Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[bomberjet]

I've driven the north perimeter for decades. Pipeline always was the thing. Surprised there aren't more accidents there.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by CoryB

A lot of the situation on the north Perimeter is that there are really no alternative east-west routes. Sure CPT is good but its so limited use going from Lag to Main. Regent/Narin could be compared somewhat to Fremor except it will never connect to the Perimeter and has both a lot more lights and a lot more in/out connections.

The biggest thing the north Perimeter has going in its favour is it really needs two grade separations (HWY 6 and Pipeline) to be free flowing from Lag to Portage. If you add Gunn Rd and HWY 15 yes there would still be some lights between Fremor and Portage but it would be close to free flowing.

When are they expanding the CPT to mcphillips? Or Plessis. I would have expected the city to have completed this 5 years ago. What's the holdup?

[Biff]

Originally Posted by blackdog204

what's the holdup?

$500,000,000

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

When are they expanding the CPT to mcphillups? Or Plessis. I would have expected the city to have completed this 5 years ago. What's the holdup?

CPT is planned to connect to CCW in the west and the Oakbank Corridor in the east. The Oakbank Corridor is essentially a relocation and twining of HWY 15 moving it a couple of kms to the north. This would be very similar to how CCW twinned and relocated Inkster.


RM of Springfield comment from the engagement report:

They would like clarity and coordination with future plans for the Oakbank Corridor

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by Biff

$500,000,000

Bingo. The City has $100 million in remaining debt capacity for all infrastructure projects, including utilities at the moment. It currently cannot afford to simultaneously fund CPT extension, Kenaston Widening, and $8 billion worth of other unfunded infrastructure projects.

The City also doesn't have any good strategies for dealing with these major projects outside debt. The only feasible avenue I could foresee would be to take some funds out of the local and regional street repair budget and allocate them to major transportation projects, but that would be politically unpopular because fixing roads and Winnipeg politicians are a match made in heaven.

[Rutlander]

I can see how extending Chief Peguis to McPhillips is necessity in the near future, but it seems with the lack of cash the City has at its disposal, is there any realistic possibility of Kenaston widening? Like some others on this forum, I'm not convinced that widening brings any advantages-- can we just get on with reconstructing Kenaston with minor improvements and call it a day?

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by Rutlander

I can see how extending Chief Peguis to McPhillips is necessity in the near future, but it seems with the lack of cash the City has at its disposal, is there any realistic possibility of Kenaston widening? Like some others on this forum, I'm not convinced that widening brings any advantages-- can we just get on with reconstructing Kenaston with minor improvements and call it a day?

I called my councillor a while back (Councillor Rollins) to get her stance on the project and express my concern with the cost. She told me that a lot of the cost is the city building and upgrading the utilities for the urban reserve in the area, which apparently is roped into the cost. Now I have my doubts on that and councillor Rollins may have been confusing projects but somehow I would not be surprised if Winnipeg was left holding the bag for millions and millions in infrastructure on a parcel it no longer owns/taxes.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

I called my councillor a while back (Councillor Rollins) to get her stance on the project and express my concern with the cost. She told me that a lot of the cost is the city building and upgrading the utilities for the urban reserve in the area, which apparently is roped into the cost. Now I have my doubts on that and councillor Rollins may have been confusing projects but somehow I would not be surprised if Winnipeg was left holding the bag for millions and millions in infrastructure on a parcel it no longer owns/taxes.

Is that not their responsibility then? Or the federal government maybe? Does anyone know what was written into the agreement? How would this be a municipal/city responsibility?

Lots of questions here.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

Is that not their responsibility then? Or the federal government maybe? Does anyone know what was written into the agreement? How would this be a municipal/city responsibility?

Lots of questions here.

She told me that it was around 20-30% of the cost, mind you take that with a grain of salt, I could be misremembering. She also lamented the poor communication campaign by the city on the project. The Feds or the Bands better be paying for their own hookups.

[bon_vivant]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

I would not be surprised if Winnipeg was left holding the bag for millions and millions in infrastructure on a parcel it no longer owns/taxes.

That had better be a really nice gas station.

[Hockey]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Bingo. The City has $100 million in remaining debt capacity for all infrastructure projects, including utilities at the moment. It currently cannot afford to simultaneously fund CPT extension, Kenaston Widening, and $8 billion worth of other unfunded infrastructure projects.

The City also doesn't have any good strategies for dealing with these major projects outside debt. The only feasible avenue I could foresee would be to take some funds out of the local and regional street repair budget and allocate them to major transportation projects, but that would be politically unpopular because fixing roads and Winnipeg politicians are a match made in heaven.

