Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[blueandgoldguy]

At the bare minimum Route 90 should have a diamond interchange if not a cloverleaf. With all the heavy semi-truck traffic along that route it is incomprehensible that a 4-way lights would serve as a starting point.

[esquire]

A diamond makes sense when you have a major route intersecting with a minor one. Route 90 becomes a PTH around that point... it's a fast, busy highway. You'd think a bigger interchange would be more appropriate than putting in a diamond which will mean two permanent sets of lights to service it.

[buzzg]

I don't get the Pipeline thing. Who cares if it's a PTH. There's more than enough other ways to access it at both CPT and Perimeter. It's so dumb.

[WildCake]

I could be wrong about needing better than a diamond at rt 90 and cpt. It's likely that in the 2041 forecasting they used the assumption that inkster and CCW was a free flowing interchange for both routes and that led to a reduction in traffic counts for Rt 90

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

A diamond makes sense when you have a major route intersecting with a minor one. Route 90 becomes a PTH around that point... it's a fast, busy highway. You'd think a bigger interchange would be more appropriate than putting in a diamond which will mean two permanent sets of lights to service it.

For perspective: Ferrier, Pipeline, Dr Jose Rizal and Route 90 are all listed as "future diamond interchages" on the CPT slides. Anyone else notice something doesn't look like the other there?

--

As for Pipeline and it being a PTH, simply put someone much more important than the people on their forum decided that Pipeline is a very important road and trying to change opinion is going to be a long, hard battle you are unlikely to win. I agree it doesn't make sense especially since it is as gravel road at that point if I recall correctly. That said if you want to pick on the CPT plan there are lots of much lower fruit to chase after where your voice might actually make a difference.

[esquire]

^ Point of order, Pipeline becomes a Provincial Road outside of city limits, not a Provincial Trunk Highway. PRs are a lower grade of highway... there are some interchanges in Manitoba that include PRs, but they are definitely the exception. Most interchanges are with PTHs. To say that Pipeline is a very important road is a bit of an overstatement IMO.

[CoryB]

^^ My bad. That said, outside the Perimeter Pipeline, St Mary's and the highway to La Salle are all the same classification and rank ahead of St Anne's Rd. When talking about access to other routes like the Perimeter or CPT its important to keep these ranks in perspective.

In CPT terms Pipeline would rank the same and Henderson, behind Route 90, McPhillips, Main and Lag, and ahead of Gateway, Ferrier and Dr Jose Rizal. It would also rank ahead of Sturgeon on CCW. It would also rank well ahead of River and Bishop in terms of importance assigned to the route. Again, not sure why it is designated so highly but that is a decision made by people with far more knowledge than most on this forum.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

^^ My bad. That said, outside the Perimeter Pipeline, St Mary's and the highway to La Salle are all the same classification and rank ahead of St Anne's Rd. When talking about access to other routes like the Perimeter or CPT its important to keep these ranks in perspective.

Interchanges are built once traffic counts go beyond what can be safely handed by an intersection. "Ranking" as in a road's legal status as PTH/PR has little to do with it. Otherwise, why would there be an interchange to enter Birds Hill Park when North/South Dr. through the park is neither a PTH nor a PR?

Look at traffic counts, St. Anne's at 101 was at over 12,000 vehicles a day in 2015, Pipeline Road doesn't even register on the map.

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/t...c-Flow-Map.pdf

For whatever reason you place a very, very high value on Pipeline which I would suggest is not quite in line with the reality of the situation. This is Pipeline inside the Perimeter... does this look like a "high ranking" road? https://goo.gl/maps/81QUKo9NiJK2

[pacman]

Originally Posted by CoryB

^^ My bad. That said, outside the Perimeter Pipeline, St Mary's and the highway to La Salle are all the same classification and rank ahead of St Anne's Rd. When talking about access to other routes like the Perimeter or CPT its important to keep these ranks in perspective.

In CPT terms Pipeline would rank the same and Henderson, behind Route 90, McPhillips, Main and Lag, and ahead of Gateway, Ferrier and Dr Jose Rizal. It would also rank ahead of Sturgeon on CCW. It would also rank well ahead of River and Bishop in terms of importance assigned to the route. Again, not sure why it is designated so highly but that is a decision made by people with far more knowledge than most on this forum.

