Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure - Page 56

cllew · #**1101** Posted **Mar 16, 2015, 10:59 PM**

City knew the lines were there before the project started, but both oil companies took their time responding to engineering questions and approvals which slowed down site work.

They also did not tell the city that they wanted only one certain contractor to work on moving the lines until after the city tendered that part of contract out. The time wasted in this specifing and then reviewing this one tender could have been used to deal with the "prefered contractor" to get them on site earlier.

bomberjet · #**1102** Posted **Mar 16, 2015, 11:26 PM**

No doubt the oil lines caused significant delays. This project went through lightning fast once it was a go. Talked about for years. But russ pushed it through, council bit, and the stage was set. Federal funding being the driver.

High sight is 20/20, overpass was the option. For some, it was clear at the time. For the decision makers at city hall, not so much. So the bit of cost savings is now gone. And this horse hasn't been beat quite yet either.

Riverman · #**1103** Posted **Mar 16, 2015, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

City knew the lines were there before the project started, but both oil companies took their time responding to engineering questions and approvals which slowed down site work.

The oil companies had to do engineering work too in order to move the pipelines. Their concerns had to do with the many standards petroleum pipelines are held to, plus concerns about interruption of service. If the City was anticipating a need for an underpass this engineering work could have been done well in advance of construction.

Can't blame the oil companies I'm afraid, the delays were entirely the fault of the City.

Simplicity · #**1104** Posted **Mar 17, 2015, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

The oil companies had to do engineering work too in order to move the pipelines. Their concerns had to do with the many standards petroleum pipelines are held to, plus concerns about interruption of service. If the City was anticipating a need for an underpass this engineering work could have been done well in advance of construction.

Can't blame the oil companies I'm afraid, the delays were entirely the fault of the City.

Yeah, I'm not naive to the fact that the funding arrangement was what it was. I'm merely suggesting that trying to pull off massive infrastructure projects on a completely ad hoc basis is fraught. If this underpass were so important it should have been identified long in advance of the work being done commissioned. For instance, if you're continually approving the expansion of outlying suburbs and you don't identify that you're going to end up with a lot of unhappy citizens waiting at an endless number of trains on a weekly basis, then you didn't plan properly because these things aren't new. And if they expanded so quickly that you didn't have the opportunity to make the necessary infrastructure adjustments, then they simply got ahead of themselves. But the result is the same and it's difficult to accept either excuse.

rrskylar · #**1105** Posted **Mar 17, 2015, 2:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Yeah, I'm not naive to the fact that the funding arrangement was what it was. I'm merely suggesting that trying to pull off massive infrastructure projects on a completely ad hoc basis is fraught. If this underpass were so important it should have been identified long in advance of the work being done commissioned. For instance, if you're continually approving the expansion of outlying suburbs and you don't identify that you're going to end up with a lot of unhappy citizens waiting at an endless number of trains on a weekly basis, then you didn't plan properly because these things aren't new. And if they expanded so quickly that you didn't have the opportunity to make the necessary infrastructure adjustments, then they simply got ahead of themselves. But the result is the same and it's difficult to accept either excuse.

A smart city would have identified the problem immediately and put an overpass over the tracks, this is Winnipeg though and we get what we deserve or worse usually!

CoryB · #**1106** Posted **Mar 17, 2015, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

When the City can barely maintain and upgrade existing routes, extending Clement and Peguis would be the height of folly. "Hey kids, the roof is caving in and we can't afford to redo it, but mom and I thought we'd build a nice new gazebo instead!"

Extending Peguis is actually as a replacement for other routes like how the current route replaced Springfield between Henderson and Lag. This takes traffic out of a dangerous environment, a high traffic route down a residential street, reduces the wear there and actually lowers the near term maintenance costs. Over the long term you have basically gained a single residential route.

For Clement, Kenaston between Wilkes and McGillivary appears to be getting near its designed capacity. Assuming it is possible do we add additional lanes to that route or build an extension to Clement? If we do neither the cost of maintenance on the existing lanes is going to shoot up significantly and other routes will also start to suffer too as traffic looks for alternate routes to the capacity that was not added.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I couldn't tell you how Plessis had its number called first, but let me be the first in this thread to say I'm happy it did given the complete circus being run over there. Can you imagine if this were happening at Waverley? It would be mayhem.

Could Plessis have been fast tracked to minimize the amount of roads that get build for the rapidly expanding residential off Plessis north of Regent?

steveosnyder · #**1107** Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

Extending Peguis is actually as a replacement for other routes like how the current route replaced Springfield between Henderson and Lag. This takes traffic out of a dangerous environment, a high traffic route down a residential street, reduces the wear there and actually lowers the near term maintenance costs. Over the long term you have basically gained a single residential route.

For Clement, Kenaston between Wilkes and McGillivary appears to be getting near its designed capacity. Assuming it is possible do we add additional lanes to that route or build an extension to Clement? If we do neither the cost of maintenance on the existing lanes is going to shoot up significantly and other routes will also start to suffer too as traffic looks for alternate routes to the capacity that was not added.

Citation needed... Leila (at least to my understanding this is what you are referring to as the residential street) isn't dangerous. Anyone who says that it is doesn't know what they are talking about. The only portion of Leila that is dangerous is the portion that got over-engineered (@ McPhillips). EDIT: To add -- Springfield was never a dangerous route either.

