Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

The province has started to remove access points, so they definitely agree with you. They only have so much funding though, and a lot of priorities.

They started removing access points 20 years ago. I know it's hard to bring an excavator and dump to just dig up and remove the points. And I'm sure each gravel access point will cost tax payers $1 million each and any ones with asphalt or concrete will be $10 million and maybe by 2040 they will be gone. Just in time for the total refurbish of the perimeter lol

[esquire]

I would assume that Wilkes no longer meets modern standards, but personally I never found it all that treacherous... EB Portage to SB Route 90 strikes me as a more prominent example of a deficient if not outright dangerous interchange ramp.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

I use the perimeter daily for business. I'm quite aware of its short comings.
But GUNN road should never have been allowed to join the perimeter. Same as Pipeline. This beleif that every stupid little road needs to join is 1950's thinking. And sure you can argue the traffic on those two roads is stupid now and will get worse. And why is that? Because they were allowed to join I the first place and that spurred a huge industrial park at GUNN and then homes and new developments on and around Pipeline. Had those two never been allowed to cross the Perimeter the issue would not be here.

Actually most of the Gunn Rd development existed long before the northeast Perimeter. The issues behind why Gunn Rd is the way it currently is are much deeper than road design so we will skip that here. Gunn Rd was allowed access partly for political reasons and partly as an interim access point until the east side corridor was built.

In terms of roads that never should have had access to the Perimeter St Annes top my list. Even going back to the time of the original Perimeter it would never be free flowing inside the city it has always been close to 59 and unlike both St Marys and Pipeline it is not a PTH outside the Perimeter. Speaking of, as Pipeline is a PTH outside the Perimeter same as St Marys, Inkster and Henderson is definitely would meet the criteria for at least a diamond interchange and access to the Perimeter. St Anne's, Kennaston and Waverly though, not so much.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

As for this pipe dream of east west corridor. I'm sorry. OakBank doesn't warrant a new highway and bridge and overpass. Especially when places like St Nob has been waiting for a bypass for ever. Same as Headingly. Same as #2-#3 needing something other then lights.

Go drive HWY 15 at peak traffic times and then come back and post about the area now warranting a new highway. In addition to the high volume of traffic HWY 15 has more of the most dangerous rail crossing in Canada than all of Winnipeg. The "new" Oak Bank highway would serve as a replacement for HWY 15 between 206 and 101, allowing the closing of those dangerous rail crossings, and align with the overall northern east-west corridor. It has actually been on the books for 25+ years now and public consultations on proposed routes have even been done in the past. From memory it has been in discussing for a similar length to the Headingley bypass and longer than the St Norbert by pass and the 2/3 intersection improvements. Heck the #1/Yellowhead intersection improvements also would predate 2/3 which is relatively new in the scope of highway improvement projects.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Wilkes is an easy fix. You just make the ramps longer. Extend them further south before they turn back on the perimeter and then you can have nice off and on ramps. No need for a 50 million dollar bridge there. Just some basic roadwork.

Sure longer ramps solves the current Wilkes access issues but the scope of the whole project is much deeper than that. If the plan is for six lanes on the Perimeter and the recent of the Roblin bridge to the north of Wilkes proves that then more than just realigning ramps needs to be done at Wilkes as the current span has a maximum of four lanes. It likes means building a whole new bridge there, and over the Red and rebuilding the Pembina overpass and that is without dropping a dime on new grade separations. Personally I think new grade separations would have bigger payoffs that additional lanes.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

St Mary's is horrible to enter. It's at an angle already so you don't really have a clear view of the semis speeding through there. And then about 50 feet of merge lane.

St Mary's, as it is today, is a trivial fix if the issue is length of merge lanes. Similar to Wilkes, as you pointed out, make the merge lanes longer. With a protected run on the right side of traffic for right turns you would get a better view of the traffic you are merging into and could better time your entry. For left hand turns the existing traffic lights already tell you when it is safe to consider entry and per common traffic laws you don't proceed until it is fully safe to do so.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

As for traffic counts. Yes the higher counts are on the north. But the north has the most free flowing part of the perimeter. The south however isn't. It's ridden with lights and most east west traffic goes the south route. That's a lot more semis then the north and semis don't stop to well. So a proper traffic study on semis vs some passengers cars escaping to tax cheating esp and wsp are needed. Amd let's not forget that the south is growing way faster the. The north now. So studies done even 5 years ago are way off.

