Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[cllew]

Maybe jimj_wpg is suggesting that its too narrow as it was probably designed for one track crossing the Red down the center of the bridge.

[Riverman]

But it isn't too narrow. It is same width as Redwood bridge which was built for cars and far wider than the Elm Park bridge which was also built for cars.

[esquire]

^ It is pretty clear to me that he thinks that two lanes are inadequate. I'd say he's right... any river crossing in Winnipeg should be 4 lanes. The old bridges like the Louise and Redwood are basically grandfathered. They would never be built like that today.

[Riverman]

The Redwood and Louise are fine at two lanes. There is never congestion on either bridge except due to the stoplight at one end of the Louise.

Don't forget the Redwood was just completely rebuilt and was determined at that time to be sufficient with two lanes.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

At most they'll widen McPhillips at the rail underpass to accommodate a little more free flow in either direction.

Originally Posted by esquire

It's simply a practical issue of having two alternative routes very close by (Salter and McPhillips), one of which (McPhillips) could be upgraded to handle more traffic at a much lower cost than a tunnel or new bridge. The Arlington Bridge doesn't get that much traffic, so it's not as though it's an essential link.

The challenge is the current McPhillips underpass is close to capacity in terms of traffic. With diamond lanes on either side for the rush hour periods even adding a third lane to the underpass will do little to address the lost capacity that uses the Arlington bridge. The Arlington bridge is also a critical release valve if something goes wrong on either Salter or McPhillips in peak rush hour periods. With the rail line just north of the underpass on McPhillips the third route is absolutely critical to keeping traffic moving. Losing McPhillips in a rush hour results in delays that make Waverly seem like a minor inconvenience.

All that is without even taking into account the growth that has gone on, and continues to go on, in the north part of the city. The smart move would be to build the new bridge/tunnel an include both AT and rapid transit as part of those plans and leave McPhillips as-is as transit can be given a jump on the underpass with some priority signals on either side.

---

In terms of the Louise bridge, here is a simple solution: make north bound traffic and forced turn onto east bound Narin and give it a protected lane there. The light would then only be needed for west bound Narin to southbound over the Louise Bridge and southbound traffic to east bound Narin. That could address the capacity issues at that intersection short term without a major infrastructure build.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The challenge is the current McPhillips underpass is close to capacity in terms of traffic. With diamond lanes on either side for the rush hour periods even adding a third lane to the underpass will do little to address the lost capacity that uses the Arlington bridge. The Arlington bridge is also a critical release valve if something goes wrong on either Salter or McPhillips in peak rush hour periods. With the rail line just north of the underpass on McPhillips the third route is absolutely critical to keeping traffic moving. Losing McPhillips in a rush hour results in delays that make Waverly seem like a minor inconvenience.

All that is without even taking into account the growth that has gone on, and continues to go on, in the north part of the city. The smart move would be to build the new bridge/tunnel an include both AT and rapid transit as part of those plans and leave McPhillips as-is as transit can be given a jump on the underpass with some priority signals on either side.

How often do we lose McPhillips underpass? This past Friday we lost quite a few of the northern underpasses, and sure it was an inconvenience, but the city didn't suddently cease to function (and this coming from someone who had to wait an additional hour and a half to get home). I disagree with your "absolutely critical" assessment, even if we lose the north-south underpasses due to some rain.

[bomberjet]

On the Louise Bridge topic, I think the City is hoping to get a realignment that will connect with Nairn Ave at Archibald. Somehow, someway. There is also talk of a road/transit bridge in conjunction with the eastern RT corridor. I think that is a non-starter as the best and most available route is through St. Boniface for RT.

My bet is Louise Bridge is closed to traffic and maintained as an AT bridge, if possible. Higgins will realign off the east end of Point Douglas and connect over top of Archibald to the Nairn overpass.

On the Arlington Bridge topic. City of Winnipeg likes tunnels and underpasses!! So that tunnel option will be looked at to the last minute. All options are expensive. Most likely thing I could see is the McPhillips option. If traffic really needs it in the future, put up a bridge from McGregor to Sherbrook.

[CoryB]

^^ The hour and a half delay to traffic was with the Arlington Bridge still being in operation. Imagine how much worse it would be with those lanes deleted. The plan to widen the McPhillips underpass benefits no one as it would only be widening the lanes for transit use.

Also, if an hour and a half delay is "acceptable" someone needs to call up city hall ASAP and tell them the Waverly underpass is no longer needed. I have never seen a delay anywhere near that long at Waverly.

---

In other road news, apparently the city had tendered a replacement of the Ness Ave bridge over Sturgeon Creek with work originally planned to start January 2016. With the development of a large sink hole near the site this past weekend and the immediate closure of Ness the city is currently investigating if the planned work can be accelerated at all. It seems this stretch of Ness will be closed until the bridge work is completed.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Also, if an hour and a half delay is "acceptable" someone needs to call up city hall ASAP and tell them the Waverly underpass is no longer needed.

I don't think you'd have any complaints about this from Steve-o.

[cllew]

If I recall properly didn't the city put out a tender earlier this year for an engineering review of flood pumping capacities at all existing underpasses?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by CoryB

All that is without even taking into account the growth that has gone on, and continues to go on, in the north part of the city. The smart move would be to build the new bridge/tunnel an include both AT and rapid transit as part of those plans and leave McPhillips as-is as transit can be given a jump on the underpass with some priority signals on either side.

