Not signed in (Sign In)

Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Vanilla 1.1.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Winnipeg City Issues & Urban Affairs: Disraeli bridge

Bottom of Page

1 to 20 of 163

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorStBPegger
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    The city is rehabing the Disraeli bridge and now the northend councillors wants to expand the project plans.
    Instead of closing the bridge while it is being upgraded, they're tossing around the idea of twinning the bridge.

    "We're looking at a severe cost to businesses and commuters in northeast Winnipeg to get across the river," said North Kildonan Coun. Jeff Browaty.

    After construction is over, the extra lanes on the bridge could be used for rapid transit, he proposed.

    "I think the big picture is, going forward, we're going to need more lanes," he said. "The cost of construction is only going up. Let's build the six lanes now."
    Katz raises a good point - where will the money come from? This is actually something that bugs me about Winnipeggers sometimes - we want everything, but aren't willing to pay for it.

    So what's the best solution?

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/05/14/disraeli-twin.html
    http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/MajorProjects/DisraeliBridges/
    •  
      CommentAuthorcancelbot
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008 edited
     
    Moderator
    If we twin the Disraeli, there will be either a three or four-lane span (the existing one) and, presumably, a three-lane span (the new one). That's all well and good, but the problem is that there will be bottlenecks at either end of the route. A twin span bridge is overkill, given that an overhaul of the existing bridge will work just fine.

    As for rapid transit, well, Browaty is being disingenuous at best by saying that since there are no plans for rapid transit of any kind in this town. They said the same thing about the Norwood Bridge a decade ago, and there is still no rapid transit. Spend the money on LRT or BRT instead of extra bridges, and maybe we'll have rapid transit in our lifetimes.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsmjpilot
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008 edited
     
    Why would there be bottlenecks at either end of the route? Don't both ends of the route have 6 lanes already? It would seem bottleneck is the current situation on the bridge.<br><br>
    And, excellent point about spending on bridges vs transit. More conversion to transit would result in less demand for flow on the bridges.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSputnik
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    I thought they were going with a P3 solution for the bridge.
    •  
      CommentAuthorcancelbot
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    Moderator
    I should have been more specific - there will be a bottleneck if there are 7 or 8 lanes built in total. Since the existing bridge is already 4 lanes, an additional one would probably be at least 3, if not 4. Then you run into the bottleneck scenario. Having one extra lane may not seem like such a big deal, but when it's costing tens of millions of dollars, it is.

    As for Jim Maloway being quoted in the story StBPegger linked to, he has little credibility on the issue. Jim, either convince the minister to cut the city a cheque, or STFU. I seldom agree with Coun. Brenda Leipsic, but she's right on this one - this is shameless grandstanding on Maloway's part.

    As for Browaty, aka Mr. Peguis Trail, has he met a road he didn't like? Send this guy to Phoenix to crash at Sam's place there...he'll be in highway heaven.
    Thankful People: Jimmytufish, Ex-Pat-Pegger
    •  
      CommentAuthorsmjpilot
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008 edited
     
    Ah, I see, cancelbot. Well no problem if there are 6 lanes for driving and the rest of the width is dedicated for cyclists and pedestrians!
  7.  
    Are hey just in the formative stages of deciding to repair the Disraeli ? I haven't been following it that closely but I thought they already short listed a couple of designs and were showing them off to residents and made plans about closures etc. Adding a new span isn't cosmetic work - presumably you'd have to cancel the currnet stuff and go back to the drawing board and then come back at it in a future year.
    •  
      CommentAuthorStBPegger
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    Yes, council has decided to go the P3 route. But the plan still has to be finalized.

    As far as the article says, they're looking at 6 lanes = twin. So pilot is right - currently the bridge is the bottleneck.

    As for designs, yes, they've already gone to public with some schemes:
    http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/MajorProjects/DisraeliBridges/OpenHouseStoryBoards.pdf
    Thankful People: mrchristian
  9.  
    These bridges have what, a fifty+ year lifespan. Build it 4 lanes wide (or 6) now, meeting our current needs, and we do nothing for future needs. THAT is what planning is all about. THAT is the reason we have such sh1tty traffic flow in certain areas.

    The new Kenaston underpass was a godsend, but some blinkered nincompoop decided four lanes was all we needed. If Kenaston is expanded as currently being discussed when that expanded road hits that underpass you'll encounter the bottleneck described above.

    Think long term. Spend the money now. Plan this properly now.
  10.  
    There you go with that damn word again....planning.
    •  
      CommentAuthorcancelbot
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    Moderator
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there is plenty of room to expand the Kenaston underpass to 6 lanes whenever the need arises. The bottleneck is further up the road where there are homes along Kenaston which constrain the route to 4 lanes.
    • CommentAuthorEastSider
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    If they decide to go with an extra span that could put our work warehouse on Gomez almost under the bridge, unless they use the opposite side. This is the first I hear of a twin span, I thought it was all finalized.
  13.  
    I hope you are right cancelbot, but it looks difficult as there are concrete (pillars) on both sides and in the centre. As for houses, I don't believe there would be any trouble expanding to six lanes by expropriating the houses and the military land... The St. James bridge might pose a problem, but we need to start somewhere. When it comes time to replace that bridge it would have to accommodate growth and traffic flow.
    • CommentAuthorlight11
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008 edited
     
    i cant believe how stupid sam kaatz is right now.

    first off, privatize a f**king bridge? give me a break!!! he wants to privatize everything. transit, hydro. what the hell is this guy thinking.

    2nd, how do can they even consider closing down the whole bridge for a year and a half, why cant they do what they did for the st bonafice penis bridge? i think disraeli is more important. (more people use it). i cant imagine going down redwood with everyone else during rushhour. a simple 20 minute bus ride might take 30-45 minutes.

    and instead of 6 lanes. how bout 2 lanes and a BIKE PATH. the bike "path" ive had to use is less than a foot big. how many close calls ive had with traffic i cant even count. and use the side walk? ive popped 3 tires doing that, also they curve to the outside so you have to break and start accelerating all over again if you want to go back up.. not fun.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMR_Point
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    use the redwood bridge instead or the liouse bridge then............
  16.  
    Tonights CBC news claims there are 100,000 people inconvenienced by this closure. Not sure how adding that traffic to other bridges won't cause huge problems on other bridges and roads.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMR_Point
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    lol it sure did when that bridge shut down for 3weeks for repairs........ but i have seen the cities traffic models and the numbers from the closerue its not that bad...
    • CommentAuthorpizzaman
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    Here is a suggestion that will:

    1. Alleviate the traffic concerns during construction
    2. Get people using transit, perhaps on a permanent basis
    3. Create a greater sense of community (rubbing elbows with your friend next to you)
    4. Lead to economic savings for motorist who will then spend money at the businesses at their park and ride locations.

    A. Increase the frequency of buses on Henderson Hwy during the duration of construction

    B. Create numerous park and ride locations: The Market; Zellers and Safeway ; Shoppers, IGA; Safeway and Kimberly; Kelvin Community Club (others).

    This is a no brainer and fun.
    • CommentAuthorlight11
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2008
     
    not sure if you have ever been on an 11 during rush hour.. not fun.
  20.  
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: pizzaman</cite>B. Create numerous park and ride locations: The Market; Zellers and Safeway ; Shoppers, IGA; Safeway and Kimberly; Kelvin Community Club (others).</blockquote>
    thumbs up park and ride and create a new Express over the Chief Peguis to downtown

1 to 20 of 163

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >