Winnipeg | Perimeter Highway

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

Makes sense. I'm sure they'd sooner relocate the rail lines West of the Perimeter to connect with the CN Rivers Subdivision. As there are still some grain elevators alongside the line, I probably wouldn't see it get pulled for a while, maybe unless the services get relocated to the CP Glenboro Subdivision

That's my thought as well, but the WSP report had the following to say about the Carman subdivision:

CEMR Carman Subdivision Rail Grade Separation: Three alternatives were investigated for this location: (1) grade-separation on existing alignment; (2) realignment to CN Rivers Subdivision (west of PTH 100); (3) and realignment to Four Mile Road / Wyper Road Interchange (west of PTH 100). The grade-separation on the existing alignment was selected as the preferred alternative, as the relocation alternatives were deemed not feasible in terms of the ease of being able to purchase and obtain additional right-of-way for rail relocation. For the Initial Stage, twin two-lane east-west structures are
proposed. For the Ultimate Stage, the twin east-west structures are proposed to be widened to three lanes

Source on page 9:
https://www.gov.mb.ca/mti/hpd/pth100/pdf/south_perimeter_design_study_final_report.pdf

The document also says the line averages 4 trains per week. IMO, I'd rather wait out and see if this line even gets more traffic to justify an overpass (same as prairie dog central line) unless they're the last projects remaining to get the Perimeter to freeway standards. It could very fell shut down in our lifetimes if the way ag products get delivered shift.

[bomberjet]

So they said it's too hard to relocate lightly used branch line for like 5 miles outside the City. They didnt even try. Now imgaine trying to relocate the main line for 30-40 miles around both ends of the City and all the other connections and tracks and all that.

They didn't even try to move the CEMR track at all.

I totally get the money is better spent elsewhere. But the efficiencies are gone of doing it while you're rebuilding the road up the the south side of crossing anyways.

[Carboy15]

I believe a 5-mile rail relocation is a more logical solution than constructing an overpass that might become obsolete if the railway gets abandoned. This approach would not only eliminate the need for an overpass but also benefit the potential residential development north of McGillivray Boulevard and south of Wilkes Avenue by reducing noise and development restrictions.

Removing the rails would simplify neighborhood planning by avoiding the need for multiple walkways and crossings, which add complexity. Additionally, the former rail corridor could be repurposed into a recreational trail.

The funds saved from not building an overpass on the Perimeter Highway could be allocated towards constructing rail underpasses and overpasses at key intersections like William R. Clement Parkway, Charleswood Road, Community Row, and Shaftesbury Boulevard (though not all of these might be necessary as some crossings could eventually be closed). This would significantly reduce the frequency of train horns sounding in residential neighborhoods.

West of the Perimeter, residential development is likely to be minimal, with industrial use being more predominant, except for areas like Oak Bluff.

[cllew]

There is a process municipalities and the railroads work can apply thru Transport Canada to reduce the sounding of train horns in an urban setting which are a lot less expensive than underpasses. There is an engineering checklist that has to be filled in to assess the risk to the public if the default whistling is removed.

CPKC does it in the east side of Winnipeg thru Elmwood / East Kildonan on their mainline and I believe some crossings on the Winnipeg Beach Subdivision in West Kildonan.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by cllew

There is a process municipalities and the railroads work can apply thru Transport Canada to reduce the sounding of train horns in an urban setting which are a lot less expensive than underpasses. There is an engineering checklist that has to be filled in to assess the risk to the public if the default whistling is removed.

CPKC does it in the east side of Winnipeg thru Elmwood / East Kildonan on their mainline and I believe some crossings on the Winnipeg Beach Subdivision in West Kildonan.

Okay, that's good to know.

Regarding the railway crossings alongside Wilkes Ave in Winnipeg, I'm curious which CN Rivers Subdivision railway crossings intersecting Wilkes will be kept once the William R Clement Parkway is extended south (assuming they build a rail overpass)?

Elmhurst and Fairmont Road would most likely be removed as the WCP would provide alternative access. One of the three crossings—Charleswood Road, Community Row, and Harstone Road—would probably be upgraded, most likely Charleswood Road. Shaftesbury Blvd is 99.9% likely to stay.

[bomberjet]

It'd be about $15-$20 million to build that 5 mile track. Plus property acquisition and other expenses. That track will likely not be going out of service if I was to bet on it. But your never know. It's now owned by a large conglomerate who have money to burn.

Kicking the can down the road will only make it more expensive. Counting on rail relocation or any other hopes and prayers won't get anything done. So maybe the province will take a kick at it when they actually do get around to that area. WSP is good at roads but terrible at rail. MTI should hire someone competent to do that portion of the work.

Speaking of, I haven't heard anything from Lloyd Axworthy on the rail relocation thing. Anyone know anything?

And it's anti whistling you speak of cllew. This is only enacted with crossings that have lights and bells i believe. Not sure if stop sogns at the crossings are enough. Otherwise they need to whistle. They still do whistle coming through elmwood sometimes, which I then assume means people are on the track.

[bomberjet]

Re: WRCP. There were no plans to close any of the other crossings. I think that project is far down the priority list for the City.

[CoryB]

The idea of connecting the rail line running through Oak Bluff to the CN Rivers has a number of challenges.

1. The industrial area in Oak Bluff is visibly serviced by rail. This means those businesses would need compensation to relocate. The RM of MacDonald would also likely ask for compensation from lost tax revenue.

2. With the amount of development near Roblin and HWY 1, a reroute would actually need to be west of 334, not the Perimeter.

3. Even if the reroute was to happen the CN Diamond (next to Wilkes) line would make more sense as it is less of a detour for the supposedly lightly used line.

