Winnipeg Construction X - Page 142

bomberjet · #**2821** Posted **Jun 29, 2020, 2:47 PM**

The main issue with Bishop Grandin altogether is the proximity of the hydro lines.

At River Road the hydro line is down the centre. So they'd have to push Bishop over top of River, while keeping adequate distance away from the hydro lines. Should be able to figure something out that works.

Maybe raise Bishop a bit and run River Rd underneath. Either way it'd have to be a condensed diamond, with retaining walls between the mainline and the off ramps, specifically on the south side.

buzzg · #**2822** Posted **Jun 29, 2020, 3:27 PM**

For now they should just close off the River Rd crossing, make it RIRO on both sides, and add in those centre median U-Turn merge lanes that we have some other places for people wanting to go left.

CoryB · #**2823** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg

For now they should just close off the River Rd crossing, make it RIRO on both sides, and add in those centre median U-Turn merge lanes that we have some other places for people wanting to go left.

Exactly, add the median U turn that was there during construction for north bound to west bound flow. South bound to east bound can go through the existing Pembina/Bishop intersection. Close Bishop at River to through traffic. Quick and affordable fix.

buzzg · #**2824** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 3:46 AM**

There's actually one already there just east of River, so it'd be so easy to do this. It's all already there, just close the intersection.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.8240388,-97.137542,540m/data=!3m1!1e3

Andy6 · #**2825** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 3:58 AM**

My guess is that that would cause a lot of accidents. Slow-moving traffic edging into the roadway and then immediately having to slip over into the right-hand lane, likely slowing down if traffic is too heavy, to wait for a chance to move over (otherwise you're stuck going across the bridge and taking a roundabout 10-minute drive back to give it another try).

The current setup is a minor annoyance but not worth worrying about in my opinion. It really does need a grade separation, ideally, but it's hard to see why it would be a priority.

esquire · #**2826** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 12:06 PM**

I think the existing intersection is acceptable, it could just use some adjustments to get more cars through on River's green light sequences. As things stand, not many cars can turn left from River to Bishop Grandin (either direction) on a single green light during busier hours, which leads to backups.

CoryB · #**2827** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 2:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy6

The current setup is a minor annoyance but not worth worrying about in my opinion. It really does need a grade separation, ideally, but it's hard to see why it would be a priority.

Just as low volume, low access roads on the south Perimeter need to be closed so will some access points on the ring road network if we truly ever want that to happen. The easiest one of those to close is River Rd at Bishop. It has reasonable, low cost alternatives and could have a significant stretch of free flowing road from Scurfield to St Marys with the addition of a single grade separation at Waverly. That is exactly the sort of major win the ring road needs to get traction and the combined improvements at Waverly, River and St Marys and the Perimeter would put pressure on grade separation for Bishop@ St Marys/Dakota.

Speaking on that intersection, I still think the solution is to raise the through lanes with access roads running along side at ground level. So through traffic is raised over both Dakota and St Marys. If you want to access either road you take a single exit to an access road that still have lights at both intersections. Yes not an ideal solution but it places the emphasis on the part that needs to most improvement -- through traffic on Bishop, while acknowledging that upgrades to the other routes would have localized impacts at best.

esquire · #**2828** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 2:15 PM**

^ That would be a perfect solution IMO for St. Mary's and Dakota... basically two diamonds fused together.

As for River, a flyover could work but I think that can only happen in conjunction with an interchange at St. Mary's and Dakota as the increased traffic loads from closing access at River would really strain those intersections as they are now.

CoryB · #**2829** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 3:22 PM**

^^^ It isn't "close River" but convert it to right in, right out with a planned uturn in the median for left turns. It is a much cheaper solution than any grade separation and the volume of traffic on River doesn't really warrant grade separation. Also the wider than average medians have the space to support this design and further it was even used during repairs to the bridge when exactly what I am suggesting was the status quo.

bomberjet · #**2830** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 3:42 PM**

We talked about having Dakota and St. Mary's as a combined interchange previously. And someone, maybe Biff, mentioned that is/was the plan. But nothing is really out there in the public. It would basically be a long diamond with access to Bishop east of Dakota and west of St. Mary's. With a connected road in between running parallel to both sides of Bishop.

Biff · #**2831** Posted **Jun 30, 2020, 5:52 PM**

^^^Yes the conceptual design for that interchange (St Mary's/Dakota) is exactly as you said - an elongated diamond.

dam_well · #**2832** Posted **Jul 3, 2020, 1:29 AM**

Interpretive Centre renos are starting up at FortWhyte.
The Buffalo Crossing part of the project is apparently being redesigned which is probably a good thing based on the renders.

buzzg · #**2833** Posted **Jul 3, 2020, 3:30 PM**

That looks much better than the original renderings that were released.

bomberjet · #**2834** Posted **Jul 3, 2020, 8:13 PM**

The City is reviewing the michigan left turn on Bishop at River.
http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/permalink.asp?id=A20200707(RM)PW-49

buzzg · #**2835** Posted **Jul 3, 2020, 8:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The City is reviewing the michigan left turn on Bishop at River.
http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/permalink.asp?id=A20200707(RM)PW-49

Interesting though that it doesn't mention anything about enhancing it in order to close of the intersection. Doesn't talk about the intersection at all.

borkborkbork · #**2836** Posted **Jul 3, 2020, 9:05 PM**

Thank god they got rid of the green hardie board monstrosity they had planned, glad to see the recladding will use materials that are a bit more of a fit with the building

Spocket · #**2837** Posted **Jul 4, 2020, 2:37 AM**

My question is why that turn off is there in the first place. I mean, it's pretty easy to just allow traffic to turn at River and considering there's a set of lights there, it just doesn't make any sense to me that they'd have that thing sitting there. Would it even be used without the government requiring it?

trueviking · #**2838** Posted **Jul 4, 2020, 5:21 PM**

sucks to lose the cedar siding.

trueviking · #**2839** Posted **Jul 4, 2020, 5:24 PM**

Looks like clip art. ‘Upon city approval’. Not sure what that means.

pspeid · #**2840** Posted **Jul 4, 2020, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

Looks like clip art. ‘Upon city approval’. Not sure what that means.

Maybe it referred to the discussion around whether the McLaren hotel would be given a full heritage designation. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I am certain someone in the group will do that) from what I remember the owners have said full heritage protection would make this project difficult to do, as part of the project involves some interior work in the hotel itself. I think the city settled on preservation of the north and east facades, but not the entire structure. Supposedly this makes the project workable (??).

Even if it's not an official rendering, it's nice to see what something in that space might look li.e