HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 3:01 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,703
I would be fine having 59 be 6 lanes from 101 to Garven. There's loads of gravel trucks using that highway all day everyday during construction season. Having that additional lane for merging and such, while allowing the other 2 lanes to flow, is fine with me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 3:03 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,703
Is there a map of available showing traffic volumes in Winnipeg? We have the highway volume map, which notes 101 and 59 as being highly used.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 3:15 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Here's the Manitoba map:
http://umtig.eng.umanitoba.ca/Flow%20Map.htm

And the Winnipeg version:
https://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/...ficFlowMap.stm

There is a decent case to be made for making some stretches of the Perimeter (between Wilkes and CCW, between 59 and 7, and between Kenaston and St. Mary's) 6 lanes, along with 59 from 101 to either Birds Hill or Garven Road.

If you look at the Winnipeg map, it's clear that Lagimodiere could use some sort of improvement... it has Portage Ave-like traffic flows but without the extra lanes.

FWIW the thought of having a stretch of 6 lane highway is not really that unthinkable, we are a city of nearly a million people after all, and the highways tend to get busy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 3:22 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,703
Thanks for the links. Note the traffic numbers are not using like units between the two maps. City of Winnipeg is average weekday daily traffic. Provincial is annual average daily traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 4:13 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
eliminating at-grade access except for the one by the 59er.
At grade access from the highway to the 59er/trailer park should be removed. Build an access road to/from the Bird's Hill park loop/overpass access. It is almost non-existent that traffic volumes would block that crossing. For the few times it is an issue put in temporary stop signs for all four directions to allow cross traffic at the site.

--

In terms of if 59 needs six lanes the main issue would come down to the volume of Oak Bank/Springfield traffic during the Sunday evening lake rush back to Winnipeg. In terms of pure infrastructure spend costs the benefit is far greater on spending the cash for the six lane 59 upgrade on the long proposed Oak Bank corridor. The Oak Bank corridor route would pickup most of the origin/destination traffic south of 213 (Graven Rd) and take over a substantial amount of the HWY 15 traffic as it would effectively reroute that traffic to the north. Long term it would also connect to CPT/CCW/et all and serve as a quick connector route for north Winnipeg similar to what Bishop is supposed to be for south Winnipeg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 5:27 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hecate View Post
Most of the time four lanes on 59 is enough, but it’s the lake traffic on the weekends that demands six. It’s honestly necessary. I’d put six lanes to at least garven, to 44 would be nicer. There should be an interchange there and another one at dunning, Or at least lights. It’s dangerous to try to cross the highway there and there are accidents at that intersection quite frequently. I would also like to see the province add passing lanes on the two lane highways. Like 44 and 317. Sucks getting stuck behind a camper or a farmer doing 80 on the way to the lake and not being able to pass.
Six lanes would be ideal as far as Garven Rd. to act in part as merge lanes for traffic coming off 101 and for future interchanges at Bird's Hill and Garven.

The current situation at Dunning Road is dangerous. Access to Dunning west of 59 should be from 202 only, no access at all between 59 and west Dunning. Dunning east of 59 should have RIRO access. Those coming from the north would have to backtrack from Garven or wanting to go south on 59 from Dunning they would have to turn around using the Bird's Hill exit or access 59 via Lorne Hill, none of these options adds considerable distance.

Other exits would be at 44, 509 and 4. Access at 212 would be eliminated, people in East Selkirk would access 59 south via Old Henderson (needs to be paved anyways. otherwise it's a good and wide right-of-way) and 59 north via 508 to 4. That would complete to the northern section of a fully limited access highway from Hwy 4 in the north all the way down to and including Hwy 52 in the south. Unfortunately Winnipeg ruined the ability for the upgrade through the city to be done at a much lesser cost due to horrible urban planning starting in the 1980s. There should never have been a controlled intersection at Reenders for example and land should not have been developed so close to the intersection with Regent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 7:07 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
Unfortunately Winnipeg ruined the ability for the upgrade through the city to be done at a much lesser cost due to horrible urban planning starting in the 1980s. There should never have been a controlled intersection at Reenders for example and land should not have been developed so close to the intersection with Regent.
Pretty sure the southwest corner at Regent and Lag with the tire dealer and strip mall pre-dates the 80s as does most of the objectionable development further south on Lag.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 7:15 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,703
There were definitely plans for a large interchange at Regent dating back to the 60's, if not earlier. Nairn and Thomas running as one way couplet. Same with Regent and Pandora. Then the City started selling off land in their typical fashion and here we are today. Bad planning 101.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 7:36 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ontario's feel good town
Posts: 4,023
Isn't 59 still a two lane road through Brokenhead? If so 6 lanes to relieve lake traffic is kind of senseless.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 7:44 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,703
Just 6 lanes to Garven. Basically I'd make it so the merge lanes at Garven change the roadway from 4 to 6 lanes. I think this is how it's already set-up on lag between 101 and birds hill road. Turning lanes are the 5th and 6th lanes. At least that's what it showed in the drawing, but I don't know if they actually built 6 lanes through there. Somebody could tell us.

