Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[plrh]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That's the thing. Sounded like the geotech team messed up. Not that they didn't know. But all the info I've gathered is third hand. So not really sure exactly what the issue was.

There would've been a test hole drilling program completed for all the new structures and roadways. So they should've been able to determine what depths would be required at that time. Who knows. Seems like they're moving along now. If there's an extra cost, I would hope/assume the contractor is on the hook.

Shouldn't MIT be on the hook for the geotech because it would have been done before the project was tendered? If the contractors price relies on the info submitted by MIT, and then the info is wrong, i dont think the contractor should pay.

And geotech companies would never take responsibility for what is outside their test holes; too much risk.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by plrh

Shouldn't MIT be on the hook for the geotech because it would have been done before the project was tendered? If the contractors price relies on the info submitted by MIT, and then the info is wrong, i dont think the contractor should pay.

And geotech companies would never take responsibility for what is outside their test holes; too much risk.

MIT may have had geotech done for the RFP. Some preliminary test holes in much smaller numbers. I'm not really sure, wasn't involved in it. But typically if you're designing and constructing multiple bridges, you will have your own geotech work done. Extensive geotech so you know exactly whats going on at each foundation location.

The geotech recommendations would include depth of bedrock, glacial till, etc. Bearing and/or friction capacities of the soil, etc. So your structural designers can properly design foundations. If they messed this up, it's the contractors issue.

I don't think MIT and any of their geotech work would be relied upon by outside engineers for a design like that. Maybe use as a guideline for bidding and what you're expecting to see.

I'm working on a large pursuit right now and that's how it's being done. Preliminary geotech for the bid phase. Successful bidder will complete their own geotech to use for design.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

MIT may have had geotech done for the RFP. Some preliminary test holes in much smaller numbers. I'm not really sure, wasn't involved in it. But typically if you're designing and constructing multiple bridges, you will have your own geotech work done. Extensive geotech so you know exactly whats going on at each foundation location.

The geotech recommendations would include depth of bedrock, glacial till, etc. Bearing and/or friction capacities of the soil, etc. So your structural designers can properly design foundations. If they messed this up, it's the contractors issue.

I don't think MIT and any of their geotech work would be relied upon by outside engineers for a design like that. Maybe use as a guideline for bidding and what you're expecting to see.

I'm working on a large pursuit right now and that's how it's being done. Preliminary geotech for the bid phase. Successful bidder will complete their own geotech to use for design.

I guess the value of preliminary geotech varies between construction project type. I have never worked on a bridge, and have never had to worry about anything beyond the first 5m. Good luck on the bid

[Reignman]

A friend of mine told me today that within the next 2 years a new light will be put up on the north perimeter between highways 8 and 9...in the area of the Sunova center.

Can anyone confirm? If this is true, this province has reached an all time @#*% low.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Reignman

Can anyone confirm? If this is true, this province has reached an all time @#*% low.

Because of a traffic light?!

[bomberjet]

That'd be ridiculous. That traffic needs to get funneled up to Grassmere somehow, or use the access road to get to #8.

I have a good source who's told me the CP rail line crossing 101 at that location will be relocated to connect with the other CP track that crosses near #7. Now they put up a light, I don't buy it. Close that median opening, with the rail line closing, and you could actually designate 101 a freeway from McPhillips to Wenzel. And you could extend that quite easily with some median closings.

[Reignman]

Originally Posted by esquire

Because of a traffic light?!

Sorry..I meant in regards to the handling of the perimeter highway, not the province in general.

They are currently spending in the neighborhood of $250 million to grade separate 59 only to (if this is true) turn around and toss up another light a few km west? When, as bomberjet mentions above, traffic should be funneled to other roads that currently do access 100. The province really, really needs to stop putting up lights on the perimeter. No exceptions.

I hope my friend is wrong!

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Reignman

Sorry..I meant in regards to the handling of the perimeter highway, not the province in general.

They are currently spending in the neighborhood of $250 million to grade separate 59 only to (if this is true) turn around and toss up another light a few km west? When, as bomberjet mentions above, traffic should be funneled to other roads that currently do access 100. The province really, really needs to stop putting up lights on the perimeter. No exceptions.

I hope my friend is wrong!

They're also eliminating the lights at 3 and the intersection at 2. From what they tell me, short term, a few more lights will be necessary for safety reasons, but their goal is to eliminate every single one over the next decade or so.

[sdimedru]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

They're also eliminating the lights at 3 and the intersection at 2. From what they tell me, short term, a few more lights will be necessary for safety reasons, but their goal is to eliminate every single one over the next decade or so.

Edmonton made that mistake on the SW leg of the Henday ring road, and not one more light has been installed since (through the remaining construction legs)

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

They're also eliminating the lights at 3 and the intersection at 2. From what they tell me, short term, a few more lights will be necessary for safety reasons, but their goal is to eliminate every single one over the next decade or so.

So they'll have completely grade separated the Perimeter within just 70 years from initial construction. Gives me whiplash just thinking about it.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Spocket

So they'll have completely grade separated the Perimeter within just 70 years from initial construction. Gives me whiplash just thinking about it.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Spocket

So they'll have completely grade separated the Perimeter within just 70 years from initial construction. Gives me whiplash just thinking about it.

That sounds like Manitoba (my bet is on closer to 80, but I digress).

[bomberjet]

Any updates on the 101/59N interchange? I went by a few weeks back and there were a bunch of piles sticking out of the ground right at Lag. It was on a weekend. But there was a guy bumming around by the piles, so seems like they were doing something with them. Just wondering if they've been driven yet.

Also looked like they ere doing some grading works.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Any updates on the 101/59N interchange? I went by a few weeks back and there were a bunch of piles sticking out of the ground right at Lag. It was on a weekend. But there was a guy bumming around by the piles, so seems like they were doing something with them. Just wondering if they've been driven yet.

Also looked like they ere doing some grading works.

Work on the interchange seems to be progressing at a snails pace or did the province change their mind on the project again!?!?

[CoryB]

Considering 101/59 has been on the books for 20+ years and even longer if you go back to the original design the current pace, as slow as it might be, is comparatively moving at the speed of light.

[bomberjet]

I was actually surprised by the amount of work they got done in the second half of 2015. But seems (from my observations anyway) the bridges stalled out over the winter, likely due to the piling issues.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Work on the interchange seems to be progressing at a snails pace or did the province change their mind on the project again!?!?

I drive by every day. I see a ton of progress. They now have the piles driven for all the bridge piers (flyover and 59 bridges), they have done wack load of excavation and grading for the 101E to 59S off ramp, and are getting close to removing the existing 59 overpass structure. Considering they can't to a ton of excavation and approach building with all the winter snowfall on the ground I have been very impressed at the speed they are moving. Now that the snow is gone I would expect things to pick up even more.

[bomberjet]

Good news Biff. They really shouldn't be doing any grade work besides excavation during the winter. Even that can be spotty as you deepen the frost depth. They need to wait until the ground is thawed before building up.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by Biff

I drive by every day. I see a ton of progress. They now have the piles driven for all the bridge piers (flyover and 59 bridges), they have done wack load of excavation and grading for the 101E to 59S off ramp, and are getting close to removing the existing 59 overpass structure. Considering they can't to a ton of excavation and approach building with all the winter snowfall on the ground I have been very impressed at the speed they are moving. Now that the snow is gone I would expect things to pick up even more.

I was under the impression the old overpass was incorporated into the design ?

[bomberjet]

It's being re-constructed in the same place. Same concept, 2 lane ramp over Lag.