HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #361  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2014, 1:54 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,858
Here's a direct link to the information session posting.
http://trailsmanitoba.ca/wp-content/...on-Sept-24.pdf

A bit of change on the Wenzel alignment it seems. I'll try and post an image at lunch time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #362  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 3:00 AM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,858
Found this here. 3.5Mb pdf, beware.
http://www.google.ca/url?url=http://...KkwwvKh_NmaKhQ

MMM Group has been hired by the Province to prepare a functional design report in anticipation of awarding a design-build contract for a new highway interchange at PTH 59 and PTH 101 and associated road improvements. Currently the project time line is as follows:  June 2014 to June 2015 - Engage a design/build contract for the PTH 101/59N interchange and AT crossing.  Fall 2014 – Complete concept for interchange and AT crossing.  Summer/Fall 2014 – Opportunities for public input.  June 2015 to June 2019 – Construction.  June 2019 – Interchange and AT crossing open to the public. The options for the Active Transportation crossing still being reviewed are: two underpasses or ‘carriage-ways’, each approximately 40m in length, with an uncovered adjoining pathway 25m in length; a single covered crossing approximately 100 m in length; or, the crossing could be a shared tunnel for AT and vehicles with barrier protection of the AT portion. The AT crossing is anticipated to be rather straight, as it will follow Raleigh/Gateway. We will keep you posted when an present the preferred alternative. open house will be held Developing Manitoba’s Red River Corridor as a destination this Fall to present the preferred alternative.

Last edited by bomberjet; Sep 9, 2014 at 3:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #363  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 1:42 PM
Reignman Reignman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 302
^ construction timeline of four years? Seriously? Four years for one interchange?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #364  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 2:06 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reignman View Post
^ construction timeline of four years? Seriously? Four years for one interchange?
I'm assuming that's a financially-driven decision... I can't imagine how a properly resourced project could take that long. 101 and CCW is a similarly-scaled interchange... how long did that one take, two years maybe?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #365  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 2:08 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,858
It's a bit more than one interchange. Includes raising and paving of 101 from almost Henderson to wenzel. That's a two year project itself. Then the reconstruction Of 59 from headmaster to past 202. Probably a two year project by itself. Then all the access road relocation/paving, the AT pathway, 6 bridges (at least) and the ramps. There's also a bunch of work to be done on the Raleigh/Gateway corridor north of 101, south of 202. 4 years seems reasonable to me. And it seems road access across 101 for Raleigh will be restored after 20 years or whatever.

CCW took over 3 years and that was a fresh build. Things take longer when you have to deal with existing roads, traffic management, etc. Construction is harder and takes longer when you have to work with existing conditions. Not trying to defend MIT, or saying they're God. Just thinking through it.

PS I don't think CCW is even completed as of yet. There's still ongoing bridge works, clean-up, etc.

Last edited by bomberjet; Sep 9, 2014 at 2:27 PM. Reason: Added stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #366  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 2:35 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
It's a bit more than one interchange. Includes raising and paving of 101 from almost Henderson to wenzel. That's a two year project itself. Then the reconstruction Of 59 from headmaster to past 202. Probably a two year project by itself. Then all the access road relocation/paving, the AT pathway, 6 bridges (at least) and the ramps. There's also a bunch of work to be done on the Raleigh/Gateway corridor north of 101, south of 202. 4 years seems reasonable to me. And it seems road access across 101 for Raleigh will be restored after 20 years or whatever.

CCW took over 3 years and that was a fresh build. Things take longer when you have to deal with existing roads, traffic management, etc. Construction is harder and takes longer when you have to work with existing conditions. Not trying to defend MIT, or saying they're God. Just thinking through it.

PS I don't think CCW is even completed as of yet. There's still ongoing bridge works, clean-up, etc.
Fair points. It just seems hard to accept a 4 year construction project for an interchange and associated infrastructure when Calgary and Edmonton built huge swaths of ring road + interchanges in that much time.

I really do wish that a diamond at Birds Hill Road was part of this, though. 59 is getting really congested and it's to the point where that intersection and Garven Road are pretty treacherous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #367  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 3:04 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Fair points. It just seems hard to accept a 4 year construction project for an interchange and associated infrastructure when Calgary and Edmonton built huge swaths of ring road + interchanges in that much time.

I really do wish that a diamond at Birds Hill Road was part of this, though. 59 is getting really congested and it's to the point where that intersection and Garven Road are pretty treacherous.
And you have a fair point on the Alberta ring roads. I wonder how many crews were working on the ring road project at the same time. In that, one company built this interchange and associated works, another company did the next one, etc. All going on at the same time.

