HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2141  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2019, 8:02 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
A sad reality of those Perimeter plans is the province wants to down grade Portage (HWY 1) and the Perimeter to a diamond as a cost savings measure.

By making Portage into a diamond the existing bridge decking can be slightly reworked to handle six lanes of through traffic by repurposing the merge/exit lane into a through lane. If they kept it as-is there would be major reworking needed to accommodate six through lanes.
I don't mind it. To me, interchanges - clover leaf or system should be reserved for Hwy to Hwy. If the truck traffic comes off because of the Bypasses (i know, they may never be built) it will only handle commuter traffic.

Most of the major US cities that I have been to driving all generally use some form of diamonds for road access to freeway. Toronto, Minneapolis, Denver, Chicago, Miami, San Fransisco, etc, etc
__________________
"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
     
     
  #2142  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2019, 8:29 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,547
Speaking of highway-to-highway connections, I was just thinking about what to do with the 101/15 junction. People might have asked this many pages back, but is there enough space between the rail track and Highway 15 to fit in 2 loops, one for 15W to 101S and another for 101N to 15W? As for widening 15 east of the city, especially through built-up area, perhaps MIT can widen it to undivided 4-lane like Highway 9 north of the city? While there's definitely no space for a divided highway, there seems to be enough for an undivided 4-lane arterial road.

Back to the interchange:
As for the ramp from 15W to 101N, it will need to start early to gain enough height to fly over the track and join 101N. Then it's a symmetric design for the ramp from 101S to 15W. Overall, the on- and off- ramps on 101 will need to be separated from the main highway.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2143  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2019, 8:58 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
The problem with CCW/Headingley bypass replacing HWY 1/Portage Ave is it is out of scope of the Perimeter project and Portage is scheduled as "phase 1".
Has Headingley Bypass ever officially been put on hold. Specifically. Or just the outright hold on all major highway projects. Headingley could be ahead of the south Perimeter upgrades, possibly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
I don't mind it. To me, interchanges - clover leaf or system should be reserved for Hwy to Hwy. If the truck traffic comes off because of the Bypasses (i know, they may never be built) it will only handle commuter traffic.

Most of the major US cities that I have been to driving all generally use some form of diamonds for road access to freeway. Toronto, Minneapolis, Denver, Chicago, Miami, San Fransisco, etc, etc
I would also agree with this. That's why Lag is getting the full cloverleaf and Kenaston is getting the 59/101N or CCW treatment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2144  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2019, 9:02 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Speaking of highway-to-highway connections, I was just thinking about what to do with the 101/15 junction. People might have asked this many pages back, but is there enough space between the rail track and Highway 15 to fit in 2 loops, one for 15W to 101S and another for 101N to 15W? As for widening 15 east of the city, especially through built-up area, perhaps MIT can widen it to undivided 4-lane like Highway 9 north of the city? While there's definitely no space for a divided highway, there seems to be enough for an undivided 4-lane arterial road.

Back to the interchange:
As for the ramp from 15W to 101N, it will need to start early to gain enough height to fly over the track and join 101N. Then it's a symmetric design for the ramp from 101S to 15W. Overall, the on- and off- ramps on 101 will need to be separated from the main highway.
Highway 15/dugald will likely be considered a minor roadway at Perimeter, and that interchange could be a folded diamond like Wilkes and Perimeter is currently set up to account for the rail line right there. Free flow perimeter, at-grade intersections in 15.

It's been in Manitoba Infrastructure's long term plan to make a direct highway
(2 or 4 lanes) connection to oakbank, linking it to Gunn rd and Perimeter. This will reduce demand on highway 15, likely well below the need for 4 lanes. That is good because there are many private residences on both side of the roadway which would make twinning realistically unaffordable.

The pros and cons of a direct highway to Oakbank have been debated numerous times on this forum, but it is clear that this is a long term plan, as MI has not taken any remote measure to address this issue. There are much bigger fish to fry in Manitoba
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2145  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2019, 10:11 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,785
Besides the about of built up areas making twinning HWY 15 in place difficult there is also the issue with the close proximity to the CN mainline which leads to some of the most dangerous rail crossing in the whole country.

Moving HWY 15 a few months north and then splitting the remaining area to north of new 15 and south of new 15 will further reduce the traffic crossing the mainline.

The relocation is also a bigger part of the capital region highway network. The long term vision is for there to be two limited access/high speed routes going east-west through the capital region. One is HWY 1-Bishop-HWY 2/3 the other is HWY 15 (relocated)/CPT/CCW/Headingley bypass. They will also form part of the Winnipeg inner ring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2146  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2019, 11:04 PM
morty morty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
I don't mind it. To me, interchanges - clover leaf or system should be reserved for Hwy to Hwy. If the truck traffic comes off because of the Bypasses (i know, they may never be built) it will only handle commuter traffic.

