Manitoba | Highways

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by harls

I think bodaggin should move to Phoenix just to lower his blood pressure.

You should see my blood pressure every time I catch a red light from these idiot traffic imagineers causing a 400m trip to take 10min.

PS: Lived in Phoenix too. Was excellent. Nothing wrong with suburban.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

You should see my blood pressure every time I catch a red light from these idiot traffic imagineers causing a 400m trip to take 10min.

PS: Lived in Phoenix too. Was excellent. Nothing wrong with suburban.

Different strokes for different folks haha

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That's what I'm saying. Manitoba will never build that type of stuff with directional ramps going allover. You'll get cloverleafs with maybe one directional ramp.

But is there even a need for anything more?

The designs for Kenaston/100 and 7/101 each call for one directional ramp plus collector lanes for the areas of weaving. The NB 101 to WB CCW will also get a directional ramp treatment whenever the Headingley bypass gets built.

Are there any other locations in the province that would warrant anything more? The above intersections plus 101/59N that already has one are probably the only locations where a system interchange would be needed with a designed capacity greater than a 4 loop cloverleaf.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Are there any other locations in the province that would warrant anything more?

Only other I could think maybe is TCH Deacons @ Perimeter, WB to SB. Only after Perimeter is grade separated though. But ya, agree. That's about it for flyovers/partial stacks.

[Ozabald]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

At a mile apart, the EB on-ramp from 18th Street probably doesn’t need to become the off-ramp for 1st Street.
Future 4 lanes of PTH-10 will probably use PTH-110 anyway so we don’t have to do anything fancy at 1st Street (PTH-10 North, PTH-1A South).
As for that interchange at Repentigny, are you thinking of A-40 & A-640? Since A-640 is supposed to be a bypass, really, there needs to be a flyover from A-640 east to A-40 east as well. I do agree with the use of collector lanes there to take care of the next exit further east, though.

I mean, if people insist on cloverleaf with collectors, I’m fine with that. Here’s hoping that population growth doesn’t explode to the point that those structures have to be redone within their lifespan.

Ps: Alberta’s on the Prairie too, and even it is converting its cloverleafs. Saskatchewan doesn’t use a cloverleaf for Regina Bypass at SK-6 either. It’s even thinking of rebuilding the cloverleaf at Yellowhead Highway and Louis Riel Trail in Saskatoon.

Some feedback regarding cloverleafs from the Missouri DOT.
https://epg.modot.org/index.php/234.5_Cloverleaf_Interchanges

[Carboy15]

For system interchanges with directional ramps, here's where that could work in Manitoba:

Perimeter Hwy:
- South Perimeter and TCH (Fermor Ave)
- South Perimeter and 59
- South Perimeter and St. Norbert Bypass
- North Perimeter at Centreport Canada Way (101 and 190)
- North Perimeter and Hwy 6: Cloverstack identical to Hwy 59N and 101
- North Perimeter and Route 90/ Hwy 7
- North Perimeter and Hwy 8/ Route 180

Hwy 1 MB:
- Hwy 1 and Hwy 12: Northwest directional ramp
- Hwy 1 and 110 Brandon

[Carboy15]

I'm not sure if Hwy 110 in Brandon would have enough traffic to justify a system interchange, because of it's function, that's why it's possible to place one there. Hwy 12 in MB probably wouldn't be upgraded for years. That interchange has almost little to no conflict. I'm sure they'd just add collector laness to the interchange. McPhillips could stay with the current config with collector lanes. Hwy 6 shouldn't be a diamond, but maybe a clover with collector lanes too.

[bomberjet]

Have we gone full circle here? Lol

Cloverleafs are outdated and dangerous. But are acceptable for systems interchnages because stack type ramps are too much?

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

North Perimeter and Hwy 6: Cloverstack identical to Hwy 59N and 101

Way overkill at Hwy 6. WSP made a mess of it too. Hwy 6 needs simple "Ballsack" interchange with collector. Same for Yellowhead @ TCH (Portage). Perfect for any "T" intersection.