Large municipalities in Canada are cash strapped. Winnipeg is no different. For large infrastructure projects, all municipalities rely on senior government funding. From past reports, the route 90 widening was not approved for funding at the federal level. The federal government will have to be involved or it won’t happen at the municipal level.

That said, the st Jamies bridge was first built decades ago. That stretch of route 90 is arguably Manitoba’s most important transportation corridor ( along with CCW) and certainly because of airport access. The corridor and bridge have to be addressed one way or the other.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

She told me that it was around 20-30% of the cost, mind you take that with a grain of salt, I could be misremembering. She also lamented the poor communication campaign by the city on the project. The Feds or the Bands better be paying for their own hookups.

I think I've said this here before, but the sewer and water were installed in 1950-1953. The asbestos watermain is fragile and needs to be replaced. The sewer is combined and can probably stay but needs to be twinned with a separate storm sewer to keep the runoff out of the treatment plant. $1000s/metre for the length of the road. This work needs to be done whether the road project happens or not. But I feel like they are getting lumped together. I don't know for sure.

[plrh]

Hookups are a negligible cost. $50 to $100k each for commercial. It's a normal development cost.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by plrh

I think I've said this here before, but the sewer and water were installed in 1950-1953. The asbestos watermain is fragile and needs to be replaced. The sewer is combined and can probably stay but needs to be twinned with a separate storm sewer to keep the runoff out of the treatment plant. $1000s/metre for the length of the road. This work needs to be done whether the road project happens or not. But I feel like they are getting lumped together. I don't know for sure.

I thought I read the projects were combined due to the pavement being in fair to poor condition and it was better to to redo it completely with the pile renewal than have pavement patches where all the drill push pits and lateral connections pits for the pipe renewal would be.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by cllew

I thought I read the projects were combined due to the pavement being in fair to poor condition and it was better to to redo it completely with the pile renewal than have pavement patches where all the drill push pits and lateral connections pits for the pipe renewal would be.

For sure it's a good idea to replace 70 year old pipes before rebuilding the road. The city is much better at work between departments than they were 10 years ago. I mean between Water & Waste and Public Works.

Remember when the city twinned Inkster between King Edward and Route 90 and then the next year they rebuilt the sewer?

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by CoryB

CPT is planned to connect to CCW in the west and the Oakbank Corridor in the east. The Oakbank Corridor is essentially a relocation and twining of HWY 15 moving it a couple of kms to the north. This would be very similar to how CCW twinned and relocated Inkster.


RM of Springfield comment from the engagement report:

Technically, the CPT is going to end at Brookside Blvd. Not sure about the east extension, but I do know it will connect to Plessis, at the very least. I can't honestly see CPT extending to Oakbank anytime soon, as it's low priority.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Rutlander

I can see how extending Chief Peguis to McPhillips is necessity in the near future, but it seems with the lack of cash the City has at its disposal, is there any realistic possibility of Kenaston widening? Like some others on this forum, I'm not convinced that widening brings any advantages-- can we just get on with reconstructing Kenaston with minor improvements and call it a day?

Judging from nearly every study done in North America about widening major thoroughfares, it will have almost no benefit to motorists, as the road will be more appealing to commuters, and we would see no major benefit in terms of traffic congestion.

[Biff]

I would have to disagree with that. Springfield Rd has seen a massive decrease in traffic now that CP is built. All of the E/W traffic between Henderson and Lagimodiere is now in CP. Maybe not a benefit to motorists, but a huge benefit to the community in which the traffic travels through.

The Main to Brookside extension of CP would relieve a ton of traffic from Leila and Murray.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Technically, the CPT is going to end at Brookside Blvd. Not sure about the east extension, but I do know it will connect to Plessis, at the very least. I can't honestly see CPT extending to Oakbank anytime soon, as it's low priority.

The plan is actually for the Headingley bypass to connect with HWY 1 west somewhere near SFX. It would then connect to CCW->CPT->OBC and connect back into HWY 15 somewhere east of Dugald.

This would be similar to HWY2/3->McGillivary->Abinojii Mikanah->Fermor->HWY 1E on the south side of the city.

The west side is likely PR330->William Clement->Morray->Sturgeon Rd->HWY 6

The east side is likely to be HWY 59S -> new road -> HWY 59N

Those four road would then intersect to create the inner ring road network.

--

As for the Oakbank Corridor, outside of Winnipeg it is likely one of the most badly needed roads in the province. It's current route (HWY 15) scores highly on the most dangerous rail crossing in the whole country. The volume it carries daily exceeded its use more than 20 years ago.

The irony here is I live no where near that route. I just understand that area well.

[bomberjet]

Has there ever been an indication that the Oakbank corridor would connect back to Hwy 15? Would make more sense to go to Oakbank then on NE'ward to Beausejour.