Discussions

Attached document from CKLQ has the 18th Street Bridge potential designs. Very interesting to see the different ideas. Personally I like the idea of #3. What does everyone else think?  
 
http://www.qcountryfm.ca/news-weather/news-sports-details/newsarticle/four-options-for-the-planned-18th-street-bridge-unveiled/  
 
Edited by NOYB, 2017-12-13 10:12:40

At a glance I think I like #3 the best. IT definitely seems least invasive.

#3 gets my vote too.

not liking the curve options at all

option 3 seems to affect private property and existing commercial the least, is it the most economical ?

Straight is always smart, is nicer to look at, and easier to make.

Straight may be best but that means almost double the build time. If they can build both spans at once a curve I can deal with. I do not like 4 as too many people lose their homes. I go with 3.

Option 3 is the best. The kullberg''s eyesore needs to go. Take the building down, and do not touch advance autobody.  
 
Even if a straight bridge is built. Take down the ugly building  
 
Edited by Getty, 2017-12-13 13:30:42

I personally dont like the curved bridge when there isnt a need for it. The straight bridges would function perfectly and either way traffic will be able to flow over 18th the entire construction project.  
 
Either way its done homes/business''s will be moved and the land bought, there will still need to be distance encroachments from the roadway to the sidewalks/business''s staying along 18th.  
 
Just because the curved bridges will be "faster" doesn't mean they are the best option. Quality takes time, the 1st twinned bridge look great now that they are open, the 18th st bridges look great, keep the theme of nice straight bridges going.  
 
Edited by Suckie, 2017-12-13 14:28:29

A straighter bridge is a cheaper bridge. Even if that means to buy more property. When it all gets added up in the end, paying for a few additional lots with some houses will definitely be cheaper then building two curved bridges. And please don''t whine about those additional "poor homeowners" being forced out. ...They''ll be compensated fairly and given plenty of time to move out. Besides, would anyone want to live practically beside the construction process or the finished project looming over them afterwards, if they were given an choice to be bought out? Options one and two offer straight bridges, so logic dictates that''s the better/cheaper route to take. Sure, it means reducing to one lane south for three years, but we can live through that.  
 
I myself, prefer option #2 with the alignment over to the east as the best candidate. However, I would make a few "tweaks" to the project. One big one is to widen them a bit more two allow a third lane in both directions. I know it sounds a little crazy, but hear me out... With the way things are now, having two lanes each way would sound like that''s all we need. But I disagree. Having our main fire station sitting in the "flats" on Nineteenth street has always been a strain for the services when going South up the bridge. Why couldn''t we have the third lane be a "diamond lane" Specifically set up for buses, a turning lane for the Pacific Ave. exit and for emergency vehicles? Just run the third lane Southbound from Hilton Ave. to Rosser Ave or even Princess Ave. And all of a sudden Southbound traffic flows without any interruptions, even with firetrucks roaring up the bridge. Northbound? Do the same thing with a diamond lane as a third. It could easily run the same length as a bus and merging/turning lane between Princess and Parker Blvd. (Hilton). No more sitting on Princess waiting for the light or break in traffic when turning right to go North anymore. Turn and merge. And the same at Pacific to go North, no more being trapped waiting to turn right. Plus, no more of those bozos who fail to signal and hammer on the brakes to turn right from 18th for Maple or Parker anymore. No more buses stopping in the middle of traffic just before or at the bottom of the bridges in either direction. If we look at the way the both the 18th street river bridges and the new bridges on First, those huge pedestrian sections on all of them are on the same decking as of the driving lanes. One could assume that they were engineered to be a future laneway if needed. Why don''t we cut chase and use it as it should be and have a simple walkway pushed out further without all that re-enforcement support. That space already designed as a possible third lane could be a game changer now and for future decades in the development process of 18th. We would never have to worry about the span over the tracks when it comes the traffic flow. Wouldn''t that make sense to do it now? Think of it... Eighteenth could eventually be three lanes from the Coral center all the way to the mall, if we really want/need it.  
 
