Regina Bypass Thread

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy

Yes it has,

This is an email I have got from the Ministry of Highways:

"Thanks for your interest. The paving should be completed this fall up to and including the CPR overpass but it will not be open this year. The remaining portion of the West Regina Bypass will be added to the Regina Bypass project and it will open in 2017."

So it is done, just North of the overpass will be opened when the West Bypass opens in 2017.

[thefourthtower]

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/regin...395/story.html

Safety key in bypass planning process
By Emma Graney and Natascia Lypny, The Leader-Post December 11, 2014 7:53 AM

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/regin...395/story.html

Safety key in bypass planning process
By Emma Graney and Natascia Lypny, The Leader-Post December 11, 2014 7:53 AM

That point about "controlled access" I will applaud the planners if ALL connections to this road are controlled access. Currently I only see two points that are not. However, this might have changed. It is my sincerest hope that all access is controlled with NO at-grade crossings.

As this is to be the "New-Standard" and set the new precedent in the province.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy

That point about "controlled access" I will applaud the planners if ALL connections to this road are controlled access. Currently I only see two points that are not. However, this might have changed. It is my sincerest hope that all access is controlled with NO at-grade crossings.

As this is to be the "New-Standard" and set the new precedent in the province.

I believe we concluded that those 2 access points on the south side will be right turn only. Therefore as long as they have appropriate acceleration/deceleration lanes, there should not be a safety issue.

[Stormer]

another summary:

http://www.leaderpost.com/breakdown+...705/story.html

[Stormer]

proposed at grade access point design - I am quite certain this is right turn only:

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by Stormer

proposed at grade access point design - I am quite certain this is right turn only:

The one between Arcola Ave and Highway 6 south will be right-turn only based on drawings I have seen yes. However, the one between highway 6 and trans-canada west will be an "all-turns" intersection. Same as the one at Armour road on the way to highway 11

As indicated in this PDF page 8:

http://www.saskbuilds.ca/projects/Re...022%202014.pdf

The fun part about the construction of the overpasses east of Regina at Balgonie, Highway 48, and at the Pilot Butte access. They will all have to have detours to accommodate the building of approaches. Thus they are all likely to be signalized. Making 3 more traffic lights in the area to navigate for three years. These three years will likely be incrementally more safe then it is now. As the speed will be 60 and cars/truck traveling along the trans Canada will have to come to a complete stop.

This begs the question why not do this a few years ago? Anyway I digress.

[TannerF]

The South East crossing will be right turn only most likely due to the Wascana Village and other proposed developments in the area. The South West crossing is not right turn only. Being a landowner near the South West crossing I can tell you the plan is to let equipment be able to cross the highway at that point. Currently that crossing does not leave enough space in the middle of the highway for some farm equipment to be able to stop in the middle safely. To me having the crossings be right turn only doesn't make any sense. If they are going to be right turn only they shouldn't be there at all. The original reason the RM wanted them was for farm equipment to get across not to let more vehicles access the bypass itself.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by TannerF

The South East crossing will be right turn only most likely due to the Wascana Village and other proposed developments in the area. The South West crossing is not right turn only. Being a landowner near the South West crossing I can tell you the plan is to let equipment be able to cross the highway at that point. Currently that crossing does not leave enough space in the middle of the highway for some farm equipment to be able to stop in the middle safely. To me having the crossings be right turn only doesn't make any sense. If they are going to be right turn only they shouldn't be there at all. The original reason the RM wanted them was for farm equipment to get across not to let more vehicles access the bypass itself.

That's right. To allow a seeder unit to cross the highway will need an immense amount of time / room to maneuver. If they made a wide two-lane bridge for equipment to cross (like the US rural interstate bridges allow) then there would be little to no issues. A bridge with 3.7m wide lanes and 3m shoulders would be 13.4m wide or nearly 44' wide. Easily wide enough for farm equipment to cross. yes you might need a spotter vehicle on the other side of the flyover to stop traffic for 30 seconds or so, but that is a small compromise.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by TannerF

The South East crossing will be right turn only most likely due to the Wascana Village and other proposed developments in the area. The South West crossing is not right turn only. Being a landowner near the South West crossing I can tell you the plan is to let equipment be able to cross the highway at that point. Currently that crossing does not leave enough space in the middle of the highway for some farm equipment to be able to stop in the middle safely. To me having the crossings be right turn only doesn't make any sense. If they are going to be right turn only they shouldn't be there at all. The original reason the RM wanted them was for farm equipment to get across not to let more vehicles access the bypass itself.

