Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Biff

That was sort of related. The huge pile of earth that was stockpiled last year was fill from the Plessis Rd underpass. MIT thought that it would be beneficial to both projects if they tried to think ahead.

Flatiron is not to happy with this as it is not thier fill and they don't have any testing done on its makeup and compact ability .......not to mention that they have to move it to accommodate thier design.

You would think that MIT would have been able to get the test hole results for the fill from the city and pass them to the bidders from when the Project foundation engineers did the design work for the Plessis excavation shoring and bridge foundation.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by cllew

You would think that MIT would have been able to get the test hole results for the fill from the city and pass them to the bidders from when the Project foundation engineers did the design work for the Plessis excavation shoring and bridge foundation.

I heard there was a lot of "non fill material" in there. When they loaded the trucks there was a lot of garbage or organic material mixed in. Also, they have to pack it in 1 foot at a time, so they would have to remove all but a foot to meet spec.

[bomberjet]

Seems like a logical idea, changing the design back to the original.

All that material was piled up without compaction. So right there it all needs to be moved again and compacted properly. And it looked like there was a bunch of topsoil in there. And just random material mixed up. Not good for any sort of quality control. Especially if you're the contractor responsible for some type of warranty period. Also MIT shouldn't be too pleased as it would seem there is more risk involved that the embankments will settle out quite a bit.

[Riverman]

Are there not engineers at MIT that would have thought about this? I think there are so it shows that this decision to move this fill there was made by the wrong person.

Probably a politician.

[cllew]

Taking the excavated spoil may also have been a payment in kind from the Provence to the City to defer the rising cost of the Plessis project.

If the excavation contractor has a site close to the project they don't need as many trucks to haul the spoil away and in this case don't have to pay a tipping fee. That in turn lowers the city's cost.

I had somebody a number of years ago at work ask one of the sewer and water contractors working on a water project in his part of the city about how to get some of the excavated dirt to fill in his old inground pool.

They were so happy to have to only drive 2 blocks to dump they even sent in a loader at the end of the job to level the ground for him at no charge.

[LilZebra]

http://www.metronews.ca/news/winnipe...e-options.html

Two options have been developed for the long-term solution, which include widening the McPhillips Underpass, or building a new tunnel connecting Sherbrook Street and McGregor Street.

The Northern Fwy. is BAAAAAAACK. Except this time, Sr. Macnamera isn't there to stop IT!

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

http://www.metronews.ca/news/winnipe...e-options.html



The Northern Fwy. is BAAAAAAACK. Except this time, Sr. Macnamera isn't there to stop IT!

My guess is we'll get just as much activism in his place from the 'relocate the rail yard; bring utopia to Winnipeg' crowd. A new bridge and a new underpass will signal capitulation to the concept. Frankly, it probably should.

[LilZebra]

http://www.cjob.com/2015/09/04/83216/

That’s now changed. He says that’s several years down the road as Winnipeg gets closer to it’s goal of 100 people.

LOL

the rest of the article...

The city is considering an underground tunnel beneath the CPR rail yards as part of a long term plan to replace the Arlington Bridge.


The bridge itself will be replaced by a new one by the year 2020. Inspections have showed the 100 year old bridge is at the end of its life span.


City Councillor Mike Pagtakhan says they’re looking at three options.
“One of them would be a cable style, one of them will look like it is now, one of them a bit more elegant looking.”


But a replacement bridge isn’t the only thing on the agenda. While that will come first, Pagtakhan says another crossing will be needed in future years as our population grows.


This one would be brand new and one option includes an underground tunnel connecting Sherbrook Street and McGregor Street.


“Because Sherbrook has the capacity from the south. It’s got four lanes, two in each way and McGregor the same thing,” he says. “Historically, Sherbrook to McGregor was historically contemplated as a connection but as an overpass.”
That’s now changed. He says that’s several years down the road as Winnipeg gets closer to it’s goal of 100 people.


Another option would be to widen McPhillips Street.


