Expanding Winnipeg Boundaries

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

We know that the long overdue interchange for highway 59/101 is coming in 5 years. Hopefully, we can see more around the Perimeter as well, especially for Highway 6, Pipeline Road, McGillvray, and throughout the South Perimeter.

It will be great to finally see a proper cloverleaf/off-ramps built at the Lagimodiere/North Perimeter interchange. I really think the Province should look into making the #6 interchange into a overpass too. There is a lot of traffic going out to the commuting towns, and Lake Manitoba.

[pollswpg]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

If they're not part of the city, that's all they're supposed to have. Winnipeg 911 and Manitoba 911 are different systems.

I'm aware, I was commenting on the possibility of annexation of those areas.

Again, my original post was unclear.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

It will be great to finally see a proper cloverleaf/off-ramps built at the Lagimodiere/North Perimeter interchange.

Case in point, Kinguni posted this in another thread...

http://biketothefuture.org/attachmen...publicinfo.pdf

[alittle1]

The primary purpose for the existing overpass at PTH59 was to provide unobstructive passage for east bound traffic destined to the Beaches and lake country. Use for traffic from north bound traffic on PTH59 to the west bound Perimeter was purely speculative. The reason being is the angle of the on-ramp was way out of proportion and was causing the curve of the bridge to slide away from its moorings, similar what happens to the Nairn overpass. Which begs me to ask the question; What the hell is the matter with Winnipeg when it comes to curves on bridges, before and after bridges?

There is no saving this piece of the overpass, it was redundant when it was built and would cost more to demolish it then the cost to build it. That being said, this intersection should be completely re-done from scratch so that updated provisions can be made to accommodate traffic going to East St.Paul, as well as raising the bridge height on North bound PTH59 for industrial use.

With regard to PR 202 level intersection, this is one of the most dangerous intersections along 59 because of the curve in the roadway at this point. A more realistic approach to this intersection would be to take it back to the North Perimeter and PTH 59. Traffic bound for ESP going North would be elevated in the center lane after going under the bridge, and cross over the PTH59 south bound lane, and be directed to the West service road that would take it to ESP areas. South bound traffic coming from ESP would merge into the South bound PTH59 roadway parallel to the elevated roadway. Welcome to the big time, elevated crossover lanes.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by alittle1

The primary purpose for the existing overpass at PTH59 was to provide unobstructive passage for east bound traffic destined to the Beaches and lake country. Use for traffic from north bound traffic on PTH59 to the west bound Perimeter was purely speculative. The reason being is the angle of the on-ramp was way out of proportion and was causing the curve of the bridge to slide away from its moorings, similar what happens to the Nairn overpass. Which begs me to ask the question; What the hell is the matter with Winnipeg when it comes to curves on bridges, before and after bridges?

There is no saving this piece of the overpass, it was redundant when it was built and would cost more to demolish it then the cost to build it. That being said, this intersection should be completely re-done from scratch so that updated provisions can be made to accommodate traffic going to East St.Paul, as well as raising the bridge height on North bound PTH59 for industrial use.

With regard to PR 202 level intersection, this is one of the most dangerous intersections along 59 because of the curve in the roadway at this point. A more realistic approach to this intersection would be to take it back to the North Perimeter and PTH 59. Traffic bound for ESP going North would be elevated in the center lane after going under the bridge, and cross over the PTH59 south bound lane, and be directed to the West service road that would take it to ESP areas. South bound traffic coming from ESP would merge into the South bound PTH59 roadway parallel to the elevated roadway. Welcome to the big time, elevated crossover lanes.

No kidding, it was like a whole group of engineers working on highway infrastructure in the 60's and 70's in Manitoba had missed out on entire courses in University.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by alittle1

The primary purpose for the existing overpass at PTH59 was to provide unobstructive passage for east bound traffic destined to the Beaches and lake country. Use for traffic from north bound traffic on PTH59 to the west bound Perimeter was purely speculative. The reason being is the angle of the on-ramp was way out of proportion and was causing the curve of the bridge to slide away from its moorings, similar what happens to the Nairn overpass. Which begs me to ask the question; What the hell is the matter with Winnipeg when it comes to curves on bridges, before and after bridges?

