Finishing Marion / Goulet

[jmt18325]

I think it IS Winnipeg's busiest intersection.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Biff

Another high priority is the grade separation of Lag and Regent. Lagimodiere will go under Regent. The only issue will be the nightmare of detouring traffic through the construction zone at one of Winnipeg's highest volume and busiest intersections.

I have been wondering about construction of new interchanges like this for a while and the whole dig down vs build up approach. Is there a solid reason why Winnipeg and Manitoba are doing a little of both on new ones, ie instead of one road needing to stay fully at grade you dig one road down about 50% of the way and use the earth you have removed to build the other up 50% of the way. I would imagine that could actually save some money as you are not hauling earth to the site or away from the site then...

Almost forgot, as for the whole detour thing, I would imagine it will be similar to what happened when the Bishop and Pembina grade seperation was done. It also seems a little odd that Lag will be the "under" road with that train bridge already existing just south of the intersection. Perhaps they will be using the increase in revenue from speeding tickets for people travelling north building excessive speed on the long decline from the bridge into the underpass to pay for this project.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I have been wondering about construction of new interchanges like this for a while and the whole dig down vs build up approach. Is there a solid reason why Winnipeg and Manitoba are doing a little of both on new ones, ie instead of one road needing to stay fully at grade you dig one road down about 50% of the way and use the earth you have removed to build the other up 50% of the way. I would imagine that could actually save some money as you are not hauling earth to the site or away from the site then...

Almost forgot, as for the whole detour thing, I would imagine it will be similar to what happened when the Bishop and Pembina grade seperation was done. It also seems a little odd that Lag will be the "under" road with that train bridge already existing just south of the intersection. Perhaps they will be using the increase in revenue from speeding tickets for people travelling north building excessive speed on the long decline from the bridge into the underpass to pay for this project.

Regarding the Lag & Regent intersection. The reason Lag would go under Regent is because of all of the commercial entrances on Regent that would become compromised with an elevated overpass. The incline/decline coming off the train overpass is acceptable to continue down another 5 to 6 meters to continue under Regent.

The detours are still an issue. There really is no comparison to Pembina/Bishop. The Pembina interchange is huge 1133 ft across Bishop. The Regent/Lag space is only approx 215 ft wide. not much room for construction and detours.

......elevating bridges is hard in Winnipeg due to its flatness and need for long approaches and tight densities along routes requiring possible at grade separation. Digging down is usually the only option but can be expensive due to the requirements of pump stations and utility relocation's.

What has to happen is you need to PLAN AHEAD and leave room for this type of infrastructure without caving to developers and selling it off.

[Auror]

They really need to do something about the left turn on Archibald onto Marion. On some days the line up to turn left is ridiculous, I've seen it go all the way back to Elizabeth.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by Biff

Regarding the Lag & Regent intersection. The reason Lag would go under Regent is because of all of the commercial entrances on Regent that would become compromised with an elevated overpass. The incline/decline coming off the train overpass is acceptable to continue down another 5 to 6 meters to continue under Regent.

The detours are still an issue. There really is no comparison to Pembina/Bishop. The Pembina interchange is huge 1133 ft across Bishop. The Regent/Lag space is only approx 215 ft wide. not much room for construction and detours.

......elevating bridges is hard in Winnipeg due to its flatness and need for long approaches and tight densities along routes requiring possible at grade separation. Digging down is usually the only option but can be expensive due to the requirements of pump stations and utility relocation's.

What has to happen is you need to PLAN AHEAD and leave room for this type of infrastructure without caving to developers and selling it off.

Lag was never made to go under Regent! Lag was made to go OVER Regent and the reason was this; the East - West corridor was to be, Regent- west bound, Thomas Ave, East bound. With Thomas coming across Princess Auto under Lag, behind Woolco and Beaver Lumber and back to Pandora. As anyone can see two Wyatt's and Rick Boychuk put the screws to that plan because of lack of grey matter.

The best plan now would be to elevate Lag on the northside and take it over Regent. Drop a exit lane into Home Depot/Walmart's parking lot on the east side, extend a lane to Regent with a yield going East and a Michigan left turn on to West bound Regent. South bound off Regent/Nairn Traffic would be re-routed down a NEW Panet Road that would offer a NEW route to Provencher, and/or a new route to Marion/Goulet, the bottle neck would be the CN Highline (again) and the reason being the City allowing the gym to be built behind Princess Auto (Steen). South Bound traffic off of Lag would have to go east or west bound one block sooner at Reenders.

Adding a lane both ways would help with traffic flow and allow for slow down to turn offs. The road was designed for two extra center lanes and these should continue with an overpass also at Dugald Road and Marion ( if they aren't going through with a re-alignment). The next generation of building will take place on the 4000 acres North of Trans-Can and east of Plessis, and they haven't got a line drawn yet for traffic paths (damn poor planning).

