Winnipeg Construction VIII

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Has anything happened since the station opened to bear out the concerns expressed in the report that "slammed" the idea? You'd think that the proof would be in the pudding now that the pudding actually exists.

Actually I'm friends with a fireman who says different!

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Actually I'm friends with a fireman who says different!

Sorry. So are there issues or aren't there issues?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I haven't heard of any issues. Really there is no issue. It's not like this is a cloverleaf on the Perimeter or something. What's Route 90 in the area, 60 km/h maybe 70 km/h.

I've heard people say it's really difficult for them to navigate the ramp down onto Route 90. But it's no different than if they were at any other location. They have a priority light to cross Portage. It's all hype in the media again.

I didn't read the Stantec report. But seems that they offered up solutions to the issues, which City engineers accepted. It's a good idea the museum is not there. Is it really a good idea to have some museum at a fire hall anyways? Personally I think it's good use of space.

Again Bartley making a mountain out of a mole hill.

It doesn't seem to me to be a big deal at all. These aren't high speed roadways. It seems like a pretty good location given the area that the station is supposed to serve. Obviously any location will have plusses and minuses.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Actually I'm friends with a fireman who says different!

Well maybe the Free Press should speak to your friend then, as actual problems based on the actual experience of the existing station would be more relevant to evaluating the location than hypothetical concerns in a report created before the station existed (and presumably addressed in some degree prior to construction).

[drew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

IIt's a good idea the museum is not there. Is it really a good idea to have some museum at a fire hall anyways?

Didn't they still build the station larger to accommodate the museum, ballooning costs?

Whether or not the museum is there, the budget went millions of dollars higher to account for it.

The fact the report is so innocuous, makes it a head scratcher why the previous administration tried so hard to bury it.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Well maybe the Free Press should speak to your friend then, as actual problems based on the actual experience of the existing station would be more relevant to evaluating the location than hypothetical concerns in a report created before the station existed (and presumably addressed in some degree prior to construction).

This is what the article said:

"Based on industry-accepted design standards, under normal circumstances, development of any kind within an interchange would not be recommended," Stantec concluded in its study. "Accesses within an interchange create the potential for serious safety concerns and operational problems."

Stantec nonetheless made several recommendations as to how the city could mitigate those problems, and the city says it has implemented seven of the 11 recommendations. One involved getting rid of a static fire-equipment museum display, which the engineers said would serve as a distraction to motorists passing by the station.

Seems plausible to me. If you want the interchange to operate as smoothly and safely as possible for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, you minimize the number of potential conflicts. The fire station in the middle of the interchange increases the potential for that just by virtue of being there.

Add to that the fact that it will make any kinds of changes to the interchange far more difficult because now there's a fire hall in the way. Now if there is a need to modify the interchange as a result of the planned Kenaston widening, or a widening of the on/off ramps, or what have you, it gets a lot more complicated. Interchanges usually act as a land reserve for future transportation needs.

I suppose you can make just about anything work if you really have to when it comes to choosing building sites, but that sure doesn't mean that this was a good idea.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is what the article said:



Seems plausible to me. If you want the interchange to operate as smoothly and safely as possible for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, you minimize the number of potential conflicts. The fire station in the middle of the interchange increases the potential for that just by virtue of being there.

Add to that the fact that it will make any kinds of changes to the interchange far more difficult because now there's a fire hall in the way. Now if there is a need to modify the interchange as a result of the planned Kenaston widening, or a widening of the on/off ramps, or what have you, it gets a lot more complicated. Interchanges usually act as a land reserve for future transportation needs.

I suppose you can make just about anything work if you really have to when it comes to choosing building sites, but that sure doesn't mean that this was a good idea.

I'd agree with most of that statement. Under normal circumstances.

Century is 3 lanes both directions at this location. The only change that would happen at this WB-SB loop would be extending the merge lane through the southbound portion of the underpass. This would more affect the existing overpass, which would need to be taken down and retaining wall moved west, for that to happen (which would be kind of a big deal).

Essentially the only portion of Route 90 that is actually close to freeway standards is at this location. Again just with the merge lanes. Anything happening to the south will the river bridges and that won;t affect this loop.

Just for clarity, I wouldn't want to put a fire hall in a clover leaf. But at this location, I think it's acceptable. Remember there was a park within the interchange before (at least a sitting bench anyways) and there's a residential street that runs through the ramp.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by drew

The fact the report is so innocuous, makes it a head scratcher why the previous administration tried so hard to bury it.