If the north is the most free flowing part of the Perimeter if anything the province should lean heavily into that and make it fully free flowing. If traffic coming west on the TransCanada hit the Perimeter and knew the north route was fully free flowing the commercial traffic would go that way. Diverting the commercial traffic away from the south Perimeter would help reduce those traffic counts.

Some of the commercial traffic on the south Perimeter though cannot easily be worked around though due to access to the main north-south routes and Brady Landfill. Keep in mind though most commercial garbage is already heading north of the city to BFI's private landfill.

In there were honest concerns over commercial v personal vehicle traffic on sections of the Perimeter it would be possible to setup a traffic study to obtain this. If there isn't an available public study and it was viewed and being truly important a group of volunteers could be trained and undertake this study by sitting at key points and counting vehicles.

Regarding your perception of "tax cheats" in ESP and WSP, let's remember the Perimeter is a provincial highway, not a City of Winnipeg road. That said the issues from ESP and WSP are similar to La Salle and Oak Bluff and the need for improvements to 2/3 you mentioned earlier.

As for the general growth in the city, you might be surprised by how fast the city is growing. I know Seven Oaks is the only school division in Winnipeg that is seeing net increases in their student population. None of the divisions in south Winnipeg have that issue. Care to link to some population growth numbers of back your claims that the south is growing way faster than the north?

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

I would assume that Wilkes no longer meets modern standards, but personally I never found it all that treacherous... EB Portage to SB Route 90 strikes me as a more prominent example of a deficient if not outright dangerous interchange ramp.

Wilkes to north bound Perimeter is especially hazardous due to the extremely short, even by Manitoba standards, merge lane ending at the top of a bridge leaving no where to go but into a high speed lane.

EB Portage to SB Route 90 is definitely another hazardous merge. Merging traffic entering on the incline of Route 90 combined with the bridge limit visibility to oncoming traffic. There is also a high traffic count on the SB lanes compounding the issue. Add in that some traffic entering from EB Portage wants to cross all the traffic lanes to continue EB on Academy. That one is a lot harder to fix than Wilkes/Perimeter. Only idea there would be to put traffic metering near the top of the EB-SB ramp to release vehicles gradually and give them some clear ramp to run up to speed before merging. That said something like ramp metering is likely too foreign a concept to work in a city that thinks 10 feet of merge lane followed by a yield sign is sufficient.

[Cyro]

^^ Informative post CB..

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Actually most of the Gunn Rd development existed long before the northeast Perimeter. The issues behind why Gunn Rd is the way it currently is are much deeper than road design so we will skip that here. Gunn Rd was allowed access partly for political reasons and partly as an interim access point until the east side corridor was built.

In terms of roads that never should have had access to the Perimeter St Annes top my list. Even going back to the time of the original Perimeter it would never be free flowing inside the city it has always been close to 59 and unlike both St Marys and Pipeline it is not a PTH outside the Perimeter. Speaking of, as Pipeline is a PTH outside the Perimeter same as St Marys, Inkster and Henderson is definitely would meet the criteria for at least a diamond interchange and access to the Perimeter. St Anne's, Kennaston and Waverly though, not so much.



Go drive HWY 15 at peak traffic times and then come back and post about the area now warranting a new highway. In addition to the high volume of traffic HWY 15 has more of the most dangerous rail crossing in Canada than all of Winnipeg. The "new" Oak Bank highway would serve as a replacement for HWY 15 between 206 and 101, allowing the closing of those dangerous rail crossings, and align with the overall northern east-west corridor. It has actually been on the books for 25+ years now and public consultations on proposed routes have even been done in the past. From memory it has been in discussing for a similar length to the Headingley bypass and longer than the St Norbert by pass and the 2/3 intersection improvements. Heck the #1/Yellowhead intersection improvements also would predate 2/3 which is relatively new in the scope of highway improvement projects.



Sure longer ramps solves the current Wilkes access issues but the scope of the whole project is much deeper than that. If the plan is for six lanes on the Perimeter and the recent of the Roblin bridge to the north of Wilkes proves that then more than just realigning ramps needs to be done at Wilkes as the current span has a maximum of four lanes. It likes means building a whole new bridge there, and over the Red and rebuilding the Pembina overpass and that is without dropping a dime on new grade separations. Personally I think new grade separations would have bigger payoffs that additional lanes.



