Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[bomberjet]

That would be exactly what is required. I'll bet it'll end up with at least one fly-over ramp. The northbound to westbound one. The eastbound to southbound fly-over is also great, but I'll bet only one, if any, will go in there.

[CoryB]

^^ Did I miss something? North-west and east-south both looked like simple ramps dropping the traffic from the raised Perimeter.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I got bored this morning so I thought I would sketch out what a fix for the clusterf*ck that is kenaston and waverly at the perimeter. Bonus: St Norbert bypass.



This is considering the traffic volumes going in each direction. Further to this, I would change the interchange at Pembina and the perimeter to a parclo to make it safer. Pembina has no need to be freeflowing.

North is to the left. And I meant westbound to southbound Just making sure you're paying attention.

Looks like optimus has the fly-over ramps going over top of 101. 75 also going over 101 and the fly-overs. Could be either way. I think the Province prefers to have 101 go over where possible, to eliminate any issues with large loads and vertical clearance. Obviously many locations where this does not happen. Thats basically set-up like the 59N/101 interchange.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I got bored this morning so I thought I would sketch out what a fix for the clusterf*ck that is kenaston and waverly at the perimeter. Bonus: St Norbert bypass.



This is considering the traffic volumes going in each direction. Further to this, I would change the interchange at Pembina and the perimeter to a parclo to make it safer. Pembina has no need to be freeflowing.

Wish something like that had been built with the money they flushed building the useless and poorly designed Centreport Canada Way!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Wish something like that had been built with the money they flushed building the useless and poorly designed Centreport Canada Way!

It's really hard to argue with this. I don't get why scarce infrastructure dollars wouldn't have been allocated to routes that are already receiving high traffic volumes and where there is an established need for improvements. CCW is just kind of there, in the middle of nowhere.

And I know someone will step in and say that CCW was necessary to attract industry, but the reality is these things happen slowly in Manitoba. By the time CentrePort establishes a critical mass, the original CCW will be falling apart and in need of replacement. This isn't some sort of Chinese boomtown where you lay out the industrial park grid on farmland and five years later it's filled with factories and warehouses... this is going to be a 40 year thing, at least.

Instead of CCW they should have just beefed up Sturgeon and Inkster a bit and set land aside for future improvements.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's really hard to argue with this. I don't get why scarce infrastructure dollars wouldn't have been allocated to routes that are already receiving high traffic volumes and where there is an established need for improvements. CCW is just kind of there, in the middle of nowhere.

And I know someone will step in and say that CCW was necessary to attract industry, but the reality is these things happen slowly in Manitoba. By the time CentrePort establishes a critical mass, the original CCW will be falling apart and in need of replacement. This isn't some sort of Chinese boomtown where you lay out the industrial park grid on farmland and five years later it's filled with factories and warehouses... this is going to be a 40 year thing, at least.

Instead of CCW they should have just beefed up Sturgeon and Inkster a bit and set land aside for future improvements.

I don't know the details - but was the amount of $$ CCW received due in part to Federal funding that only happened due to the nature of CentrePort?

Could that $ have been financed for these other projects like getting the perimeter up to freeway spec, or was it a case of "this money won't be there otherwise so we might as well build this thing"

CentrePort is growing, even if its slowly but at least stuff is happening there on what seems to be an ongoing basis. Don't disagree with you though, you (and others) make some good points re: CCW.

[esquire]

^ Yeah, fair enough... I don't recall the specifics regarding federal contributions. So I guess it's possible that it was CCW or nothing. But still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that a metro area with so much deficient infrastructure would opt to go out and build something new even if it wasn't exactly essential.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

North is to the left. And I meant westbound to southbound Just making sure you're paying attention.

Looks like optimus has the fly-over ramps going over top of 101. 75 also going over 101 and the fly-overs. Could be either way. I think the Province prefers to have 101 go over where possible, to eliminate any issues with large loads and vertical clearance. Obviously many locations where this does not happen. Thats basically set-up like the 59N/101 interchange.

Not sure there is a clear preference with 7 over, 5 under and one special case for Henderson/Red River.

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Wish something like that had been built with the money they flushed building the useless and poorly designed Centreport Canada Way!

