Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg - Page 119

bomberjet · #**2361** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 3:43 PM**

Overall I like it. Lots of regular diamonds, parclos and Kenaston gets the flyover. Seems consistent. Only 'wacky' idea is the diverging diamond at Portage and St. Mary's. St. Mary's get's quite the realignment south of 100.

Dengler Avenue · #**2362** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Phase 3 plans are posted at the link.
https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/hpd/pth100/public.html

You can also provide feedback here!
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PTH100

Looked at segment 1 and they've selected the preferred design. No more options. Portage gets a diverging diamond.

Thanks for the 2nd link, bomberjet. I guess no need for video conference. I will fill it in when I am on break.

bomberjet · #**2363** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 3:51 PM**

No need to trek out into the minus 20 something cold Dengler. Saved you from that! haha

Like I said, the plan is right. Full on freeway with no messing around. Adequate spacing of interchanges, which will be phased. Now it's the task to get money and start work at the key locations.

Dengler Avenue · #**2364** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 4:16 PM**

Is Pallister on good terms with Trudeau? That's a very important question.

esquire · #**2365** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

No need to trek out into the minus 20 something cold Dengler. Saved you from that! haha

Speaking of the minus twenty-something, my kid has hockey practice tonight on the outdoor rink at Dakota, so my attendance is a 100% given as I will need to seek shelter from the cold

bomberjet · #**2366** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Is Pallister on good terms with Trudeau? That's a very important question.

Pallister isn't on good terms with anyone except his fellow conservatives.

In all seriousness, he's on okay terms with the PM. He was on bad terms with the City until things seems to have turned for the better recently.

Based on his track record over the first term, I don't see him dolling out billions for this work. Maybe look at doing a P3. Otherwise it'll be piece meal work over decades.

esquire · #**2367** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 4:37 PM**

^ It feels like Pallister has chilled out a little since getting re-elected. Like he isn't in constant fight-picking mode with the other levels of government anymore. Except Quebec, but in that instance I'm OK with it

Dengler Avenue · #**2368** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 4:56 PM**

Will it be scope-creeping if we also lump Headingley Bypass and Deacon's Corner's traffic lights into it? IMO, if we're going with P3 (aka following Moe's footsteps for Regina Bypass), we may as well address those two. I also wanna see what sort of attacks MB NDP will come with up.

esquire · #**2369** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 4:59 PM**

^ South Perimeter upgrades alone are a pretty mammoth task for Manitoba. Doubtful that the St. Norbert and/or Headingley bypasses would get rolled into that project... but on the other hand, never say never.

bomberjet · #**2370** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 5:03 PM**

I guess the next step in this is to know costs. What will this cost to build. We've discussed before about building greenfield vs retrofit. Argued about it for a bit lol. But we don't have anything to really go off of here.

This will be more expensive than Regina $1.8 billion bypass from my eyeball look at it. All those structures, dealing with existing traffic and staging. Basically will be building a new highway over the old one. There will be a new set of lanes in one direction, and they'll re-use whatever embankment they can for the other set of lanes. Then look at places like McGillivray, or St. Mary's where everything is built brand new off line. etc, etc, etc.

esquire · #**2371** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 5:19 PM**

I accept the design choices they've made except for at St. Mary's, where the proposed design still looks like a total f-cluster.

headhorse · #**2372** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 5:26 PM**

nice gift for the trucking companies

optimusREIM · #**2373** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 5:36 PM**

It will also be a big benefit to the safety of the other tens of thousands of daily users. Biggest upgrade in my opinion is that the road will be able to accommodate the volume and the speed required with the traffic these days.

optimusREIM · #**2374** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 5:52 PM**

Also random question, was the perimeter originally constructed prior to the floodway? I'm looking through the slides and it looks as though there are two old clover loops right next to the Hwy 1 E floodway bridge. Wondering if maybe the alignment was changed at one point or what they might have been used for.

esquire · #**2375** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Also random question, was the perimeter originally constructed prior to the floodway? I'm looking through the slides and it looks as though there are two old clover loops right next to the Hwy 1 E floodway bridge. Wondering if maybe the alignment was changed at one point or what they might have been used for.

They realigned those loops around the time of the Floodway expansion IIRC.

optimusREIM · #**2376** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

They realigned those loops around the time of the Floodway expansion IIRC.

You sure? Because that was fairly recent. The alignment of the perimeter hasn't changed there as long as I can remember (mind you I'm still relatively young). Certainly not in the last 20 years or so. I know that when they rebuilt the bridges there they realigned the ramp from EB perimeter to EB TCH and WB TCH to NB 101. There's no reason that there are these old loops that I can think of other than there was a change in alignment or something more than 20 or so years ago.

Edit: Perimeter constructed in 1955, Floodway began 7 years later in 1962. Searching for original Perimeter alignment maps.

esquire · #**2377** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

You sure? Because that was fairly recent. The alignment of the perimeter hasn't changed there as long as I can remember (mind you I'm still relatively young). Certainly not in the last 20 years or so. I know that when they rebuilt the bridges there they realigned the ramp from EB perimeter to EB TCH and WB TCH to NB 101. There's no reason that there are these old loops that I can think of other than there was a change in alignment or something more than 20 or so years ago.

I'm not certain about that - I seldom drive that interchange. I just recall work on the ramp you mentioned and I thought perhaps they widened the loops at the same time but it may well have been prior to that.

bomberjet · #**2378** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 6:01 PM**

Those circles are just landscaping features. When they built the new bridges over the floodway (original bridge was in between), they maintained the existing interchange pretty much as is except for the ramps on the east side. I don't think the loops changed. Google Earth historical imagery is a good reference.

Biff · #**2379** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by headhorse

nice gift for the trucking companies

I agree fully...about time they got 1960's infrastructure, and to think, they only had to wait 60 years.

vjose32 · #**2380** Posted **Dec 10, 2019, 6:16 PM**

I see no reason to waste money redoing Portage or Roblin, nothing wrong with them as is. Or Wilkes for that matter which has little traffic that I’ve seen.