<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Vote_for_Pedro</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: Sputnik</cite>Its too bad they couldn't just rebuild the bridge to the current spec (perhaps adding an addition lane in each direction), extend the river walk to Point Douglas and then just build a pedestrian/bike bridge across the river.</blockquote> That's not a bad idea. Of course, remember how enraged people STILL are about the last pedestrian bridge they built...</blockquote>That's just because of the million dollar toilet! If it had been just a bridge, I doubt there would have been such an uproar...
Posted By: DeanKPenis??? Hell if it looked like a Penis at least then it would have some tourist draw potential..
Umm, I don't think that the Bridge was meant to be a tourist draw. My bet is that it was intended to add aesthetic beauty to the Forks area and the city as a whole, which in turn may lead to improved tourism numbers. That said, anyone that thinks tourism in Winnipeg will ever stretch much beyond our neighbouring provinces and states is somewhere between delusional and moronic.
It's been oft-repeated that the bridge, once and still the scourge of so many Sun columnists and pothole-obsessives, has become a rather great symbol for the City. It was the Mayor's City Summit logo a couple of years ago, and just yesterday I saw a "Join the Winnipeg Police Service" billboard at Confusion Corner which features our new police chief, a couple of other smiling constables, and the dink bridge. Dude, the bridge works.
And FWIW, my tongue was planted firmly in-cheek when I made the original remark about the Disraeli bridge.
How can the bridge not work? Winnipeggers love to bitch about the same thing over and over and over again ad naseum. This is just one thing added to the list. :)
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: DeanK</cite>Bridge is ugly... it only "works" in some peoples minds... most of those people have some sort of mental abnormality.</blockquote> That is just childish. Something is not aesthetically pleasing to you so people that like it have a mental issue ? <br> <br> The bridge, for better or worse, has become a landmark in the city. It's replaced the shot of the Golden Boy as the preeminent image used to advertise the city. <br> <br> <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jimmytufish</cite>I heard the figure<b>was</b>a million bucks.</blockquote> <br> Well, don't listen to everything Broadbeck tells ya. The cost of all utilities for the bridge - electricity, water, sewer, drainage, lighting cost about $1m. Electricity, lighting and drainage are something that bridges have already so those are costs that would have been part of the bridge anyway. Sorry to burst the bitter bubble you had.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: thorninyourside</cite>More lanes on a road does not lead to more cars just like adding more space in a maternity ward leads to more babies being born.</blockquote><p>
Actually, adding more lanes on a road does lead to more congestion. Traffic engineers find that demand will typically match (or exceed) supply within a short time. Critics have compared adding new lanes as being the equivalent of dealing with a weight problem by 'letting your belt out a few more notches'. <p>
The Americans are now requiring that cities receiving federal road funds must put in place transportation demand management programs (i.e. getting people out of their cars) alongside road expansion.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jimmytufish</cite>I heard the figure <b>was</b> a million bucks.</blockquote> Well, don't listen to everything Broadbeck tells ya. The cost of all utilities for the bridge - electricity, water, sewer, drainage, lighting cost about $1m. </blockquote> Dumbass!! I didn't mean the one friggn' toilet cost a mil. Of course the costs were for servicing the toilet.