HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2281  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 3:03 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I took a look at the revised plan and had these thoughts:

-Why convert the 100/Portage cloverleaf into a diamond? It's already a cloverleaf, so why mess with it?

-100/Wilkes looks comically big in its expanded form... I wonder what justifies having it swallow up that much land? You could fit a small town in its footprint.

-A diamond seems inadequate at McGillivray considering the traffic on 2/3. It's also not great that so many of the configurations involve a separate intersection connection 2 and 3 southwest of the interchange.

-Converting Pembina/100 to a diamond or partial cloverleaf makes sense, unlike with Portage the geometry is so tight and there are traffic lights at either side of it on Pembina that really eliminate any kind of free flow benefits for Pembina.

-A lot of the options for St. Mary's/100 look really wonky and odd, I don't get it.

-As others have pointed out, not including a westbound flyover at Fermor/100 seems like a missed opportunity, but I wonder if the site constraints with the Floodway nearby
have something to do with that?

-Also, Deacon's Corner should probably be part of the plan as well. It wouldn't make sense to redo the Perimeter and leave this busy rural intersection in place a kilometre away.

Anyway, not a bad long term plan. I really hope the next step is to get going on at least one of the sorely needed new interchanges, any of 100 at McGillivray, Kenaston, St. Mary's or St. Anne's.
Am I missing something, I don't see anything on St. Anne's in this plan. Which segment is it in?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2282  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 3:42 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmacc View Post
Am I missing something, I don't see anything on St. Anne's in this plan. Which segment is it in?
Segment 5.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2283  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 4:03 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,390
I thought it all looked pretty good. I'd agree though regarding the larger cloverleaf at #1 east. May have something to do with the rail overpass would cause extensive changes to add a fly-over ramp. Ie: the flyover would need to be a 2nd level stack type thing.

Switching out Pembina and Portage to diamonds is a bit crappy, but since Kenaston and Headingley bypass will be the "highways", I don't really mind.

St marys and Portage have a potential diverging diamond interchange, which is cool. Otherwise diamonds for St Annes and St Mary's is fine.

The Wilkes ramps looking comically long is an example of how sub-standard the existing ramps are. They're shit.

Overall It similar if not the same to what they presented a while back. If there's any highway projects that the province can find money for, it's this. People literally die here on the regular.

Git'r done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2284  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 4:20 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 esquire View Post

-Why convert the 100/Portage cloverleaf into a diamond? It's already a cloverleaf, so why mess with it?
That interchange is deemed dangerous by today's standards as the loops are far to tight.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #2285  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 4:44 PM
roccerfeller's Avatar
roccerfeller roccerfeller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I took a look at the revised plan and had these thoughts:

-Why convert the 100/Portage cloverleaf into a diamond? It's already a cloverleaf, so why mess with it?
I had the same thought

But in addition to what Biff said, the other thing is the longer term plan is to have the Centreport Way bypass around Headingly which will probably be viewed as the main "west entrance off highway 1" to the city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2286  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 4:49 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller View Post
I had the same thought

But in addition to what Biff said, the other thing is the longer term plan is to have the Centreport Way bypass around Headingly which will probably be viewed as the main "west entrance off highway 1" to the city
So why does that mean downgrading the current setup, especially when traffic on those loops would probably decline by a fair margin once TCH traffic gets redirected to the new Headingley bypass?

Seems weird to me to chop up a perfectly functional cloverleaf just to downgrade it to a diamond.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2287  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 5:29 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
So why does that mean downgrading the current setup, especially when traffic on those loops would probably decline by a fair margin once TCH traffic gets redirected to the new Headingley bypass?

Seems weird to me to chop up a perfectly functional cloverleaf just to downgrade it to a diamond.
The major thing for me is that you get a fairly dangerous weaving phenomenon, especially since the exit/merge lane is not segregated from full speed traffic. I don't see that being solved without a major rebuild either. In a perfect world you could definitely make the whole thing free flowing but I don't see it as being cost effective unfortunately. I think the ideal there would definitely be parclo
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2288  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 5:32 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,120
I would think that this would be one of the last projects the Province actions from this plan. Unfortunately there just isn't enough room to do anything else there. There is a lot of development there and doing flyovers or anything free flowing would require expropriation of a lot of developed land. If they leave the clover leaf until after the Headingly bypass I don't think it will be a big deal, same with Pembina. I wonder which interchange they will action first.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2289  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 5:35 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmacc View Post
I would think that this would be one of the last projects the Province actions from this plan. Unfortunately there just isn't enough room to do anything else there. There is a lot of development there and doing flyovers or anything free flowing would require expropriation of a lot of developed land. If they leave the clover leaf until after the Headingly bypass I don't think it will be a big deal, same with Pembina. I wonder which interchange they will action first.
I hope Pembina, that is hands down the most dangerous suboptimal interchange around...
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2290  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 5:39 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,120
That would probably be a cheaper one to accomplish.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2291  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 5:53 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,390
Not to be a Debbie downer. But, as of right now, there are precisely zero dollars lined up for any of this. Unless the PC's come up with some cash, it'll be some time before any of this get's going. Likely be decades before it would be complete.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2292  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 6:18 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I saw them proposing diamond at Portage Avenue and shook my head really hard...
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
That one seems strange unless you consider the long term plan to have highway traffic use the headingly bypass to be built to the north.

