HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1901  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 2:29 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 8,704
That was the plan, but the residents opposed the service road behind the community as they would have to listen to all the trucks going behind their houses. Now, they just dangerously enter the Perimeter at an uncontrolled access point.
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1902  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 2:34 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
What the.. So they oppose having the trucks out of their town and using the back roads? Or the service road that will be on the west side of 100?

Seriously why Manitoba can't have nice things. Every single thing is NIMBY'd to death. Everything. Even the election.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1903  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 2:43 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
It is actually somewhat disappointing the south Perimeter is being taken on first, not because I have a preference but the level of the development on the north Perimeter between 59 and Portage Ave is much less. It could be cleaned up with two diamonds (Pipeline and Stuergeon), one complex interchange (HWY 6 due to the commercial truck traffic) and some access roads.

By taking on the worst section of the Perimeter first the issues on the other sections are likely to get much worse before they ever get attention. Hopefully the work on the south Perimeter starts with removing all the limited access points between HWY 1 and 59 (south).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1904  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 2:48 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
^They're starting by barricading some access points this year. With removal of the road next year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
....and just a heads up, the Province will begin putting up barricades to close off access points to the south Perimeter Hwy starting this week. I noticed a pile of barricades at Dawson Rd on the eastern leg of the south Perimeter last night. Actual excavation work and construction of access roads where needed should happen next summer. This will be at all the lesser crossings where closing will be fairly simple.....but it is a start.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1905  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 3:07 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
It is actually somewhat disappointing the south Perimeter is being taken on first, not because I have a preference but the level of the development on the north Perimeter between 59 and Portage Ave is much less. It could be cleaned up with two diamonds (Pipeline and Stuergeon), one complex interchange (HWY 6 due to the commercial truck traffic) and some access roads.

By taking on the worst section of the Perimeter first the issues on the other sections are likely to get much worse before they ever get attention. Hopefully the work on the south Perimeter starts with removing all the limited access points between HWY 1 and 59 (south).
And between 59 and st annes
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1906  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 3:22 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
What was the problem with having an interchange between 100/2 and with 3 passing over 100 to McGillivray again? Also how important, politically, is Oak Bluff?

Seriously down with the NIMBY’s.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1907  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 3:26 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
I think the interchange is still going there. Just the access to the industrial park is up in the air. If they actually opposed the interchange... ffs that'd be ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1908  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 3:34 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Hmm, what about noise-cancelling walls along the service road? If the NIMBY’s are that picky, make the insulating walls transparent too.

Actually, what about extending that service road northward, and constructing another interchange at La Vérendrye Road? Expensive? Yes, but what can you do... But since 100 needs to go over the rail tracks anyway, we might as well put another interchange there.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1909  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 3:53 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
My prediction: the province builds a diamond at McGillivray and then installs traffic lights 1 mile north for access to the industrial park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1910  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 3:58 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
My prediction: the province builds a diamond at McGillivray and then installs traffic lights 1 mile north for access to the industrial park
I can see the province cheapening out like that. However, keep in mind that there’s a railway crossing there too, so we can’t rule out just yet a rail overpass that will also incorporate an interchange at La Vérendrye.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1911  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 4:14 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I can see the province cheapening out like that. However, keep in mind that there’s a railway crossing there too, so we can’t rule out just yet a rail overpass that will also incorporate an interchange at La Vérendrye.
That's a pretty lightly used branch shortline railway, probably used no more than a few times a week by CEMR trains. It's hard to imagine that grade separation going in until every interchange on the Perimeter has been built. But eventually I suppose it could happen.

I was being a bit facetious about the traffic lights, but I could see something like a RIRO at Oakland Road being a bit of a compromise. That would provide an alternative to having to go through the town, even if it's not necessarily as flexible as the current arrangement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1912  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 4:20 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
A horseshoe rail overpass/interchange would work. But only if they're grade separating the railway.

I think they plan on doing that thought, separating the railways, from the press release a while back. It's at least noted in the map as a location that is being analyzed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1913  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 4:44 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
A horseshoe rail overpass/interchange would work. But only if they're grade separating the railway.

I think they plan on doing that thought, separating the railways, from the press release a while back. It's at least noted in the map as a location that is being analyzed.
But a railway crossing that is occupied by trains maybe what, 3 or 4 times a week has to be way down the priority list compared to highway junctions that get heavy traffic almost all hours of the day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1914  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 5:00 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
For sure.

But when they're doing the interchange at McGillivray, they'll be doing work on 100 as well. If they're going to be widening and/or re-building the roadway, it will stretch a ways back in each direction. 59/101 is a good example, although that required some realignment.

If they ill be paving/widening, etc near the railway crossing, that is the time to do the bridge. The bridge is only like $5m or something. $10m absolute maximum. It's all the other stuff that makes it so costly. Just get it done all at once and that area is free and clear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1915  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 5:23 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
But a railway crossing that is occupied by trains maybe what, 3 or 4 times a week has to be way down the priority list compared to highway junctions that get heavy traffic almost all hours of the day.
The province has put in the study requirements for south perimeter that an interchange be built at four mile road, and to analyze the cost benefit of building a rail overpass for that shortline vs. Relocating it under that new interchange. Clearly regardless of the better option this will be one of the last things done since the rail line is never used and theres no traffic at 4 mile road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1916  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 5:58 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
My guesstimate for how the roadwork on S perimeter will be prioritized, assuming roadway widening would accompany each interchange:

-McGillivray interchange
-St Mary's interchange
-St Anne's interchange + rail line overpass
-Kenaston/Waverley interchange
-330 (LaSalle) interchange
-Upgrades/reconfiguration of the portage, pembina, 59, and fermor interchanges
-2nd Red river bridge for widening to 6 lanes
-Symington interchange
-4 mile road interchange/rail line


McGillivaray and St Marys are evident firsts since the province wants shovel ready plans for these two intersections with the south perimeter study. St Anne's and the railway overpass is less complex and expensive than the Waverley/Kenaston cluster, so I put them in that order, and the rest are likely lower priority.

I can see this order changing, say if the province has 70 million to build and that isn't enough to cover two of the complex interchanges, it could always build one complex and one simple diamond, knocking it off earlier than would be normally prioritized.

Also to consider are other interchanges in the province (1/16, Brandon, pipeline rd, hwy 6?) that could be argued higher priorities than some of the lesser south perimeter intersections
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1917  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 6:10 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Waverley? I feel that adding an interchange there will turn Perimeter between Pembina and Kenaston into a mess with all the weaving. It should be an underpass instead. Again ignore the NIMBY’s.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1918  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 6:11 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Decommissioning Waverley. The interchange will be at Kenaston as part of the St. Norbert bypass.

The list by wildcake seems about right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1919  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 6:38 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
A flyover for Waverley with no access to the Perimeter would be reasonable given the proximity to interchanges at Pembina and Kenaston, although probably unlikely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1920  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2018, 6:42 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Decommissioning Waverley. The interchange will be at Kenaston as part of the St. Norbert bypass.

The list by wildcake seems about right.
Or possibly even reconnect Waverley to Tim Sale with an over/underpass with no connection to Perimeter if that is deemed worthwhile

Edit: Esquire beat me to it
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 9:06 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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