Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[Biff]

That's the thing right...this province/city goes crazy for over building these things. How about put simple diamond interchanges everywhere that could use one and upgrade those over to time to larger structures when required. Instead we have little to no grade separations due to budget issues.

[Dengler Avenue]

It doesn’t hurt to futureproof the ROW, however. The same can be said about PTH-3 too.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

It doesn’t hurt to futureproof the ROW, however. The same can be said about PTH-3 too.

Agreed, no harm in doing a little planning ahead. It would be nice to see the province in active land acquisition for any areas that could be earmarked for future upgrades.

Everyone knows what the routes are that need full upgrades in the near-medium term. Start buying land in the areas where it would be needed.

[bomberjet]

MTI has control zones in areas where they don't own the land adjacent to highways and such. This restricts development on the lands.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by WildCake

I understand that this forum and that design is more academic/discussion but never in our lifetimes or the lifetime of all the structures of such an interchange would PTH 6 ever have a need to be free flowing at Perimeter. A diamond or parclo is all that is needed there for the next 50 years.

Diamond more likely. But that would make the most sense as Hwy 6 is a vital link to the northern areas, like Thompson. This interchange is based on the one in Edmonton at Manning Drive and Anthony Henday Drive. Even a cloverleaf would be okay for a free flowing bridge, but unfortunately in the long term, the weaving will make it unsafe.

But having a service interchange (like on 59) would be good for Northern Communities and also help bedroom communities. I think of Hwy 6 as the Trans Canada of the North. It's more of a connector route. A service interchange would be more likely, but a system interchange would be best for how important Hwy 6 is.

[kaimonmok]

Not sure if this was posted already, but the province sneakily posted design drawings of PTH 101 interchanges. Lots of things to dig into here.

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mti/pth101/pdf...rds_phase2.pdf

[3de14eec6a]

The Dugald Road one is of most interest to me, as the trains there catch me fairly often. It looks like option 2 will be the one that happens, based on costs; which I think is fine.

[Spocket]

While fascinating, that thing is WAY overbuilt and is far too ambitious for what the location calls for.

[bomberjet]

There goes my productivity!

Wow lots going on there.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Spocket

While fascinating, that thing is WAY overbuilt and is far too ambitious for what the location calls for.

Which one?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There goes my productivity!

Wow lots going on there.

So that’s what M.I.T. has been up to when we were whining this whole time.

[WildCake]

Initial thoughts/questions:

1. Couldn't an interchange at both Selkirk and 221 be considered? The distance between interchanges seems adequate and with the full buildout of Centreport, wouldn't both accesses be useful?

2. What would be the likelihood of moving the Prairie Dog Central station to outside of the Perimeter? Unless the station has historic designation, my impression is that it would be cheaper to move them out than to build a rail overpass for their rail line that only they use once weekly in the summer. All the designs in that area seem to hinge around that rail overpass but if that could be eliminated then there might be more flexibility for a PTH 6 moved southward and keep the sturgeon creek diamond/parclo where proposed.

3. I thought it was interesting that a design that is a downgrade in vehicle capacity is considered for PTH 8. I understand moving away from the weaving a cloverleaf interchange but I would have thought traffic volumes would eventually warrant something like what is proposed at PTH 7.

4. Can't wait for the Main/Henderson clusterfuck to be improved.

5. Dugald option 2 is probably the most sensical, going for an underpass increases the risk of flooding if there's bad rain and requires a pumping station.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Initial thoughts/questions:

1. Couldn't an interchange at both Selkirk and 221 be considered? The distance between interchanges seems adequate and with the full buildout of Centreport, wouldn't both accesses be useful?

2. What would be the likelihood of moving the Prairie Dog Central station to outside of the Perimeter? Unless the station has historic designation, my impression is that it would be cheaper to move them out than to build a rail overpass for their rail line that only they use once weekly in the summer. All the designs in that area seem to hinge around that rail overpass but if that could be eliminated then there might be more flexibility for a PTH 6 moved southward and keep the sturgeon creek diamond/parclo where proposed.

