New Interchanges and Bypasses in MB / SK

[cslusarc]

Thanks for the PDF of the PTH 59N / PTH 101 highway project. Does anyone know why they are building 6 bridges (plus refurbishing the current overpass)? I can understand using 4 bridges, but why do the through and and collector lanes need to be segregated as the North/Westbound PTH 101 traffic flow from PTH 15 to PTH59N is lower than any other section of the Perimeter Highway. Having collector and through lanes seperated makes sense at the Interchange at McPhillips St/PTH 101

[Time Lord]

Are there any plans to improve the intersection of the Trans Canada and Ring Road, Regina (Westbound)?

I've driven that way many times over the last thirty years and it always seemed a bit odd to have the TC traffic have to make a left turn at the lights.

The big box stores SE of the intersection have made the traffic even worse and would appear to have been located right where a bypass should have been built.

Winnipeg to Calgary is almost non stop now that it's four lane all the way and all the small towns have been by passed. I assume local drivers are as unimpressed with traffic flow at this one location, as are occasional users like me.

[Treesplease]

Yes, TCH east of regina, specifically the left turn to continue west on the TCH at the ring road intersection. There is a plan to build another bypass - (link attached), however, I haven't seen any timelines around the project and there has been no public money committed.
http://www.regina.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=400

I know the province was miffed at the city for bowing to commercial interests and allowing multiple intersections and access points - I believe the first one was for the home depot on the east end that demanded traffic and access concessions at the time and the city caved and thus the influx of commercial access points and intersections every 2.5 metres. The province invisioned that the whole stretch of number one east of the ring road would have been grade seperation but it didn't pan out.

Given the volume of morning commuters and truck traffic on TCH east of Regina, when they do build ANOTHER bypass, I do hope they invest in a flyover for west bound traffic - clover leafs have been abandoned as inefficient and dangerous in most other jurisdictions.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

The PTH 59N - PTH 101 interchange has been pushed back to 2017 for completion. Plans look incredible though.

PDF document hosed by Bike to the Future

ouch...rough to hear...

but SO happy they are finally doing away with those lights....

about time the Perimeter got spruced up


edit: - I know next to nothing about the highway lingo here, just realized its for the Lag/Perimeter interchange.

So let me ask if anyone knows - any plans to get rid of these intersections on the PHWY 101? Would love to see the whole thing free flow

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Well, looks like 59/101 is delayed -- no mention of funding from the feds or a developer, but anything is possible with a potential big-box retail development on tap.

Hello (me):

Sorry for the delay in responding to your inquiries.

The current traffic configuration of the PTH 59 and PTH 101 intersection is to keep traffic outside of the work area required to construct the grade separations needed to complete the overall interchange. Our Department is planning to complete the interchange project at PTH 59 and PTH 101 as soon as possible, but due to the many funding priorities of Government, this work has been slowed due to other priority projects. As you can understand there are many more worthwhile infrastructure projects than what the current funding levels will allow.

With respect to your questions regarding PTH 75 and the rest of the Perimeter (PTH’s 100/101) , the Province is currently upgrading the PTH 101 and PTH 15 (Dugald Road) intersection to a 4 lane to 2 lane configuration from the existing 2-lane to 2-lane configuration, which is expected to be completed late this fall or early next summer. Also I am pleased to let you know that we just recently completed the asphalt resurfacing of PTH 101 between PTH 15 and PTH 6.

In response to your question about the Centreport Initiative, our Department is reviewing the other portions of PTH 100 and PTH 75 to see what improvements can be done to improve traffic flow and safety on these portions. While grade separated intersections are extremely desirable, current funding levels do not allow them to be constructed at this time.

Should you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks
(person at MIT)

ah just saw this.

I suppose this answers my question.

No luck for the near future

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

So let me ask if anyone knows - any plans to get rid of these intersections on the PHWY 101? Would love to see the whole thing free flow

That's been the plan since day one actually . The question is when .

The province could have built it free-flow right from the beginning but instead they cheaped out and figured that it was enough to have a bypass . In any case , the whole thing has been on every government's wish list since it was built but complete free-flow always winds up taking a back seat to something else . Reasonable expenses mind you but the truth is that if the province had ever really wanted to complete it as a free-flow , they'd find the will .