In CPT terms, Pipeline doesn't have any special importance inside the city limits simply because it leads to a provincial road outside the city limits. In the city we talk in terms of regional, collector, or residential streets. Within each category there would be rankings of importance but typically you would never see a residential street crossover and be more important than a regional street no matter how minor the regional street. Currently, and for the foreseeable future, the stretch of Pipeline in the city limits is absolutely ranked lower than Gateway and Dr Rizal and probably on par with Ferrier. There's no chance it's on par with Henderson. You can easily see where Pipeline and Ferrier rank just by seeing that the city reconstructed both streets in the last few years and chose to chip-seal them instead of even asphalt. Meanwhile Dr Rizal is nice new concrete pavement. All that being said, the City has its faults but they will not make their interchange decisions on CPT based on a street's title, it will be based on need relative to future use no matter what those streets are classified outside their jurisdiction.

[buzzg]

Considering their are two full cloverleafs very closeby, Pipeline as a right-in/out only would seem to be the best option. Keep access but keep it safe - would maybe add an extra 2-3 minutes to take a right then turn around to go east using the cloverleaf at McPhillips. One day if Pipeline suddenly becomes important, build an interchange.

[cheswick]

So are they keeping that link to the perimeter at King Edward? I assume that's going to become Dr. Jose Rizel and King Edwards is dead ended?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by cheswick

So are they keeping that link to the perimeter at King Edward? I assume that's going to become Dr. Jose Rizel and King Edwards is dead ended?

Judging by the PDF that bomberjet posted, it looks like Rizal will extend NW and eventually become King Edward St. The southern part of King Edward will dead end just south of CPT.

What's weird about that arrangement is that it shows a diamond at Rizal... which is strange because if Rizal just continues north and becomes King Edward, it will end up at the north Perimeter at what is currently a rural-type of uncontrolled intersection. Traffic volumes will inevitably require the installation of traffic signals, literally 1 mile east of a fully built out cloverleaf interchange.

I think the Province should step in and block the City from allowing Rizal to run north of CPT and intersect directly with the Perimeter. Better that there should be a trumpet interchange at CPT/Rizal and force traffic to go one mile west to Brookside for cars that want to get to the Perimeter.

Speaking of Brookside, I find it amazing that the Province would be willing to allow the City to eventually install a diamond interchange that would result in two permanent traffic signals directly on a PTH. I'm not sure if that junction is technically inside or outside of city limits, but the Province should step up and prevent the City from treating PTH 7 like some sort of local road instead of the major 4 lane highway that it is... that diagram gives me the impression that there is little coordination going on between the City and Province.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Considering their are two full cloverleafs very closeby, Pipeline as a right-in/out only would seem to be the best option. Keep access but keep it safe - would maybe add an extra 2-3 minutes to take a right then turn around to go east using the cloverleaf at McPhillips. One day if Pipeline suddenly becomes important, build an interchange.

Great solution. Since St Annes and St Marys are both close to cloverleafs lets close all three intersections on the Perimeter except from right in/right out.

I might add St Anne's is actually closer to Lag & Perimeter than Pipeline is to McPhillips and Route 90 is even further than McPhillips.

Look forward to you posting your response from the province on your suggestion.

[esquire]

^ Do you own a massive parcel of land on Pipeline Road?

[CoryB]

Own no land and don't live near Pipeline. I just think it is dumb people claim close Pipeline at the Perimeter and build a full interchange for St Anne's when they are a similar distance for the nearest interchange that already exists.

As for your claim Pipeline is near two major interchanges, exactly what route were you taking to get over to Route 90? Pretty sure it is about as realistic a route as suggesting St Mary's should just use the existing interchange at Pembina.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Own no land and don't live near Pipeline. I just think it is dumb people claim close Pipeline at the Perimeter and build a full interchange for St Anne's when they are a similar distance for the nearest interchange that already exists.

As for your claim Pipeline is near two major interchanges, exactly what route were you taking to get over to Route 90? Pretty sure it is about as realistic a route as suggesting St Mary's should just use the existing interchange at Pembina.

Traffic counts factor into this as well... according to the provincial traffic flow map, there is literally 10x the amount of traffic on St. Anne's at the Perimeter than on Pipeline at the Perimeter. Pipeline is a minor road at best. With 16000 cars a day, that's a lot of traffic to funnel over from St. Anne's to 59. For the relatively modest 1600 cars a day that Pipeline gets, expecting people to drive to McPhillips to access the Perimeter does not seem unreasonable to me... putting a RIRO at Pipeline/101 would mean that only a relatively small handful of people would have to go out of their way.

