Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

Biff · #1 Posted **May 31, 2013, 12:54 PM**

I figured i would create this Thread as a catch all for roads and infrastructure work for the Winnipeg Capital Region. For larger projects such as Disraeli Bridge, Chief Peguis Trail etc we could create separate threads.

Biff · #2 Posted **May 31, 2013, 1:00 PM**

This is now out on the City of Winnipeg Tenders page;

Request for Proposal for Functional Design for the Marion St widening and grade separation. It has been called the Dugald Interceptor before. I am not sure how to link an image on a PDF so you can view the 1974 proposal to get an idea of the type of thing they are proposing. The gist is to link up the two 4 lanes (2 each way) of Marion and Goulet with Dugald Rd. There will likely be some form of overpass structure to pass over the Archibald area I would assume much like the Disraeli. Should be interesting to see what they come up with and should be very expensive. I am surprised this is being pushed up. It is such an unknown project.

http://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/finda...e_Drawings.pdf

esquire · #3 Posted **May 31, 2013, 1:27 PM**

Interesting. I would imagine that the 1974 proposal is a total non-starter... the days of wiping out entire blocks of residential are gone, for the most part (except where no practical alternative exists like on Kenaston). The 1984 proposal strikes me as more feasible.

I recall seeing this on transportation plans going back many years. There is arguably a need for it given how congested the streets around the intersections of Lagimodiere and Marion/Dugald can get as cars snake their way from Marion to Dugald and thereabouts. I think the odd bit of what I'd call strategic transportation infrastructure to ease a bottleneck, like this project, makes more sense than building full-on freeways.

But yeah...40 years to get the ball rolling on a piece of basic transportation infrastructure... that sounds about right.

Biff · #4 Posted **May 31, 2013, 3:52 PM**

Just to throw some more stuff in this file - from Vikings twitter post:

https://twitter.com/brent_bellamy/st...574336/photo/1

....man i am not good at making the image appear here.

steveosnyder · #5 Posted **May 31, 2013, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Just to throw some more stuff in this file - from Vikings twitter post:

https://twitter.com/brent_bellamy/st...574336/photo/1

....man i am not good at making the image appear here.

How very Robert Moses...

cheswick · #6 Posted **May 31, 2013, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Just to throw some more stuff in this file - from Vikings twitter post:

https://twitter.com/brent_bellamy/st...574336/photo/1

....man i am not good at making the image appear here.

That's umm interesting

esquire · #7 Posted **May 31, 2013, 4:24 PM**

^ Reminds me of that 1960s monstrosity in Edmonton where the interchange off the Low Level Bridge swallows up land that could have accommodated hundreds of residents in an urban neighbourhood.

Spocket · #8 Posted **May 31, 2013, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

Interesting. I would imagine that the 1974 proposal is a total non-starter... the days of wiping out entire blocks of residential are gone, for the most part (except where no practical alternative exists like on Kenaston). The 1984 proposal strikes me as more feasible.

I recall seeing this on transportation plans going back many years. There is arguably a need for it given how congested the streets around the intersections of Lagimodiere and Marion/Dugald can get as cars snake their way from Marion to Dugald and thereabouts. I think the odd bit of what I'd call strategic transportation infrastructure to ease a bottleneck, like this project, makes more sense than building full-on freeways.

But yeah...40 years to get the ball rolling on a piece of basic transportation infrastructure... that sounds about right.

A few months back Alittleone and I were having this discussion/debate.

I said it was a non-starter for the same reasons you outlined but he was adamant that Goulet would be extended.
I'm guessing he's more in the know about this sort of thing than I am so we can't rule out the Goulet extension no matter how archaic an idea it may seem to be.

I certainly can't imagine that it would be green-lit without significant opposition from the area residents.

morty · #9 Posted **May 31, 2013, 5:37 PM**

Here's a good map and write-up of the suggestions from the Winnipeg Area Transportation Study. Everything on this map was supposed to be completed by the 90s.
http://minus.com/lbnH3oYO5LCgWr

rypinion · #10 Posted **May 31, 2013, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by morty

Here's a good map and write-up of the suggestions from the Winnipeg Area Transportation Study. Everything on this map was supposed to be completed by the 90s.
http://minus.com/lbnH3oYO5LCgWr

I've always been good with the beltway but I'm so glad those freeways never happened.

bomberjet · #11 Posted **May 31, 2013, 6:08 PM**

I don't know the true identity of Alittleone. But from what I've heard the days of demolishing neighbourhoods is not over. Apparently the city has quietly been buying properties on Goulet and Doucette for their eventual demolition. And renting back to the current owners. Goulet would be extended over Archibald to connect with Dugald. Marion would continue on it's current course and somehow overpass Archibald near it's current location to align with Dugald. The remaining portion of Marion south of Archibald would become a local street for the current businesses. The Marion/Lagimodiere intersection would be closed, keeping only right turns off Lag and right turns onto Lag from Marion. No median crossing.