The 'good news' is that now the whole thing is starting to get too busy for access roads and lights . The province is being forced (thanks to accidents) to upgrade it . Not to make it sound like accidents are a good thing but if there's a silver lining , it's that the province has to do something about it . I'm pretty sure it's either PTH 6 or PTH 3 that is next up on the interchange list and while they're at it they're going to close a lot of the uncontrolled access roads .

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Spocket

That's been the plan since day one actually . The question is when .

The province could have built it free-flow right from the beginning but instead they cheaped out and figured that it was enough to have a bypass . In any case , the whole thing has been on every government's wish list since it was built but complete free-flow always winds up taking a back seat to something else . Reasonable expenses mind you but the truth is that if the province had ever really wanted to complete it as a free-flow , they'd find the will .

The 'good news' is that now the whole thing is starting to get too busy for access roads and lights . The province is being forced (thanks to accidents) to upgrade it . Not to make it sound like accidents are a good thing but if there's a silver lining , it's that the province has to do something about it . I'm pretty sure it's either PTH 6 or PTH 3 that is next up on the interchange list and while they're at it they're going to close a lot of the uncontrolled access roads .

CentrePort, as a federal-provincial partnership, should help greatly to get some federal infrastructure money for future improvements. They're all about their "gateway strategies for trade."

[original]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

The PTH 59N - PTH 101 interchange has been pushed back to 2017 for completion. Plans look incredible though.

PDF document hosed by Bike to the Future

2017? Are you kidding me...?

The whole, stop at the lights, turn right onto 59, stop at more lights, turn left onto the perimeter way they have it now is ridiculous. Does anyone know how long its been that way?

Another thing about that overpass bridge they have over 59... What's the point of having the 1-lane west-bound side of the bridge closed? It seems like there used to be an on-ramp to merge onto the west-bound perimeter when heading north on lag without any lights.



Does anyone know why this is?

Every time I take that bridge to Birds Hill, I always look at the west-bound closed lane and wonder why its not in use.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by original

Another thing about that overpass bridge they have over 59... What's the point of having the 1-lane west-bound side of the bridge closed? It seems like there used to be an on-ramp to merge onto the west-bound perimeter when heading north on lag without any lights.

Does anyone know why this is?

Every time I take that bridge to Birds Hill, I always look at the west-bound closed lane and wonder why its not in use.

Cloverleaf interchanges are actually really poor for high traffic. The curved portion that used to be there was removed because traffic trying to get onto southbound Lagimodiere would have backed up on the perimeter during peak times.

In Calgary there was a part of a cloverleaf removed (and converted into a hybrid diamond interchange) for the very same reason.

http://maps.google.ca/?ll=50.994338,...h&z=17&vpsrc=6

[esquire]

Originally Posted by original

Another thing about that overpass bridge they have over 59... What's the point of having the 1-lane west-bound side of the bridge closed? It seems like there used to be an on-ramp to merge onto the west-bound perimeter when heading north on lag without any lights.

Does anyone know why this is?

Every time I take that bridge to Birds Hill, I always look at the west-bound closed lane and wonder why its not in use.

The interchange has been that way since the northeast leg of the Perimeter was completed sometime around late 1996 or early 1997.

You're not alone in wondering why the provincial highways department replaced that ramp with a more inconvenient and more dangerous left-hand turn across the southbound 59 lanes. (There have been several accidents there including at least one death that I can recall.) The ramp was and could have remained free flowing, so traffic backups resulting from an inability to merge would not have been an issue.

If there is a reason as to why that ramp could not have been used until a new interchange is built, it sure isn't obvious to me.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by esquire

The interchange has been that way since the northeast leg of the Perimeter was completed sometime around late 1996 or early 1997.

You're not alone in wondering why the provincial highways department replaced that ramp with a more inconvenient and more dangerous left-hand turn across the southbound 59 lanes. (There have been several accidents there including at least one death that I can recall.) The ramp was and could have remained free flowing, so traffic backups resulting from an inability to merge would not have been an issue.

If there is a reason as to why that ramp could not have been used until a new interchange is built, it sure isn't obvious to me.

Just because there are no traffic lights does not guarantee free flowing traffic. Merge lanes can back up quite easily and be even worse that an at-grade intersection.

All you need is a few semis trying to get to southbound Lag during rush hour and you will almost instantly lose a lane on the exit to northbound HWY59 and potentially the east perimeter (should the bridge be incorporated into the design of the perimeter).

