HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2081  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2019, 11:46 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
You mean my question?

My thinking is this:
A lot of traffic goes from Highway 100 westward to Highway 1. If MIT only converts Perimeter Highway/Portage Avenue into a diamond interchange without constructing Headingley Bypass, traffic waiting to make that left turn from Perimeter Highway to Portage Avenue can back up into live lanes. You don't want that. What's worse is that a large percentage of it will be big rigs. Dual left-turn lanes won't work well unless MIT makes the off-ramp extremely long.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2082  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 12:09 AM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
You mean my question?

My thinking is this:
A lot of traffic goes from Highway 100 westward to Highway 1. If MIT only converts Perimeter Highway/Portage Avenue into a diamond interchange without constructing Headingley Bypass, traffic waiting to make that left turn from Perimeter Highway to Portage Avenue can back up into live lanes. You don't want that. What's worse is that a large percentage of it will be big rigs. Dual left-turn lanes won't work well unless MIT makes the off-ramp extremely long.
Oh I see. Yeah that is a good point and I always assumed they would need to complete the headingly bypass and then fix up deacon's corner too in order to take care of the TCH issues around Winnipeg.

Side note: I noticed that at Kenaston and at TCH/100 east that there was an opportunity to have high-speed loops be implemented. At kenaston/100 i would have liked to have seen a high speed loop from NB to WB and WB to SB. The one they show on their diagrams seems like it would be the least-used of the possible highspeed loops, certainly could be spending our resources better. TCH WB to 100 WB should also be a highspeed loop.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2083  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 12:20 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
Oh I see. Yeah that is a good point and I always assumed they would need to complete the headingly bypass and then fix up deacon's corner too in order to take care of the TCH issues around Winnipeg.

Side note: I noticed that at Kenaston and at TCH/100 east that there was an opportunity to have high-speed loops be implemented. At kenaston/100 i would have liked to have seen a high speed loop from NB to WB and WB to SB. The one they show on their diagrams seems like it would be the least-used of the possible highspeed loops, certainly could be spending our resources better. TCH WB to 100 WB should also be a highspeed loop.
LoL I'm glad you remember that one set of light at TCH & 207. (I always get the impression that people forget about it.)

For TCH & St-Nobert Bypass, I hope people brought it up today. A flyover from 75 N to 100 W definitely makes sense, as we expect tonnes of goods to head over from U.S. to Centre Port Canada, but from 100 W to 75 S? Are you expecting a lot of traffic to head south on Pembina Highway -> 100 W -> 75 S?
Finally, I have a feeling that 101 S to TCH E will need a flyover too, in the near future. (But obviously that's contingent on upgrade on the 101.) The only 2 loops that make sense to stay are TCH E to 101 N and 100 N to TCH W.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2084  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 1:27 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post

For TCH & St-Nobert Bypass, I hope people brought it up today. A flyover from 75 N to 100 W definitely makes sense, as we expect tonnes of goods to head over from U.S. to Centre Port Canada, but from 100 W to 75 S? Are you expecting a lot of traffic to head south on Pembina Highway -> 100 W -> 75 S?
Finally, I have a feeling that 101 S to TCH E will need a flyover too, in the near future. (But obviously that's contingent on upgrade on the 101.) The only 2 loops that make sense to stay are TCH E to 101 N and 100 N to TCH W.
You're more likely to get complaints about from people losing their driveway access to perimeter at the open house (see vet clinic article a few pages back) than whether a high speed or loop ramp should be implemented.

At the very least the NB to WB loop ramp is quite large and could accommodate fast turn movements
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2085  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 1:30 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
You're more likely to get complaints about from people losing their driveway access to perimeter at the open house (see vet clinic article a few pages back) than whether a high speed or loop ramp should be implemented.