3. I thought it was interesting that a design that is a downgrade in vehicle capacity is considered for PTH 8. I understand moving away from the weaving a cloverleaf interchange but I would have thought traffic volumes would eventually warrant something like what is proposed at PTH 7.

4. Can't wait for the Main/Henderson clusterfuck to be improved.

5. Dugald option 2 is probably the most sensical, going for an underpass increases the risk of flooding if there's bad rain and requires a pumping station.

What you don't like 1950's engineering with a 1964 build left untouched since?

[cllew]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Initial thoughts/questions:



2. What would be the likelihood of moving the Prairie Dog Central station to outside of the Perimeter? Unless the station has historic designation, my impression is that it would be cheaper to move them out than to build a rail overpass for their rail line that only they use once weekly in the summer. All the designs in that area seem to hinge around that rail overpass but if that could be eliminated then there might be more flexibility for a PTH 6 moved southward and keep the sturgeon creek diamond/parclo where proposed.

.

The St. James station @ Inkster Junction has a Parks Canada Heritage designation and special permission had to be obtained to move it to the current location from Polo Park.

At its current age who knows if it would be able to moved again without significant damage?

[Carboy15]

Looking at the plan, most of it seems good, but there are a few things I will give some criticism:
- I like option 1 with one interchange for both Sturgeon Road and PTH 6, but a Parclo should be used as opposed to a diamond if they were to do that. Because Hwy 6 is close to the upcoming Centreport Canada business area, I believe that we should have a better interchange as it could be a possible alternate access to Centreport.
- The idea of converting PTH from a cloverleaf interchange to a service interchange would be helpful for active transport and reducen weaving. However, going from a cloverleaf to a diamond would be a huge downgrade. If I had to choose, a parclo would be best and cheaper as it would only have to remove 2 rings. But I think that the cloverleaf should stay TBH as it doesn't affect traffic flow now, buit in later years they could modify it. Diverging diamond, not opposed to, but people won't know how to drive it.
- And at Selkirk Ave and Rosser Road, I think that there should be two interchanges. One a folded diamond and one a Parclo as there would be need for more access at Centreport Canada

[Carboy15]

The thing I'm most curious about is which project on the North Perimeter will be done first?
I am aware it may not start for another few years, but here's the list on which should be done first.
1. Dugald Road
2. 6 and Sturgeon
3. Pipeline Road
4. Wenzel Road
5. Gunn Road

The interchange modifications should come later.

[Justanothermember]

The fact that they are downgrading Main St. and McPhillips Street from free-flowing to stop lights is a giant PMRTFO. Would any other major Canadian city downgrade interchanges?

Bloody sad.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by Justanothermember

The fact that they are downgrading Main St. and McPhillips Street from free-flowing to stop lights is a giant PMRTFO. Would any other major Canadian city downgrade interchanges?

McPhillips and Main are residential areas. I hate to say it, but it only makes sense. With free flowing cloverleafs, I agree that the free flow can keep traffic moving, but eventually that free flowing will come to an end as cloverleaf interchanges create weaving and slows down traffic even more.

On the other hand, active transport such as pedestrian crossings will work better with service interchanges as there are stop lights, giving pedestrians more right of way.

Originally Posted by Justanothermember

Would any other major Canadian city downgrade interchanges?

Actually, lots of cities have been moving away from cloverleaf interchanges. Lots in Canada and USA. Most of the time, with freeways intersecting, cloverleafs usually get replaced by stack or directional ramps instead of rings. And for arterial roads, they usually get replaced by service interchanges such as Parclo or other types. Lots of cities have moved away from cloverleafs, while Winnipeg has stayed with them.

[Justanothermember]

I was actually referring to downgrading of freeflow to traffic lights, not cloverleaf.

Plenti for cities have freeflow in 'residential' areas without plunking traffic lights within the interchange.

[Dengler Avenue]

It really comes down to whether or not M.I.T. intends to make PTH 8 completely free-flowing outside of Winnipeg (and likewise PTH 6 and 7 also), like PTH 59.
To me, the flyover from 101 to 59 and the planned one from 100 to 59 show that M.I.T. intends to make 59 free flowing north and south of Winnipeg.

As for Main Street, it’s not even divided outside of Winnipeg, so there’s no point making it free flowing.