As for the idea that Kenaston is at its capacity, that idea is fraught with bias. Traffic -- EDIT: more accurately, transportation systems -- are complex adaptive systems that looks to create an evolutionary stable strategy. If we are over capacity with automobiles, adding more capacity for them will do nothing but add to traffic, because the balanced, stable, strategy will lean even further towards the personal private automobile.

If we wanted to increase capacity for the system as a whole we should look at creating balance by increasing the viability of other modes, not building even more roads for a single mode. The law of diminishing returns works for traffic too… The more you build the less effective they become.

bomberjet · #**1108** Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 4:48 PM**

There was an accident at the EB Portage to SB Route 90 ramp on Tuesday. The one day a week I drive through there. Accident was right at the bottom of the ramp where we had been discussing the issues. Traffic was a nightmare, thankfully I was heading the other way. Fire trucks had no problem accessing the site, as there were two trucks sitting there.

cllew · #**1109** Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

A smart city would have identified the problem immediately and put an overpass over the tracks, this is Winnipeg though and we get what we deserve or worse usually!

Because the railways are the superior use at most crossings could they tell the cities / towns/ etc that they want traffic underpasses under their tracks as not to disrupt any of special high value high wide rail traffic?

bomberjet · #**1110** Posted **Mar 19, 2015, 5:50 PM**

Railway stance is an overpass is preffered. As they don't like putting stuff under the track. Whoever prefers the more expensive option would have to pick up the additional costs.

cllew · #**1111** Posted **Mar 20, 2015, 1:23 AM**

Makes sense, they don't have to do shoo-flys or other disruptive track work other than a shutdown when the beams are flown in with the crane.

EastK · #**1112** Posted **Mar 20, 2015, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

Makes sense, they don't have to do shoo-flys or other disruptive track work other than a shutdown when the beams are flown in with the crane.

Why is the city then so insistent on underpasses in the city? Wouldn't an overpass be a lot less of a pain in the ass then an underpass? Think of how much easier the Plesses project would have been had the not had to deal with underground gas lines and such.

steveosnyder · #**1113** Posted **Mar 20, 2015, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastK

Why is the city then so insistent on underpasses in the city? Wouldn't an overpass be a lot less of a pain in the ass then an underpass? Think of how much easier the Plesses project would have been had the not had to deal with underground gas lines and such.

I might be mistaken, but I believe that, land-area wise, an overpass requires more than an underpass. At Plessis Road it would mean more land acquisition, which made the project more expensive (which, in hindsight, might not have been more expensive).

esquire · #**1114** Posted **Mar 20, 2015, 3:41 PM**

^ Neighbours also tend to object to overpasses and for good reason, because they tend to be much uglier blots on the landscape than underpasses. Think of the Lagimodiere overpass by Nairn as an example.

cllew · #**1115** Posted **Mar 20, 2015, 4:25 PM**

Anybody else hear the St. Boniface MP Shelly Glover on CJOB radio today saying that Winnipeg city council has been leaving piles of money for road improvements sitting on the table because they don't want to submit applications for it?

esquire · #**1116** Posted **Mar 20, 2015, 4:33 PM**

I wouldn't believe anything Shelly Glover says unless it she clearly proves it.

bomberjet · #**1117** Posted **Mar 20, 2015, 4:38 PM**

The City hates overpasses because they are big and ugly. Personally I think it's cool when there's viaducts going around all over the place.

Glover may just be posturing telling the City to get their ass in gear. There were questions raised on the budget and how some road funding was changed. Funding for the Marion Widening was moved to some other fund. Apparently there are 4 large projects they're supposed to be gathering dollars for.

I think they are the following.

Chief Peguis Trail
William Clement Parkway
Marion Widening
Waverley Underpass

News had said it was going to be an either/or thing on Marion and Waverley. We'll see what goes on.

Danny D Oh · #**1118** Posted **Mar 21, 2015, 9:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Citation needed... Leila (at least to my understanding this is what you are referring to as the residential street) isn't dangerous. Anyone who says that it is doesn't know what they are talking about. The only portion of Leila that is dangerous is the portion that got over-engineered (@ McPhillips). EDIT: To add -- Springfield was never a dangerous route either.

Not sure if you're only referring to the section of Springfield that has already been replaced, but it is far from a safe route. I used to teach a block away from Springfield and collisions between senior pedestrians/schoolchildren and vehicles were very common. The Springfield/Edison intersection is particularly bad at peak times. Probably one of the worst stretches of 50 km/h road I've traveled regularly.

EastK · #**1119** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Neighbours also tend to object to overpasses and for good reason, because they tend to be much uglier blots on the landscape than underpasses. Think of the Lagimodiere overpass by Nairn as an example.

I live close to that overpass and have never had a problem with it although I could understand from a noise perspective an overpass is not as desirable. In an industrial area such as along Dugald would it be such a bad thing though? After seeing how fast they can go up on Centerport it seems like a lot less of a hassle even though you need more land.

Wpg transit 163-1 · #**1120** Posted **Mar 22, 2015, 4:15 PM**

does anybody know when they start construction on phase 2 of Rapid transit/ pembina underpass widening will affect how traffic on the jublee overpass moves. Cause i know they have to widen pembina build a new RT bridge and a new rail bridge. Just wondering cuase i had a bus driver i know ask how this would effect transit and traffic on the overpass.