Most of the major US cities that I have been to driving all generally use some form of diamonds for road access to freeway. Toronto, Minneapolis, Denver, Chicago, Miami, San Fransisco, etc, etc
Absolutely, I agree. Both the Portage and Pembina interchanges become a shitshow at rush hours. Cloverleafs are good for rural highway to highway. High volume "urban" freeway to arterial road is way better as a parclo. It'll have the benefit of removing traffic congestion and slowdowns from weaving on the Perimeter itself.

It will also hopefully prompt the construction of a sidewalk on Portage through the interchange. I see a lot of people walking there, most likely as a result of the lack of transit service to the Downs/Iceplex area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2147  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2019, 11:19 PM
LilZebra's Avatar
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Spiritual
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Man.
Posts: 2,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post

Moving HWY 15 a few months north and then splitting the remaining area to north of new 15 and south of new 15 will further reduce the traffic crossing the mainline.

Metres?
__________________
Visit LilZebra.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2148  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2019, 2:09 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,532
Moving it a "month" forward gives you extra room.....it's a time-space type of thing.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #2149  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2019, 2:54 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 2,192
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2150  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2019, 3:03 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,547
I still think CoryB’s 2nd paragraph was full of erroneous autocorrects.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2151  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2019, 7:39 PM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 187
So I was at the open house last night. A few takeaways:

The re-do of Kenaston and Perimeter makes sense

Removing the cloverleaf at Pembina and the Perimeter seems like a make work projet, it's addressing an issue ( "weaving of cars in and out of exit lanes) that isn't an issue

There needs to be a better option for the St. Norbert Bypass, right now it destroys Camp Amisk,and the bird sanctuary located there. There isn't a current need for it, it's for future traffic out of centreport. GO back to the drawing board.

The traffic numbers on the map were incorrect. according to the map, the section of the S. Perimeter between Waverley and Pembina has higher traffic volumes than between Waverley and Kenaston or Pembina and St. Mary's
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2152  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2019, 8:43 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
So I was at the open house last night. A few takeaways:

The re-do of Kenaston and Perimeter makes sense

Removing the cloverleaf at Pembina and the Perimeter seems like a make work projet, it's addressing an issue ( "weaving of cars in and out of exit lanes) that isn't an issue

There needs to be a better option for the St. Norbert Bypass, right now it destroys Camp Amisk,and the bird sanctuary located there. There isn't a current need for it, it's for future traffic out of centreport. GO back to the drawing board.

The traffic numbers on the map were incorrect. according to the map, the section of the S. Perimeter between Waverley and Pembina has higher traffic volumes than between Waverley and Kenaston or Pembina and St. Mary's
Weaving is a huge safety issue, especially with how short the merge/exit lane is there. Definitely a high risk interchange. Overbuilt in a lot of ways and inappropriate for the setting. There simply isn't enough room for a proper clover leaf interchange at pembina.

As for the bypass it's been needed for years. It's not just for the 'potential centreport traffic'. Its main purpose is to take heavy truck traffic out of a neighborhood that 18 wheelers have no business going through unless their delivering there.other through traffic too for that matter. Its better to take people with no interest in stopping off a city street than to have huge traffic volumes clogging up the road network that dont have to be there. Anyways, bypass is near the top of my wish list for the perimeter.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2153  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2019, 9:13 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,532
Pembina isn't a make work project because it needs to be expanded to 3 thru lanes each way.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #2154  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2019, 9:20 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
Pembina isn't a make work project because it needs to be expanded to 3 thru lanes each way.
If you build the St. Norbert bypass does Pembina really need to be expanded?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2155  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2019, 9:25 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,390
^Perimeter to 6 lanes. Not Pembina.

That being said, Pembina will likely stay the way it is for some time as the perimeter is being designed to handle 6 lanes, not constructed to 6 lanes. So Until the time they want to go 6 lanes, Pembina can remain as is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2156  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2019, 7:21 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 265
Looking at the South Perimeter study designs, it looks like the RIRO at Dakota is a no go now. Too close to the ramps for st annes and st marys for proper acceleration distance.

Probably going to be reserved for a flyover with no Perimeter access once that area gets built up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2157  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2019, 8:34 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
Looking at the South Perimeter study designs, it looks like the RIRO at Dakota is a no go now. Too close to the ramps for st annes and st marys for proper acceleration distance.

Probably going to be reserved for a flyover with no Perimeter access once that area gets built up.
Which is totally ok. I don't see a point in catering the the several residents who will complain of not getting access. Keeping it for the flyover is a legitimate idea.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2158  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2019, 8:44 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,547
Plus, having the flyover instead of RIRO will make the neighbourhood safer too.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2159  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 2:29 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,390
Was there a RIRO planned for Dakota? I always thought it was reserved for a flyover whenever the land south of 100 is developed. Either way, yes I like it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2160  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2019, 3:14 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Was there a RIRO planned for Dakota? I always thought it was reserved for a flyover whenever the land south of 100 is developed. Either way, yes I like it.
I think that the open house boards show nothing at Dakota but I presume flyover since there isnt really space for anything else plus its proximity to ste Anne's makes it unviable for a diamond.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
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 9:54 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.