Traffic count on 330+75 = aprox 15k, traffic count for Portage+Inkster = 22K. Considering the proposal above is for the St Norbert by pass and CCW is for the Headingley bypass making that comparison fair. The provincial traffic count data doesn't show the count on Waverly/Kenaston at the Perimeter but there is an approximately 3000 drop midway between 75 and 330 so I assume that is the count for Kenaston. If you really wanted to bias the numbers for the south Perimeter and added them on top you are still only at 18K and short of what CCW was designed to handle in comparison.

In terms of the design of CCW, it makes great sense when the long on the books Headingley bypass gets built. Saying CCW should have effectively been picked up and dropped off on the south Perimeter doesn't change that the by-pass route would still be missing making both projects somewhat of lame ducks.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Yeah, fair enough... I don't recall the specifics regarding federal contributions. So I guess it's possible that it was CCW or nothing. But still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that a metro area with so much deficient infrastructure would opt to go out and build something new even if it wasn't exactly essential.

Completely fair...ideally, could have focused on making the perimeter free flowing instead with adequate lighting all the way around for example or something functional like bomberjet's St Norbert bypass...CoryB makes good points ^^ as well. Hard not to imagine that $$ going towards a free flow perimeter and wondering "what if" as well, or even within the city doing something about Bishop and Lag and turning them into true 80km/hr roadways rather than impeded by traffic lights where one can't even hit 80km per hr before they go red.

I know a trucker who says CCW has been very, very welcomed by his company (and I presume others as well) - but then his critique mirrors the criticisms of CCW (why build something high speed if its going to ultimately be impeded by traffic lights anyways)...but he says it is much better from a trucking perspective. Not sure how warranted that is or not though.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

Completely fair...ideally, could have focused on making the perimeter free flowing instead with adequate lighting all the way around for example or something functional like bomberjet's St Norbert bypass...CoryB makes good points ^^ as well. Hard not to imagine that $$ going towards a free flow perimeter and wondering "what if" as well, or even within the city doing something about Bishop and Lag and turning them into true 80km/hr roadways rather than impeded by traffic lights where one can't even hit 80km per hr before they go red.

I know a trucker who says CCW has been very, very welcomed by his company (and I presume others as well) - but then his critique mirrors the criticisms of CCW (why build something high speed if its going to ultimately be impeded by traffic lights anyways)...but he says it is much better from a trucking perspective. Not sure how warranted that is or not though.

The amount it costs to do things here I'm not sure that it would have been much to divert the money elsewhere. The 300 or so million they spent on that thing would have maybe gotten us 2 interchanges elsewhere if you take the 101/59 project as a rough estimate per.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

I know a trucker who says CCW has been very, very welcomed by his company (and I presume others as well) - but then his critique mirrors the criticisms of CCW (why build something high speed if its going to ultimately be impeded by traffic lights anyways)...but he says it is much better from a trucking perspective. Not sure how warranted that is or not though.

Something that seems to get lost in the hate of CCW is that on the Perimeter it eliminated a set of traffic lights and an at-grade rail crossing. On the east-west route, CCW effectively replaced Inkster between the Perimeter and HWY 7/Route 90. Before the change that route often had long delays to the at grade rail crossing. Additionally, the mix of personal vehicles and commercial trucks made for a dangerous situation to the point that Inkster in place on that stretch was due to be twinned. That effectively made CCW two new lanes of road not the four that most people see.

Twinning Inkster in place also did not make sense for a few reasons. If it was twinned the overpass on the Perimeter would have needed a major reconstruction as Inkster goes under and only has two lanes of through traffic. as Inkster is a road+rail combined overpass it could never evolve into more than a half-diamond even if rebuilt to handle four through lanes. Also reworking the Inkster overpass would have done nothing with the at-grade rail crossing on the Perimeter near Saskatchewan, the traffic lights for Saskatchewan itself or provide a connection point for the long planned and needed Headingley by-pass. All told, even if the inland port development never materializes having CCW replace Inkster made a lot of sense for other reasons.

