Regina Construction II

[thefourthtower]

`

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by thefourthtower

If you want to link the leader post be my guest , they have not posted the story yet, this is the first time i have heard of anyone being deprived of views on this site from another source

It has been established now that it wasn't a Leader Post article, but a government press release. The same rules apply however; you need include in your post the link from the government website where the article can be found. And not a generic www.gov.sk.ca link, but the exact link.

The rules are partially in place for the same reasons as for crediting and linking original photo locations or when sourcing in detail references when a report is written that cites previously published works. Not doing so, opens SSP to problems with the publishing rights-holding entity. And moderators wil be in their rights to just remove your post entirely from the forum. We would then no longer have the source for a conversation present.

Why are you so adamantly against following SSP's posting rules?

[Spongebob]

Originally Posted by Festivus

On topic, it looks like they've chosen route F in this PDF:

http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/a...iaID=6773&Filename=7+-+Route+Options.pdf

I'm assuming they will be building overpasses at highway 33, highway 6 and on Vic east at tower road.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Festivus

On topic, here is an image of the accepted route vs Wascana Village. It looks like it might not overlap after all, though would still be stuck inside the route:

Actually it goes right through area 4 shown below (one of the Reeve's quarters).


http://www.wascanavillage.com/the-plan.html

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Spongebob

I'm assuming they will be building overpasses at highway 33, highway 6 and on Vic east at tower road.

My guess is that they may forego an interchange on highway 6 as it would get too close to the pinkie interchange and the point of the bypass is to remove transport congestion not create a second city ring (although that's what it sort of ends up being). Both for cost reasons and for express/more uninterrupted traffic flow, I'm think on we'll have an interchange at Vic, Arcola (33), and Pinkie. Then when/if it loops North, possibly 46, 6, and 11. All others being under/overpasses.

Edit: Nevermind... Looking at the government mapping of the possible routes, they may indeed put an interchange at 6 as well.

[Festivus]

Originally Posted by Nathan

My guess is that they may forego an interchange on highway 6 as it would get too close to the pinkie interchange and the point of the bypass is to remove transport congestion not create a second city ring (although that's what it sort of ends up being). Both for cost reasons and for express/more uninterrupted traffic flow, I'm think on we'll have an interchange at Vic, Arcola (33), and Pinkie. Then when/if it loops North, possibly 46, 6, and 11. All others being under/overpasses.

Edit: Nevermind... Looking at the government mapping of the possible routes, they may indeed put an interchange at 6 as well.

So you're thinking an at-grade 2-way stop at #6 then? Or no intersection at all, with just a straight overpass with no on/off-ramps?

I would imagine they will connect them in some way, I think I remember them saying at an open house that they would do a minor interchange (something like what is at Lewvan right now).

[Dan0myte]

I hate to be a stickler Festivus but your line isn't quite accurate. I know it was done quickly just to illustrate the location, but this would be a bit more accurate:

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Festivus

So you're thinking an at-grade 2-way stop at #6 then? Or no intersection at all, with just a straight overpass with no on/off-ramps?

I would imagine they will connect them in some way, I think I remember them saying at an open house that they would do a minor interchange (something like what is at Lewvan right now).

Nothing at-grade, the whole point is to ease congestion. I was thinking possibly something really minor or just an overpass or off ramp to highway 6 south. After all, as this is supposed to mainly be for shipping purposes, entering the city on Albert from the Bipass probably isn't all that necessary. Semis can use Ring Road if they need to enter the city from the hub/west, or they could enter from Arcola/Vic if coming from the other direction.

[ceedub1170]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

You have been asked to link to your sources many times before. It really isn't that difficult to do. Follow the rules or beat it.

I agree with everyone else. 4thTower, shape up or ship out, please. I really should just use the ignore feature.

[Festivus]

I wonder how effective of a Road Road 2.0 it will be now that we know it's so far south? I can't see it being any quicker than dealing with Vic East/Ring Rd. I guess time will tell!

[Scruff Bucket]

Originally Posted by Festivus

Fourthtower, please link to the articles you are posting. It's bad form to copy the entire article. You should post a link and then a brief summary in your own words. By posting the entire article and then no link, you are depriving the Leader-Post of website views which deprives them of money.

