Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg - Page 52

bomberjet · #**1021** Posted **Sep 7, 2016, 1:57 PM**

Parclo = Partial cloverleaf. The CCW interchange will most likely have a flyover ramp to connect NB 101 and WB 190. Seems to me anyways. I think that's why they didnt build the 4th bridge on the east side at 190. They built the extra bridge down at the Saskatchewan/rail overpass.

optimusREIM · #**1022** Posted **Sep 7, 2016, 3:51 PM**

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/m...eter-1.3751112

It seems like the perimeter gets some love once a week now. The function of having a major highway intersecting busy streets at grade

bomberjet · #**1023** Posted **Sep 7, 2016, 5:29 PM**

Yet another one. Not blaming the cyclist by any means, not at all. But the Perimeter doesn't seem like a very safe place to be riding a bike.. I wonder if bike trails will be added with the new projects we've been hearing about. Place them out at the right of way limits, as far from the highway as possible. Not sure how frequently they would be used. But there are a larger number of homes abutting the north side of 100. Maybe a path at that location would be warranted.

StNorberter · #**1024** Posted **Sep 7, 2016, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

The issue is that you're slowing truck traffic on the busiest shipping route in the province. It's not up to the standard to which it ought to be. This is classic nimbyism

From the current design, any speed gains are wiped out by the additional length of the bypass.

Anecdotally, Everyone I have talked to in the shipping industry has indicated there would be no efficiency gains from building it as designed.

StNorberter · #**1025** Posted **Sep 7, 2016, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Yet another one. Not blaming the cyclist by any means, not at all. But the Perimeter doesn't seem like a very safe place to be riding a bike.. I wonder if bike trails will be added with the new projects we've been hearing about. Place them out at the right of way limits, as far from the highway as possible. Not sure how frequently they would be used. But there are a larger number of homes abutting the north side of 100. Maybe a path at that location would be warranted.

Actually anyplace in Winnipeg isn't a very safe place to ride a bike.

Why? Winnipeg drivers are shit.

If the WPS wanted to erase their deficit, they could just enforce sec. 114(1) of the HTA when drivers pass cyclists. The city would have so much money they wouldn't know what to do with it!

CoryB · #**1026** Posted **Sep 7, 2016, 7:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Altough if they ever get around to building the headingley bypass then we would't have to worry about portage and we could just stick a flyover from NB 101 to WB 190

I am actually a little surprised they would go through the time and expense of build the CCW interchange. Considering they build an unused bridge for EB to SB flow I seriously doubt they will do a NB to WB flyover in the near term relative to the opening of the Headingley bypass. I think before the design stage they did a traffic study on source and destination routes and determined there would be minimal NW to WB traffic. The design likely also included the flyover as a later addition if needed. Currently there is minimal WB traffic at that point suggesting the stop sign is likely sufficient for now with a diamond interchange stop light likely being the next stage if warranted.

bomberjet · #**1027** Posted **Sep 7, 2016, 8:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StNorberter

Actually anyplace in Winnipeg isn't a very safe place to ride a bike.

Why? Winnipeg drivers are shit.

If the WPS wanted to erase their deficit, they could just enforce sec. 114(1) of the HTA when drivers pass cyclists. The city would have so much money they wouldn't know what to do with it!

Vice Versa as well.

bomberjet · #**1028** Posted **Sep 7, 2016, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StNorberter

From the current design, any speed gains are wiped out by the additional length of the bypass.

Anecdotally, Everyone I have talked to in the shipping industry has indicated there would be no efficiency gains from building it as designed.

Heading west, it's shorter and they'd be doing 110. Not sure how that would take longer than waiting at the lights and doing 50 through st. norbert. All the inefficiencies throughout the system add up. You save 5 minutes here, 10 mins there (Headingley) and it adds up over time.

I'm just in favour of having of a having a good functional transportation system.

bomberjet · #**1029** Posted **Sep 7, 2016, 9:11 PM**

Length of the bypass and existing Pembina highway would be equal distance to the Perimeter. I just measure din google. The 1.3 miles on the Perimeter would be the difference. If you're going east and it really was the same time, it would be no issue. If you're going east, it will be 1.3 miles shorter and faster. So it would only be a bonus.

The you have a real highway system through there. And it's all good.

StNorberter · #**1030** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 2:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Heading west, it's shorter and they'd be doing 110. Not sure how that would take longer than waiting at the lights and doing 50 through st. norbert. All the inefficiencies throughout the system add up. You save 5 minutes here, 10 mins there (Headingley) and it adds up over time.

I'm just in favour of having of a having a good functional transportation system.

