Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension

[TimeFadesAway]

When is the referendum on this project?

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by TimeFadesAway

When is the referendum on this project?

Right after the ones on the Waverly underpass and Kenaston widening.

[optimusREIM]

My immediate thoughts are this: how can you justify access to what is supposed to be a limited access roadway if you can't justify the cost of a diamond interchange? And reading through the cost breakdown, a diamond would cost about 20 million. Throw in 3 for about 60 extra and be done with it. Do it right the first time for once please!

[CoryB]

I think as alarming as the lack of grade separation on the CPT extension is there should bee a three alarm fire going off over Dr Rizal Way having four lanes across CPT. The rate that residential is growing in the northwest and how close it is already encroaching on the Perimeter means it won't be long before a new at-grade access point is being pushed between Hwy 6 and Pipeline (4 km apart, so standard would be to allow access at the midpoint same as Lag-St Annes-St Marys).

The province needs to make converting Pipleline from a at-grade traffic signal to a diamond a priority ASAP then it can say 59 to HWY 6 are true limited access and protected roads and anyone wanting new access (Dr Rizal Way) needs to pick up the costs for grade separation.

That needs to be locked down before the horses get out of the stable AGAIN

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I think as alarming as the lack of grade separation on the CPT extension is there should bee a three alarm fire going off over Dr Rizal Way having four lanes across CPT. The rate that residential is growing in the northwest and how close it is already encroaching on the Perimeter means it won't be long before a new at-grade access point is being pushed between Hwy 6 and Pipeline (4 km apart, so standard would be to allow access at the midpoint same as Lag-St Annes-St Marys).

The province needs to make converting Pipleline from a at-grade traffic signal to a diamond a priority ASAP then it can say 59 to HWY 6 are true limited access and protected roads and anyone wanting new access (Dr Rizal Way) needs to pick up the costs for grade separation.

That needs to be locked down before the horses get out of the stable AGAIN

I agree. This is a situation where the City and Province are working at cross purposes. If the City keeps pushing traffic to Rizal Way then you'll end up with an increasingly busy and dangerous intersection at King Edward St. and PTH 101, just one mile away from a cloverleaf. What is the Province supposed to do then, build a diamond right next to it due to the City's usual poor planning?

Rizal Way should end at Chief Peguis.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

I agree. This is a situation where the City and Province are working at cross purposes. If the City keeps pushing traffic to Rizal Way then you'll end up with an increasingly busy and dangerous intersection at King Edward St. and PTH 101, just one mile away from a cloverleaf. What is the Province supposed to do then, build a diamond right next to it due to the City's usual poor planning?

Rizal Way should end at Chief Peguis.

I mean the province could just deny any developers access to the perimeter and say tough shit you should have taken it into account. The province should also make clear to the city right now that it will not allow an access point that close to a major interchange under ANY circumstances

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

If the City keeps pushing traffic to Rizal Way then you'll end up with an increasingly busy and dangerous intersection at King Edward St. and PTH 101, just one mile away from a cloverleaf. What is the Province supposed to do then, build a diamond right next to it due to the City's usual poor planning?

St Annes Rd is the same distance from a full interchange at Lag. Area residents continue to push the province for full grade separated access there. Challenge is St Annes is in the position to set a precedent for the whole Perimeter in either a bad (gets a grade separation) or good (told to use the existing one) way.

Whatever happens in the near term with St Annes is going to apply to both Dr Rizal Way and Pipeline Rd. FYI Pipeline is further from any existing grade separation that St Annes.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

St Annes Rd is the same distance from a full interchange at Lag. Area residents continue to push the province for full grade separated access there. Challenge is St Annes is in the position to set a precedent for the whole Perimeter in either a bad (gets a grade separation) or good (told to use the existing one) way.

Whatever happens in the near term with St Annes is going to apply to both Dr Rizal Way and Pipeline Rd. FYI Pipeline is further from any existing grade separation that St Annes.

What about giving both Rizal and St. Anne's RIRO access? Then there is at least some degree of access provided, i.e. they aren't shut off completely. But I can appreciate your comment that an interchange is overkill given that both are so close to existing interchanges and neither Rizal nor St. Anne's become provincial highways... Rizal basically becomes a section road, and St. Anne's ends at the Floodway.

[CoryB]

^^ People need to get what is happening on the south Perimeter is setting precedence for the whole Perimeter. If we accept that full grade separated access every 2 KM is allowed we have big issues happening between Wilkes and McGillivary, the Brady Rd area, east of Lag on the south Perimeter, Gunn Rd area, and between HWY 6 and 7 (McPhillips).

If we say its every 4 KM (Lag to St Marys) with no access (ie close St Annes completely) there would be a lot lower cost implications in the long term. It won't solve all the issues but does make them a lot less. For example Pipeline to HWY 6 is still 4 KM but then you don't have both Pipeline and Rizal with access.