[pacman]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Great solution. Since St Annes and St Marys are both close to cloverleafs lets close all three intersections on the Perimeter except from right in/right out.

I might add St Anne's is actually closer to Lag & Perimeter than Pipeline is to McPhillips and Route 90 is even further than McPhillips.

Look forward to you posting your response from the province on your suggestion.

Transitive property applies to math where there are no gray areas, not roads and interchanges. Pipeline does not equal St Anne's or St Mary's no matter how many times you try to beat that drum.

I think Pipeline needs a grade separation based on the safety concerns at that location caused mostly by gravel trucks and other large equipment that frequent that stretch of the perimeter. Sidenote, that may slow down a bit now that McEwen's is closed down so that could reduce the north/south traffic issues. The needs at Pipeline have nothing to do with whether or not St Anne's or St Mary's needs grade separation. At those locations, I think there is greater current need because in addition to similar safety issues as Pipeline, there is much greater traffic volumes entering/exiting the perimeter at those locations. This has nothing to do with locations, distance to nearest interchanges, or status of roadways on the hierarchy of provincial road titles. It's common sense. This comes from a guy who would personally benefit much more from a Pipeline interchange instead of addressing the south perimeter.

[CoryB]

Personally I think Pipeline, St Anne, St Marys and every intersection, including Gunn Rd, should have grade separation on the Perimeter.

My response that St Annes should be right in right out is basically meant to say that if we start looking at distance to other existing intersections to decide which would be closed St Anne's would be as prime for closure as any other intersection.

My thinking is we need to basically take the Perimeter as a whole as it is today and not push for closures anywhere but at the same time should be saying no new access. Some access points, like the EB to Raleigh T intersection will be easier to remediate than others, ie Gunn Rd.

If we start with what we have and work to build continuous stretches with limited access it gets the momentum happening of finishing it as limited access. With that in mind working on making the Perimeter between Inkster and Wilkes limited access with full lighting seems like an achievable short term goal. The major intersection are grade separated already and a good stretch is already lite around CCW. From there I would work east down the north Perimeter as there would only be two new grade separations needed -- HWY 6 and Pipeline. We could then have a free flowing Perimeter from Lag to Wilkes with no traffic lights and truly have a limited access highway.

[WildCake]

There seems to be two major view points on this forum as to how Perimeter should be upgraded. 1) Pick one point and work our way around until it is free flowing and limited access or 2) pick and choose from a pecking order from “worst” to “better” intersections, likely based on traffic counts/collisions/severe collisions.

The second option seems most sellable in terms of politics: “x amount of collisions happen here, let’s save lives and eliminate a traffic light”, and from a humanitarian perspective - it is better. Upgrading Hwy 6 and 101, or 330 and 100 where there hasn’t been many (reported?) collision in recent times where design could have prevented them doesn’t seem as valuable while there seems to be any major collisions at Pipeline, Gunn, St Anne and St Mary’s on a regular basis.

On the other hand, our highways built à-la-Manitoba makes me think that for the sake of grade separating and limiting access to the perimeter once and for all, option 1 would be better. Why hasn’t access to brady road and other dirt roads west of that rail line been closed yet with the new lights at 330? Why isn’t wenzel road being shut down at 101 with the upgrades to 59/101? Why is Waverley south still connected to Perimeter and not a 4-way intersection (Lights or interchange) with Kenaston? Work on one intersection seems to be contained within a spitting distance of the project with no action to shutting down minor access points that could lead to major collisions. Option 1 could almost work like a download progress bar that could be tracked around the perimeter until the damn thing is brought to 1960 standards.

[Reignman]

^ these are all great questions and ones I find myself asking constantly on my daily commutes on the south perimeter.

Dirt road accesses and the idiotic median cutouts that accompany them need to be eliminated now. I thought someone here said a couple years back that MIT was going to start doing that. If so, what the hell are they waiting for? Pickup trucks with trailers sticking out into the passing lane as the driver waits to turn left is the most dangerous thing (and there are many dangerous things to choose from) on the entire highway IMO. Obviously MIT knows these are a safety issue so why aren't they doing anything about it? These improvements do not need to wait for the rumored reconstruction of the south perimeter. They can be done in very short order.

As for Wenzel, I was going to ask if at least the median cutout was going to be eliminated and maybe make it a RIRO only...but based on above I guess I have my answer. Here is a case where the province has a golden opportunity to eliminate a minor uncontrolled crossing and they can lump it in to justify with the interchange construction and they still can't pull the trigger? Seriously, who is in charge over at MIT?