But yet there were strenuous efforts to bury the report. It seems to me that if the city takes the time and money to hire consultants they should pay some heed to their recommendations. I guess the city did not want to explain why they ignored the report they commissioned, and why they downplayed concerns raised about the appropriateness of the cloverleaf site.

While I agree that the firehall seems to work in the current configuration of the interchange, it does make me wonder about how this could impact future upgrades. That interchange is poorly designed as it is and could be improved in a number of ways.

[bomberjet]

Just looking at Google a bit. Southbound lanes. The EB-SB ramp, which is ridiculous. Really hard to see traffic coming from the north and no acceleration lane. If that was ever to be corrected, they would need to take down that apartment building right next door. As the ramp gets pretty close already.

Then they would be able to extend the WB-SB loop ramp/acceleration lane. Cause there really is no room otherwise. So a lot of dominos would need to fall. if the City ever wanted to go to a fourth lane, it would be quite the project. The firehall seems far enough away, if they were to go with the same vertical concrete retaining walls.

I'll agree though if there were ever to be a major rework of the interchange, the firehall is obviously a factor. On the whole issue of burying the report, tehre is no excuse for it. There's so many reports that are done by the City. Nobody in the public ever sees them because it's none of their business really. Since this blew up to the huge issue it is with land swaps, contract splitting and all that, they are getting lynched for this.

If the public knew of every report the City got, and didn't follow the recommendations, they'd be surprised at the waste of money. But we all know the City likes to study things to death, then accept the reports as information. in this case, they followed all the applicable recommendation.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

But yet there were strenuous efforts to bury the report. It seems to me that if the city takes the time and money to hire consultants they should pay some heed to their recommendations. I guess the city did not want to explain why they ignored the report they commissioned, and why they downplayed concerns raised about the appropriateness of the cloverleaf site.

While I agree that the firehall seems to work in the current configuration of the interchange, it does make me wonder about how this could impact future upgrades. That interchange is poorly designed as it is and could be improved in a number of ways.

That's about the size of it. The consultants didn't say that placing the firehall in the loop would result in catastrophe, just that it wasn't really the best idea in the context of industry design standards. The City just carried on and did what it was going to do anyway.

The interchange itself really has barely changed since it was built in the 1960s and is in dire need of upgrades... the ramps leading to SB Route 90 are deficient to the point of being dangerous. Eventually fixing the WB to SB ramp will likely become more complicated as a result of this firehall.

[buzzg]

Yeah I think the biggest issue is the fact that redoing that whole bridge system area is the next major project the city has to tackle, and this limits its ability to do it. Sure, there is enough room to expand, but the reports have said St. James bridge needs to be entirely replaced, now there is no room to keep the old one open while a new one is built. It will be a nightmare having both directions going on the same bridge there (like Osborne had).

Also, the entrance/exit onto WB Portage is brutal — way too short, there's not enough room to properly come up to speed to merge, and people just sit there and wait (although this is also a WPG driver problem...).

[esquire]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Also, the entrance/exit onto WB Portage is brutal — way too short, there's not enough room to properly come up to speed to merge, and people just sit there and wait (although this is also a WPG driver problem...).

Hard to blame Winnipeg drivers for that one... of all the cities I've ever driven in, I don't think I've seen a merge as blind as that one. A visitor from out of town trying to make that turn from EB Portage to SB Route 90 would surely be caught by surprise as the ramp basically throws them right into a traffic lane without warning.

[bomberjet]

Here's a direct link to the current plan for Route 90.

http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/MajorProjects/Route90/PDF/Route90-RecommendedPlan.pdf



Not sure if the bridges were to be torn down and rebuilt, or just refurbished. but they'll be going back in the same location as they currently exist. But the southbound lanes would be expanded to 4 lanes looks like, with the additional lane going on the east side. So I wonder if the ramp coming down from Portage would just continue on into it's own lane (the existing right hand lane). With the other three lanes taking up the other two existing and the one new lane.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's about the size of it. The consultants didn't say that placing the firehall in the loop would result in catastrophe, just that it wasn't really the best idea in the context of industry design standards. The City just carried on and did what it was going to do anyway.

The interchange itself really has barely changed since it was built in the 1960s and is in dire need of upgrades... the ramps leading to SB Route 90 are deficient to the point of being dangerous. Eventually fixing the WB to SB ramp will likely become more complicated as a result of this firehall.