It is the same with what is happening with Chief Peguis Trail. If you want to see Bishop become limited access with grade separations you should absolutely calling your councilor about CPT now, not to oppose the project but rather to oppose building it without grade separations. Building it as presented just further cements that all segments of the inner ring road, including Bishop, don't need grade separations.

It is also very frustrating to me that Winnipeg and the Province seem to continue to be working against each other with the road networks in the capital region. Rizal Way v the Perimeter is a prime example of that but so is the Sage Creek encroachment on the south Perimeter east of Lag and what is happening with Southpointe. Not suggesting that sprawl be stopped but when it is happening allowing the city to grow it needs to be a coordinated team effort.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by CoryB

St Annes Rd is the same distance from a full interchange at Lag. Area residents continue to push the province for full grade separated access there. Challenge is St Annes is in the position to set a precedent for the whole Perimeter in either a bad (gets a grade separation) or good (told to use the existing one) way.

Whatever happens in the near term with St Annes is going to apply to both Dr Rizal Way and Pipeline Rd. FYI Pipeline is further from any existing grade separation that St Annes.

Proximity does not justify or rule out an interchange per se. The key measure here is traffic volumes. Since Rizal already does not have access they can suck it. Like I just looked at the alignments and it strikes me as being unrealistic and dangerous to connect. At most it looks like a Dakota style future flyover (if that is ever needed) but NOTHING more.

As for the whole St Anne's/Pipeline discussion: I think that the challenge with that is that on the one hand the E/W access points north of the perimeter on St Anne's are very sparse, especially to the east. The traffic forced to use St Mary's and other smaller collectors like Warde and Novavista would put a lot of strain on those routes. Obviously this problem would be largely alleviated if Warde were extended across the Seine river and hook up to its east end, they could also expand it to 4 lanes as the land has been set aside for that already. The area around Pipeline suffers from similar problems and it is obvious that once the area is built out that that should be the location receiving access.

That's probably one of the easiest ones to tackle following the south perimeter upgrade so maybe that's the plan. But arguing against St Anne's is a bit of a moot point as it appears the province fully intends to give it a diamond.

[esquire]

^ Good point. For better or for worse we're stuck with St. Anne's as a fairly major junction with the Perimeter with high traffic volumes. Plus it is one of the main access points to that little semi-rural residential clump between the Perimeter and the Floodway.

With Rizal though, if it were extended and ultimately connected with King Edward, we would end up with another annoying Pipeline Road intersection which would have nowhere near the traffic volumes to warrant an interchange, but could become busy/dangerous enough to justify traffic lights. And having a new set of lights so close to an interchange would be the opposite of the direction that the province as been moving in for the Perimeter.

Realistically what the province should do is end Rizal Way at the City limits and force traffic onto a new E-W route around Mollard Rd to connect it to Brookside and Pipeline. Or if that's too impractical, allow a RIRO at the Perimeter, but nothing more.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Good point. For better or for worse we're stuck with St. Anne's as a fairly major junction with the Perimeter with high traffic volumes. Plus it is one of the main access points to that little semi-rural residential clump between the Perimeter and the Floodway.

With Rizal though, if it were extended and ultimately connected with King Edward, we would end up with another annoying Pipeline Road intersection which would have nowhere near the traffic volumes to warrant an interchange, but could become busy/dangerous enough to justify traffic lights. And having a new set of lights so close to an interchange would be the opposite of the direction that the province as been moving in for the Perimeter.

Realistically what the province should do is end Rizal Way at the City limits and force traffic onto a new E-W route around Mollard Rd to connect it to Brookside and Pipeline. Or if that's too impractical, allow a RIRO at the Perimeter, but nothing more.

Looking at it I thought it might even be too close to brookside for RIRO. But I'm no traffic engineer.

[esquire]

I'm not an engineer either but I can't imagine how RIRO could be an issue there. There is a lot of room between King Edward and Brookside, putting in 200 m turning/accel lanes would not be a problem.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not an engineer either but I can't imagine how RIRO could be an issue there. There is a lot of room between King Edward and Brookside, putting in 200 m turning/accel lanes would not be a problem.

You could be right because on closer inspection there's still a bit of room. My only concern is that there would be some weaving effect because of traffic wanting to merge in and exit in a short-ish area

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

But arguing against St Anne's is a bit of a moot point as it appears the province fully intends to give it a diamond.

I am not arguing either in favor or against St Annes having access to the Perimeter. Merely pointing out what happens with that single intersection is setting a precedence that is going to be applied to a lot of other intersections on the Perimeter regardless of your personal feelings on if they do or do not warrant it.

Giving Lag, St Annes and St Marys all grade separated access sets the expectations for access every 2 KM which matches the "interstate standard". But that also means grade separations for HWY 15 and Gunn Rd, and both Pipeline and Rizal. It also will apply to give Sage Creek access to the Perimeter 2 KM east of Lag and building a grade separated access point between HWY 2/3 and Waverly.