I''ve noticed over the years that every time with Manitoba Highways they''ve always fallen short for their plans in and around Brandon. You don''t have to go very far to see their lack of planning to show us how short sighted they really are. Take a look a little further North of 18th street... What the hell were thinking when they were rebuilding it between the river an Braecrest drive? ...Three lanes??? ...and the two Northbound are going crooked up the hill??? Pi$$poor planning. Then drastically reducing down to single lane each way for one kilometer to the Trans Canada Hwy. Wow, thanks for the effort in rebuilding and resurfacing 18th at the river to the Trans Can. It''s improved so much for driving through and in and out of town *sarcasm*. Or how about South end of 18th? ...All that effort on building turning lanes at Maryland Ave & Patricia Ave and rebuilding the street between them... And they couldn''t twin it up to four lanes past Patricia??? ...Why didn''t they do that??? They were already rebuilding, changing the grade and moving the utilities, why not put in a median and turn the freshly paved shoulders into lanes? Then it would be done. Now, we''ll have traffic issues when that "future Costco" does eventually get built. And speaking of not finishing the job off right... How about First street North on top of the hill? Just like 18th on both it''s ends, they''ve just fall short on delivering a smart build. All that work done and they don''t bother twinning to the Trans Can. Again, not even a kilometer left and they don''t bother separating it with a median a give the Southbound traffic a second lane. So disappointing. Both 18th and First looks completely unwelcoming from the highway for travelers. "Brandon? I thought it was just the Husky, McDonalds, some motels and a few other gas stations?" ...Is what outsiders are saying about us. LOL ...And it''s true, because it looks like that''s all we have to offer!!! Brandon needs better judgement in the long terms planning of a better thought of thoroughfare through the city from end to end. That''s why I say to make the new bridges wider for more lanes to accommodate us better now and fifty years from now.  
 
Now that I''ve said the "big tweak", I have a smaller one to suggest... The Provincial government should help pay to extend Hilton Ave westward and join it up to 26th street. Just like how Pacific is getting extended out, Hilton should as well. Rebuild it and 26th from 18th all the way to the rail crossing. Then when the Southbound traffic is cut back to one lane, drivers have the option to take 26th street without effecting McDonald Ave. or in front of the fire hall on 19th with a huge amount of congestion. Should be easy enough to do. Just adjust the grade for Hilton to match the height of the dike and follow the "Old Dike Road" up to the water treatment plant. Build up 26th street to act as a secondary dike and pave the whole thing up to the tracks. Could be done with minimal disruptions and easily in one summer. Simple enough.  
 
All I''m saying let''s make a plan that not only works for one problem, but solves all problems now and for new ones in the years to come. Proposal number two with making the pedestrian part a diamond lane and just providing a simpler walkway would work best. Including three lanes in each direction with the project from Hilton/Parker up to Princess and fund/build an extension of Hilton to 26th & McDonald. That''s how it should go down, if we want it done right. ...Or Mb Hwy''s will sell us short again.  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.  
 
Edited by snowman5, 2017-12-13 15:28:28

You sound as critical of MIT as I am. And they deserve the criticism. They are SOOOO short sighted when it comes to planning around Brandon that it is pathetic. I could easily add to your criticism list.  
 
I agree with your thoughts that 18th should be 3 lanes each way from the Corral Centre to the mall. But do you really think that it would happen? We’ll be lucky if the 18th st bridge is 4 lanes when they are done and not 3 as it presently is.  
 
Keep it straight.  
 
Whatever option that the people think is best, MIT will take the least popular and most expensive.  
 
Edited by ZachT, 2017-12-13 18:28:22

Option 2 or Option 3. I notice that they are not even considering a single 4 lane bridge with added walking/bike provisions, which may be less invasive to the surrounding area.

how does that work. they just say I'm gonna buy this...find somewhere else. otherwise what if they don't want to sell.