But all that is being looked at in isolation. What if the much talked about "get rail out of Winnipeg" plan is a relocation 20 km north of the city, for example?

I've said it before, the extremely large negative economic impact any rail relocation will have on Winnipeg and likely Manitoba as a whole makes this a complete non-starter of an idea.

[bomberjet]

I was thinking like this roughly. And you just leave access to Agrico in Oak Bluff and close the old track before the highway.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I

And it's anti whistling you speak of cllew. This is only enacted with crossings that have lights and bells i believe. Not sure if stop sogns at the crossings are enough. Otherwise they need to whistle. They still do whistle coming through elmwood sometimes, which I then assume means people are on the track.

Lights & bells at the intersections (gates depending on track speeds and number of tracks) and a review of trespassing prevention on the rail right of way.

If you look at the CPKC line thru Elmwood E/K there is chain link fencing at least on one side (on both sides in same places in Morse Place due to the elementary schools) from almost Talbot Ave to Panet Rd.

One thing that I do notice is at night especially on a winter night is how far railway sounds travel. I am in EK no where near a rail line and when I worked evenings some nights I could get off the bus on Henderson Hwy and hear a whistle like it was a few blocks away.

I have seen the checklist the city and railways have to use to audit a crossing to make it quiet, but can't find it at the moment to post it.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I was thinking like this roughly. And you just leave access to Agrico in Oak Bluff and close the old track before the highway.

That's what I was thinking. Except I was thinking maybe put the new track in the open space near the transmission lines, as that land is less likely to be developed on (just a little bit East of LaVerendrye Power Plant).

Another thing, it would make sense if the LaVerendrye Power Plant were to ever expand and they'd require bringing in transformers (similar to the Riel Converter Station). It may not happen anytime soon, but in that case the railway track would come in handy.

P.S. This design could keep the railway crossing at PTH 2

[Biff]

North Perimeter Functional Design.

https://engagemb.ca/pth101

[Biff]

I have to say that I am actually pleased with the compromises in these designs.

I understand that many on here will complain that there is some functionality lost in some of the designs, but I am trying to be realistic here. Not every interchange needs to be a Systems Interchange or completely free flowing interchange for all directions. I am more concerned that these over/underpasses get built and give us free flowing - safer traffic movements on the Perimeter.

Some look pretty basic and hopefully can be implemented in short order.

[bomberjet]

Same here. They listened to all my feedback! Except for the downgrading of McPhillips and Main. As you mentioned, compromises.

Pipeline made me laugh. They just had to add in the round abouts!

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Same here. They listened to all my feedback! Except for the downgrading of McPhillips and Main. As you mentioned, compromises.

Pipeline made me laugh. They just had to add in the round abouts!

People in River Park South are still raging about the TeRriBlY COnFuSiNG DEsIGn of the St Mary's interchange roundabouts, they have to even it out by giving the North Perimeter the same treatment.

In all seriousness, I don't have any complaints about the selected configurations. Like CoryB has posted in the past, the Wilkes and Rosser interchange loops could be extended to the proposed designs for minimal funds and make those interchanges drastically safer.

I also appreciate the C/D lanes added for Main and Henderson given how close they are to each other. I know the collision severity isn't as high getting sideswiped from a bad merge vs. t-boned, but in terms of traffic numbers, that is a spot that probably needs to get addressed before some of the lesser light-controlled intersections (i.e. Wenzel, Gunn, or 330)

[bomberjet]

I will say. In new road design, everything is very curvy. There's a lot of curves in the new St. Mary's interchange. The roundabouts, the diverging diamond alignment, the round about bypass lanes. The road in general. Everything curved. Why not just make it straight? The same tone is present in the 101 slides. "This option ranked slightly higher than that option" based on some bean counters excel sheet. Just make it easy to understand and be consistent. I think that's more important than having a "slightly safer" design.

[bomberjet]

The Henderson/Main St area will be a huge project.

If they could get rid of the rail crossing, I'd prefer to keep Main St underpass set-up in the current configuration. They're going to have to blow up that interchange and completely reconstruct to switch from under to over. I guess they're basically blowing everything up anyways, but construction staging seems like it will be difficult there.

[Biff]

I have said all along that I am against spending money on modifying any of the existing grade separations before the other new grade separations are in place...as having it completely grade separated will make it safer even with the old interchanges. I do have to go against my word and say that the Main-Henderson river crossing is a complete hazard.

The traffic is so heavy in the rush hour times that accelerating and decelerating all in the one right lane is not for the faint of heart. The only silver lining is that you can never really travel faster that 60 or 70 in that lane with all of the movements.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Biff

I have said all along that I am against spending money on modifying any of the existing grade separations before the other new grade separations are in place...as having it completely grade separated will make it safer even with the old interchanges. I do have to go against my word and say that the Main-Henderson river crossing is a complete hazard.

The traffic is so heavy in the rush hour times that accelerating and decelerating all in the one right lane is not for the faint of heart. The only silver lining is that you can never really travel faster that 60 or 70 in that lane with all of the movements.

I'd add the Pembina interchange to the list of reconfigurations ahead of other grade separations. Geometry is really bad there.

[Hockey]

Originally Posted by Biff

North Perimeter Functional Design.

https://engagemb.ca/pth101

My turn re PTH 101.

It looks very reasonable and doable. All new spots for interchanges are either diamond designs or parclos.

I would not mind the PTH6 having a high speed ramp with a sign ‘gateway to the north’ or ‘journey to the north’. Seems like the government could promote going to the north this way.

Might we see concurrent interchange projects being built PTH 101 and 100.