SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Manitoba & Saskatchewan (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   Arlington Bridge | Winnipeg | Proposed (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=218782)

vjose32 Sep 12, 2015 3:39 AM

Arlington Bridge | Winnipeg | Proposed
 
So finally the city has announced plans to replace this bridge, which is long overdue.

The biggest question is the future plans. Personally I think that widening the McPhillips underpass would be a colossal waste of money unless diamond lanes are eliminated as they just serve to cause backlogs. It would seem nobody studied traffic issues when they decided to do that.

I think it would be far more intelligent to finally connect McGregor to Sherbrooke and eliminate the unnecessary detours and traffic backlogs that causes while removing some traffic from Isabel/Salter and Arlington at the same time. Surely this idea could only improve traffic flow which is terrible in these areas during rush hour.

njaohnt Sep 13, 2015 2:09 PM

They should just improve traffic around Salter and McPhillips, another crossing is not necessary. It will be economically a bad idea to spend so much money on something that won't save people much time. However, I do think it will be less of a waste of money than the second phase of the transitway.

vjose32 Sep 21, 2015 5:17 PM

Sorry but replacing the bridge with a 2 lane span seems like a waste of money. 4 lanes would be best, if not 3 would be ok.

bomberjet Sep 21, 2015 5:43 PM

The proposed plan for the bridge is located here:
http://www.connectwinnipeg.ca/

Sounds like they're going to rebuild the bridge at the same location. A 2 or 3 lane bridge with AT and sidewalks. At some point in the future (never) McPhillips will be widened or the tunnel will go ahead.

It would seem possible to build a bridge instead of the tunnel. So not sure why's it's being pushed. Huge project either way.

cllew Sep 21, 2015 5:51 PM

I wonder if this is why Jim Malloway is getting all worked up about the Louise Bridge. Maybe he thinks the Arlington project will go ahead before his favoured one.

bomberjet Sep 21, 2015 6:11 PM

I suspect Lousie Bridge will be coming up in the near future as part of the east transit corridor. From what I've heard, the RFP for that is supposed to be coming out soon. How soon is soon, I'm not sure.

drew Sep 21, 2015 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vjose32 (Post 7161138)
So finally the city has announced plans to replace this bridge, which is long overdue.

The biggest question is the future plans. Personally I think that widening the McPhillips underpass would be a colossal waste of money unless diamond lanes are eliminated as they just serve to cause backlogs. It would seem nobody studied traffic issues when they decided to do that.

I think it would be far more intelligent to finally connect McGregor to Sherbrooke and eliminate the unnecessary detours and traffic backlogs that causes while removing some traffic from Isabel/Salter and Arlington at the same time. Surely this idea could only improve traffic flow which is terrible in these areas during rush hour.

There is a building in the way now...

We (either my wife or I) use the Arlington bridge every weekday to get to and from daycare.

I think besides the awesome factor of the approach angles and how taking them at speed makes the kids laugh - it does still serve a need, and will be missed greatly if it's gone.

McPhillips and Salter are both not really needing any more traffic, and neither is Main Street for that matter.

If the bridge can be replaced relatively simply, I think that remains the best option.

esquire Sep 21, 2015 6:24 PM

^ The funny thing is that Arlington north of the tracks is really not that busy of a street. If the Arlington Bridge didn't previously exist there is zero chance that it would get built.

My opinion may be in the minority here, but I'm of the view that it wouldn't really be missed much if it disappeared. Rebuild the McPhillips underpass to 6 lanes (or ideally 8 with 2 diamond lanes) and you basically kill two birds with one stone as that underpass will eventually have to be replaced anyway, and leave the Arlington as an AT bridge for as long as it will remain standing safely.

rrskylar Sep 21, 2015 6:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 7171525)
^ The funny thing is that Arlington north of the tracks is really not that busy of a street. If the Arlington Bridge didn't previously exist there is zero chance that it would get built.

My opinion may be in the minority here, but I'm of the view that it wouldn't really be missed much if it disappeared. Rebuild the McPhillips underpass to 6 lanes (or ideally 8 with 2 diamond lanes) and you basically kill two birds with one stone as that underpass will eventually have to be replaced anyway, and leave the Arlington as an AT bridge for as long as it will remain standing safely.

You nailed it. Waste of time and money to replace the Arlington Bridge, McPhillips to 6 six lanes with new underpass is where the money should go!

Read TrueVike's article on the railyards and while he does bring up some good points, it's NEVER going to happen.

drew Sep 21, 2015 7:20 PM

^ that only works if they widen the McPhillips underpass BEFORE the bridge is decommissioned.

We all know the chances of that happening. And when it doesn't, it won't happen. If you catch my meaning.

Cyro Sep 21, 2015 7:54 PM

This gives you a reasonabley accurate breakdown for traffic numbers and use of the 3 routes being discussed.

Currrently: Vehicle Usage
McPhillips Underpass 44 K daily
Slaw Rebchuck 33 K
Arlington Bridge: 14 K + Non ability to Handle Large Trucks, Heavy Loads or Transit, AT usage is difficult, I'd also assume the HSC's location is also a major factor in connectivity between the North and South.(HSC and speed of arrival crucial)

Just some considerations to contemplate when deciding if this bridge should be demolished and other routes chosen to pick up the slack..of course tax $$ as well..

