Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

For provincial, I nominate the Perimeter at 2/3. With McGillivray being as busy as it is, I find it amazing that this intersection is still at grade. Of course, deadly collisions are a fact of life there as a result.

Hate to be the one saying it but Perimeter and Highway 6 will likely happen before the Perimater at 2/3 with the reason being the Highway 6 intersection is part of the CenterPort plans. The plan is to essentinally bring Highway 6 across the Perimeter and tie in roughly at Sturgeon and Inkster with Highway 6 being the main route north out of the development.

Originally Posted by esquire

For Winnipeg-specific, I think that an interchange at Bishop Grandin and River Road would offer pretty good bang for the buck. It would be a relatively small structure but would remove a big bottleneck and more importantly, make left turns off Bishop Grandin much safer during peak hours.

Bishop at River Road would be ideal of a diamond interchange that seems to not even be on the radar. Bishop could be setup as free flowing with River Road having lights to control the cross traffic turns. The reality is there are a number of higher priority places to address.

For example:

Bishop @ Lakewood
Bishop @ St Anne's
Bishop @ Dakota
Bishop @ St Mary's
Bishop @ Waverly
Bishop @ Kenaston (planned near term)
Lag @ Fermor
Lag @ Dugald + extension to Marion
Lag @ Regent (planned near term)
Lag @ Cheif Peagus (CentrePort releated)
Chief Peagus @ Gateway (CentrePort releated)
Cheif Peagus @ Henderson (CentrePort releated)
Cheif Peagus @ Main (CentrePort releated)
Cheif Pegaus @ McPhillips (planned signaled crossing - CentrePort releated)
Cheif Peagus @ Route 90 (planned signaled crossing - CentrePort releated)
McPhillips @ Logan
Ness @ Century
Sturgeon @ Inkster (CentrePort related - may be redundant with CP @ Route 90)
Pembina @ Jubilee planned rebuild (in part to accomodate rapid transit)

I am sure I am missing a large number of the list too and as you can see some of them tie into other strategic priorities.

Edit to add:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It in the city, it's tough. Would have to get some stats on what intersections are most unsafe and start there. Waverley and Bishop, Lag and Reenders, Kenaston and McGillvray?

My gut is that Lag @ Reenders will be closed to cross traffic if/when grade seperation is done at Lag @ Regent. There is already good access between the two points and they are relatively close, also Lag @ Regent is obviously a higher priority than Reenders for grade seperation.

[bomberjet]

I don't ever see Reenders being closed at Lag. It is going to be used as a main access point from east of Lag to west of Lag. Especially when the Almey/Lag intersection is closed on January 1, 2015 as part of the Transcona West development. There's going to be a lot of traffic going through that location. And as far as I can tell, there is no other proposed connection to Lag for Transcona West. Imagine dumping all that onto Regent, even with the grade separation at Lag. Mayhem...

I agree that Lag and Regent is a higher priority though. But I think it is beyond the capabilities of this program. I have never heard a budget, but I would expect it to be in the neighbourhood of $50M to $75M for that one. Its way too tight in there.

All your other intersections are good as well. Thanks for listing them I didn't want to get started as I didn't know if it'd ever end! But yeah there are sooo may locations it's hard to pick one place to start.

[The Unknown Poster]

Whats the plan for Bishop@Kenaston? I thought it was to be a flyover or something but they have built that weird intersection there. Is that the final product?

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

Whats the plan for Bishop@Kenaston? I thought it was to be a flyover or something but they have built that weird intersection there. Is that the final product?

That whole thing is setup for a stack interchange at ultimate build out. The tender closed last week or two weeks ago for the fly-over. It is to be in service by September 2014. Whenever the Bishop Grandin west extension goes ahead, there will have to be changes made. The fly-over to be built is setup to allow for bishop to pass straight through with no funny curves.

For some info on the current project.
http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/Major...RP/default.asp
http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/Major...hop-phase2.pdf

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I agree that Lag and Regent is a higher priority though. But I think it is beyond the capabilities of this program. I have never heard a budget, but I would expect it to be in the neighbourhood of $50M to $75M for that one. Its way too tight in there.

