HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2016, 8:23 PM
Urban recluse Urban recluse is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,004
It is pretty grotesque.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2016, 8:24 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,559
As far as the lanes go, the city never misses the opportunity to turn bridges into mini-freeways so I'm not terribly surprised by that. Super long turning lanes, yield lanes that maximize the chances of pedestrian carnage by allowing people to barrel through without slowing down... at this point I don't expect any different from the city. The goofy park is just too much for me, though.

I'm neither here nor there on the arch... yeah it's purely decoration, but at least it's something. Otherwise it'll look just like the Slaw Rebchuk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2016, 8:52 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,678
Let's be clear, that design is by no means final. This is still in public consultation phase. But it is rather ugly, with the useless arch. Either make it truly function or get rid of it.

The turning lanes are not excessive. The one I see in the image at Logan is designed specifically to reduce traffic speed, making it safer for pedestrians. It runs straighter into Logan, as opposed to having curves to allow traffic to navigate the corner. Vehicles almost need to stop, check, then continue on. This is the same type of design that was used at Henderson and Talbot. The merge access points that are horrendous for traffic. Actually more dangerous for traffic. Same right turn cut-offs were also used at Molson and Concordia. Two local projects to myself that I use frequently. Logan and McPhillips has a right turn cut-off designed the older style (even though it's relatively new). More round and easier for cars to maintain speed.

There isn't even a right turn cut-off going from Logan to NB lanes on the bridge. Just a basic intersection. To be honest, it's actually a pretty good design. On the road side of things.

I'm going to assume that the public wanted either greenspace or some form of public plaza. Looks like the kids wanted skateboard parks, so they got one. That's what happens when the City listens to the public. They get things like that. Good idea, okay. Bad execution. They must be using up all the land they had to purchase from Minhas. The new bridge is going to the west of existing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2016, 9:04 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,559
^ Yeah, wow. Minhas did well for itself. Bought a warehouse, demolished it, sell/sold to City for a tidy profit.

Anyway, I think you're way too kind to the City. Here's what I'd do:

-Get rid of the yield lane for starters. This is not a freeway and those things encourage drivers to roll through as fast as possible. Force people to actually TURN.

-Get rid of the abysmal park. If you want a skatepark, put it somewhere that people actually live, not stashed between a truck route and railyard. Use the space for a building.

-Decorative element is fine, kind of an homage to the old Arlington Bridge and the original Ray Wan stadium design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2016, 9:07 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 10,472
Here's what I'd do: nothing.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2016, 9:11 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ Yeah, wow. Minhas did well for itself. Bought a warehouse, demolished it, sell/sold to City for a tidy profit.

Anyway, I think you're way too kind to the City. Here's what I'd do:

-Get rid of the yield lane for starters. This is not a freeway and those things encourage drivers to roll through as fast as possible. Force people to actually TURN.

-Get rid of the abysmal park. If you want a skatepark, put it somewhere that people actually live, not stashed between a truck route and railyard. Use the space for a building.

-Decorative element is fine, kind of an homage to the old Arlington Bridge and the original Ray Wan stadium design.
I'd be fine if they got rid of the turn lane. They're just following the design standards I'm assuming. The cool architectural stuff they show seems quite expensive. Large, thick concrete elements aren't cheap. If they could make something not too expensive look nice, I'd be okay with that.

Here's a link for anyone interested on the turning lane stuff. It's a document about walkability. I see a lot of the elements going into the exchange streetscaping talked about in the doc.

http://www.ite.org/css/online/DWUT10.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2016, 11:11 PM
buzzg buzzg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,159
I don't think they advertise/sell the Minhas/Lakeshore creek brands anymore, but they own and brew Boxer Beer, which is really starting to grow. Why people buy it I cannot answer. Brewhouse is much better and just as cheap.

Also, sorry for veering off topic, but on the topic of intersections I love what the city is doing in the Exchange. I think they should also put curb bumpouts on the one-way streets downtown on the side that you cannot turn to. Having it in the right hand lane on Donald @ Graham has definitely made a difference and people don't rip through that intersection as fast as before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2016, 5:11 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,678
This was posted on Twitter today by CBC.

https://twitter.com/CBC/status/710149656085274625

CBC ‏@CBC 7m7 minutes ago
Don't mess with the Beer Baroness. Watch @manjitminhas tonight on @CBCDragon. #cbcdragonsden #loveCBC

Lol get outta here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2016, 5:16 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 10,472
I don't know who would seek business advice from a nepotism case infamous for making the worst beer of all time.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2016, 7:31 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,678
http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...ouseBOARDS.pdf

Link to the open house boards. I think I gained more knowledge from the photo that was posted than from the actual boards. there's nothing new in there and it doesn't even show the rendering of the bridge they had sent out with the notice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2016, 7:46 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,559
^ Not surprising. Not to be too much of a harpy but I find these open houses for transportation and development projects to be exercises in providing as little information as the City and Province can get away with. At least they have finally, FINALLY started putting this information online vs. the old approach of the old one-time only Wednesday night open house at a Legion where if you couldn't make it out you'd never see the boards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2016, 8:04 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,678
They really are just a show put on so people have a chance to complain. This one has been more interactive. I didn't attend any of the sessions myself. The Chief Peguis West study has had a couple sessions where they invite the public to sit down in groups and go over ideas. What is everyone doing now, how will the project affect locals, what can we do to minimize it wihtout compromising the whole project (ie: keep NIMBY's in check).