The growth in the northwest quadrant of the city is more easily serviced by Keewatin than it is McPhillips for the most part anyway.

It doesn't matter what the city thinks it might like to do; It's going to come down to cost. The north end doesn't have the political capital at any level to push through ~$700MM in infrastructure improvements. They'll get the most bare-bones solution which is a widening of the McPhillips underpass and some lip-service paid to the concept of an AT bridge at Arlington which will likely never manifest. That'll be it.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by cllew

If I recall properly didn't the city put out a tender earlier this year for an engineering review of flood pumping capacities at all existing underpasses?

It will be interesting to see how well the Plessis underpass drains. That area of South Transcona is very low and prone to flooding.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

It will be interesting to see how well the Plessis underpass drains. That area of South Transcona is very low and prone to flooding.

After I avoided driving under the flooded Osborne underpass, drove down many flooded portions of St. Mary's, past the flooded Pembina underpass down a flooded Pembina Hwy, and continued to Kenaston, the Kenaston underpass was completely clear. So I'd assume these completely new builds are built to handle the flooding issue.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

It will be interesting to see how well the Plessis underpass drains. That area of South Transcona is very low and prone to flooding.

There is a dedicated pumping station and dry pond to the west of the Plessis underpass to drain it. But as you say we will have to see it in action to see how well it works. It all depends on what the max hourly rain level it was designed to pump.

I sometimes wonder how much of the underpass flooding is also due to the sewer grates to the pumps getting clogged with assorted road debris as a result of less road sweeping that was undertaken as a budget reduction measure around the Susan Thompson era.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by cllew

There is a dedicated pumping station and dry pond to the west of the Plessis underpass to drain it. But as you say we will have to see it in action to see how well it works. It all depends on what the max hourly rain level it was designed to pump.

I sometimes wonder how much of the underpass flooding is also due to the sewer grates to the pumps getting clogged with assorted road debris as a result of less road sweeping that was undertaken as a budget reduction measure around the Susan Thompson era.

The Jubilee underpass issues should be resolved with the Cockburn/Calrossie drain improvements.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by buzzg

After I avoided driving under the flooded Osborne underpass, drove down many flooded portions of St. Mary's, past the flooded Pembina underpass down a flooded Pembina Hwy, and continued to Kenaston, the Kenaston underpass was completely clear. So I'd assume these completely new builds are built to handle the flooding issue.

Not sure if Osborne has a pumping station but there is on for Kenaston on the east side but I am not sure where it discharges to.

[CoryB]

Widening the McPhillips underpass as a "replacement" for the Arlington Bridge is a complete non-starter. With diamond lanes buffer either side of the existing underpass McPhillips is effectively a four lane roadway. The existing underpass isn't the choke point on that route, the lack of extra lanes is. Spending millions to add a diamond lane each way through the underpass has almost zero benefit unless we are looking at it from a transit perspective and even then it is questionable and priority light signals would be a far cheaper solution with a similar overall impact.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Widening the McPhillips underpass as a "replacement" for the Arlington Bridge is a complete non-starter. With diamond lanes buffer either side of the existing underpass McPhillips is effectively a four lane roadway. The existing underpass isn't the choke point on that route, the lack of extra lanes is. Spending millions to add a diamond lane each way through the underpass has almost zero benefit unless we are looking at it from a transit perspective and even then it is questionable and priority light signals would be a far cheaper solution with a similar overall impact.

I'm not suggesting it's the appropriate measure, I'm just saying it won't happen. These sorts of projects are political decisions infinitely moreso than they are practical ones and the City is the least important player in this. Huge projects like this tend to be funded by the feds when they impact what are generally swing ridings and the Northwest quadrant of the city has generally been an NDP riding excepting the last few years of Kevin Lamoureux where it's projecting to stay. There's a reason the Plessis underpass was funded when it was and there's a reason the Waverley underpass was funded when it was. These are swing ridings for seats the parties concentrate on.

But none of the parties concentrate on this seat at all. The NDP care about 3 seats in this province and only two of them are even in Winnipeg. Not coincidentally, the Plessis Underpass is located in one. The Conservatives, on the other hand, they care about Manitoba and the prairies because they can't take Quebec. So the seats of Joyce Bateman and Lawrence Toet matter. And the Liberals are similar, except their two important swing ridings are in the South.

Long story short, Winnipeg North gets the shaft because of their dogged commitments to parties who don't build their base here.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ If that tunnel gets built, then the northern part of the city will have even better connections to downtown... just think, 6 car + 2 AT connections north over the CP tracks/Red River in a little over 4 km (from McPhillips Underpass to the Louise Bridge), vs. 5 car connections in a little over 5 km heading south over the Assiniboine River (from Main Street to Route 90). I presume the tunnel would be 4 lanes vs. the current 2 on the Arlington Bridge, so a substantial improvement right there.

It's noticeable how much more smoothly traffic north flows from downtown at rush hour. Definitely a perk of living on that side of the city.

It will be long enough that four lanes won't be necessary. Give it good merge lanes, and the traffic will be fine.

I do like the McPhilips widening option better. Much cheaper.

[rypinion]

Some of you will surely love this...