St Mary's, as it is today, is a trivial fix if the issue is length of merge lanes. Similar to Wilkes, as you pointed out, make the merge lanes longer. With a protected run on the right side of traffic for right turns you would get a better view of the traffic you are merging into and could better time your entry. For left hand turns the existing traffic lights already tell you when it is safe to consider entry and per common traffic laws you don't proceed until it is fully safe to do so.



If the north is the most free flowing part of the Perimeter if anything the province should lean heavily into that and make it fully free flowing. If traffic coming west on the TransCanada hit the Perimeter and knew the north route was fully free flowing the commercial traffic would go that way. Diverting the commercial traffic away from the south Perimeter would help reduce those traffic counts.

Some of the commercial traffic on the south Perimeter though cannot easily be worked around though due to access to the main north-south routes and Brady Landfill. Keep in mind though most commercial garbage is already heading north of the city to BFI's private ?

Cory. I work in construction. Work with construction companies all over mb. My Kms are constantly all over the perimeter as I use it all day. I know where problems are and are not. The problem is the entire system. There should be ZERO lights period. Not adding more.

As for St Anne's never being allowed access??? You do realize it was there long before the perimeter ever was right? St Anne's used to go straight to grand point and beyond.

Pipeline was just a little farmers road that farmers used. St Anne's had its developments long before anything on pipeline road.

Gunn road was a mess. Yes their was some industrial there but the majority was not there. It was basically auto wreckers. How do I know? I lived in the area for a number of years as we had a farm there. It was mostly farm land.

This pipe dream of this so called East - West corridor for OakBank is comical in today's road work. We cannot even get the overpasses on the rest of the peri done and you are worried about Gunn road and it's joining to OakBank???. I doubt you will see any road there in the next 20 years if ever tbh.

As for six lanes on the perimeter. Again a pipe dream. Just because we built one new bridge with the potential for 6 lanes doesn't mean it will happen anytime soon. I'm not talking CPW either as that's more federal money then anything.


We need to fix what we have now before we dream of multi lane highways to towns.


Btw there was a study done already on the south perm and even though it was NDP dreaming. They however did say 6 lanes due to the excessive amount of traffic.

I doubt you have driven east on the south perimeter at evening rush hour. The first fun part is flying over pembina to traffic backed up from St Mary's road. Nothing like doing 90kms and everyone is at a dead stop for 3 Kms. But again it doesn't have traffic problems lol.

I feel you have a hate for anything that's south side of the city. And I do remember you posts way back about Gunn. Road and Pipeline being far more important then St Anne's and St Mary's.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

As for six lanes on the perimeter. Again a pipe dream. Just because we built one new bridge with the potential for 6 lanes doesn't mean it will happen anytime soon. I'm not talking CPW either as that's more federal money then anything.

I just wanted to address this aspect of the Perimeter redevelopment. In my conversations the 6 lane feature of the South Perimeter is for design and base construction. Meaning the plan is to design and build all structures (interchanges) and road base for 6 lane configuration. The main rebuild is a result of the median being insufficient to today's standards and to construct grade separations.

I have mentioned before that the plan is to construct new lanes (to the south or north - which ever they choose first) of the existing roadway - thus keeping all lanes open during construction. Hwy foundation construction is built to accommodate 3 lanes. Then when complete, have the traffic diverted to the centre and newest roadway. Demolish the opposite side roadway and reconstruct Hwy foundation to accommodate 3 lanes. Once complete move traffic to the outside roadways and demolish and remove the old centre lanes leaving an appropriate median distance.

I believe that 2 lanes of through, un-obstructed traffic is sufficient right now.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Biff

I just wanted to address this aspect of the Perimeter redevelopment. In my conversations the 6 lane feature of the South Perimeter is for design and base construction. Meaning the plan is to design and build all structures (interchanges) and road base for 6 lane configuration. The main rebuild is a result of the median being insufficient to today's standards and to construct grade separations.