Originally Posted by esquire

Hard to blame Winnipeg drivers for that one... of all the cities I've ever driven in, I don't think I've seen a merge as blind as that one. A visitor from out of town trying to make that turn from EB Portage to SB Route 90 would surely be caught by surprise as the ramp basically throws them right into a traffic lane without warning.

If this intersection is "deficient to the point of being dangerous" then why isn't it ever on the list of highest incidents intersections? Or at least it hasn't been from 2004-2010. Now MPI has taken over that information and they don't publish a GIS version of incidents. http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/Infor...a/TrafficData/traffic_collision_data.asp

And you are using a misnomer. That stretch of what you call a merge is a yield, as can be told by the red outlined triangle with white interior that points down at the end of it.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

If this intersection is "deficient to the point of being dangerous" then why isn't it ever on the list of highest incidents intersections? Or at least it hasn't been from 2004-2010. Now MPI has taken over that information and they don't publish a GIS version of incidents. http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/Infor...a/TrafficData/traffic_collision_data.asp

And you are using a misnomer. That stretch of what you call a merge is a yield, as can be told by the red outlined triangle with white interior that points down at the end of it.

This is a good point. Winnipeg drivers know exactly what to do and therefore, there are few accidents in these spots. However, I would imagine an out-of-town driver wanting to treat these yields as merges, which is logical. However, clearly these yields pose no problems for the born and bred Winnipeg driver - at least not from a safety standpoint. They are still a poor design though.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

This is a good point. Winnipeg drivers know exactly what to do and therefore, there are few accidents in these spots. However, I would imagine an out-of-town driver wanting to treat these yields as merges, which is logical. However, clearly these yields pose no problems for the born and bred Winnipeg driver - at least not from a safety standpoint. They are still a poor design though.

I didn't dispute that -- poorly designed, I agree, but not dangerous.

[esquire]

Well, buzzg mentioned people stopping at the end of the ramp... I'm simply pointing out that people do this because it would be dangerous to do otherwise. There is barely any room to merge into SB Route 90, so people stop. It's not so much a Winnipeg driver thing as it is a rational response to a design flaw in the road.

[headhorse]

Donald Street development scrubbed after Carlton development deal

A large downtown lot will remain as surface parking after a deal to turn it into a mixed use development fell apart, Metro has learned.

Officials with Manitoba Public Insurance, which owns the lot at 172 Donald St., have confirmed plans for Longboat Development Corp. — owned by the Chipman family — and Artis REIT to build on the site were quietly scrubbed in mid-2014.

http://metronews.ca/news/winnipeg/129528...scrubbed-after-carlton-development-deal/

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

If this intersection is "deficient to the point of being dangerous" then why isn't it ever on the list of highest incidents intersections? Or at least it hasn't been from 2004-2010. Now MPI has taken over that information and they don't publish a GIS version of incidents. http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/Infor...a/TrafficData/traffic_collision_data.asp

And you are using a misnomer. That stretch of what you call a merge is a yield, as can be told by the red outlined triangle with white interior that points down at the end of it.

No, it's a merge. The yield is at the bottom going onto Kenaston. It's a yellow diamond with a line intersecting another line on Portage. Do you know what this looks like?

EDIT: My apologies, there is no specific merge sign, there is no sign at all, meaning you should be able to drive straight thru without worry of stopping. It is definitely not supposed to be a yield. I'm not putting the blame on drivers on this one either, just saying in general most properly built merges aren't used properly either. Waverley & Bishop especially. Grant & Kenaston too.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.879866,-9...3m4!1e1!3m2!1snS85RONHMHKHHijaC7SUgQ!2e0

[biguc]

^^interesting. So we may have seen three plans for new hotels downtown. Thanks to CV's crooked meddling we get one. That's a real pro-business environment.

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Here's a direct link to the current plan for Route 90.

http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/MajorProjects/Route90/PDF/Route90-RecommendedPlan.pdf



Not sure if the bridges were to be torn down and rebuilt, or just refurbished. but they'll be going back in the same location as they currently exist. But the southbound lanes would be expanded to 4 lanes looks like, with the additional lane going on the east side. So I wonder if the ramp coming down from Portage would just continue on into it's own lane (the existing right hand lane). With the other three lanes taking up the other two existing and the one new lane.

I take it the green is a bike path? That's a good touch. I like how it connects to Wellington.

I don't understand why moving the exit from the bridge onto eastbound Portage is an improvement. Nor do I understand the right new right turns from Academy onto the bridge.