There is no saving this piece of the overpass, it was redundant when it was built and would cost more to demolish it then the cost to build it. That being said, this intersection should be completely re-done from scratch so that updated provisions can be made to accommodate traffic going to East St.Paul, as well as raising the bridge height on North bound PTH59 for industrial use.

With regard to PR 202 level intersection, this is one of the most dangerous intersections along 59 because of the curve in the roadway at this point. A more realistic approach to this intersection would be to take it back to the North Perimeter and PTH 59. Traffic bound for ESP going North would be elevated in the center lane after going under the bridge, and cross over the PTH59 south bound lane, and be directed to the West service road that would take it to ESP areas. South bound traffic coming from ESP would merge into the South bound PTH59 roadway parallel to the elevated roadway. Welcome to the big time, elevated crossover lanes.

Originally Posted by rrskylar

No kidding, it was like a whole group of engineers working on highway infrastructure in the 60's and 70's in Manitoba had missed out on entire courses in University.

They're repeating that same mistake where Kenaston turns into Bishop Grandin for a new intersection going into Waverley West, right on the bend.

[original]

Originally Posted by alittle1

With regard to PR 202 level intersection, this is one of the most dangerous intersections along 59 because of the curve in the roadway at this point. A more realistic approach to this intersection would be to take it back to the North Perimeter and PTH 59. Traffic bound for ESP going North would be elevated in the center lane after going under the bridge, and cross over the PTH59 south bound lane, and be directed to the West service road that would take it to ESP areas. South bound traffic coming from ESP would merge into the South bound PTH59 roadway parallel to the elevated roadway. Welcome to the big time, elevated crossover lanes.

Excellent post.

It seems their purposed plans are what should of been built in the 60's. What you said in your post is what should be the bare minimum standard for the 10's.

I wish the engineers and planers were replaced by members from this forum. You guys have the right ideas here, and are thinking towards the future, instead of being stuck in the 60's.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by original

Excellent post.

It seems their purposed plans are what should of been built in the 60's. What you said in your post is what should be the bare minimum standard for the 10's.

I wish the engineers and planers were replaced by members from this forum. You guys have the right ideas here, and are thinking towards the future, instead of being stuck in the 60's.

I call Transit Planning!

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by armorand93

I call Transit Planning!

'Transit Planning', is that where you put a mirror in your transit so you can look back and see that hindsite was 20-20!

The modern day engineers and planners have never played in the sandbox, and having only played on computers, they're used to pushing the big red button when they get into trouble. They show off big 'maybe' plans that haven't been thought through to the job site, where the jobsite super spends the time to revise the plans so that they work at the field level. I could name a half a dozen of people from PCL, Wardrop, etc. that have done this in the past 10 - 15 years, fixed mistakes for high priced help.

Not wanting to go off topic, the pile of crap that greets you at the end of Provencher Bridge every morning is EXACTLY what I am talking about. That pile of bricks and mortar, glass and steel would be better off in the landfill.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by alittle1

'Transit Planning', is that where you put a mirror in your transit so you can look back and see that hindsite was 20-20!

The modern day engineers and planners have never played in the sandbox, and having only played on computers, they're used to pushing the big red button when they get into trouble. They show off big 'maybe' plans that haven't been thought through to the job site, where the jobsite super spends the time to revise the plans so that they work at the field level. I could name a half a dozen of people from PCL, Wardrop, etc. that have done this in the past 10 - 15 years, fixed mistakes for high priced help.

Not wanting to go off topic, the pile of crap that greets you at the end of Provencher Bridge every morning is EXACTLY what I am talking about. That pile of bricks and mortar, glass and steel would be better off in the landfill.

I'd prefer the routes aspect

And I've played those computer games! SimCity, Cities in Motion, Locomotion (updated Transport Tycoon)