I have mentioned before that the plan is to construct new lanes (to the south or north - which ever they choose first) of the existing roadway - thus keeping all lanes open during construction. Hwy foundation construction is built to accommodate 3 lanes. Then when complete, have the traffic diverted to the centre and newest roadway. Demolish the opposite side roadway and reconstruct Hwy foundation to accommodate 3 lanes. Once complete move traffic to the outside roadways and demolish and remove the old centre lanes leaving an appropriate median distance.

I believe that 2 lanes of through, un-obstructed traffic is sufficient right now.

What do you feel the odds of at least some of it happening are?

[Biff]

^^^ I know some/most are very pessimistic around here and have heard this for years, but I don't get my info from politicians. The word I get from people involved is that they are very optimistic about this specific project. There was heavy interest from the NDP Govt. and it seemed to get one of the few endorsements from the new PC Govt. The desire is to capitalize on this endorsement and act quickly. The highways budget and essentially stayed the same (- only $35 million or so) so they are moving to get as much done while the getting is good.

My bet is about 70% chance it gets started.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Biff

^^^ I know some/most are very pessimistic around here and have heard this for years, but I don't get my info from politicians. The word I get from people involved is that they are very optimistic about this specific project. There was heavy interest from the NDP Govt. and it seemed to get one of the few endorsements from the new PC Govt. The desire is to capitalize on this endorsement and act quickly. The highways budget and essentially stayed the same (- only $35 million or so) so they are moving to get as much done while the getting is good.

By the same token (I agree with you) there has been no change in the fall advertising schedule since the budget. I'm guessing the $35M decrease was expected and never requested by MI.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

I know where problems are and are not. The problem is the entire system. There should be ZERO lights period. Not adding more.

Let's get this out of the way to start -- I agree there should be ZERO lights on the Perimeter. That said, the status quo of Gunn Rd cannot continue. If it was okay to add a new light at 330 a couple of years ago it is long past time to do the same for Gunn Rd, even if construction on full grade separation starts there tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

As for St Anne's never being allowed access??? You do realize it was there long before the perimeter ever was right? St Anne's used to go straight to grand point and beyond.

Pipeline was just a little farmers road that farmers used. St Anne's had its developments long before anything on pipeline road.

For whatever reason, beyond what either you or I might post here, Pipeline is important enough to be given a PTH designation while St Anne's is not. It could be that a lot of the reason St Anne's used to be important has been replaced by 59S. Looking at Google Maps my best guess on why Pipeline is important is for access to Oak Hamock and as a secondary route for Stony Mountain and St Andrews airport, likely to expatiated access for emergency service vehicles being dispatched to "disasters" from Winnipeg.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Gunn road was a mess. Yes their was some industrial there but the majority was not there. It was basically auto wreckers. How do I know? I lived in the area for a number of years as we had a farm there. It was mostly farm land.

As I said before Gunn Rd likely has access for political reasons. My understanding is Gunn Rd is actually in Springfield not Winnipeg and if there is a fire in the area they need a way to get additional equipment in and out of the site. Keep in mind the Perimeter is a provincial highway before posting rants about how city boundaries are wrong there and access should never have happened.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

This pipe dream of this so called East - West corridor for OakBank is comical in today's road work. We cannot even get the overpasses on the rest of the peri done and you are worried about Gunn road and it's joining to OakBank???. I doubt you will see any road there in the next 20 years if ever tbh.

Like it or not the traffic from Oak Bank exists today and it isn't going away. They pay provincial taxes, same as everyone else, and actually have some level of political importance in the provincial picture. The corridor route, while a net new build, is effectively an upgrade of HWY 15 between the Perimeter and 206. The road issues also go far beyond the City of Winnipeg boundaries.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

We need to fix what we have now before we dream of multi lane highways to towns.

Umm the Headingley bypass, St Norbert bypass and Oak Bank corridor are all plans to fix what we have now and solve issues from how things were done in the past.

Originally Posted by Bluenote

I doubt you have driven east on the south perimeter at evening rush hour. The first fun part is flying over pembina to traffic backed up from St Mary's road. Nothing like doing 90kms and everyone is at a dead stop for 3 Kms. But again it doesn't have traffic problems lol.

I feel you have a hate for anything that's south side of the city. And I do remember you posts way back about Gunn. Road and Pipeline being far more important then St Anne's and St Mary's.