I'd be stunned if you could build an interchange there for under $150M, absolute minimum. Given the traffic levels and space constraints, I'd peg it at north of $200M. That is a huge amount relative to civic and provincial road infrastructure budgets. (For comparison, here's a new parclo interchange in Edmonton projected to cost over $200M)

The huge major-intersection interchanges are so expensive and beyond the city's reach that I doubt any will be built anytime soon. It's really just the small, simple interchanges that are attainable, such as Bishop Grandin and River, or Lagimodiere and Grassie.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I don't ever see Reenders being closed at Lag. It is going to be used as a main access point from east of Lag to west of Lag. Especially when the Almey/Lag intersection is closed on January 1, 2015 as part of the Transcona West development. There's going to be a lot of traffic going through that location. And as far as I can tell, there is no other proposed connection to Lag for Transcona West. Imagine dumping all that onto Regent, even with the grade separation at Lag. Mayhem...

I agree that Lag and Regent is a higher priority though. But I think it is beyond the capabilities of this program. I have never heard a budget, but I would expect it to be in the neighbourhood of $50M to $75M for that one. Its way too tight in there.

All your other intersections are good as well. Thanks for listing them I didn't want to get started as I didn't know if it'd ever end! But yeah there are sooo may locations it's hard to pick one place to start.

Extend Chief Peguis east to the Perimeter with a connection to Plessis, maybe Redonda. That would solve a lot of these issues. Grassie will probably see more volume. Where is the planned Kildare extension ending?

Pie in the sky, but it might be cheaper to extend the Lag overpass to fly right over Regent than digging up that whole intersection. I don't think much will change there in our lifetimes.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

So which a) provincial and b) Winnipeg-specific intersections should be the highest priorities for a new interchange? 101/59 is excluded since there are actual plans to complete it at some point within the next 100 years.

For provincial, I nominate the Perimeter at 2/3. With McGillivray being as busy as it is, I find it amazing that this intersection is still at grade. Of course, deadly collisions are a fact of life there as a result.

For Winnipeg-specific, I think that an interchange at Bishop Grandin and River Road would offer pretty good bang for the buck. It would be a relatively small structure but would remove a big bottleneck and more importantly, make left turns off Bishop Grandin much safer during peak hours.

River Road? This drives me nuts. Don't get me wrong, this intersection causes huge problems, but it should be closed. What does this service? A few hundred houses? Not a chance this should get built. Build one at St. Mary's Road then close this intersection.

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It in the city, it's tough. Would have to get some stats on what intersections are most unsafe and start there. Waverley and Bishop, Lag and Reenders, Kenaston and McGillvray?

If you go by traffic accidents, you would do Regent @ Lag -- but not for severity. I don't know about serious accidents.

Originally Posted by esquire

I'd be stunned if you could build an interchange there for under $150M, absolute minimum. Given the traffic levels and space constraints, I'd peg it at north of $200M. That is a huge amount relative to civic and provincial road infrastructure budgets. (For comparison, here's a new parclo interchange in Edmonton projected to cost over $200M)

The huge major-intersection interchanges are so expensive and beyond the city's reach that I doubt any will be built anytime soon. It's really just the small, simple interchanges that are attainable, such as Bishop Grandin and River, or Lagimodiere and Grassie.

I am with you here... Regent @ Lag, but the expense would be huge. As a matter of fact, I'm writing a piece on Lagimodiere for the Manitoban and how the City could improve it.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

River Road? This drives me nuts. Don't get me wrong, this intersection causes huge problems, but it should be closed. What does this service? A few hundred houses? Not a chance this should get built. Build one at St. Mary's Road then close this intersection.

Looks like, actually, there's 5300 trips north on River Road, 6800 south, and what looks to be 9000 that actually cross Bishop at River Road each day. More than I was expecting.

Source being the traffic flow map:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/I...c_flow_map.asp

Having said that, should those people actually be taking River Road at Bishop? Would need more detail of where these people actually end up/start from to determine.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Looks like, actually, there's 5300 trips north on River Road, 6800 south, and what looks to be 9000 that actually cross Bishop at River Road each day. More than I was expecting.

Source being the traffic flow map:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/I...c_flow_map.asp

Having said that, should those people actually be taking River Road at Bishop? Would need more detail of where these people actually end up/start from to determine.

Co-worker who should be using bishop takes river road as a shortcut to st marys. Then on to windsor park. To and from kenaston. Every weekday, twice a day. Im guessing hes not the only one.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Co-worker who should be using bishop takes river road as a shortcut to st marys. Then on to windsor park. To and from kenaston. Every weekday, twice a day. Im guessing hes not the only one.

That's the big problem. People are using it as an arterial road, because it has access. It shouldn't be. It's a residential collector.

If you take away access it will cost the people that live near there a few minutes, but save everyone who commutes through the area more time. It also costs less in maintenance.