That's a better approach than just posting some pictures of what you're going to do. Then when people ask questions, you basically call them stupid because the engineers said so. And for those that don't know, I'm in transportation engineering and still feel that way!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2016, 10:11 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,886
The Hydro HQ open house was a really great experience. They had boards in a well light room on each site and talked about pros and cons for each one. You could then talk directly with people involved with the project.

Was at another open house for a different project were a small group was trying to minimize information that was shared. They didn't plan to have a presentation, just a drop in and look at the boards. The turn out though quickly cornered one of the project team and the crowd started to gather around and it turned into an improvised presentation. That said, the lack of information sharing ended up killing the project before the shovel hit the ground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2016, 3:05 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,678
There are a number of other renders posted on the City website now. Along the right hand menu.

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...s/cprYards.stm

They have variations of the bridge. From a basic steel girder bridge to one of the fancy arch truss bridges. It looks like the centre span is longer.

If they go with the basic steel girder bridge, the entire bridge and bridge approaches will need to be higher to make clearance. If they go with the arch or cable stay, they can reduce the overall bridge height. Due to that centre span being the longest, it would need the deepest girders.

It could be cheaper to go with some kind of arch. The bridge approach will likely be MSE. They'll use some type of lightweight fill which can get expensive on high embankments. MSE is the approach of choice these days as it greatly reduces settlement, to almost nil in most cases. So whatever combination gives the lowest overall cost should be the solution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2016, 3:10 PM
LilZebra's Avatar
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Spiritual
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. Vital, Man.
Posts: 2,127
I like the tunnel option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2016, 3:14 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,559
^ They should just make it steel girder and be done with it. A bridge over a railyard is no place for ornamentation. It's one thing to put a beautiful bridge over a river where it complements the beauty of the natural surroundings, but the CP yards are another story.

That said, an even better solution is to just rebuild the McPhillips Underpass (which will have to be done anyway) and forget about rebuilding the Arlington Bridge. It's a bit of a historical fluke that it exists in the first place, and had it never been built absolutely no one would be calling for a bridge on that spot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2016, 4:52 PM
Bluenote's Avatar
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 866
I like the large cable stayed concept.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2016, 6:33 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
That said, an even better solution is to just rebuild the McPhillips Underpass (which will have to be done anyway) and forget about rebuilding the Arlington Bridge.
The McPhillips underpass is close the capacity with its current structure as is the Arlington Bridge. Close one of them for an accident and watch what happens. That said, if the current 6 lane structure of McPhillips on either side of the underpass with two lanes dedicated to diamond lanes the thought of "replacing" the Arlington Bridge by putting two more lanes through the McPhillips underpass is a complete non-starter. All that would accomplish is the buses using McPhillips gaining a few seconds. I believe they already have priority signal lights to get the jump on the lane coming into the underpass so that savings would truly be minimal. Also all that traffic using the Arlington Bridge would struggle to find new routes. All this while the NW corner which the route services continues to grow. Short of expanding McPhillips to eight lanes to go with a new underpass or rerouting the transit traffic off McPhillips a different solution is needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2016, 6:53 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,559
^ I just don't buy it... the whole argument for replacing the Arlington Bridge seems like a case study in status quo bias.

McGregor and Sherbrook/Maryland are busier and more important N-S routes than Arlington, and yet no one complains that there isn't a bridge connecting the two. Yet somehow we're expected to believe that a minor, lightly travelled local street like Arlington is an essential link and requires a new bridge over the CP yards? No way. I've driven that bridge at all times of day including rush hour, and it's seldom ever busy. Bridge shutdowns haven't had a major effect on traffic on other streets in the area. I'm convinced that it if were closed tomorrow hardly anyone would be disrupted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2016, 7:58 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ I just don't buy it... the whole argument for replacing the Arlington Bridge seems like a case study in status quo bias.

McGregor and Sherbrook/Maryland are busier and more important N-S routes than Arlington, and yet no one complains that there isn't a bridge connecting the two. Yet somehow we're expected to believe that a minor, lightly travelled local street like Arlington is an essential link and requires a new bridge over the CP yards? No way. I've driven that bridge at all times of day including rush hour, and it's seldom ever busy. Bridge shutdowns haven't had a major effect on traffic on other streets in the area. I'm convinced that it if were closed tomorrow hardly anyone would be disrupted.
No one complains cause they're able to use the Arlington bridge..... The bridge has 15,500 average weekday traffic, McGregor sees 11,000 at its busiest stretch.
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 8:48 PM.

     

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