1. Trucks weigh more than pedestrians. A piece of bridge designed to carry pedestrians will require major upgrading (read: cost) to carry traffic. The proponents of three lanes (even "part-time" or "would be nice" third lanes) will require the bridge to be designed to carry 50% more traffic load. This will affect not only the road deck, but all the structure below.  
2. "Straight is cheaper" - don't necessarily see this. Bridge is built of pre-cast sections, and I'm not convinced that building a rectangle is cheaper than building a curved rectangle.  
3. I'm sure the design group has at least heard of Brandon before, and can google. The First Street bridge approach on the north side may not have been raised for a number of good reasons (note that the river curves there - a raised section might be subject to washing out by the river undermining).

i too wish they had costs associated with the options  
 
a curved bridge adds more complexity and more expense so until i see costs i am not convinced that #3 is the most cost effective, plus a straight bridge is a safer bridge, not that a slight curve adds lots of danger but any time you curve you do add sight issues (slight as they may turn out) and in our weather a higher chance for accidents so imo that should be a factor in the decision.  
 
personally i would have liked to see an option for one larger bridge that would have the potential to disrupt the area land owners the least and be cost effective too. It seems that we want to sacrifice the future for a bit of inconvenience now, That is what we would be doing with a curved bridge. Do we really want to add a curve and deal with that for generations to come just so us current drivers of the city dont have to put up with a few years of inconvenience? I dont think that is the smartest decision, but failure to plan enough ahead seems to happen the majority of times  
 
Altho I dont think we need to have 3 lanes now, 2 lanes both ways would work for years but, i do wonder why we are putting so much under the pedestrian walk ways instead of a lesser support like snowman said? hopefully the plan is to be able to easily upgrade to a third lane and add a walkway in the future, that i would find an acceptable plan  
 
addressing the other brandon area traffic flow and structural issues in the city that have been brought up, I agree with all that has been said, why didnt we raise the roads on first to act as permanent dykes or have large culverts to allow traffic and water flow? why did hiways not finish the mile of 2 lane roads to the #1, both on 1st and 18th? it is short sighted to say the least, but the discussion is about 18th st bridge and hopefully the city learns from past mistakes and plans the best option for the future

yes, they will tell you that they are buying your property. Called expropriation and its going to happen.

ronfay said "1. Trucks weigh more than pedestrians. A piece of bridge designed to carry pedestrians will require major upgrading (read: cost) to carry traffic. The proponents of three lanes (even "part-time" or "would be nice" third lanes) will require the bridge to be designed to carry 50% more traffic load. This will affect not only the road deck, but all the structure below.   2. "Straight is cheaper" - don't necessarily see this. Bridge is built of pre-cast sections, and I'm not convinced that building a rectangle is cheaper than building a curved rectangle.   3. I'm sure the design group has at least heard of Brandon before, and can google. The First Street bridge approach on the north side may not have been raised for a number of good reasons (note that the river curves there - a raised section might be subject to washing out by the river undermining). "

And responding:  
1) That's what these eggheads do in engineering all the time. Adjusting the numbers all the time. Why would they design and produce a deck with the capability of supporting vehicles if it couldn't be held up without proper supports? I would assume that since it's all in the planning stages now, calculations would be made and could be changed before the shovels go into the ground. And I simply don't "buy it" that it's never been considered in the numbers that this space could or would be changed into a traffic lane at a later time.  
 
2) Although, I agree that it's all custom sections being cast. Something tells me a straight piece of support would take less time and effort to engineer, produce and transported over a curved one. Thus, saving money and putting it towards other parts of the project. Possibly, like a usable universal third lane?  
 
