway! More piss more planning from your City of Winnipeg.

Perhaps. It would have been nice to have that extra lane on each side, and have CP Rail squeeze out more money to do that to assist on that underpass.

Oh well.

bomberjet · #**5500** Posted **May 29, 2020, 1:33 PM**

Regarding CP. Railways would have agreed to a crossing originally. Not sure what exactly the agreement at McPhillips was.

Say it was for four lanes with no sidewalks and CP agreed to pay for 10% of the project.

If the City wants to expand to 6 lanes and add pathways on both sides, CP will only contribute 10% for the 4 lanes worth of the project. They ain't paying anything extra to be a good citizen I'll tell you what.