It wouldn't be 110. Hwy 75 is only 100. And it would kick back in before it got up to 100. There are 2 lights in St. N. $400M for how many seconds? Not worth it.

If they wanted a high speed route for truck traffic, build a single lane, high speed semi on roadway that kicks in around hwy 3/perimeter and then runs south to about Morris. But that's years away from being necessary.

For $400M, the safety argument is false. The current level of semi traffic doesn't warrant it, and the speed gains aren't worth it. You'd gain more by using the $$$ to close 330 and Wavereley at the perimeter and connect them to Kenaston via svc road and eliminate those two lights.

StNorberter · #**1031** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 2:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Vice Versa as well.

Enforce 114(1) when cyclists pass drivers? I think you're referring to 115 (1)

jmt18325 · #**1032** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StNorberter

It wouldn't be 110. Hwy 75 is only 100.

For now. I would think that at some point, once enough upgrades take place, the current 110 kmh section will be continued north.

Pinus · #**1033** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 4:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StNorberter

Why? Winnipeg drivers are shit.

Oh really? Have you ever driven in any other city across Western Canada? None of them know how to signal, change lanes or speed-up/slow-down properly. The only difference I've noticed in say Calgary or Vancouver is the merging is far superior since they have actually expressways. Edmonton has been continually crowned the vehicle-pedestrian collision capital of Canada simply because far too many refuse to slow down and/or stop for pedestrians when required legally. When I was in Edmonton, I was one of those people struck by a vehicle when I had the right of way at a crossing. Not a pleasant experience.

Drivers are shit all around, my friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Vice Versa as well.

Spot on.

optimusREIM · #**1034** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 4:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StNorberter

It wouldn't be 110. Hwy 75 is only 100. And it would kick back in before it got up to 100. There are 2 lights in St. N. $400M for how many seconds? Not worth it.

If they wanted a high speed route for truck traffic, build a single lane, high speed semi on roadway that kicks in around hwy 3/perimeter and then runs south to about Morris. But that's years away from being necessary.

For $400M, the safety argument is false. The current level of semi traffic doesn't warrant it, and the speed gains aren't worth it. You'd gain more by using the $$$ to close 330 and Wavereley at the perimeter and connect them to Kenaston via svc road and eliminate those two lights.

Why would we keep funneling people who have no interest in stopping through st Norbert? People will gladly flock to the new bypass to avoid the hassle of slowing down and stopping for traffic lights. It may be a mile and a half extra if you're going east but I have serious doubts that would deter people from using the bypass.

StNorberter · #**1035** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 5:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Why would we keep funneling people who have no interest in stopping through st Norbert? People will gladly flock to the new bypass to avoid the hassle of slowing down and stopping for traffic lights. It may be a mile and a half extra if you're going east but I have serious doubts that would deter people from using the bypass.

Because it's a waste of $400M when that could be used on more effective projects.

StNorberter · #**1036** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 5:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinus

Oh really? Have you ever driven in any other city across Western Canada? None of them know how to signal, change lanes or speed-up/slow-down properly. The only difference I've noticed in say Calgary or Vancouver is the merging is far superior since they have actually expressways. Edmonton has been continually crowned the vehicle-pedestrian collision capital of Canada simply because far too many refuse to slow down and/or stop for pedestrians when required legally. When I was in Edmonton, I was one of those people struck by a vehicle when I had the right of way at a crossing. Not a pleasant experience.

Drivers are shit all around, my friend.

Spot on.

Didn't say drivers in other cities aren't bad.

rrskylar · #**1037** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 6:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StNorberter

Because it's a waste of $400M when that could be used on more effective projects.

Like the $3B the former clown govt. NDP were willing to spend for a roadway to nowhere in eastern Manitoba for a minuscule population that contribute virtually nothing back to society on the whole!

optimusREIM · #**1038** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 1:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StNorberter

Because it's a waste of $400M when that could be used on more effective projects.

Like what? This project is as important as the next. Part of that 400 million will build an interchange on the perimeter.

jmt18325 · #**1039** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 1:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Like what? This project is as important as the next. Part of that 400 million will build an interchange on the perimeter.

I don't agree with him that the project should be scrapped. What I would say is that grade separating the perimeter is probably more important than making new bypasses.

bomberjet · #**1040** Posted **Sep 8, 2016, 1:45 PM**

I'll agree that there are more urgent places the $400M could be spent. But the bypass is definitely a huge part of a proper highway system. I know I keep saying that, but it's true. Highway 75 is 110 down south towards the US. An upgraded Perimeter would be 110 km/h as well. That is the new standard for PTH 1 and PTH 75. I could only assume it would be the same for PTH 100 and even 101.