I have driven all over the Perimeter. The issues on the south Perimeter are by no means isolated. If access to St Anne's and St Marys was eliminated and the south St Vital commuter traffic needed to use alternate routes the issues you describe wouldn't really exist. That said closing those access points isn't a solution. Same idea as closing Gunn Rd or Pipeline isn't a solution. St Anne's/St Mary's is a complex problem where Pipeline could mostly be fixed quickly with a relatively cheap diamond and Gunn Rd basically needs a set of lights installed until the east corridor happens. None of them are ideal solutions but do we spend another 20+ years doing nothing at all on the Perimeter waiting for the perfect solution to St Marys/St Annes or do we act quickly to address the low hanging fruit on overall safety issues on the Perimeter?

[Glenn99]

Does anybody have traffic volumes at all the various at-grade intersections on the Perimeter? Surely, that should dictate priority. Or accident staticits. There seems to be a lot of accidents at Highway 3 and the Perimeter. I have no stats to back my claim though.

[MG922]

Originally Posted by Glenn99

Does anybody have traffic volumes at all the various at-grade intersections on the Perimeter? Surely, that should dictate priority. Or accident staticits. There seems to be a lot of accidents at Highway 3 and the Perimeter. I have no stats to back my claim though.

http://umtig.eng.umanitoba.ca/mhtis/flowmap2015.pdf

Enjoy!

[jmt18325]

So based on that - why is PTH 75 concrete and PTH 1 W bituminous....

[Glenn99]

Originally Posted by MG922

http://umtig.eng.umanitoba.ca/mhtis/flowmap2015.pdf

Enjoy!

#15 and #3 are the clear priorities. #15 should have been done when the east Perimeter was finished. Pipeline Road way down the list. No stats on Gunn, St. Anne's, south Kenaston/Waverly.

[MG922]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

So based on that - why is PTH 75 concrete and PTH 1 W bituminous....

MI also has data on the percentage of AADT that is truck traffic. Can't recall how to get to that data right now... Not saying this is the reason, but say if 75 has 20% heavy trucks, and 1W has 10%, that might explain the rationale.

I'm surprised that the volume of 75 is that much lower than 1.

[MG922]

Originally Posted by Glenn99

#15 and #3 are the clear priorities. #15 should have been done when the east Perimeter was finished. Pipeline Road way down the list. No stats on Gunn, St. Anne's, south Kenaston/Waverly.

Kenaston completed right around 2015 i believe, right when this data is from. Also, is kenaston a provincial road? This map is only PR's and PTH's. City data for city streets is totally separate, and way more detailed, IIRC.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Glenn99

Does anybody have traffic volumes at all the various at-grade intersections on the Perimeter? Surely, that should dictate priority. Or accident staticits. There seems to be a lot of accidents at Highway 3 and the Perimeter. I have no stats to back my claim though.

Traffic volume, number of accidents and severity of the accidents would hopefully all factor into priorities. That means a number of minor accidents with only vehicle damage would be scored lower that accidents with personal injuries or deaths.

Originally Posted by Glenn99

#15 and #3 are the clear priorities. #15 should have been done when the east Perimeter was finished. Pipeline Road way down the list. No stats on Gunn, St. Anne's, south Kenaston/Waverly.

I think a big part of the issue with #15 is the long term vision is to turn #15 between the Perimeter and 206 into a local only road. HWY 15 badly needs to be twinned but for a long list of reasons it doesn't make sense to do it in place, hence the route known as the Oak Bank corridor proposed for a mile or two north of the existing 15 route. It would also lineup with Gunn Rd at the Perimeter instead of the current location.

[bomberjet]

Politics are the reason why 101 and 15 is the way it is. The Province left the diversion in 101 to build the interchange. Then politics happened and the Province stuck it to the RM by putting up the lights. Different 'parties' were in power between the province and the RM. That's anecdotal, but really happened.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Umm the Headingley bypass, St Norbert bypass and Oak Bank corridor are all plans to fix what we have now and solve issues from how things were done in the past.

The St. Norbert by-Pass wasn't a plan to fix how things are now, or how they were done in the past. The Bypass was a plan to address future commercial traffic volumes that are expected to happen once CP is fully developed and operational.

The previous government framed it as a safety issue, which it clearly is not.