Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[bomberjet]

They already have the loop and extra bridge in place instead of the fly-over shown in the render. So would seem that plan is future if traffic volumes ever got large enough. We're still guessing through as to whether the other legs get loops or a fly-over ramp. Basically Main line Trans-Canada route should have ramps that maintain speed. The EB CCW to SB 101 route has a ramp by default and if designed properly should maintain high speed like the interstate does.

Not sure fly-over is the correct term, maybe directional ramp. Semantics.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

They already have the loop and extra bridge in place instead of the fly-over shown in the render. So would seem that plan is future if traffic volumes ever got large enough. We're still guessing through as to whether the other legs get loops or a fly-over ramp. Basically Main line Trans-Canada route should have ramps that maintain speed. The EB CCW to SB 101 route has a ramp by default and if designed properly should maintain high speed like the interstate does.

Not sure fly-over is the correct term, maybe directional ramp. Semantics.

I believe flyover is a British term for overpass--no connections to the road(s) it goes over.

[bomberjet]

Fly-over is commonly used. I guess it's a fly-over.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Biff

I would have to say that the Conceptual Plan seems correct. The idea is that the traffic from CCW going West goes straight through and the traffic going to the east and to the US would be the heaviest, so it gets a flyover. You are right in there would probably be suitable traffic numbers to support a flyover from NB Perimeter traffic to the WB Headingley Bypass.

I don't believe the render is wrong though.

I remember seeing this several years ago when the bypass was first announced and exactly that was discussed. I do think that it would make sense for TransCanada traffic to get a nice high speed ramp though

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I remember seeing this several years ago when the bypass was first announced and exactly that was discussed. I do think that it would make sense for TransCanada traffic to get a nice high speed ramp though

Yea this has been discussed before. I am curious to see if north perimeter would then become then main through route for W-E traffic (regardless if the south perimeter is still desinated TCH). Joining the perimeter at ccw makes the routes to fermor and perimeter relatively equal (46 km for north, 43 for south) but with fewer lights via the north - at least at this moment.

I would hope that by the time the headingley bypass is built, a few lights on perimeter are taken care of

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Yea this has been discussed before. I am curious to see if north perimeter would then become then main through route for W-E traffic (regardless if the south perimeter is still desinated TCH). Joining the perimeter at ccw makes the routes to fermor and perimeter relatively equal (46 km for north, 43 for south) but with fewer lights via the north - at least at this moment.

I would hope that by the time the headingley bypass is built, a few lights on perimeter are taken care of

My guess would be that the south perimeter would remain the preferred route despite it probably being easier to bring the north side to freeflow. Especially since 75 joins on the south side as well as the current plans to completely overhaul the south perimeter.

[Dengler Avenue]

IMO, though, that Perimeter/CCW should be free-flowing like 101/59 (and later on 100/75) should be a no brainer.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

IMO, though, that Perimeter/CCW should be free-flowing like 101/59 (and later on 100/75) should be a no brainer.

Perimeter/CCW is free-flowing. Traffic doesn't have to stop in any direction.

[Dengler Avenue]

I mean in the future.
(The same goes for 100/59 as well. Those at-grade intersections really bug me.)

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

Perimeter/CCW is free-flowing. Traffic doesn't have to stop in any direction.

Incorrect. NB Perimeter to WB CCW/Headingley by-pass has a stop sign in the current, as-built, design.

[bomberjet]

I guess, technically.. That's a dummy turn-around. Mostly for maintenance, such as snow clearing. But I guess for people to pull a U-turn.

That most definitely will not be the final configuration.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Incorrect. NB Perimeter to WB CCW/Headingley by-pass has a stop sign in the current, as-built, design.

I knew someone would bring this up, but let's get real, seeing that CCW does not actually go west of the Perimeter but for the interchange ramps, for all practical purposes it's free flowing.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

I knew someone would bring this up, but let's get real, seeing that CCW does not actually go west of the Perimeter but for the interchange ramps, for all practical purposes it's free flowing.

I knew someone would bring that up too and let's be real the interchange was built for the Headingley bypass and at some point in the next 50 years it will get built then that flow will be more than a U-turn.

[bomberjet]

^And when it's built, it will be built with loops and/or bridges.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I knew someone would bring that up too and let's be real the interchange was built for the Headingley bypass and at some point in the next 50 years it will get built then that flow will be more than a U-turn.

You must have missed this, let me repost the link for you.

https://news.gov.mb.ca/asset_library...ey_by_pass.pdf

[Dengler Avenue]

It feels excessive to bypass Headingley like that though. Isn’t it cheaper to bypass it 1 km west of the town (or the undivided section)?
Also, will the section through Headingley remain 4-lane or will the one set of lanes be destroyed?

[bomberjet]

That stretch through Headingley was a death trap. Bypassing it is needed. Although they have in recent years separated the roadway with a median. That stretch has also seen many new businesses go up. I do agree the bypass is longer than I expected. It could end after the weigh scale, which I think is what was mentioned.

It will remain 4 lanes at 50-60kmh speeds, as they have now.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

It feels excessive to bypass Headingley like that though. Isn’t it cheaper to bypass it 1 km west of the town (or the undivided section)?
Also, will the section through Headingley remain 4-lane or will the one set of lanes be destroyed?

The proposed design would follow saskatchewan ave/ two mile road reducing expropriation costs(i.e. that whole row of housing on hwy 334/Dodds rd). Likewise linking it up to the tch closer to headingley would also require sharper curves

[Biff]

The idea as well is to have one interchange handle the Hwy 1/Bypass/Hwy 26 intersection rather than having 2 grade separations close together.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Biff

The idea as well is to have one interchange handle the Hwy 1/Bypass/Hwy 26 intersection rather than having 2 grade separations close together.

Highway 26 is gonna be a mess to deal with. Otherwise the whole thing would really be quite simple