Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension - Page 10

jmt18325 · #**181** Posted **May 28, 2009, 1:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

Considering a low volume interchange would run around 30 million, the $7 million wouldn't make much of a differce on how traffic would flow.

It's actually supposed to be a flyover, and even though the money wouldn't fill the hole, it would help.

blake10 · #**182** Posted **May 28, 2009, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newflyer

Here is map from the Centreport Website, showing the future vision of transportation upgrades.

Note: If you read between the lines (literaly) we can expect Hwy6 to eventually be linked to CentrePort (Inland Port) Way.

The plan looks good, but we know it will take decades to get it all done. I don't expect to see Bishop Grandin extended west and joined up with Charleswood Parkway for years and years. There are many sections on those routes that would also be greatly improved by the addition of interchanges. There seems to be no plans for any in the near future, though, and it never even came up for discussion when they were talking about re-doing the Kenaston/Sterling Lyon Pkwy. intersection.

Mininari · #**183** Posted **Jun 10, 2009, 9:21 PM**

I wonder if the grand plan is to actually build an interchange where Kenaston curves into Bishop Grandin, and make the current Waverley - Bishop Grandin intersection a "lesser important" intersection.
(obviously this would be when BG is extended westward, and Kenaston/Route 90 is linked to the Perimeter highway, and St. Norbert Bypass).

If you think about it, a lot of people follow BG, then turn right to head to their suburban houses off of Waverley... and more will in the future too.
But if Kenaston is built to PASS OVER BG, then it would take pressure off the BG - Waverley intersection.

Seems to me that Route 90 / BG would be a logical place for a full-movements interchange... (not the strange half-movement deal that exists at BG - Pembina).

But then again, I'm not super familiar with the long-term major road planning for Winnipeg...

Biff · #**184** Posted **Jun 11, 2009, 2:54 AM**

What you are describing has actually been submitted to the Federal Government under the shoval ready project infrastructure plan - $60 million. It baffles me how they think that is shovel ready but....

blake10 · #**185** Posted **Jun 11, 2009, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

What you are describing has actually been submitted to the Federal Government under the shoval ready project infrastructure plan - $60 million. It baffles me how they think that is shovel ready but....

Shovel ready? I thought they weren't planning on extending Kenaston (Rt 90) for 10 years?

newflyer · #**186** Posted **Aug 9, 2009, 6:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

What you are describing has actually been submitted to the Federal Government under the shoval ready project infrastructure plan - $60 million. It baffles me how they think that is shovel ready but....

The province owns the land ... and if the funding were in place it could go ahead as planned. I know they are planning on closing the Waverly interchange with the Perimetre once the Route 90 extention is complete.

grumpy old man · #**187** Posted **Aug 9, 2009, 1:12 PM**

Those "fly-overs" were removed from the equation were they not? There will be no overpasses there. Just another traffic light controlled intersection. That is, after all, how we manage traffic flow in Winnipeg.

jmt18325 · #**188** Posted **Aug 9, 2009, 3:38 PM**

There will be a flyover if they can find a way to do it cost effectively.

grumpy old man · #**189** Posted **Aug 9, 2009, 5:43 PM**

I hope you're right. But how does one define "cost effectively"? Do understand that the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba hire planners that only got as far as traffic lights in their education. They are not familiar with more efficient modes of traffic management...

UrbanPlannerr · #**190** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 5:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

There will be a flyover if they can find a way to do it cost effectively.

dought it, my spidey senses are not tingling.. likely my guess would be that they will wait 20 years to see if the traffic is there and then if super congested build one, but only if people actually ask the government to do so.

UrbanPlannerr · #**191** Posted **Aug 10, 2009, 5:58 AM**

this trail extension seems pretty close to the perimeter and does not seem to service a very large population? Is this actually needed?

jmt18325 · #**192** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 3:49 AM**

Yes, it's needed because there is no east west connection in North Winnipeg. This is the second step in creating one.

rrskylar · #**193** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 6:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

this trail extension seems pretty close to the perimeter and does not seem to service a very large population? Is this actually needed?

Is this comment a joke or have you never foot in the part of NE part of Winnipeg! Actually completing the Chief Peguis Trail will take traffic off overused Kimberley, McLeod, Edison, Springfield, Donwood, Gilmore......should I go on?

UrbanPlannerr · #**194** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 6:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Is this comment a joke or have you never foot in the part of NE part of Winnipeg! Actually completing the Chief Peguis Trail will take traffic off overused Kimberley, McLeod, Edison, Springfield, Donwood, Gilmore......should I go on?

no, yes I have but I'm lucky to see this part of town once in a year, just looking on google maps it seemed that Springfield was the major east to west route, but I wasn't sure exactly how bad it was, thus I asked not stated. Yes I'm guessing now that it seems like having this kind of traffic would definitely decrease the value of these homes in that particular area though, so I am for building it.

1ajs · #**195** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 6:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Is this comment a joke or have you never foot in the part of NE part of Winnipeg! Actually completing the Chief Peguis Trail will take traffic off overused Kimberley, McLeod, Edison, Springfield, Donwood, Gilmore......should I go on?

agreed

wags_in_the_peg · #**196** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 12:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrbanPlannerr

this trail extension seems pretty close to the perimeter and does not seem to service a very large population? Is this actually needed?

what u smoking man? there is a huge population in this area.

dennis · #**197** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 2:11 PM**

The area along Henderson, bisected by the Chief Peguis trail is one of the densest clusters of highrises in the city. Like was stated earlier, the perimeter is more of a bypass around the city. Chief Peguis in conjunction the inner ring road will be used as a major artery within the city.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.950088,-97.085066&spn=0.012067,0.027165&t=h&z=15
http://winnipeg.ca/Census/2006/Community...t%20Neighbourhoods/Valhalla/Valhalla.pdf

Only The Lonely.. · #**198** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 3:33 PM**

Regrettably the buldings are all commie blocks, but that's a different story.

In this age of Nimbyism it makes me wonder how Bergen got so many towers built in NK.

rrskylar · #**199** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 3:44 PM**

^ LOL, Ol' Martin just built it, building permit or not!

Only The Lonely.. · #**200** Posted **Aug 11, 2009, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

^ LOL, Ol' Martin just built it, building permit or not!

The guy definitely knew how to get things done.

It's just too bad that most of his buildings resemble something you would find in East Berlin.