In general, the area around Panet/Dugald Rd. is getting the short end of the stick because Vandal, Steen, and Wyatt don't know their ass from a whole in the ground, and have never driven through the area to see what's going on. They prefer to rely on other peoples input and ideas to get them ahead, and lack self motivation to get off their asses to view it first hand. The City can write me a cheque if they want to know more on what HAS to be done for this area.

As an afterthought, throw in some rapid transit into this area too! If they don't, people from Transcona will be hopping freights to get into the City. Do they have a new bus line to service the housing project on the S/S of Dugald at Plessis?

[Biff]

Sounds like a good plan. When (if) they ever have an open house you should submit your ideas. For now the actual plan is for Lagimodiere to proceed under Regent. I think if they were smart they would push Lagimodiere under Regent as planned and trench it to just past Rona. This way you can have a simple diamond interchange at Rendeers Dr. They would have to route Almey Ave to Rendeers as a frontage road.

[Biff]

Like this...

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by Biff

Like this...

Biff,

Apparently, your living in the past or haven't been to other large cities. (no disrespect intended)

To bring you up to speed, a Michigan turn takes you past the intersection, into the center blvd, safely stops you and stores your car out of harms way, when safe to turn either by clear opposing traffic or a green arrow, you make a left U-turn, come back to the intersect, right yield or stop and then right turn.

New Mexico, is similar, except you left (or right) turn under a bridge, with traffic on the freeway going by at speed.

Chicago, you drive over all surface streets, even through downtown, with turn off or on's coming on stream to the right or left of you.

Going by your plan for Lag with a long tunnel, you might as well put in hostels, Timmy's, and feed the homeless while your down there. What shouldn't be allowed on Lag is any left turns across traffic, or stopping traffic, it takes Winnipeger's too long to get going again. There is some driving instructor teaching people to allow 5 seconds before proceeding when stopped at a light, seeing as how there is no second hand on digital clocks in cars, people have resorted to using the old, "Mississippi one....., Mississippi two...., rule and either don't know how to spell Mississippi, or run out of fingers??? It has been my intention to correct drivers, the light changes, I blow my horn; it does two things, one wakes them up, two, allows them to put their sandwich or bananna down and grab the wheel, step on the gas to go again, as I digress again. The tunnel you suggest, would be an excellent place to drag race on Sunday night. In fact, set up a Visa machine and for two bucks, you give it a go. Loser gets a ticket from the speed camera. Should pay for the tunnel in no time, al;so excellent for boat drags during one of our freak afternoon summer cloud bursts too.

Also Biff, I would like to see your ideas on the Dugald and Marion St. intersections on Lag too. Maybe, we can consult and get the City to send us a cheque.

[CoryB]

I am still not understanding why we don't get a half over/half under interchange built. What I mean is that instead of digging the under part down 100% of the way you go 50%. You then build the other road up like you would one of the over passes like we see on the Perimeter but you only need to go up 50% of the usual height. I am sure there is a reason for not doing this, it just seems like too simple a solution to not be happening.

As for the Lag/Regent/Dugald/Marrion thing, thinking south to the Dugald/Lag intersection we have Dugald coming over a bridge, would that mean it is likely to be the "over" road if they do grade seperation at that intersection?

I also really think the whole intersection by Ikea is a mistake. I mean three side by side left turn lanes? Is that really a safe idea? Not to mention the development has added three new sets of lights to an already busy area. Seems a proper interchange there could have saved a lot of those future headaches.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am still not understanding why we don't get a half over/half under interchange built. What I mean is that instead of digging the under part down 100% of the way you go 50%. You then build the other road up like you would one of the over passes like we see on the Perimeter but you only need to go up 50% of the usual height. I am sure there is a reason for not doing this, it just seems like too simple a solution to not be happening.

We have these things in Manitoba, snow , ice, freezing temps, lack of money, rectal government, etc.

As for the Lag/Regent/Dugald/Marrion thing, thinking south to the Dugald/Lag intersection we have Dugald coming over a bridge, would that mean it is likely to be the "over" road if they do grade seperation at that intersection?

The heavenly fathers of the City at the time (1969) never thought anyone would use Lag, let alone go down Dugald Rd., consequently, no provisions were made to gather future land holdings to build roads that would take all the Windsor Park/Southdale shoppers over to KP, also why would anyone want to build 4500 homes in Oakbank/Dugald and commute to the City.

I also really think the whole intersection by Ikea is a mistake. I mean three side by side left turn lanes? Is that really a safe idea? Not to mention the development has added three new sets of lights to an already busy area. Seems a proper interchange there could have saved a lot of those future headaches.