At the very least the NB to WB loop ramp is quite large and could accommodate fast turn movements
For the first part, lolol I was hoping just the opposite back at #2079. Sometimes I wonder if things like this should have been built correctly right from the start so people know what to expect.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2086  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 1:31 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I really hope that, in the end, the majority agrees on eliminating all the at-grade intersections (including rail crossings). 24 more minutes to go...

Edit: Is it a no-brainer that redesigning the interchange with Portage Avenue needs to be done in conjunction (read: simultaneously) with Headingley Bypass? I can't imagine how backed up that interchange will be if that isn't the case.
After looking at the slides I highly doubt this will ever be a freeway. Active transportation was the issue that resulted in the most comments?! Special interest groups must have flooded the process which is unfortunate. I was also surprised at how low the traffic volumes are and how low they're projected to be in 2048.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2087  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 1:38 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Darn it you just killed my hope there.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2088  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 2:01 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
After looking at the slides I highly doubt this will ever be a freeway. Active transportation was the issue that resulted in the most comments?! Special interest groups must have flooded the process which is unfortunate. I was also surprised at how low the traffic volumes are and how low they're projected to be in 2048.
The active transport elements are only crossings at various points along Perimeter to link neighbourhoods on both sides of the highway. No one (I hope!) is asking for a bike lane on the highway. The proposed designs should also reduce the number of cyclists on the highway as there should be proper services roads implemented.

I'm happy they are recommending downgrades of the Pembina and Portage interchanges from cloverleaf to parclos or diamonds. I imagine the changes to Portage would only be after a Headingley Bypass is built.

What I was most surprised about was that the Fermor and 59S interchanges are recommended to be full clovers, just with bigger loops and longer weave lanes. Currently, the NB curb lane on 59 gets dicey quite often as there is a lot of traffic going NB to WB and EB to NB. I can imagine that going up a lot in the future as Sage Creek gets built out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2089  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 3:01 AM
trebor204's Avatar
trebor204 trebor204 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 724
One of the options for Portage and the Perimeter will be a Diverging Diamond Interchange like the one in Calgary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwvscTv4OE4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2090  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 5:09 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by trebor204 View Post
One of the options for Portage and the Perimeter will be a Diverging Diamond Interchange like the one in Calgary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwvscTv4OE4
That DDI in Calgary is great. I believe it cost $78 million but was well worth it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2091  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 5:12 AM
DancingDuck DancingDuck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
The active transport elements are only crossings at various points along Perimeter to link neighbourhoods on both sides of the highway. No one (I hope!) is asking for a bike lane on the highway. The proposed designs should also reduce the number of cyclists on the highway as there should be proper services roads implemented.
Think more along the lines of the Bishop Grandin Greenway, a multi use path that would run along the Perimeter but still with a good amount of distance between the path and the road itself
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2092  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 2:12 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by DancingDuck View Post
Think more along the lines of the Bishop Grandin Greenway, a multi use path that would run along the Perimeter but still with a good amount of distance between the path and the road itself
Netherlands have those too.

A multi-use path only seems meaningful between Waverly Street and St Anne’s Road though. A bit out on both ends, one encounters 2 freeway-to-freeway interchanges (100/75-Kenaston Road, 100/59) and there’s nothing outside of those.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2093  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 2:17 PM
plrh plrh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 786
I am not the biggest active transportation proponent, but I have had to cross the perimeter on the Harte Trail, just north of Wilkes, many times. It can be scary. That median curb is like 10" tall, it is very hard to jump with my bike while traffic is bearing down. I wouldn't mind a bridge or just have it redirect to Wilkes and go under the bridge. AT connectivity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2094  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 2:35 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey View Post
Phase 2 public engagement slides are posted

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/hpd/pth100/public.html
I took a look and while I think they're moving in the right general direction, I am amazed at how many awkward, unexpected or just generally non-standard interchanges and routes there will be if the plan is fully realized.

-even with a bypass, NB Perimeter to WB TCH will still be busy, so why does the parclo option not have a loop for that movement?