[bomberjet]

No photos available. The 59N/101 interchange project is moving along nicely. Almost all of the girders up for the main bridge spans of 101 over 59. They have girders left for the flyovers, but most of the pier work is complete. Pass through at Gateway is also coming along. A lot of road embankment is built up to the bridges. Looks like a highway now, not just a disaster.

[esquire]

^ I haven't been out that way for about a month but when I did go by last, I was impressed by the scale of the whole thing.

What format did they end up choosing for the Gateway overpass? I vaguely recall some discussion about it possibly being able to accommodate emergency vehicles or something like that, but did it end up being AT only? If they're going to the trouble of building a grade separation though, I don't get why the province didn't just allow Raleigh to pass underneath.

[bomberjet]

It'll have AT and the emergency road. I think it was the City who didn't want a public road through there, in relation to the Wal-Mart proposal. I would bet at some point that'll be opened to public traffic. The City, ESP and the Province would have to come to some type of funding agreement for roadworks. Not uncommon in these sorts of situations. Maybe once tempers have cooled and the Wal-Mart goes elsewhere will it happen.

I think the through pass has reduced clearance from the typical standard of 5.3m. Still adequate for public vehicles (and I assume fire trucks), but not a truck route. Perfect.

Maybe some other posters with more in depth knowledge could chime in.

[CoryB]

^^ Not sure if the Raleigh AT overpass includes space for emergency vehicle pass through.

In terms of allowing two lanes of vehicle traffic to pass under the Perimeter at Raleigh it was pointless as the City of Winnipeg controls the road to its boundary. As unpopular a move it might have been for East St Paul the City could have dropped a bunch of jersey barriers at their limits and closed the road anyway. Simply put, the Raleigh issue is a dispute between two siblings and the parent (aka province) wasn't going to step into the middle of that. It is possible if East St Paul had approached Winnipeg with some trucks full of money this would be a very different conversation.

[esquire]

^ It sounds to me like Walmart and the Raleigh grade separation are two separate issues, though... I would think the City could allow a local neighbourhood route to pass under the Perimeter while still refusing to allow a connection to a massive Walmart development that would dramatically increase traffic on city streets.

Not a huge deal, though. It's not like it's much of a detour for people in East St. Paul to just use Henderson or 59.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by CoryB

^^ Not sure if the Raleigh AT overpass includes space for emergency vehicle pass through.

In terms of allowing two lanes of vehicle traffic to pass under the Perimeter at Raleigh it was pointless as the City of Winnipeg controls the road to its boundary. As unpopular a move it might have been for East St Paul the City could have dropped a bunch of jersey barriers at their limits and closed the road anyway. Simply put, the Raleigh issue is a dispute between two siblings and the parent (aka province) wasn't going to step into the middle of that. It is possible if East St Paul had approached Winnipeg with some trucks full of money this would be a very different conversation.

There is really nothing in it for the city to allow vehicle traffic from East St. Paul to funnel through an underpass and onto Rothesay, added traffic, ore wear and tear on a city road.


Apparently the new Walmart is going to go onto the soon to be closed Meadows golf course site.

[bomberjet]

I thought the Meadows site was residential.

Either way, it was exactly that. The City not allowing it. It was not about ESP disallowing it. In fact, the actual through pass is all within ESP, not Winnipeg. The roads all connect within ESP. So really the City has no say in it. They can simply barricade the road at the boundary, which they threatened to. That was the issue.

And yes, the Wal-Mart and through pass thing are separate issues that are sort of linked.

[EastK]

That opening is large enough to require a large column of pillars in the center and given the spacing of the side pillars looks easily large enough to accomidate both AT and 2 lanes of traffic. Not sure what will prevent non emergency vehicles from using it.

[NorthStarsProject]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

North is to the left. And I meant westbound to southbound Just making sure you're paying attention.

Looks like optimus has the fly-over ramps going over top of 101. 75 also going over 101 and the fly-overs. Could be either way. I think the Province prefers to have 101 go over where possible, to eliminate any issues with large loads and vertical clearance. Obviously many locations where this does not happen. Thats basically set-up like the 59N/101 interchange.

This makes sense. Good job!

Money spent on this 15 yrs ago would have gone a long way. Poor leadership has led us to building roads leading us to nowhere and serving the minority.