Regina Construction III - Page 280

Drofmab · #**5581** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

I find it hard to believe they own or would ever choose to own the McAsphalt Plant.

I just did a search... according to ISC, the City owns everything adjacent to Arcola between Winnipeg & Victoria. Including the Asphalt place (parcel 111438198).

Stormer · #**5582** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drofmab

I just did a search... according to ISC, the City owns everything adjacent to Arcola between Winnipeg & Victoria. Including the Asphalt place (parcel 111438198).

Thanks - Wow that gives them lots of options for the new road and widening as they also own everything from Winnipeg to Osler on SK Dr.

With all the above ground storage tanks and history of spills, I am surprised they own the McAsphalt place. Maybe the settled a lawsuit by buying the land:

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=f9b714d1-3b1a-4329-a1d9-14860813e49e

Dougler306 · #**5583** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 9:55 PM**

You would think with the Saskdrive widening and Arcola realignment the city might have needed that vacant lot on the northwest corner Winnipeg and Saskdrive but it appears they have allowed a building to go up? What gives?

Stormer · #**5584** Posted **Jun 16, 2016, 10:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dougler306

You would think with the Saskdrive widening and Arcola realignment the city might have needed that vacant lot on the northwest corner Winnipeg and Saskdrive but it appears they have allowed a building to go up? What gives?

You cant see it in this graphic but there should be lots of room to widen Sask Dr. The new building is north of the billboard in this sat shot:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.4521707,-104.5944183,277m/data=!3m1!1e3

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**5585** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 3:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drofmab

I just did a search... according to ISC, the City owns everything adjacent to Arcola between Winnipeg & Victoria. Including the Asphalt place (parcel 111438198).

Why does no one believe me?

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**5586** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 3:13 AM**

The fact is that the Winnipeg and Sask/Arcola intersection is already a decent size and they don't really need to make it a ton bigger.

The city is probably most interested in making the intersection at right angles since it is a visibility issue.

But if they wanted simply to widen then they don't really need that much more space. They certainly don't need the full width of the lots they own. They probably only need to add this:

Stormer · #**5587** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 4:22 AM**

Tarnished but still interesting

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa33/stormer111/Mobile%20Uploads/FB_IMG_1466137056826_zpshr3gi72d.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

ReginaGuy · #**5588** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 6:10 PM**

I quickly drew an overlay of the Arcola re-alignment to see how everything fits together. As you can see, it's not in the old rail alignment, it does indeed pass North of the business at Winnipeg/Arcola, the asphalt plant will probably be demolished, and there's plenty of room for the detention pond. Keep in mind this isn't an official plan.

Stormer · #**5589** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 6:32 PM**

Wow that is pretty awesome. A couple of things that may be different. The Transportation Master Pan shows a north connection to Tuxedo Industrial at Broder. See the map on the second last page:

http://www.designregina.ca/transportation-master-plan-2/

Also there are businesses fronting the south side of Sask Dr. They may leave the old road to give them access.

Also the linked plan indicates a multi-use path that will also connect Tuxedo.

Dan0myte · #**5590** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 10:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReginaGuy

I quickly drew an overlay of the Arcola re-alignment to see how everything fits together. As you can see, it's not in the old rail alignment, it does indeed pass North of the business at Winnipeg/Arcola, the asphalt plant will probably be demolished, and there's plenty of room for the detention pond. Keep in mind this isn't an official plan.

Wow, thanks for doing this!

As per Stormers point though, I could see 11th Ave & Broder meeting in a lighted intersection.

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**5591** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 2:44 AM**

The road doesn't need to be 6 lanes, it should be 4 lanes with shoulders. We don't need a damn freeway to downtown.

Stormer · #**5592** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

The road doesn't need to be 6 lanes, it should be 4 lanes with shoulders. We don't need a damn freeway to downtown.

I disagree. It's 4 lanes now and is congested. Why not build for the future? I say 6 lanes with turning lanes. Everyone can't live in Cathedral.

BrutallyDishonest2 · #**5593** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 3:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

I disagree. It's 4 lanes now and is congested. Why not build for the future? I say 6 lanes with turning lanes. Everyone can't live in Cathedral.

It's more like 3.75 lanes crammed with 4.