Closing St Annes on the other hand establishes a 4 KM rule and has huge cost savings long term.

It is a tough choice to make that will have long term implications on tax payers that ultimately are going to foot the bill.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am not arguing either in favor or against St Annes having access to the Perimeter. Merely pointing out what happens with that single intersection is setting a precedence that is going to be applied to a lot of other intersections on the Perimeter regardless of your personal feelings on if they do or do not warrant it.

Giving Lag, St Annes and St Marys all grade separated access sets the expectations for access every 2 KM which matches the "interstate standard". But that also means grade separations for HWY 15 and Gunn Rd, and both Pipeline and Rizal. It also will apply to give Sage Creek access to the Perimeter 2 KM east of Lag and building a grade separated access point between HWY 2/3 and Waverly.

Closing St Annes on the other hand establishes a 4 KM rule and has huge cost savings long term.

It is a tough choice to make that will have long term implications on tax payers that ultimately are going to foot the bill.

You have a very rigid "IF...THEN" approach to this matter which does not really reflect the reality of the situation. Traffic counts and politics play into decisions much more than any kind of supposedly binding precedent that, once set, must be followed through to its logical conclusion no matter what it might lead to.

[EastK]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am not arguing either in favor or against St Annes having access to the Perimeter. Merely pointing out what happens with that single intersection is setting a precedence that is going to be applied to a lot of other intersections on the Perimeter regardless of your personal feelings on if they do or do not warrant it.

Giving Lag, St Annes and St Marys all grade separated access sets the expectations for access every 2 KM which matches the "interstate standard". But that also means grade separations for HWY 15 and Gunn Rd, and both Pipeline and Rizal. It also will apply to give Sage Creek access to the Perimeter 2 KM east of Lag and building a grade separated access point between HWY 2/3 and Waverly.

Closing St Annes on the other hand establishes a 4 KM rule and has huge cost savings long term.

It is a tough choice to make that will have long term implications on tax payers that ultimately are going to foot the bill.

Why not just build a simple overpass with no access to the Perimeter at St Annes? There are countless of these on most highways and they must be far cheaper than adding all the access lanes and approaches.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am not arguing either in favor or against St Annes having access to the Perimeter. Merely pointing out what happens with that single intersection is setting a precedence that is going to be applied to a lot of other intersections on the Perimeter regardless of your personal feelings on if they do or do not warrant it.

Giving Lag, St Annes and St Marys all grade separated access sets the expectations for access every 2 KM which matches the "interstate standard". But that also means grade separations for HWY 15 and Gunn Rd, and both Pipeline and Rizal. It also will apply to give Sage Creek access to the Perimeter 2 KM east of Lag and building a grade separated access point between HWY 2/3 and Waverly.

Closing St Annes on the other hand establishes a 4 KM rule and has huge cost savings long term.

It is a tough choice to make that will have long term implications on tax payers that ultimately are going to foot the bill.

I don't necessarily agree that it sets a precedent. Gunn doesn't even figure on any traffic flow maps. RIRO at most unless you want to spend a buttload of money and change the alignment of 15 to match Gunn. Rizal is a joke to even suggest getting an interchange (unless something pretty f-in dramatic happens in the near term like a brand new 50,000 resident subdivision right there)

However I do agree that there will be another access point on 100 between 1E and 59 probably at Symington road.

And remember, spacing rules are great in theory but the primary focus should always be on the traffic volumes needing to be serviced.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am not arguing either in favor or against St Annes having access to the Perimeter. Merely pointing out what happens with that single intersection is setting a precedence that is going to be applied to a lot of other intersections on the Perimeter regardless of your personal feelings on if they do or do not warrant it.

Giving Lag, St Annes and St Marys all grade separated access sets the expectations for access every 2 KM which matches the "interstate standard". But that also means grade separations for HWY 15 and Gunn Rd, and both Pipeline and Rizal. It also will apply to give Sage Creek access to the Perimeter 2 KM east of Lag and building a grade separated access point between HWY 2/3 and Waverly.

Closing St Annes on the other hand establishes a 4 KM rule and has huge cost savings long term.

It is a tough choice to make that will have long term implications on tax payers that ultimately are going to foot the bill.

I believe 4km is the standard distance between system interchanges (aka between two major highways) rather than local access interchanges. All the intersections you listed on Perimeter are supposed to get interchanges eventually, including one near Symington road for sage creek and beyond.

Take a peek at calgary or edmonton ring roads and most interchanges are closer than 4km

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by WildCake

I believe 4km is the standard distance between system interchanges (aka between two major highways) rather than local access interchanges. All the intersections you listed on Perimeter are supposed to get interchanges eventually, including one near Symington road for sage creek and beyond.

Take a peek at calgary or edmonton ring roads and most interchanges are closer than 4km

In Calgary on the 201 I think most interchanges are 2 to 3km apart.