HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2016, 1:57 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,421
Parclo = Partial cloverleaf. The CCW interchange will most likely have a flyover ramp to connect NB 101 and WB 190. Seems to me anyways. I think that's why they didnt build the 4th bridge on the east side at 190. They built the extra bridge down at the Saskatchewan/rail overpass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2016, 3:51 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,700
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/m...eter-1.3751112

It seems like the perimeter gets some love once a week now. The function of having a major highway intersecting busy streets at grade
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2016, 5:29 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,421
Yet another one. Not blaming the cyclist by any means, not at all. But the Perimeter doesn't seem like a very safe place to be riding a bike.. I wonder if bike trails will be added with the new projects we've been hearing about. Place them out at the right of way limits, as far from the highway as possible. Not sure how frequently they would be used. But there are a larger number of homes abutting the north side of 100. Maybe a path at that location would be warranted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2016, 6:53 PM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
The issue is that you're slowing truck traffic on the busiest shipping route in the province. It's not up to the standard to which it ought to be. This is classic nimbyism
From the current design, any speed gains are wiped out by the additional length of the bypass.

Anecdotally, Everyone I have talked to in the shipping industry has indicated there would be no efficiency gains from building it as designed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2016, 6:57 PM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Yet another one. Not blaming the cyclist by any means, not at all. But the Perimeter doesn't seem like a very safe place to be riding a bike.. I wonder if bike trails will be added with the new projects we've been hearing about. Place them out at the right of way limits, as far from the highway as possible. Not sure how frequently they would be used. But there are a larger number of homes abutting the north side of 100. Maybe a path at that location would be warranted.
Actually anyplace in Winnipeg isn't a very safe place to ride a bike.

Why? Winnipeg drivers are shit.

If the WPS wanted to erase their deficit, they could just enforce sec. 114(1) of the HTA when drivers pass cyclists. The city would have so much money they wouldn't know what to do with it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2016, 7:27 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
Altough if they ever get around to building the headingley bypass then we would't have to worry about portage and we could just stick a flyover from NB 101 to WB 190
I am actually a little surprised they would go through the time and expense of build the CCW interchange. Considering they build an unused bridge for EB to SB flow I seriously doubt they will do a NB to WB flyover in the near term relative to the opening of the Headingley bypass. I think before the design stage they did a traffic study on source and destination routes and determined there would be minimal NW to WB traffic. The design likely also included the flyover as a later addition if needed. Currently there is minimal WB traffic at that point suggesting the stop sign is likely sufficient for now with a diamond interchange stop light likely being the next stage if warranted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2016, 8:55 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
Actually anyplace in Winnipeg isn't a very safe place to ride a bike.

Why? Winnipeg drivers are shit.

If the WPS wanted to erase their deficit, they could just enforce sec. 114(1) of the HTA when drivers pass cyclists. The city would have so much money they wouldn't know what to do with it!
Vice Versa as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2016, 9:00 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
From the current design, any speed gains are wiped out by the additional length of the bypass.

Anecdotally, Everyone I have talked to in the shipping industry has indicated there would be no efficiency gains from building it as designed.
Heading west, it's shorter and they'd be doing 110. Not sure how that would take longer than waiting at the lights and doing 50 through st. norbert. All the inefficiencies throughout the system add up. You save 5 minutes here, 10 mins there (Headingley) and it adds up over time.

I'm just in favour of having of a having a good functional transportation system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2016, 9:11 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,421
Length of the bypass and existing Pembina highway would be equal distance to the Perimeter. I just measure din google. The 1.3 miles on the Perimeter would be the difference. If you're going east and it really was the same time, it would be no issue. If you're going east, it will be 1.3 miles shorter and faster. So it would only be a bonus.

The you have a real highway system through there. And it's all good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1030  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 2:39 AM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Heading west, it's shorter and they'd be doing 110. Not sure how that would take longer than waiting at the lights and doing 50 through st. norbert. All the inefficiencies throughout the system add up. You save 5 minutes here, 10 mins there (Headingley) and it adds up over time.

I'm just in favour of having of a having a good functional transportation system.
It wouldn't be 110. Hwy 75 is only 100. And it would kick back in before it got up to 100. There are 2 lights in St. N. $400M for how many seconds? Not worth it.

