Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM
When you put it that way it doesn't seem so unmanageable. My only criticism is that I would add Hwy 1 @ 207 and the whole Headingly mess as being pretty important considerations for the bypass functioning correctly. What use is it having a freeflowing perimeter, north or south if you just have to stop on both sides anyways?
I find it very difficult to believe that we couldn't have found even enough money for one diamond interchange per year for the last 20 years, especially considering the amount of money that was being spent on other fluff projects. With the PCs in right now, it's doubtful that things move forward in any meaningful way for the next little while but holy shit this has to get done like yesterday, not in 50 years when they'll already be obsolete.
|
Yes, my suggestion made consideration for that too (read 190 to 1 Brandon which would serve as a Headingley By-Pass) and yes, 1 at 207 should have a diamond interchange. The plan should be eventually to have 1, 75 and 100/101 as fully limited access highways. In the case of No. 1, which is after all the Trans-Canada, it would be (and should be) primarily expected to be fully funded under a massive and comprehensive federal infrastructure program.