Like I said earlier. A cloverleaf design is not a very good choice for a busy interchange. A diamond shaped one with properly timed lights on one of the directions is much better for moving high volumes of traffic and is the preferred design in most major cities.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Just because there are no traffic lights does not guarantee free flowing traffic. Merge lanes can back up quite easily and be even worse that an at-grade intersection.

All you need is a few semis trying to get to southbound Lag during rush hour and you will almost instantly lose a lane on the exit to northbound HWY59 and potentially the east perimeter (should the bridge be incorporated into the design of the perimeter).

There is no backup issue in this case - the ramp we're talking about is northbound 59 to westbound 101, and there is no merge. (The interchange was a trumpet, not a cloverleaf.) The way the interchange used to work, you'd turn off northbound 59 onto the ramp, and the ramp effectively became westbound 101 without any intrusions until the ramp off southbound 59 closer to Gateway.

Originally Posted by h0twired

Like I said earlier. A cloverleaf design is not a very good choice for a busy interchange. A diamond shaped one with properly timed lights on one of the directions is much better for moving high volumes of traffic and is the preferred design in most major cities.

Diamonds are good for junctions where you have a major highway and a minor highway (or urban street). In this case, 101 and 59 are two major expressways - that's why the province is justifiably going with a cloverstack. It's just unfortunate that in the end, it will have taken them 20 years to get it done.

[Joshy]

Originally Posted by esquire

Diamonds are good for junctions where you have a major highway and a minor highway (or urban street). In this case, 101 and 59 are two major expressways - that's why the province is justifiably going with a cloverstack. It's just unfortunate that in the end, it will have taken them 20 years to get it done.

Is a "cloverstack" different from a "cloverleaf" interchange?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Joshy

Is a "cloverstack" different from a "cloverleaf" interchange?

A cloverstack is essentially a modified cloverleaf with flyover ramps, usually replacing two of the four loops in a cloverleaf. It gets used for those instances where traffic is too heavy for a traditional cloverleaf but not heavy enough for a full-on stack interchange.

In the case of 101-59, the last word from the Province was that there will only be one flyover ramp for eastbound 101 traffic turning on to northbound 59.

You can see a detailed diagram on page 15 of this PDF document: http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/pdf/info.pdf

[The Bess]

heres some links to the south bridge and interchange project in saskatoon

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Massiv...082/story.html

http://www.circledrive.ca/

http://www.saskatoon.ca/DEPARTMENTS/...thProject.aspx

[original]

Good info on here. Answered a few things I was wondering about for a long time.

The PDF with the future plans looks pretty great. Since 59 and 101 is such a busy intersection already, and will probably get more congested over the next few decades as the city grows. This interchange is needed sooner than later, unfortunately, we'll probably see it later than sooner.

They want to put a diamond interchange at PR 202/59... As much as I like seeing a diamond interchange proposal, wouldn't an interchange at CP Trail/59 have more priority? Especially if the future plans are to further link it to Transcona area?

[h0twired]

Could be just a money issue.

The construction of a diamond interchange at Cheif Peguis Trail and HWY 59 would be far more costly and complex than a simple diamond interchange at Birds Hill Road.

A realignment of Birds Hill Road would allow for construction of the interchange to occur without any traffic disruptions.

[original]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Could be just a money issue.

The construction of a diamond interchange at Cheif Peguis Trail and HWY 59 would be far more costly and complex than a simple diamond interchange at Birds Hill Road.

A realignment of Birds Hill Road would allow for construction of the interchange to occur without any traffic disruptions.

It probably is a money issue. If they had more funds, I'm sure they would of placed a cloverleaf at CPT/59 for the future link.
That's just me day dreaming right now though.

Does anyone know what kind of interchange their building at Kenneston/Bishop? Drove by last week, lots of dirt hills...

[Biff]

Originally Posted by original

They want to put a diamond interchange at PR 202/59... As much as I like seeing a diamond interchange proposal, wouldn't an interchange at CP Trail/59 have more priority? Especially if the future plans are to further link it to Transcona area?

The difference is that the proposed Birds Hill proposal is a Provincial project. The province has the money to do things right (hopefully they will start doing things right). The CPT or any intersection for that matter on 59 from Knowles St to the south perimeter would be a City project. The City has no money.

......i don't want to make anyone more unhappy with the state of signalized intersections along Lagimodiere Blvd but there are a couple more awaiting city approval at Sage Creek Blvd and Warde Ave (Warde doesn't yet connect with Lagimodiere, but it will)

[jmt18325]

It's also different people doing the funding. CPT/highway 59 isn't a provincial issue.