[esquire]

I took a look at the revised plan and had these thoughts:

-Why convert the 100/Portage cloverleaf into a diamond? It's already a cloverleaf, so why mess with it?

-100/Wilkes looks comically big in its expanded form... I wonder what justifies having it swallow up that much land? You could fit a small town in its footprint.

-A diamond seems inadequate at McGillivray considering the traffic on 2/3. It's also not great that so many of the configurations involve a separate intersection connection 2 and 3 southwest of the interchange.

-Converting Pembina/100 to a diamond or partial cloverleaf makes sense, unlike with Portage the geometry is so tight and there are traffic lights at either side of it on Pembina that really eliminate any kind of free flow benefits for Pembina.

-A lot of the options for St. Mary's/100 look really wonky and odd, I don't get it.

-As others have pointed out, not including a westbound flyover at Fermor/100 seems like a missed opportunity, but I wonder if the site constraints with the Floodway nearby
have something to do with that?

-Also, Deacon's Corner should probably be part of the plan as well. It wouldn't make sense to redo the Perimeter and leave this busy rural intersection in place a kilometre away.

Anyway, not a bad long term plan. I really hope the next step is to get going on at least one of the sorely needed new interchanges, any of 100 at McGillivray, Kenaston, St. Mary's or St. Anne's.