It's bad form.

Unfortunately, the disadvantage of not pasting the whole article is that the sometimes the source or the link to the source may be deleted after a while, and article will be very hard to locate or re-link, if at all recoverable! I've had that happen on me a few times already! But yes! If you do paste any articles, make sure you provide a link and credits!

[Scruff Bucket]

CBC's angle on the south bypass. Estimate of about $ 300M, but an interview with a city official on CBC's Bluesky program I heard today also mentioned a figure to possibly $700M.

New Regina south bypass route approved
CBC News Posted: Jun 18, 2013 11:03 AM CST Last Updated: Jun 18, 2013 1:10 PM CST

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Scruff Bucket

CBC's angle on the south bypass. Estimate of about $ 300M, but an interview with a city official on CBC's Bluesky program I heard today also mentioned a figure to possibly $700M.

New Regina south bypass route approved
CBC News Posted: Jun 18, 2013 11:03 AM CST Last Updated: Jun 18, 2013 1:10 PM CST

The interchanges alone will be >$300 million. Can anyone say "toll road"?

[Dan0myte]

I see this new bypass as being a huge benefit to the residents of South Albert Park and Whitmore Park. With semi traffic taking the bypass, it will significantly cut down on road noise for those people living near the Ring Road.

[Dan0myte]

Originally Posted by Festivus

On topic, it looks like they've chosen route F in this PDF:

http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/a...iaID=6773&Filename=7+-+Route+Options.pdf

For those who predicted B-F-J, do they win a prize?

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by Festivus

I wonder how effective of a Road Road 2.0 it will be now that we know it's so far south? I can't see it being any quicker than dealing with Vic East/Ring Rd. I guess time will tell!

Better than the current one. It has no at grade intersections and will be 4-lane 110km/h where as Vic (part of the bypass) is littered with lights and has at points a 70 km/h speed limit. With the scope of the high-speed ramps at the two major interchange points east and west of the city this will facilitate MUCH larger traffic flow for a MUCH longer period.

Also with regards to #6 and the new bypass, I would imagine something where the bypass continues over unimpeded, however will be similar in design to the College / Circle Drive interchange in Saskatoon. A modified loop design. With two lights one each way to control turning traffic, and a through arrow to allow free movement once past that point.

It can be done well to allow Truck traffic easy access from 6 to the new bypass, and I could be dead wrong they may want a full service interchange. As Hwy 6 south is getting more and more busy with shipping and the oil business. Might be advantageous to go ahead and do it now. Looking forward to seeing the functional planning drawings though in a few months!

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I doubt it. The South Circle Dr. bridge project costed less than $300M and included 5-6 interchanges.

They are proposing at least 2 full system interchanges (Pinkie and Tower). Those would each have 10+ bridges and cost over $140 million each. Pinkie is already partially built, but you still have #6 and #33.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

I doubt it. The South Circle Dr. bridge project costed less than $300M and included 5-6 interchanges.

I think Stormer's right. As I posted in the Interchange thread a while back, the proposed "Systems Interchanges" alone would cost about $150 M each. Assuming two are built, that's $300 M right there:

Originally Posted by Bdog

I guess it depends what type of systems interchanges they're planning. If it's for the type in the picture (which is likely unnecessary for traffic #s as they currently stand), it's easily $140 M + ... There are 10 bridges in that one interchange that they show...

[Dan0myte]

Based on speculation, do you think Rowatt will gain a small commercial area due to this bypass? The interchange with #6 will be 900m north of the Rowatt terminal (according to Google, 34 seconds drive time). I could see a gas station or a coffee shop here as a stop for weary travelers? Could help this struggling little hamlet.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by Dan0myte

Based on speculation, do you think Rowatt will gain a small commercial area due to this bypass? The interchange with #6 will be 900m north of the Rowatt terminal (according to Google, 34 seconds drive time). I could see a gas station or a coffee shop here as a stop for weary travelers? Could help this struggling little hamlet.

If they were to be smart I would allow an industrial park to begin development out there. Along with the mentioned items. Keeping industry out of the city will be good, and easy access to the Bypass would be a HUGE selling point.