Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[optimusREIM]

Idea: we'll close all the small accesses to the perimeter effective immediately then build service roads. Some of the lights will just become serviced by the service roads with right in right out access only while other lights get interchanges. get rid of those inadequate curbs in the middle boulevard and set up jersey barriers. that upgrade alone would be a huge step in the right direction for safety. I'm always afraid that a semi will lose control in the winter and cross over the median and hit me or others.

[bomberjet]

You're right about the medians, not freeway standards. You need the barrier or more separation. South Perimeter sounds like they're going to undertake some sort of median widening, as Biff eluded to numerous times. Again, new government...

One thing to note with the service roads. Anytime the province closes access, they need to provide paved service roads. Not sure if this is to keep people happy or some sort of standard. Theory is people can get access to a paved roadway (perimeter). Once you cut access to the paved roadway, they need to travel greater distances on gravel roadways. that's a no-no to MI it seems.

The 101/59 project is paving all the service roads where people must travel due to access closures. So from the Pritchard Farm/McGergor farm access point to 59, all the service roads are being paved to the north.

I think the same thing is/was happening at 100/303 project. The original project never actually went ahead. So not sure what exactly happened there.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am frequently on the Perimeter. If you gave me a huge pile of money and said to spend in on road improvements that had the most impact I would likely spend it in other places. For example The headingley and St Norbert bypasses, grade separating Deacon's Corner, building an right-only overpass for Bishop at Dakotka, fully grade separating St Marys and Bishop, right only at Bishop at River, grade separation of Regent and Lag and Fermor and Lag, etc. The list is long and the Perimeter barely even makes the radar.

The St. N. Bypass was and is a stupid idea. Should never be built.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Idea: we'll close all the small accesses to the perimeter effective immediately then build service roads. Some of the lights will just become serviced by the service roads with right in right out access only while other lights get interchanges. get rid of those inadequate curbs in the middle boulevard and set up jersey barriers. that upgrade alone would be a huge step in the right direction for safety. I'm always afraid that a semi will lose control in the winter and cross over the median and hit me or others.

This would make sense. I've wondered why Kenaston isn't the only S. Perimeter access with Waverley and 330 connected to it by a service road.

Oh right, people don't want to wait the extra 30 sec.

[Riverman]

There is a HUGE amount of land presently being developed for housing in the western part of West St. Paul. Pipeline Road will get a lot busier in the next 10 years.

[esquire]

There actually are service roads along most of the Perimeter... it's just that they're built to a very low grade, like rural farm roads for farmers to drive their tractors on and are not used to anywhere near their potential.

Look at a Google map... the service roads are the white lines on either side of the yellow Perimeter route.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Take the highest risk and highest traffic locations first. So would likely be South Perimeter first, as it's part of the national highway system (if you can call it that).

The undisputed highest risk intersection on the Perimeter based on collisions and fatalities is without question Gunn Rd. currently it is a high traffic uncontrolled intersection that does not even have lights!

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't see why Pipeline needs an interchange when the reality is that people living in those acreages north of the Perimeter could easily use McPhillips instead. An interchange there is essentially tens of millions of dollars spent to ensure this little clump of ugly sprawl doesn't have to drive an extra couple KMs to McPhillips

Excellent suggestion esquire. Since St Marys and St Annes are a similar distance from the existing interchange at Lag the Perimeter we can also cross both those interchanges off the required list and just build some access roads.

The answer isn't to eliminate any of the existing intersections but to treat them all equally. Traffic lights didn't just get randomly put on the Perimeter to slow traffic down. There would be traffic studies to back up their need and that isn't going to change.

In terms of the old MIT map, the grade separations were specifically geared around replacing traffic lights on the Perimeter. As Gunn Rd only has a stop sign it conveniently did not meet that criteria. As Gunn Rd would eventually be replaced by a CPT interchange it is also not a priority.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Since St Marys and St Annes are a similar distance from the existing interchange at Lag the Perimeter we can also cross both those interchanges off the required list and just build some access roads.

Does Pipeline have anywhere near the volume of traffic that either of those streets do?

[njaohnt]

Why are there no red light cameras on the Perimeter? City roads that have cars going 60 have red light cameras, but highway lights don't. Surely people would be more careful if there were.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

The St. N. Bypass was and is a stupid idea. Should never be built.

What...? There needs to be a way to divert heavy truck and through traffic to the perimeter.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

Why are there no red light cameras on the Perimeter? City roads that have cars going 60 have red light cameras, but highway lights don't. Surely people would be more careful if there were.

The perimeter is a provincial highway, and the province doesn't do that.

[jmt18325]

Is there a reason that Waverly south of the Perimeter can't be cut off at Grandmont, with the traffic into the city routed on to Pembina via Grandmont and Trappistes? Is it simply cowardice on the part of the province?

[Jeff]

I agree. that part of Waverley has got to have less traffic than gunn rd or pipeline.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Jeff

I agree. that part of Waverley has got to have less traffic than gunn rd or pipeline.

I'd also say that they should close the intersection of PTH 2 and PTH 100. it's never been all that busy.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I'd also say that they should close the intersection of PTH 2 and PTH 100. it's never been all that busy.

Great plan. So even more traffic is pushed through oakbluff. I think you need to be a person that uses all these roads on a daily basis to start making traffic use judgements.

[Reignman]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Is it simply cowardice on the part of the province?

Sadly that seems to be the case. They don't have the balls to make the "tough" decisions like closing off Waverley access and re-routing it to Pembina or the Kenaston access point to 100. Might piss off a handful of people. Probably the same reason no action has been taken to close other minor access points and median openings.

Speaking of Waverley, after looking at that MIT diagram of the perimeter...somebody please tell me they are not still planning for interchanges at both Kenaston and Waverley?

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Great plan. So even more traffic is pushed through oakbluff. I think you need to be a person that uses all these roads on a daily basis to start making traffic use judgements.

I was that person until just a few years ago. The next step would be to construct the interchange at highway 3 and the perimeter.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by Reignman

Sadly that seems to be the case. They don't have the balls to make the "tough" decisions like closing off Waverley access and re-routing it to Pembina or the Kenaston access point to 100. Might piss off a handful of people. Probably the same reason no action has been taken to close other minor access points and median openings.

Speaking of Waverley, after looking at that MIT diagram of the perimeter...somebody please tell me they are not still planning for interchanges at both Kenaston and Waverley?

Both Waverley and 330 should not connect at the perimeter. They should access perimeter via service road linkage to Kenaston.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

What...? There needs to be a way to divert heavy truck and through traffic to the perimeter.

Current Hwy75 to perimeter is fine. There is no argument that it is a safety issue. There is no argument that it would be faster for truck traffic if it existed ( the extra distance would negate speed gains), and the environmental damage to a provincial park, heritage park and bird sanctuary.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

Current Hwy75 to perimeter is fine. There is no argument that it is a safety issue. There is no argument that it would be faster for truck traffic if it existed ( the extra distance would negate speed gains), and the environmental damage to a provincial park, heritage park and bird sanctuary.

The issue is that you're slowing truck traffic on the busiest shipping route in the province. It's not up to the standard to which it ought to be. This is classic nimbyism