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed on here before, with some Google sketches.

Cyro · #12 Posted **Jun 1, 2013, 5:09 PM**

Waverley underpass progress being made
By: John Orlikow, River Heights-Fort Garry City Councillor Ward Report
Posted: 05/29/2013

Council will spend $1.2 million for preliminary engineering, study and public consultation related to the Waverley underpass this year.
This is an important step because it makes sure that the Waverley underpass is designed right and set for funding to build it.
Funding for consultation is important — it gives you and your neighbours a chance to let the city, planners, and other levels of government know you think this project is a priority. It’s also an opportunity to make sure we do it right.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/our...209219091.html

Waverly has needed this underpass for soooo long...This 1st step is so crucial in getting this done.

oftheMoon · #13 Posted **Jun 1, 2013, 10:58 PM**

Good day all. I've been creeping the forum for some time now, but registered the other day to chyme in once in a while. Good stuff here overall, but this particular thread was just what I needed today!

Anyone have any idea why they finally set up traffic lights on Hwy #1 just before the perimeter? I'm thinking they're planning to overhaul that overpass, but am curious. Thanks.

Biff · #14 Posted **Jun 2, 2013, 2:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by oftheMoon

Good day all. I've been creeping the forum for some time now, but registered the other day to chyme in once in a while. Good stuff here overall, but this particular thread was just what I needed today!

Anyone have any idea why they finally set up traffic lights on Hwy #1 just before the perimeter? I'm thinking they're planning to overhaul that overpass, but am curious. Thanks.

You are right, they will be rebuilding the overpass structure there as well as on the south Perimeter and Pembina Hwy.

morty · #15 Posted **Jun 3, 2013, 2:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

You are right, they will be rebuilding the overpass structure there as well as on the south Perimeter and Pembina Hwy.

Is it just a straight-up reconstruction? Pembina & Perimeter should probably be converted to a Parclo.

Biff · #16 Posted **Jun 3, 2013, 1:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by morty

Is it just a straight-up reconstruction? Pembina & Perimeter should probably be converted to a Parclo.

Both are essentially pier refurbishment, girder and deck replacements.

morty · #17 Posted **Jun 3, 2013, 6:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Both are essentially pier refurbishment, girder and deck replacements.

Thanks for the info! That's disappointing, it would've been a good opportunity to get rid of an dangerous, outdated design.

bomberjet · #18 Posted **Jun 3, 2013, 8:45 PM**

I think this thread deserves a sticky.

Biff · #19 Posted **Jun 4, 2013, 1:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I think this thread deserves a sticky.

Hold on, i want to get my camera! I created this thread and now it is up for a "sticky".

I just wanted to thank all that got me to where i am today:

Mom and Dad - thanks for making me the person i am
My wife an kids - you keep me grounded, i love you
Esquire, trueviking, Harls, Cvist - thanks for helping me find my way, these forums can really chew you up and spit you out
bomberjet - for seeing the true promise in nominating my thread

........oh wait, it isn't "stickied" yet............shit!

bomberjet · #20 Posted **Jun 4, 2013, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Hold on, i want to get my camera! I created this thread and now it is up for a "sticky".

I just wanted to thank all that got me to where i am today:

Mom and Dad - thanks for making me the person i am
My wife an kids - you keep me grounded, i love you
Esquire, trueviking, Harls, Cvist - thanks for helping me find my way, these forums can really chew you up and spit you out
bomberjet - for seeing the true promise in nominating my thread

........oh wait, it isn't "stickied" yet............shit!

LOL no problem!

I think it's a good catch all roads thread. Plesiss Underpass, Waverley will be firing up talks soon, general road stuff's that can't find a home elsewhere.