-Roblin interchange redesign just looks flat out awkward without any obvious need for it

-Wilkes rebuild looks OK, just surprised at the sheer size of it

-Oak Bluff 100/2/3 looks like a dog's breakfast no matter which option is chosen. Unfortunate that there will be a major intersection just south of an interchange despite the traffic circle just having been built there.

-every configuration option for St. Mary's @ 100 looks very weird and awkward.

But apart from that it looks good and it's long overdue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2095  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 2:46 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I took a look and while I think they're moving in the right general direction, I am amazed at how many awkward, unexpected or just generally non-standard interchanges and routes there will be if the plan is fully realized.

-even with a bypass, NB Perimeter to WB TCH will still be busy, so why does the parclo option not have a loop for that movement?

-Roblin interchange redesign just looks flat out awkward without any obvious need for it

-Wilkes rebuild looks OK, just surprised at the sheer size of it

-Oak Bluff 100/2/3 looks like a dog's breakfast no matter which option is chosen. Unfortunate that there will be a major intersection just south of an interchange despite the traffic circle just having been built there.

-every configuration option for St. Mary's @ 100 looks very weird and awkward.

But apart from that it looks good and it's long overdue.
I read your comment on Oak Bluff and laughed out loud.
Seriously though, whose idea was it to allow Highway 3/McGilivray Boulevard to be built up through the town... Every option looks “fancy”.

I’m also surprised that big intersections like Portage Avenue and Pembina Highway are only getting diamonds. Perhaps Portage Avenue should actually receive a diverging one (because traffic to that area will be too busy even for an A4 parclo). For Pembina Highway, though, an A4 parclo will do.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2096  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 2:50 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Also, has it occurred to anyone that the median’s so narrow on the Perimeter Highway that MIT should just fill it in and put in a concrete barrier? Or high-tension cables, at least. In Ontario, cross-over collisions happened very often on 401 southwest of London, and MTO put in the cables in select sections.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2097  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 3:34 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I read your comment on Oak Bluff and laughed out loud.
Seriously though, whose idea was it to allow Highway 3/McGilivray Boulevard to be built up through the town... Every option looks “fancy”.

I’m also surprised that big intersections like Portage Avenue and Pembina Highway are only getting diamonds. Perhaps Portage Avenue should actually receive a diverging one (because traffic to that area will be too busy even for an A4 parclo). For Pembina Highway, though, an A4 parclo will do.
Portage and Pembina will be overbuilt once the Headingley and St Norbert bypasses will be constructed, respectively. The current designs are also cloverleaf interchanges that lead to weaving directly with high speed through traffic, and have very short lanes to accelerate and decelerate with the current configuration.

They will not need to accommodate as much traffic, especially truck traffic, once bypasses are built. The roads underneath Perimeter (portage and pembina) are also not free flow and can stand to have another intersection, permitting the diamond or parclo that will be built there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2098  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 3:36 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Ah okay. I’ve always thought Assiniboine Downs were supposed to become something in the future.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2099  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 4:00 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
The project really should have included everything to Roser Rd (old Inkster). I am shocked they have the Portage Ave interchange in scope of the project but the Headingley by-pass is out of scope. Also if they pushed the project north to Roser Rd there are a handful of at grade access points to address but most were taken care of in the CCW work.

As others have said the logical path would be to complete the Headingley by-pass. Connect Festival Dr through to CCW/the by-pass then when the ramp work was happening on Portage it could be completely "no access".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2100  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 4:10 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,233
Here’s the overarching question though:
Having been used to major highways with at-grade crossings, intersections, traffic lights and immediate property access for 50 years, will Manitobans be able to embrace controlled-access freeways all of a sudden?

I’m asking this because I’m already sensing resistance coming when time comes to address the entire Perimeter Highway (plus Headingrley Bypass), TCH throughout the province, Highway 75 (Lord Selkirk Highway), possibly Highway 59 N and probably even Yellowhead Highway.

Are you people following??
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
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 12:02 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.