^Again, as a maverick voice of urbanism your complaint misses the point: we should be making a better city and vehicular traffic isn't part of the recipe. But, acknowledging the reality that this is dumpy-town North America and not somewhere that does things that make sense, I'll point out that McPhillips is a traffic shit-show and we could stand to widen it anyway. Preferably with bus only lanes so those wise enough to use transit can skip the queue. Moreover, making the Arlington bridge a piece of cycling infrastructure would encourage more cycling; Arlington also has space to give over to cyclists thanks to its awkward width.
As for emergency vehicles, I've never seen a city that uses its emergency response system as inefficiently as Winnipeg, either in North America or abroad. Only in Winnipeg do you hear a dozen emergency vehicles with sirens howling converging from all directions on a cat stuck in a tree. I don't know how other cities do it, but you see far fewer emergency vehicles scrambling everywhere in every other place. I get the feeling Winnipeg's system--like everything here--is a hangover from when this place was a lot smaller. Until they fix the bald stupidity of the current system, I'll brook no arguments based on emergency vehicle access being incongruent with a nice city--especially when that argument is used to fleece the public every winter over bullshit snow routes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryEllice
Totally agree. It could be our own High Line! (sort of)
|
Exactly. Initially, closing the bridge to cars and doing a quick conversion for cyclists and pedestrians would cost almost nothing. But I'd love to see it become a High Line style park over following years. It would be a tremendous asset for redeveloping the rail yard whenever that happens.