A $35 million sidewalk?

Posted on April 28, 2008 by PolicyFrog

The City of Winnipeg is considering three different concepts for the Disraeli Bridge rehabilitation project, scheduled to start in late 2009.

  • Concept A is a 4-lane divided road with standard 3.5 metre lanes on the inside, 4.4 m shared vehicle/cycle curb lanes, and one 1.8 m sidewalk on the east side. Cost: $125 million.
  • Concept B is identical to Concept A, except it adds another 1.8 m sidewalk on the west side of the bridge. Cost: $160 million.
  • Concept C is also similar to Concept A, except the shared vehicle/cycle lanes are widened to 4.75 m, and the single east-side sidewalk is widened to 2.5 m. Cost: $160 million.

I’m a huge supporter of active transportation, but $35 million for an extra sidewalk, or for an extra-wide sidewalk and 35 cm wider bike lanes? Are you flippin’ kidding me?? How is this even being considered? Weren’t the Mayor and Councillors pleading poverty just a month ago?

If the City somehow has $35 million to improve pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, it can surely spend it in a more effective manner. Off the top of my head, this would likely be enough to build dedicated bike lanes along the entire length of at least three or four major streets (e.g. Pembina from the the U of M to downtown).

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: , , ,

« If at first you don’t succeed… Doer’s slush drink fund »

5 Responses to “A $35 million sidewalk?”

  1. unclebob, on April 28th, 2008 at 9:06 pm Said:

    Web foot :
    On the Disraeli dishonesty……. are the nice folks at city hall not precisely the same ones who screwed up the over budget and over built Main Norwood bridge project while their very office was no more than a hundred or so feet away?

    I wonder who taught them their tactics of asking us whether we would like to

    1) take poison
    2) get shot
    3) be electrocuted

    with nary an option that we may not want to die at all

    Sidewalks, Shmidewalks …they have not made the case for such a serious expenditure especially with their past track record ( to say nothing of whether or not I would want the same folks managing if the project, in any form, were to proceed. )

  2. J, on April 28th, 2008 at 9:13 pm Said:

    Any design firm that can’t incorporate a few extra metres of sidewalk space for less than $35M dollars doesn’t deserve the contract. Something is fishy here.

  3. Paige, on April 29th, 2008 at 1:09 am Said:

    Were my bike not stolen tonight, I would be more than happy to use a bike lane such as the one described in your Option A. I’d rather my tax dollars not go toward an extra 35 cm of bike lane. I’ll just tuck my knees in, thank you very much.

  4. Madelyn, on April 30th, 2008 at 8:49 am Said:

    I like concept B or C.
    Concept B because then the pedestrians don’t have to cross street to get to East side of bridge.
    Concept C because I think that the bicyclists should be protected as much as possible.
    I think I like Concept C a bit more.
    I think they should spend the extra money and choose the most thoughtful design for the people. It will be inviting and encouraging to use the bridge by foot or bicycle, and I also think it will bring along positive feelings to the areas.

  5. PolicyFrog, on April 30th, 2008 at 2:45 pm Said:

    @Madelyn - If the price difference was a few million, then I’d agree with you. But $35 million seems way too much for such a small improvement.

    The City could build exclusive-use bike lanes along the entire length of Henderson Highway for a quarter of that amount. Don’t you think that would be a better option?

Leave a Reply