Leaving it creates big bottlenecks and costs because of safety and maintenance, an interchange costs too much and won't cover the cost to build in increasesed tax revenues. Closing it saves money, is safer, and saves the majority of people time over the select houses this intersection services. This is a compromise for them, but if you promise to do it in multiple places they will be saved time as well.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

That's the big problem. People are using it as an arterial road, because it has access. It shouldn't be. It's a residential collector.

If you take away access it will cost the people that live near there a few minutes, but save everyone who commutes through the area more time. It also costs less in maintenance.

Leaving it creates big bottlenecks and costs because of safety and maintenance, an interchange costs too much and won't cover the cost to build in increasesed tax revenues. Closing it saves money, is safer, and saves the majority of people time over the select houses this intersection services. This is a compromise for them, but if you promise to do it in multiple places they will be saved time as well.

Hard to say what the effects would be on commuting. Anyone leaving that area south of Bishop would now need to make left turns during rush hour onto St. Mary's (assuming they need to go West, North, or East for work). That adds many more left turns (St. Mary's northbound onto Bishop westbound).

In any case, it would be interesting to see the effects (the city could do a trial run for a few weeks during routine road reconstruction on River, for example). The main point here is that what sometimes seems like a simple solution often has unintended consequences elsewhere in the system.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Looks like, actually, there's 5300 trips north on River Road, 6800 south, and what looks to be 9000 that actually cross Bishop at River Road each day. More than I was expecting.

Source being the traffic flow map:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/I...c_flow_map.asp

Having said that, should those people actually be taking River Road at Bishop? Would need more detail of where these people actually end up/start from to determine.

I don't know why it would matter where they are going. The question is, should residential neighbourhoods have unlimited access to bishop? If yes, at what cost to everyone else? Lighted intersections cost everyone time and are unsafe, interchanges are expensive.

If the city has a street hierarchy they should use it, not give access every 1/2 km.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Hard to say what the effects would be on commuting. Anyone leaving that area south of Bishop would now need to make left turns during rush hour onto St. Mary's (assuming they need to go West, North, or East for work). That adds many more left turns (St. Mary's northbound onto Bishop westbound).

In any case, it would be interesting to see the effects (the city could do a trial run for a few weeks during routine road reconstruction on River, for example). The main point here is that what sometimes seems like a simple solution often has unintended consequences elsewhere in the system.

M original statement was under the consideration that st. Mary's would get an interchange. If that were the case, I would also say to close Dakota intersection too.

Edit: Just think of what this would do for commute times for the vast majority. Free flow from waverley to st Anne's.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I don't know why it would matter where they are going.

It would matter if there's more than just residential there. An extreme example, but if 5800 people are going to St. Vital Park from Fort Garry everyday, then maybe access is required/desired.

More so I'm curious about where people are going south of Bishop. If everyone's end destination (probably unlikely) is on the far west of the development south of Bishop/River, then maybe some sort of access would still make sense.

Unlikely, as mentioned above it's likely just people shortcutting, but I don't know what exists down there.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

M original statement was under the consideration that st. Mary's would get an interchange. If that were the case, I would also say to close Dakota intersection too.

Edit: Just think of what this would do for commute times for the vast majority. Free flow from waverley to st Anne's.

I'm not a traffic engineer, but I think closing off Dakota from Bishop would create more problems than it solves. Dakota acts as the arterial which connects into the Osborne System. By cutting it off, you force much of that traffic (30,000 trips is no slouch) onto St. Mary's south of Bishop, only to have some of them split back off onto Dunkirk north of Bishop. Forcing 4 lanes worth of traffic onto 2 lanes, only to have them go back onto 4 lanes 400 metres north of Bishop creates a huge bottleneck around the mall. Not to mention all those people who would be making left turns northbound onto St. Mary's from Riel, River Road, Riverbend, etc...

Anyway, would be interesting to see these scenarios play out in Synchro, and see the effects it would have.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I'm not a traffic engineer, but I think closing off Dakota from Bishop would create more problems than it solves. Dakota acts as the arterial which connects into the Osborne System. By cutting it off, you force much of that traffic (30,000 trips is no slouch) onto St. Mary's south of Bishop, only to have some of them split back off onto Dunkirk north of Bishop. Forcing 4 lanes worth of traffic onto 2 lanes, only to have them go back onto 4 lanes 400 metres north of Bishop creates a huge bottleneck around the mall. Not to mention all those people who would be making left turns northbound onto St. Mary's from Riel, River Road, Riverbend, etc...