As I said above, left turns on major streets should be outlawed.

Anyone on here know where the intersection in front of Symington was suppose to go to?

Try this out for size; Westbound to Archibald in order to separate the Union Stock Yards from Windsor Park, across the St. B Golf Course to Carrier Ave, Carrier to St.Mary's Rd, possible bridge across to Churchill Drive to Osborne.

(Note to self: Make new thread called; 'Stupid road plans for the City of Winnipeg".)

[Biff]

....alittle, i am not the one deciding that Lag should go under Regent. I am merely repeating what was told to me by a City engineer who is working on this project. My thoughts for trenching Lagimodiere through the retail section past Rona comes from this information. If they are already planning to excavate under Regent then why not just keep going for about 1km and you can alleviate two more at grade intersections.

I'm not sure where you get that anyone will be turning left on Lagimodiare from my crude drawing. The traffic on Lag is completely free flowing, through traffic, with only right handed exit ramps. All the turns and entrances occur on the surface collector streets.

I am all for seeing what other people have in there minds for how this stretch of road should work. My main issue is that if we are going to try to alleviate an intersection at Regent (with the huge inconvenience that it will be) lets go all the way and remove two more at grade intersections within a kilometer of it at the same time.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Biff

....alittle, i am not the one deciding that Lag should go under Regent. I am merely repeating what was told to me by a City engineer who is working on this project. My thoughts for trenching Lagimodiere through the retail section past Rona comes from this information. If they are already planning to excavate under Regent then why not just keep going for about 1km and you can alleviate two more at grade intersections.

I'm not sure where you get that anyone will be turning left on Lagimodiare from my crude drawing. The traffic on Lag is completely free flowing, through traffic, with only right handed exit ramps. All the turns and entrances occur on the surface collector streets.

I am all for seeing what other people have in there minds for how this stretch of road should work. My main issue is that if we are going to try to alleviate an intersection at Regent (with the huge inconvenience that it will be) lets go all the way and remove two more at grade intersections within a kilometer of it at the same time.

With the distance between lights that this would create, I would almost call Lag a true freeway... Almost. At least you could travel a fair distance without lights. 5.5 KM is a good distance without having to halt at lights. With traffic flowing at 80 km an hour that would be great. The one downside is that with the extra flow from Regent, and traffic not having to stop there, would only increase Dugald and Grassie Congestion.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Biff

Actually the plans are very real....now. I recently talked to a top city traffic engineer (not a friend of a friend who heard....) who said it was a priority to remedy the bottleneck of Lagimodiere between Marion and Dugald. The remedy is to close the intersection at Marion and Lagimodiere and somehow realign Marion to use the Dugald intersection. This plan that i discussed is the preferred alignment. That does not mean that is what will end up being built but it is the latest as of spring of 2012.

Another high priority is the grade separation of Lag and Regent. Lagimodiere will go under Regent. The only issue will be the nightmare of detouring traffic through the construction zone at one of Winnipeg's highest volume and busiest intersections.

Interesting about the Lag and Regent interchange . That's been necessary for decades .

I'm still not buying the argument that Goulet needs to be extended though .
It just doesn't make any sense at all .
How does an extension of Goulet do anything whatsoever to alleviate back-ups along Lag ? Marion isn't the problem ,... Lag is . Same with the back-ups along Marion at the rail crossing . Every plan I've ever seen has Marion being re-routed up along Panet and then turned eastbound into Dugald before reaching Lag . An extended Goulet does ... what ? It doubles the costs I suppose . It destroys a neighbourhood . It may even require further expropriation of profitable , tax-revenue-generating businesses along its proposed alignment . The one thing it doesn't do is alleviate traffic at any point because Marion alone has the capacity already .

Anyway , I'm not saying that this is your idea or anything . I'm just pointing out that it makes absolutely no sense . It's completely ridiculous actually . It's like a 1 for the price of 2 deal . There's no way that this will ever fly with the public and any councilor who tries to ram this though is going to find himself browsing the classifieds come election time .

[Biff]

^^^ hey, the Goulet plan caught me totally off guard too.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by Biff

^^^ hey, the Goulet plan caught me totally off guard too.

The problem with streets coming off Lag is, they go nowhere. With that being said, this must to; planning should look at the long range and cost should be amortized over the long term (minimum 25 years).

Traditionally, the City does not build for the future. Example: Bishop Grandin was built as two lanes and then two years later rebuilt with an additional two lanes. Where as it should be at least three lanes either way, with run-off lanes for turning traffic.

When Lag was being designed, the jest of this North - South roadway was that it was expandable to 3 lanes either way, and was the new PTH #59. In the past 45 years, truck widths have increased, auto widths have decreased. Will the center two lanes ever be built?