3)You and everyone here knows bloody well that these projects are done in "piece work". One little bit at a time. Because that's all needs to be looked over, considered and approved due to budget. But sometimes common sense need to take place when looking at a broader picture and a open mind. Why build a great bridge if there isn't just as great of a road going to it? Yes, the budget would need to be increased. But delaying/ignoring a obvious flaw shouldn't be justified. Like it or not, Brandon has only two points to cross the river in town and both are under the care and supervision of the Provincial government. Having one route threatened by closure almost yearly, especially if the other one has volume/capacity limitations before and during the upgrades is foolish on their part. Again, that's what the engineers are there to do. ...Look for possible problems and accounting/resolving for them before they ever happen. I'm sure the highway engineers can come up something to prevent a washout. It's their supervisors and the politicians that want leave it unless it become a immediate problem. Which in my books is dumb because it's disruptive, costs more in the long run to repair & upgrade immediately and is absolutely preventable.  
 
Look, I don't have all the answers. Never said I did. But driving on our roadways wondering why the things are the way they are... I'm getting a bit upset along with everyone else and I'm coming up with my own I ideas and criticisms on what Brandon deserves as a functioning and growing community. Justify all you want, but I think there are many living here feeling tired of watching all levels of government failing to meet our basic expectations. Is it too much to ask for our main roadways to be trouble free and efficient? Sixty million is about to be earmarked, so can we get the best bang for our buck?  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

of a straight shot north to south like it is now but would have to vote for option 3 solely because fewer home owners are affected. Let's hope that ANY homeowner or business gets paid the going rate for their buildings/property instead of being given a token amount & then told to "move it or else". It'll be difficult for those home owners to buy a new place if they don't get adequately compensated.

What's wrong with what we have??

You do live in Brandon right?? It's an old ban aided bridge that creates a nightmare most of the time.

thought they just finished this new bridge few years back they didn't they put these plans in when they doing construction to the bridge couple years back

Straight or Curved. The only reason I went with 3 as my first choice is build time plus with my second choice (2)  
Advance stays. It boxes them in for future growth.  
 
Curved tends to slow traffic down in my opinion. The build time and costs needs to be announced on all options before we can truly judge. California seems to love curved bridges whats' with that?

It is a death trap and a bottleneck, probably decaying at a pretty good rate.  
 
Winnipeg had a similar situation with the Main St Bridge. It was five lanes with the middle one switching direction depending on rush hour traffic direction. It was a nightmare for decades. When they replaced it, they over built and realigned everything. Light years better than before.  
 
I am from Dauphin, and every time I go over the 18th St bridge I have flashbacks to Winnipeg.

I would vote for option 3. reasons are simply, the curve isn't big enough to be a factor over that distance and would be relatively straight. construction time will be way shorter, that will save a huge amount of money. The curved sections wouldn't raise cost by much, curves are slight and distance gained is minimal. every bridge has a life-cycle, at the end of this new bridges life there will be room to build another beside it, without interfering with this one.  
 
I'm not concerned with the properties at all. As long as everyone is compensated so they can move to a better location and also upgrade, I see no problem with it. I consider that as a necessary cost. (Compensate for upgrade, not for value of old property.)  
 
Raising the road on first street is a totally separate issue than the bridge. I agree that it should be on the agenda, but in no way should the 2 projects be done at the same time.  
 
I agree that MIT has no foresight, but neither do the people that run the city side of the equation. When I travel south where there is little snow, cities have overhead signs for which lanes are where. Here, where there is snow on the ground for nearly half the year, those lane markings are on concrete or half a block back from the intersections on tiny signs. The paint on the pavement is gone 4 months after it was applied. Could a second coat be applied that would last till the spring? I don't know maybe it would be gone after a couple of snowfalls. But the lane markings should be overhead.

Too bad the I would rather see advance auto body gone than the Kullbergs building.

Coming from the West I have discovered that going down 26th street to MacDonald avenue is not a bad way to get around. I can live with that while the construction is underway on 18th. If I see a train, I can still choose to turn on Rosser to get to 18th.

Ultimately it should be up to the land owners. It could be that they want a buyout. A house next to the “freeway” it’s that appealing. Or if they still want their houses go around.