Beyond that, the Province is still looking into twinning 59 to the Grand Beach turn-off, which is just fine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 7:45 PM
wardlow's Avatar
wardlow wardlow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
Isn't 59 still a two lane road through Brokenhead?
Yep, it's still just two lanes from Brokenhead F.N. on up to where it terminates at Victoria Beach, with one northbound stretch around Balsam Bay with an extra lane to allow for passing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 7:47 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
I seem to recall that a few years ago, either in a news article, a press release or something like that there was some mention about an agreement having been reached with Brokenhead and that twinning of 59 would continue. Must have been at least 5 years ago by my recollection.

It does seem that twinning 59 to Grand Beach is overdue...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 7:50 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,703
I googled hwy 59 deaths. And everything that came up, which was 6 articles at the top, and they're all on the single lane roadway in the last few years. Numerous deaths and injuries. Head on collisions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 7:55 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ontario's feel good town
Posts: 4,023
Brokenhead resisted twinning in the past, but I suspect now that they have their capitalist hats on, they would love to have it twinned. I understand their casino is quite the success.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 8:15 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is online now
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 7,982
^ I think the opposite would be true. Keeping it two lane through the community forces people to slow down - and likely increases the chances they will stop, especially at the gas bar/restaurant.

It also keeps the highway going thru town. If it gets twinned, it would likely bypass the area all together.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 8:37 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ The 2014 articles on the subject suggested that Brokenhead was willing to negotiate on land which apparently wasn't the case in earlier years, but the province had other priorities at the time.

Besides, they could always build a new gas station if the highway moved east...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 8:40 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,703
I would think it'd be twinned next to the existing highway, on the east side. But yeah, who knows really.

Similar topic, is the Wenzel access at 59 still open? Or is traffic directed own to Birds Hill Rd?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 8:52 PM
morty morty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
There were definitely plans for a large interchange at Regent dating back to the 60's, if not earlier. Nairn and Thomas running as one way couplet. Same with Regent and Pandora. Then the City started selling off land in their typical fashion and here we are today. Bad planning 101.
The city still owns a bunch of the land and leases it, I believe. Same deal along Bishop Grandin. As an example, the Old Navy and the parking lot to the north at Bishop and St. Mary's is all on city-owned "future interchange" land.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
I would think it'd be twinned next to the existing highway, on the east side. But yeah, who knows really.

Similar topic, is the Wenzel access at 59 still open? Or is traffic directed own to Birds Hill Rd?
Completely closed off, which is great. The mistake was not building an interchange at Birds Hill Road. Couldn't have added more than 30ish million to a $200+ million project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 8:56 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by morty View Post
The city still owns a bunch of the land and leases it, I believe. Same deal along Bishop Grandin. As an example, the Old Navy and the parking lot to the north at Bishop and St. Mary's is all on city-owned "future interchange" land.




Completely closed off, which is great. The mistake was not building an interchange at Birds Hill Road. Couldn't have added more than 30ish million to a $200+ million project.
Yes they definitely lease land. But mostly it's small pieces with parking lots on them. The buildings are all (most?) on private land they'd have to expropriate. I'll find the plans on my computer, but there was a large cloverleaf planned for regent/Lag that would take out virtually all of the development at the corner.

Good to hear Wenzel is closed. So there are no uncontrolled access points at all in the stretch we discussed. 101 interchange, Birds Hill Rd intersection, floodway ramps, Garven intersection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted May 7, 2019, 1:31 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Yes they definitely lease land. But mostly it's small pieces with parking lots on them. The buildings are all (most?) on private land they'd have to expropriate. I'll find the plans on my computer, but there was a large cloverleaf planned for regent/Lag that would take out virtually all of the development at the corner.

Good to hear Wenzel is closed. So there are no uncontrolled access points at all in the stretch we discussed. 101 interchange, Birds Hill Rd intersection, floodway ramps, Garven intersection.
I think I remember a parclo planned at regent and Lag. I could also see a diamond or single point urban interchange go in there as an alternative.

I think with that corner, the strip mall with ACU is on city owned land. My guess comes from the fact that the building hasnt been updated in decades whereas most strip malls seem to get a full facelift every 5-10 years. Probably the 'we can be outa here at any moment' mentality.

Edit:

Found winnipeg zoning map
https://winnipeg.ca/ppd/maps_aerial.stm
Toggle on all the zoning options and the blank stuff is probably what the city has allocated for roadways. You can see the parking lot by st vital not zoned.

Bad news is there is no city owned land around regent and Lag. If ever there is an interchange there, that will cost a good chunk of change to expropriate.

I also noticed no land allocated to take care of the royal screw up that is bishop grandin between royalwood and lag, nor around fermor and Lag, whereas there is room around st annes, dakota, and st marys
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:39 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.