Yeah but people can take the damn bus or share. We don't need a that much traffic shoved downtown. Everyone's in agreement there is too much surface parking downtown, why do we want to feed the parking monster? Sask Drive from the west isn't 6 lanes, nor should it be.

You can't build your way out of congestion. As soon as you widen it it will get more traffic. Plus it's only busy for a small part of the day.

ReginaGuy · #**5594** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 8:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

The road doesn't need to be 6 lanes, it should be 4 lanes with shoulders. We don't need a damn freeway to downtown.

i agree that 6 lanes would probably be overkill. I just drew it to match the section of arcola from Vic to ring road

CCF · #**5595** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

I disagree. It's 4 lanes now and is congested. Why not build for the future? I say 6 lanes with turning lanes. Everyone can't live in Cathedral.

Adding more lanes of traffic only serves to create more traffic and congestion. Induced demand. 4 lanes, 6 lanes - it doesn't really matter, it will soon be filled with congestion. Once that happens, do you expand to 8 lanes? Where does the expansion end.

The way you ease any sort of congestion is by investing in other modes of transportation. Once again Regina misses the mark on this.

Festivus · #**5596** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

I disagree. It's 4 lanes now and is congested. Why not build for the future? I say 6 lanes with turning lanes. Everyone can't live in Cathedral.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2

It's more like 3.75 lanes crammed with 4.

Yeah but people can take the damn bus or share. We don't need a that much traffic shoved downtown. Everyone's in agreement there is too much surface parking downtown, why do we want to feed the parking monster? Sask Drive from the west isn't 6 lanes, nor should it be.

You can't build your way out of congestion. As soon as you widen it it will get more traffic. Plus it's only busy for a small part of the day.

All they really need to do is build 4 normal-sized lanes, plus additional turning lanes, if they want to make it flow a little better. 6 lanes would be overkill I think, and would just fill up.

Stormer · #**5597** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Festivus

All they really need to do is build 4 normal-sized lanes, plus additional turning lanes, if they want to make it flow a little better. 6 lanes would be overkill I think, and would just fill up.

Turning lanes (left and right) are the most important.

Drofmab · #**5598** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

Turning lanes (left and right) are the most important.

Exactly - 6 driving lanes is unnecessary (Lewvan & Ring Road only have 4 each) but 4 driving lanes + turn lanes is key (or a single centre turn lane like Broad N)... otherwise you end up with Quance (2 driving lanes + 2 theoretical driving lanes, but they're really turning lanes).

Granted, Arcola in this stretch will be much straighter than Quance - making for safer left-turn sightlines - and it doesn't have a bunch of businesses fronting it (right now, but ReginaGuy's mock-up creates a fair bit of new potential for frontage).

Even as it sits today (4 lanes), the inside lane heading NW is often undrivable because 1 car needs a left across traffic to get onto 11th or 12th... so even though there are 2 "driving lanes" heading NW, the reality is that only 1 is reliably drivable.

Stormer · #**5599** Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 2:52 PM**

Many of these have been blown over in the last few years downtown. In a lot of cases the City has just left a rusty stump. Road salt has corroded the bases and they all need to be replaced.

http://www.620ckrm.com/2016/06/19/car-sustains-damage-after-light-standard-knocked-over/

Drofmab · #**5600** Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormer

Many of these have been blown over in the last few years downtown. In a lot of cases the City has just left a rusty stump. Road salt has corroded the bases and they all need to be replaced.

http://www.620ckrm.com/2016/06/19/car-sustains-damage-after-light-standard-knocked-over/

This is pretty clearly a maintenance issue (and potential liability issue due to neglect/not mitigating a risk).

I've been to plenty of cities that use much more road salt than Regina does (most of the winter here is too cold for salt to be effective, so we certainly use less per km of road than warmer winter cities like Ottawa & Toronto). In the case of Ottawa, over the course of 8 years living there, I can't recall any light posts simply falling over on their own. I can recall at least 2 recent cases in Regina, plus a few more where cars traveling at relatively inconsequential speeds bumped a post over... aided in part, I'm sure, to a rusty base.

Walking around downtown, I'd wager that 1/5 of light standards are at risk due to neglect.