CoryB Sep 21, 2015 9:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 7171525)
Rebuild the McPhillips underpass to 6 lanes (or ideally 8 with 2 diamond lanes) and you basically kill two birds with one stone as that underpass will eventually have to be replaced anyway, and leave the Arlington as an AT bridge for as long as it will remain standing safely.

McPhillips underpass actually had a major repair about 5-10 years ago.

That said, any plan to change the capacity of the McPhillips underpass is an absolute waste of money. With the road capacity hard fixed to six lanes on either side of the underpass and two of those dedicated to diamond lanes pushing traffic through the underpass quicker doesn't solve any issue when it immediately hits a bottle neck and needs to squeeze back into two lanes each direction. If there is an issue with the McPhillips underpass transit priority signal lights on either side would be a fair cheaper solution that would have a very similar impact to adding lanes.

In terms of the options on the table the McGregor/Sherbrooke connection is the only one that makes sense. I am not sure why they are proposing a tunnel instead of a bridge but I am sure both were considered and the tunnel was selected as the most viable.

Also I had not previously though of it but the connection to HSC is going to play a heavy role in the discussions on the Arlington bridge decommissioning.

drew Sep 21, 2015 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB (Post 7171833)
McPhillips underpass actually had a major repair about 5-10 years ago.

That said, any plan to change the capacity of the McPhillips underpass is an absolute waste of money. With the road capacity hard fixed to six lanes on either side of the underpass and two of those dedicated to diamond lanes pushing traffic through the underpass quicker doesn't solve any issue when it immediately hits a bottle neck and needs to squeeze back into two lanes each direction. If there is an issue with the McPhillips underpass transit priority signal lights on either side would be a fair cheaper solution that would have a very similar impact to adding lanes.

In terms of the options on the table the McGregor/Sherbrooke connection is the only one that makes sense. I am not sure why they are proposing a tunnel instead of a bridge but I am sure both were considered and the tunnel was selected as the most viable.

Also I had not previously though of it but the connection to HSC is going to play a heavy role in the discussions on the Arlington bridge decommissioning.

There is a building in the way.

Arctic Ice has their headquarters located right where any new bridge or under pass would terminate on Sherbrook.

I guess the City could expropriate, but there is that issue.

Riverman Sep 21, 2015 9:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB (Post 7171833)
In terms of the options on the table the McGregor/Sherbrooke connection is the only one that makes sense. I am not sure why they are proposing a tunnel instead of a bridge but I am sure both were considered and the tunnel was selected as the most viable.

Also I had not previously though of it but the connection to HSC is going to play a heavy role in the discussions on the Arlington bridge decommissioning.

No.

Count the number of traffic lights between Logan and Notre Dame on Arlington. Then do the same on Sherbrook. Nuff said.

rypinion Sep 21, 2015 9:57 PM

Anyone know the single direction rush hour usage of the Arlington Bridge? Presumably that is the capacity we'll have to add elsewhere as non-rush hour or opposite direction traffic should be able to take McPhillips, Salter, or Main without bottlenecking.

bomberjet Sep 21, 2015 10:02 PM

The McGregor option bypasses Arctic ice to the west. Demolishing other buildings. All the blue properties at the link are up for demo.

cllew Sep 21, 2015 10:13 PM

So then there is no need to move VEMA's shop on the east side of Sherbrook?

The Jabroni Sep 23, 2015 11:30 PM

I drive to work every morning by taking that bridge, and I can tell you, it's busy, but mainly because it's single lane each way on that bridge. Funny enough, I feel safe crossing that bridge every morning, but I know it definitely needs to be replaced or demolished at this point.

And to be honest, I don't know what to think. There are so many proposals about this bridge, whether it will be replaced, or if a brand new bridge from McGregor to Sherbrook will replace Arlington, or more intriguingly, a tunnel that goes underneath the yards.

Widening the McPhillips underpass alone, to me anyway, won't change the existing traffic conditions. Even if they did, the curb lane will basically be an expanded diamond lane during rush hour, so it makes everything moot. If anything, they need to increase the time that needs to be green on the traffic lights along Logan on the intersections of McPhillips, Keewatin, and Route 90. Traffic is backed up on McPhillips, Keewatin, and Route 90, because of those lights along Logan and the respective intersections mentioned above.

vjose32 Sep 24, 2015 9:28 PM

Either way Arlington Bridge should be no less than 3 lanes, to allow left hand turns, allow emergency vehicles to get by, and in case someone inevitably breaks down on the bridge. I also don't think they need bicycle lanes on both sides, one side should be enough.

The Jabroni Sep 24, 2015 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vjose32 (Post 7176235)
Either way Arlington Bridge should be no less than 3 lanes, to allow left hand turns, allow emergency vehicles to get by, and in case someone inevitably breaks down on the bridge. I also don't think they need bicycle lanes on both sides, one side should be enough.

The problem is the steepness of the ramps on both ends. If they were going to replace the bridge with a new one, you're going to run into some problems on both ends if it were to follow today's codes, guidelines, regulations, and the Highway Traffic Act. There will be buildings and homes affected on both sides, if it were to be replaced with a bridge with three lanes.

Then again, what am I to know. I'm no engineer, but whatever happens to the Arlington Bridge, people are going to be affected by it, one way or another.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.