Anyway, would be interesting to see these scenarios play out in Synchro, and see the effects it would have.

Perhaps the Dakota idea is a bit of a stretch -- maybe a fly-over to keep the North/South connection, but eliminate access to Bishop -- but I still stand by the fact that I think Limited Access should mean Limited Access.

What would be even better is if the neighbourhoods around Bishop didn't need direct access because zoning bylaws changed and they actually had a complete neighbourhood.

[CoryB]

Re Bishop at River Rd, I recall during construction that there was a u-turn point in place between River Rd and St Marys. This might actually be a permanent possibility, closing the crossing at River Rd and the north bound left turn could be replaced by the construction style u-turn. For the south bound flow traffic could head west and use the Bishop and Pembina interchange to get to the east access. This would be a relatively low cost way of making that intersection free flowing for traffic on Bishop.

That said, access to St Vital Park and St Amant Center would need to be considered as would emergency vehicle access to both sides of River Rd.

As for Bishop and St Marys/Dakota, it feels like this is a combined solution. Suppose that St Marys is a full interchange, Dakota could then potentially become "right turn only" so one route, like Bishop, would be raised with right turn yields at Dakota. St Marys would be a full clover leaf, this means if you are southbound on Dakota before Bishop and wanted to head east your choices would be: 1) right turn from Dunkirk at St Marys to head southbound and cross Bishop taking the east exit or 2) take the west bound Bishop exit from Dakota then the south exit at St Marys then the east exit back onto Bishop.

At the end of the day if we want more free flowing streets in Winnipeg people will need to change some of their habits and get used to the idea that you can not turn left at every intersection.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Perhaps the Dakota idea is a bit of a stretch -- maybe a fly-over to keep the North/South connection, but eliminate access to Bishop -- but I still stand by the fact that I think Limited Access should mean Limited Access.

What would be even better is if the neighbourhoods around Bishop didn't need direct access because zoning bylaws changed and they actually had a complete neighbourhood.

The area around St. Vital Mall is about as complete as you can get (although maybe not in the form some urbanists would like). Within a 2 km radius of the mall, there are several schools (including french and high schools), doctors, dentists, and all the retail you could ask for. There are offices, banks, services, anchor stores, a hotel, parks. There are all housing tenures and types (from low income rentals, to condos, to seniors housing... to single family homes, to townhouses and mid-rise apartments). There is also access to several bike paths, and many major bus routes. Not too sure how much more complete a small area can get, except maybe heavy industry... Either way, people still need to commute, and go to other areas of the city.

[DancingDuck]

As some one who lives in the area in question (south st vital) I can speak from experience that both dakota and river need to have continued access to Bishop. Dakota+Bishop is near a high school, st vital center, and dakota turns into Dunkirk not far away. Closing it, or even limiting access would only force more people onto St. Mary's, which is bad enough as it is...

Closing access from River would isolate the areas of Minnetonka to the south, and the St Vital park area to the north, plus all the people who take it to get to the U of M, and would again force people into St. Mary's.

That said, river and bishop could probably do with an overpass with a set of lights on top, similar to highway on/off ramps in the U.S. Dakota on the other hand would probably need a diamond interchange.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by DancingDuck

Closing access from River would isolate the areas of Minnetonka to the south, and the St Vital park area to the north, plus all the people who take it to get to the U of M, and would again force people into St. Mary's.

That said, river and bishop could probably do with an overpass with a set of lights on top, similar to highway on/off ramps in the U.S. Dakota on the other hand would probably need a diamond interchange.

So I asked this question earlier about residential access to Bishop -- how would the City (or any government) be able to pay for this? Will this somehow improve productivity to a point where tax revenues will increase by the (using an intentional low number) $20 million it will take to rebuild after it's 75-80 year life-cycle? If you run the numbers -- to generate $20 million dollars in 80 years at current tax rates it would take an increase of $38 million worth of residential property value.

Looking at a property map (and judging from zoning by-laws) residential is the only use that is allowed in Minnetonka, so I'm guessing that's all that would be built.

So -- excluding initial capital costs (which would more than likely be debt serviced, so should include interest), and excluding maintenance, this project would need to facilitate the growth of residential values in the area by $38 million, with all of the additional taxes going back into a fund to rebuild this interchange. And that is presuming the interchange would only cost $20 million.

I would love to see more interchanges, but I don't think this is a reality in Winnipeg. We need to find a different solution that is more realistic.