Pagtakhan says it’s too early to speculate on potential costs for these projects.
The city is holding a series of open houses to get your feedback on all their ideas.

[esquire]

^ If that tunnel gets built, then the northern part of the city will have even better connections to downtown... just think, 6 car + 2 AT connections north over the CP tracks/Red River in a little over 4 km (from McPhillips Underpass to the Louise Bridge), vs. 5 car connections in a little over 5 km heading south over the Assiniboine River (from Main Street to Route 90). I presume the tunnel would be 4 lanes vs. the current 2 on the Arlington Bridge, so a substantial improvement right there.

It's noticeable how much more smoothly traffic north flows from downtown at rush hour. Definitely a perk of living on that side of the city.

[Simplicity]

^ There's no way the tunnel gets built. And it's probably just as likely that the bridge is never replaced shunting traffic either east or west to make the journey. At most they'll widen McPhillips at the rail underpass to accommodate a little more free flow in either direction.

This is the north end we're talking about. They aren't getting ~$700MM in infrastructure improvements.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

^ There's no way the tunnel gets built. And it's probably just as likely that the bridge is never replaced shunting traffic either east or west to make the journey. At most they'll widen McPhillips at the rail underpass to accommodate a little more free flow in either direction.

This is the north end we're talking about. They aren't getting ~$700MM in infrastructure improvements.

Yeah, the tunnel seems like a fanciful longshot, I certainly wouldn't bet on it getting built. It's simply a practical issue of having two alternative routes very close by (Salter and McPhillips), one of which (McPhillips) could be upgraded to handle more traffic at a much lower cost than a tunnel or new bridge. The Arlington Bridge doesn't get that much traffic, so it's not as though it's an essential link.

I think you're bang on, it'll be a widened McPhillips underpass, maybe with the Arlington Bridge staying around as a AT span in the same manner as the bridge by BDI.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

Yeah, the tunnel seems like a fanciful longshot, I certainly wouldn't bet on it getting built. It's simply a practical issue of having two alternative routes very close by (Salter and McPhillips), one of which (McPhillips) could be upgraded to handle more traffic at a much lower cost than a tunnel or new bridge. The Arlington Bridge doesn't get that much traffic, so it's not as though it's an essential link.

I think you're bang on, it'll be a widened McPhillips underpass, maybe with the Arlington Bridge staying around as a AT span in the same manner as the bridge by BDI.

I honestly think the city and rail companies see too much liability in leaving it up and will simply tear it down. Pleasing a few members of the north end bike lobby is not enough to continue maintaining it and insuring against any manner of freak accident like a bolt falling on somebody's head or somebody leaning into a rusted out railing.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by esquire

The Arlington Bridge doesn't get that much traffic, so it's not as though it's an essential link.

Neither does the Louis Bridge, which should have been replaced ~30 years ago.

I think you're bang on, it'll be a widened McPhillips underpass, maybe with the Arlington Bridge staying around as a AT span in the same manner as the bridge by BDI.

And the drug users and murderers.

[Wpg transit 163-1]

Jubilee underpass flooded again on friday during the big storm all i can say is the busway came in handy for the 60,99,95,29,84,86 as they were able to shoot up pembina down the transitway and back to pembina. also if you know the underpass is flooded don't drive thru the deep deep water saw about 7 cars stalled most will be written off if they have water in the main intake.

[Riverman]

The Louise bridge is quite busy at rush hours.

[LilZebra]

The Louise was originally a railway bridge, so it wasn't even designed for auto traffic.

This would be a good reason to build a limited access fwy. through the area, after getting rid (moving) some of the industrial sites.

[Danny D Oh]

Would be awesome to see some proposals to replace the Louise Bridge, hopefully with a realignment.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

The Louise was originally a railway bridge, so it wasn't even designed for auto traffic.

What difference does that make? Do you mean it was overbuilt?

[LilZebra]

Underbuilt

[Riverman]

Soooo... Cars are heavier than trains in your world?