There's really no need for Portage to be free flowing there, especially once that bypass gets built (if ever, fingers crossed)
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I took a look at the revised plan and had these thoughts:

-Why convert the 100/Portage cloverleaf into a diamond? It's already a cloverleaf, so why mess with it?
Portage and the Perimeter lacks the land needed to be expanded. The plan calls for six lanes on the Perimeter at that location. What is likely being done is build up the ramps to add a through lane on the outside and use the existing bridge decking merge lanes as new through lanes.

Also as mentioned, the Centreport/Headingley bypass route will be the high speed route with the commercial truck traffic. Portage Ave will become more of a local collector street access instead of the main western route out of Winnipeg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
-100/Wilkes looks comically big in its expanded form... I wonder what justifies having it swallow up that much land? You could fit a small town in its footprint.
The challenge with Wilkes is the close proximity to the rail line to the north. Currently Wilkes to NB Perimeter has merging traffic exit a speed limiting hairpin turn and then have the merge lane end almost immediately with through traffic doing a posted, and often exceeded, 100 KM/H. The SB Perimeter flow has a similar challenge with the current exit being in the blind spot for through traffic about halfway down the ramp. It is a dangerous situation as traffic in that same lane does not have proper time to react to changing conditions. Making both those ramp points further south of Wilkes lets SB traffic slow and exit more safely while giving NB traffic longer to get up to speed and safely merge into the traffic flow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2293  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 6:23 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,815
^ I can see the geometry at Wilkes/100 being difficult for loaded trucks which is I suppose the main reason why it's being reconfigured. I don't see it as issue for cars, though... there is plenty of accel/decel space there, certainly par for the course considering most of the truncated accel/decel spaces on Manitoba highways.

I mean, it can obviously be improved but I don't see it as a major red flag.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2294  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 6:36 PM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
That interchange is deemed dangerous by today's standards as the loops are far to tight.
Translation: Semis come off the Perimeter at too high a speed, but instead of addressing the speed issue, we'll rebuild the entire intersection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2295  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 6:36 PM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
I hope Pembina, that is hands down the most dangerous suboptimal interchange around...
There is nothing wrong with the design of the intersection. Drivers on the other hand.......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2296  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 6:37 PM
kenas10 kenas10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Not to be a Debbie downer. But, as of right now, there are precisely zero dollars lined up for any of this. Unless the PC's come up with some cash, it'll be some time before any of this get's going. Likely be decades before it would be complete.
Sadly, completely agree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2297  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 7:00 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
There is nothing wrong with the design of the intersection. Drivers on the other hand.......
Nothing wrong? You have like 100 metres of merge lane to go from 30 to 110. PLUS, there's traffic that also has to decelerate from 110 to 30, and it all takes place in the same 100 metre stretch of road. That's an accident waiting to happen.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2298  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 7:15 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,390
The proposed changes would come from reviewing the current "old" layout vs today's design standards.

Changing from cloverleafs to diamonds will eliminate weaving and provide adequate accel/decal distances.

If you've driven the new interchanges at 59N and CCW, they new lanes let you get up to speed without interacting with the mainline traffic. Having to decal on the perimeter, or accel, is the dangerous part. You never want to have slower traffic interacting with through traffic.

The problem with the perimeter and where all the accidents happen is when vehicles are stopped waiting to turn. Eliminate this by whatever means necessary and it will be a huge safety improvement. Closing medina openings is a start. banning left turns at intersections could be an option. Provide Jersey or jughandle style left turns could be an option instead of full blown interchanges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2299  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 7:17 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is online now
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,464
The province could commit to do this plan over 10 - 12 years and it would be completely feasible. They would probably get federal buy in too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2300  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2019, 7:22 PM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
Nothing wrong? You have like 100 metres of merge lane to go from 30 to 110. PLUS, there's traffic that also has to decelerate from 110 to 30, and it all takes place in the same 100 metre stretch of road. That's an accident waiting to happen.
I think I see your problem. none of the speeds you mention are the correct speeds.

It's not 30 to 100 or vice versa. It's 100 through the cloverleaf at 40, and then back up to 60

or

into the cloverleaf at 40, accelerate out and through the merge lane and exit at the end of the merge lane at 100.

Very easy. The problem is with traffic that hits the merge lane and stops. BUt that's a driver, not a design issue.
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 5:01 AM.

     

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