I also agree about the PR 202 interchange. For the scale and cost of this project, by the time you factor in the intersection signals, concrete, etc.; is another $5-10M for the bridge really that much more? I also think headmaster should get a diamond. Cost shared between the City and Province. If I had to choose, I'd pick Headmaster over 202.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #368  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 3:15 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
If I had to choose, I'd pick Headmaster over 202.
I've kind of given up on streets within the City of Winnipeg. I still have hope that some semblance of traffic flow can be maintained on provincial highways, though!

BTW I wonder if the province is still responsible for Lagimodiere/59 through the city (or did that end when the NE Perimeter was completed in 1996)? If so, they have done a craptastic job of looking after it over the years. I am hard pressed to think of any actual improvements that have taken place during my lifetime. Compare it with similar provincially-operated urban highways in Alberta and Saskatchewan, like Idylwyld Drive, Ring Road, Anthony Henday, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #369  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 3:29 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,858
Someone on here posted that the Province built 59, then turned it over to the City. So CoW is responsible for it now. Not like small town Manitoba, take Stonewall for example. The Province is responsible for the highways and PR's passing through town, including Main Street. Likely cause small towns have zero money to maintain anything major.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #370  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 3:41 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reignman View Post
^ construction timeline of four years? Seriously? Four years for one interchange?
Considering it's taken about as long to re-hab. the perimeter overpass at Pembina nothing done at least 10X longer than it actually should in this province and city is a surprise!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #371  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 4:00 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,858
A quick Google searched netted this sheet from Alberta.
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/3787.htm

It says NE Anthony Henday will take 5 years to construct as a P3. 3 years shorter than conventional project. So that would be 8 years total. At a total of $1.8B. Seems like a large consortium of companies building and designing that thing. But it's 27 km long with 47 bridges or something ridiculous. So there's some perspective.

The 59/101 project will be about 7km of rebuilt highway and 6+ structures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #372  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 4:21 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
North End Troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Someone on here posted that the Province built 59, then turned it over to the City. So CoW is responsible for it now. Not like small town Manitoba, take Stonewall for example. The Province is responsible for the highways and PR's passing through town, including Main Street. Likely cause small towns have zero money to maintain anything major.
I find these 2 statements somewhat funny for a simple reason... I recently talked to a gentleman at the City named Georges Chartier, he's apparently the City's infrastructure planner and city economist and is responsible for the City's Asset Management program.

If you ask any economist (Georges included) they would say that a road is an asset for a City; they use it as collatorial to secure their debt. But I've always wondered how this is possible considering it isn't the asset that generates the revenue for the City, it's everything around the road that does this.

Why would a City take on "asset" of a provincial highway like 59? What benefit does it get? And does it offset the long-term repair liabilities?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #373  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 4:40 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ I doubt that the city would have taken on responsibility for 59 if there weren't a few dollars attached to the offloading. Of course, any such funds have probably been used for basic maintenance and nothing else, or redirected elsewhere because I am hard pressed to think of any capital improvements to Lagimodiere in the last 30 years apart from the addition of turning lanes and traffic lights. No through lanes added, no grade separations despite an obvious need for same (at Fermor, Regent, Dugald, Marion, etc.), no geometry improvements, nothing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #374  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 9:52 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,901
Just wanted to add some recent, local perspective on interchange construction. The CentrePort way interchange took roughly three years to build and that was without any modifications to an existing structure like what may be needed at 59/101.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #375  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 10:00 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,858
If everything I've outlined above goes through, I'd be pretty happy with that project. Only thing I'd like added would be the diamonds at 202 and/or headmaster. But all in all, a very good project for everyone. I especially like the access/AT across 101 on Raleigh as a nice extra.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #376  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 11:00 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,762
Took a drive on the south perimeter about two weeks ago. The road conditions from the overpass on Pembina to the overpass on Fermor were appalling to say the least!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #377  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 11:56 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,858
Tell me about it. Watch out for the eb-nb loop at Lagimodiere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #378  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 1:58 AM
Reignman Reignman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy View Post
Took a drive on the south perimeter about two weeks ago. The road conditions from the overpass on Pembina to the overpass on Fermor were appalling to say the least!
Big deal....it's only the Trans Canada. Nobody uses that!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #379  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 3:12 AM
The Jabroni's Avatar
The Jabroni The Jabroni is offline
Go kicky fast, okay!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Donut Dominion
Posts: 2,979
No seriously, the South Perimeter needs some resurfacing done. It's starting to feel like the North Perimeter from several years ago before they resurfaced the crap out of it.
__________________
Back then, I used to be indecisive.

Now, I'm not so sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #380  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 3:22 AM
mattpa's Avatar
mattpa mattpa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Steinbach
Posts: 145
south perimeter needs to be like the north cloverleafs!
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:11 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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