[bomberjet]

Pth 6 is eventually supposed to connect with CPT and CCW at inskter. So that layout allows for that to happen easily in the future. And is way simpler than the crap that was proposed.

Again were talking 'potential future' decades out stuff. But still better to lay it out and not handcuff the future people.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Pth 6 is eventually supposed to connect with CPT and CCW at inskter.

Hmm, they used up half of centerport with that crazy Hwy 6 proposal. I never understood Centerport's Road strategy to begin with. CenterPort Way, Chief Peguis Extension, Brookside. How are they all supposed to hook up? They all just kinda funnel into the abyss. And Hwy 6 too?

That many arteries intersecting of predominantly truck traffic need one hell of a grade separation(s). Can you rough sketch the plans you've seen or link? I've seen nothing west of this Chief Peguis Ext.

[bomberjet]

something like this, the orange lines.

The reason the current road has the funny turn is to accommodate the future interchange.



This drawing shows the ultimate phase as a diamond with CPT over route 90. This may be slightly outdated as the have an updated phase 2 initial design after this phase 1 of study was done.
https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...timate-BrooksideBlvdToDrJoseRizalWay.pdf

Initial phase is a T intersection.

[bodaggin]

Response from MB Gov Highway Design themselves to Jan 14 email regarding Carberry. I'm astonished they responded. I encourage everyone here with an opinion to voice it. They asked for feedback, give it please.

[drew]

Based on that last sentence in their response, I am very interested in reading the original email...

Hopefully you told them you can build it for $15M!

[bomberjet]

Their numbers include full on highway reconstructions. McGillivray and St Annes are pegged at $150 mil each.

They talk about all the environmental, property, engineering etc. They're going to have costs like that regardless of what they do. The actual physical build of the bridge part is the $15 million part.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by drew

Based on that last sentence in their response, I am very interested in reading the original email...

Hopefully you told them you can build it for $15M!

Correct. Original email here.

And for anyone saying "be polite". No. These WSP proposals are utterly absurd.

If they were even in the realm of sane, I would be polite. In fact, I wouldn't even engage. This province has had 30yrs+ of highway lunacy. Enough is enough. The absurdity needs blatant exposing and immediate correcting, not walking on eggshells for people's feelings.

I encourage others who've been lulled into silence to voice their concerns also: [email protected]

[bodaggin]

.

[harls]

• Video Link

[bomberjet]

Prior to Genivar, WSP was another company. And before that, another company. MMM Group being one of them. Blackburn or something another.

WSP is my competitor. They have expanded by consolidating numerous companies. They recently purchased Morisson Hershfield. Expansion is how they grow business and stock price.

Thankfully I do not work for a publicly traded company anymore. They need to expand to grow share price. WSP have done that very well.

In their defense and to SNC Lavalin who has now rebranded. You can't lump all employees in with bad management. There are many good people at both companies. Most of the locals have nothing to do with whatever's gone on. And have been with the previous companies for a long time.

Saying that, I think there have been some questionable decisions made locally by WSP (MMM) on a number of projects. They were the "rogue consultant" on the William Clement Parkway study. Which is a bit ridiculous to say as the City approved everything they did.

Same goes for the Perimeter studies. MTI approves everything, but relies on the consultant expertise. If MTI had a different consultant leading, they would get different results. This is where I think having WSP oversee all the Perimeter studies is a mistake.

They (MMM at the time I believe) also were very standoffish when I would ask detailed questions at some of the open houses. The Archibald Marion interchange thing for example. They did not appreciate me questioning their design and pulled out the "we're engineers and know what we're doing" card. They said they needed to have Archibald be above Marion because they couldn't get Archibald down far enough to make the intersection work. And also said "why would you just put lights in, that's what's there now." Well it's the bloody rail crossing that is the original problem isn't it? Not the traffic lights. I'm ranting now..

[rivercity]

^Stantec acquired MH, not WSP. WSP however acquired Golder and the Enviro/Geotech arm of Wood (AMEC)