If they wanted a high speed route for truck traffic, build a single lane, high speed semi on roadway that kicks in around hwy 3/perimeter and then runs south to about Morris. But that's years away from being necessary.

For $400M, the safety argument is false. The current level of semi traffic doesn't warrant it, and the speed gains aren't worth it. You'd gain more by using the $$$ to close 330 and Wavereley at the perimeter and connect them to Kenaston via svc road and eliminate those two lights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1031  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 2:41 AM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Vice Versa as well.
Enforce 114(1) when cyclists pass drivers? I think you're referring to 115 (1)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1032  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 2:43 AM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
It wouldn't be 110. Hwy 75 is only 100.
For now. I would think that at some point, once enough upgrades take place, the current 110 kmh section will be continued north.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1033  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 4:21 AM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
Why? Winnipeg drivers are shit.
Oh really? Have you ever driven in any other city across Western Canada? None of them know how to signal, change lanes or speed-up/slow-down properly. The only difference I've noticed in say Calgary or Vancouver is the merging is far superior since they have actually expressways. Edmonton has been continually crowned the vehicle-pedestrian collision capital of Canada simply because far too many refuse to slow down and/or stop for pedestrians when required legally. When I was in Edmonton, I was one of those people struck by a vehicle when I had the right of way at a crossing. Not a pleasant experience.

Drivers are shit all around, my friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Vice Versa as well.
Spot on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1034  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 4:48 AM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
It wouldn't be 110. Hwy 75 is only 100. And it would kick back in before it got up to 100. There are 2 lights in St. N. $400M for how many seconds? Not worth it.

If they wanted a high speed route for truck traffic, build a single lane, high speed semi on roadway that kicks in around hwy 3/perimeter and then runs south to about Morris. But that's years away from being necessary.

For $400M, the safety argument is false. The current level of semi traffic doesn't warrant it, and the speed gains aren't worth it. You'd gain more by using the $$$ to close 330 and Wavereley at the perimeter and connect them to Kenaston via svc road and eliminate those two lights.
Why would we keep funneling people who have no interest in stopping through st Norbert? People will gladly flock to the new bypass to avoid the hassle of slowing down and stopping for traffic lights. It may be a mile and a half extra if you're going east but I have serious doubts that would deter people from using the bypass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1035  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 5:36 AM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
Why would we keep funneling people who have no interest in stopping through st Norbert? People will gladly flock to the new bypass to avoid the hassle of slowing down and stopping for traffic lights. It may be a mile and a half extra if you're going east but I have serious doubts that would deter people from using the bypass.
Because it's a waste of $400M when that could be used on more effective projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1036  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 5:37 AM
StNorberter StNorberter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinus View Post
Oh really? Have you ever driven in any other city across Western Canada? None of them know how to signal, change lanes or speed-up/slow-down properly. The only difference I've noticed in say Calgary or Vancouver is the merging is far superior since they have actually expressways. Edmonton has been continually crowned the vehicle-pedestrian collision capital of Canada simply because far too many refuse to slow down and/or stop for pedestrians when required legally. When I was in Edmonton, I was one of those people struck by a vehicle when I had the right of way at a crossing. Not a pleasant experience.

Drivers are shit all around, my friend.



Spot on.

Didn't say drivers in other cities aren't bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1037  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 6:00 AM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 6,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
Because it's a waste of $400M when that could be used on more effective projects.
Like the $3B the former clown govt. NDP were willing to spend for a roadway to nowhere in eastern Manitoba for a minuscule population that contribute virtually nothing back to society on the whole!
__________________
The voice of reason
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1038  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 1:17 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by StNorberter View Post
Because it's a waste of $400M when that could be used on more effective projects.
Like what? This project is as important as the next. Part of that 400 million will build an interchange on the perimeter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1039  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 1:18 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
Like what? This project is as important as the next. Part of that 400 million will build an interchange on the perimeter.
I don't agree with him that the project should be scrapped. What I would say is that grade separating the perimeter is probably more important than making new bypasses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1040  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2016, 1:45 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,421
I'll agree that there are more urgent places the $400M could be spent. But the bypass is definitely a huge part of a proper highway system. I know I keep saying that, but it's true. Highway 75 is 110 down south towards the US. An upgraded Perimeter would be 110 km/h as well. That is the new standard for PTH 1 and PTH 75. I could only assume it would be the same for PTH 100 and even 101.
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 11:13 AM.

     

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