The dead-end road that come off Lag still go nowhere. Examples are: Marion still dead-ends at the water reservoir, doesn't seem likely to change. Dugald Road deadends at Dawson, seems likely to change (if Sprocket could see the sense in it). Warman Rd. goes nowhere on either side and is never going to change. Rendeers deadends at an apartment and will never change, east side is slated to expand and has potential. Almey should be abandoned. Concordia, future hope of Transcona that links Devonshire to it, but goes nowhere on the west end and will never make it to the Disraeli like it was intended to do. Grassie Blvd. goes nowhere and is only there for revenue purposes (red light camera). Chief Peguis has potential to become a major link for east west traffic. Springfield Rd. local use only.

Now, if Biff will ask his engineer buddy what the City is doing in the next 25 years to remove or repair these deadheads of roadways, Sprocket may be induced to return to the land of his past and frolic in the grass of Happyland Park. Also, could you ask him Biff, what happened to that report from the traffic study guy from Chicago that Sammy had done a few years back.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

With the distance between lights that this would create, I would almost call Lag a true freeway... Almost. At least you could travel a fair distance without lights. 5.5 KM is a good distance without having to halt at lights. With traffic flowing at 80 km an hour that would be great. The one downside is that with the extra flow from Regent, and traffic not having to stop there, would only increase Dugald and Grassie Congestion.

Hardly a freeway, head little further north on Lag. to Grassie where the lights begin again, Grassie, CP Trail, Springfield, Headmaster, Perimeter all within a 3-4 KM stretch.

The CP Trail extension should have continued at least until Plessis (the distance from Lag. to Plessis being only about 1-2 KM) traffic turning onto Grassie is now backed up almost to the CP Trail at times. This was very poor planning in that more people now travel the CP Trail into east Winnipeg and hit a bottleneck at Lag. and Grassie. The Springfield intersection is now redundant and should have been rerouted onto a new frontage road.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

The CP Trail extension should have continued at least until Plessis (the distance from Lag. to Plessis being only about 1-2 KM) traffic turning onto Grassie is now backed up almost to the CP Trail at times. This was very poor planning in that more people now travel the CP Trail into east Winnipeg and hit a bottleneck at Lag.

...Oh, but no, no, rrskylar, the City has this all planned out. Their solution, you will see in about a week or so......wait for it........wait for it.............double turn lanes on Lagimodiere at Grassie.

This is the way the City plans it's highways and fixes it's problems.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Biff

...Oh, but no, no, rrskylar, the City has this all planned out. Their solution, you will see in about a week or so......wait for it........wait for it.............double turn lanes on Lagimodiere at Grassie.

This is the way the City plans it's highways and fixes it's problems.

I'm moving the last part of my post to the CP Trail thread.

NO way was Grassie designed to handle the volume of traffic it now gets.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

I'm moving the last part of my post to the CP Trail thread.

NO way was Grassie designed to handle the volume of traffic it now gets.

The original intention of CP Trail was to continue across Lag, shirt the S/S of Cordite Ditch (can't call it a creek anymore) and turn south just east of that body shop on the S/S of Grassie, follow a line straight South to Vickar Mitsubishi and eventually end up at Bernie Wolfe's mother-in-law's property at Plessis and Dugald. The Bay was going to put a shopping center on the North side of Grassie, right where the housing development is now, IF the City would build CP Trail within two years. Didn't happen.

Note to self: Find out how Larry Vickar acquired Mitsubishi property from City. Could it be all those Chevy 'Loaner cars' that Sammy and the ball park had? Check WLTO to see chain of Title events.

Sorry about bastardizing this thread, but it actually comes full circle if they hitch it up to Dugald Rd.

Let's throw this little tidbit into the mix and see if you super-sleuths can figure out the connection.

There was a developer who wanted to bring a large property 'on-stream' in South Transcona, but was told S. Trans had a drainage problem. He went about and developed plan that made water storage lakes (with aeration and nice lake side building lots. The City says, 'we can't afford this'. The developer says, If you allow me to develop my properties, dedicate the two or three cross streets to allow my controlled lakes to cross, I will set aside green space for parks and public access, provide All City services and turn them over to the City upon completion, and it won't cost the City anything.

The City said , NO!

For the total development to work, a City-owned golf course had to be crossed, Plessis Rd. crossed with a culvert and a controlled water drainage right-a-way to the storm water retention pond in St. Boniface Industrial Park.

Why wasn't the development approved? Hint: This has to do with our subject thread.

[original]

Biff, I love your trench and diamond interchange idea.
The lights at Almey are really annoying. Most people who use the road aren't even local access. They use it as a shortcut to the Costco.