HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2015, 3:39 AM
vjose32 vjose32 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 530
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2015, 2:09 PM
njaohnt njaohnt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 118
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 5:17 PM
vjose32 vjose32 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 530
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 5:43 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,514
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 5:51 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,815
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 6:11 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,514
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 6:20 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is online now
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 5,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjose32 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 6:24 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,470
^ 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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 6:54 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ 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.
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 7:20 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is online now
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 5,793
^ 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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 7:54 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
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..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 9:33 PM
CoryB CoryB is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 9:38 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is online now
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 5,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 9:54 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
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.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 9:57 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Exchange, Winnipeg
Posts: 1,396
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.

Last edited by rypinion; Sep 21, 2015 at 10:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 10:02 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,514
The McGregor option bypasses Arctic ice to the west. Demolishing other buildings. All the blue properties at the link are up for demo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 10:13 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,815
So then there is no need to move VEMA's shop on the east side of Sherbrook?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2015, 11:30 PM
The Jabroni's Avatar
The Jabroni The Jabroni is online now
Go kicky fast, okay!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Kingdom of Skeletor
Posts: 2,491
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 9:28 PM
vjose32 vjose32 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 530
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2015, 11:29 PM
The Jabroni's Avatar
The Jabroni The Jabroni is online now
Go kicky fast, okay!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Kingdom of Skeletor
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjose32 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:00 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.