I forgot the both Courtney St South and Armour road will be all-turns, at-grade crossings. They should just buy every farmer a second set of equipment! It would be cheaper and safer.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by Stormer

They should just buy every farmer a second set of equipment! It would be cheaper and safer.

True, but the operator might be hard to replace. These intersections are about "safety" apparently. Also that picture, sad as it is, is ironic that a tractor crossing a highway is hit by a load of grain.

[TannerF]

The bridge to keep it grade separated is exactly what should happen, but highways won't want to spend that kind of money. The problem they are creating on the Fleet street side of things is now that they wont let equipment cross the highway, they will have oversized farm equipment driving on the shoulder of the bypass,#6,or#33 highways until they get to their destination. Having farmers buy a second set of equipment for inside the bypass has actually come up in some conversations with the department of highways.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by TannerF

The bridge to keep it grade separated is exactly what should happen, but highways won't want to spend that kind of money. The problem they are creating on the Fleet street side of things is now that they wont let equipment cross the highway, they will have oversized farm equipment driving on the shoulder of the bypass,#6,or#33 highways until they get to their destination. Having farmers buy a second set of equipment for inside the bypass has actually come up in some conversations with the department of highways.

"Safety" is the KEY word used in the LeaderPost article. Apparently they mean "Safe Enough" The interesting thing is that Courtney street access is right at the start/end of a turn, yes the intersection is 90 degrees to the road, but I would guess someone judges the speed of a truck or car wrong a few times. Also the new "Precedent" they are trying to set is the "Existing Precedent"

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by TannerF

The South East crossing will be right turn only most likely due to the Wascana Village and other proposed developments in the area. The South West crossing is not right turn only. Being a landowner near the South West crossing I can tell you the plan is to let equipment be able to cross the highway at that point. Currently that crossing does not leave enough space in the middle of the highway for some farm equipment to be able to stop in the middle safely. To me having the crossings be right turn only doesn't make any sense. If they are going to be right turn only they shouldn't be there at all. The original reason the RM wanted them was for farm equipment to get across not to let more vehicles access the bypass itself.

From my understanding it is unlikely that Wascana Village goes forward at the scope that has been proposed. It will either be much smaller or not built.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

From my understanding it is unlikely that Wascana Village goes forward at the scope that has been proposed. It will either be much smaller or not built.

Whether or not it goes ahead, is downsized, or doesn't get off the ground. The access in the spot shown is still likely to be built.

[TannerF]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

From my understanding it is unlikely that Wascana Village goes forward at the scope that has been proposed. It will either be much smaller or not built.

I don't think Wascana Village goes forward either. My guess is that since highways see that something could potentially happen in the area they are restricting that access to right turn only right off the start vs changing it in ten years from now.

[thefourthtower]

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Bypas...251/story.html

Bypass benefits some, irks others | VideoBy Natascia Lypny, Leader-Post December 12, 2014 9:20 AM

[TannerF]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Bypas...251/story.html

Bypass benefits some, irks others | VideoBy Natascia Lypny, Leader-Post December 12, 2014 9:20 AM

The fighting won't be done for a long time. The majority of landowners that have enough land affected to justify going to court have joined together with one lawyer. Even some who it doesn't make financial sense to join the group going to court have signed on due to how the bypass affects them.

[Baker58]

Originally Posted by TannerF

The fighting won't be done for a long time. The majority of landowners that have enough land affected to justify going to court have joined together with one lawyer. Even some who it doesn't make financial sense to join the group going to court have signed on due to how the bypass affects them.

And they will lose.

All changing the route does is affect somebody else. The province has the ability to take the land in return for compensation (and that is what this is really about, people wanting more money for their land).

At the end of the day, all this will result in is short speedbump towards getting this built.

[TannerF]

Originally Posted by Baker58

And they will lose.

All changing the route does is affect somebody else. The province has the ability to take the land in return for compensation (and that is what this is really about, people wanting more money for their land).

At the end of the day, all this will result in is short speedbump towards getting this built.

There is no way the route will change. Like you said all that going to court really does is to try to get more compensation. It's not really even a speed bump because the province will expropriate the land and people can still be fighting in court after the bypass is done just like the Pinkie interchange. I don't have enough land affected for it to make financial sense to sign on with the lawyer. Unlike some people I have accepted the bypass is coming through whether I like it or not. My concern is the same thing I said yesterday that the space in the middle of the bypass at the crossing is not big enough for farm equipment to stop, but even that seems like its a pointless fight since highways has no interest in making it bigger.