New Interchanges and Bypasses in MB / SK

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by Biff

The only thing I have too add to this though, is I challenge you to find any old, old dense European city without a freeway system. Sure not through the historic city centres but every one, even the canal city of Venice has network of freeways (motorways).

Another GREAT example is Stockholm. Fantastic city but freeways and mass transit abound create a great environment for trucking and commuters. A compromise is needed here. And Yes if Centreport is to grow to its potential it needs at least one good free-flow route though the middle of the city. Which looking I can see a few good candidates.

Regina's GTH with connecting Hwy 11 and the TCH, with the West Bypass will make not only commerce faster, but safer roads in the end. Also the Regina Southeast bypass is another huge initiative, that will make east Regina a better place to live and visit and make getting around Regina a breeze. Saskatoon has as well plans but has yet to secure detailed design, or short-term commitment to provide relief to its traffic issue in the north end of the city. Which is more of an issue than Regina, Winnipeg, Calgary, or Edmonton in terms of a per capita basis. And yes I have driven in all of them. The TUCs in Calgary and Edm are a blessing.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Biff

The only thing I have too add to this though, is I challenge you to find any old, old dense European city without a freeway system. Sure not through the historic city centres but every one, even the canal city of Venice has network of freeways (motorways).

I agree -- freeways have their place, even in old European cities (and Winnipeg). I think that the perimeter can be built to freeway specs by closing most at-grade intersections and building a few interchanges. And I think the inner-ring isn't too bad, but again the City engineers treat these express-ways as if they are local collectors (accesses every 1/2 a kilometer). Something needs to change, but it won't because City Council sees short term dollars when they build massive infrastructure additions without seeing the long-term liabilities and safety issues...

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy

Another GREAT example is Stockholm. Fantastic city but freeways and mass transit abound create a great environment for trucking and commuters. A compromise is needed here. And Yes if Centreport is to grow to its potential it needs at least one good free-flow route though the middle of the city. Which looking I can see a few good candidates.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Riverman

See? Crazy, eh?

Lack of good transportation infrastructure is a good part of the reason why Winnipeg is being left behind.

Well since moving to Winnipeg I have relied on transit as a source of transportation. That is why I am personally fine without them

I would have no problem with the restructuring of our current "expressways", especially our perimeter. I am one hundred percent behind creating a better network of infrastructure so that Industry can function properly. Trucks should be able to haul through the city without relying on city streets throughout the entire trip. I am not, however, ok with creating a freewKenastonay through the core of our city, principally so that people can get to work from their far flung suburb without having to stop for lights (which is why I made the comparison to commutes).

In essence anything related to Centreport should be free flowing, which leaves me shocked and frustrated to find out that CCW will actually have at grade intersections, even with federal funding. Also The Outer and Inner Ring roads, being the Perimeter Highway; CPT, Lag, Bishop, , Route 90, Inkster (West of Route 90) etc should all be turned into free ways to handle trucks and trade.

However I am not OK with turning Portage - Main or even the Disrailie into a full fledge Freeway. Freeways should be made specifically to help move goods, not so that people can get home faster.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by esquire

$75M will get you an interchange at Bishop and St. Mary's. Maybe.

A freeway, even upgrading an existing expressway like Bishop Grandin or Lagimodiere to freeway standards, will run into the billions.

It costs (apparently) $10M-$15M per diamond interchange. Put up seven or eight of those on Bishop and it's done. 8 of those at $15M a piece would be $120M. Theoretical yes, but do that over a span of 5 or 10 years and it's totally doable.

We don't need PTH 101 and PTH 59N interchanges with 7 bridges at every little intersection. Just get the lights of Bishop and that's it. Same goes for the other routes. At intersections like Bishop and Lag or Bishop and Kenaston, those would be expensive no doubt.

So judging by the comments here, even steveosnyder, everyone seems to agree we need freeways to move goods (a la CentrePort) and maybe people from one side of the city to another. Don't need them through downtown or to residential areas. Which I agree with.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It costs (apparently) $10M-$15M per diamond interchange. Put up seven or eight of those on Bishop and it's done. 8 of those at $15M a piece would be $120M. Theoretical yes, but do that over a span of 5 or 10 years and it's totally doable.

We don't need PTH 101 and PTH 59N interchanges with 7 bridges at every little intersection. Just get the lights of Bishop and that's it. Same goes for the other routes. At intersections like Bishop and Lag or Bishop and Kenaston, those would be expensive no doubt.

So judging by the comments here, even steveosnyder, everyone seems to agree we need freeways to move goods (a la CentrePort) and maybe people from one side of the city to another. Don't need them through downtown or to residential areas. Which I agree with.

Bishop is really bad because of the lack of inter-connectivity between Royal Wood and Island Lakes... If they were connected you could eliminate the intersection of Shorehill and De La Seigneurie and keep Island Shore as a divergent diamond and have it cross/combine with Lakewood. (I would say that Royal Wood is the worst subdivision in the City when it comes to access... Even worse than Whyte Ridge) after that have a divergent diamond at St. Anne's, St. Mary's, and Waverley. Close the intersections at Dakota (less than 1km to St. Mary's) and River.

To me, I count 4 places you could throw in a diamond interchange, and close the rest by feeding people into those 4 major locations. There is a good, low access route.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Well since moving to Winnipeg I have relied on transit as a source of transportation. That is why I am personally fine without them

However I am not OK with turning Portage - Main or even the Disrailie into a full fledge Freeway. Freeways should be made specifically to help move goods, not so that people can get home faster.

Exactly! Although it is a bonus when you can get home faster. Case in point (I use Saskatoon as I live here) Is Circle drive. It use to take me 30 minutes to go 2.5 kms on Circle north then 10-15 to get home past that point. On circle drive north with its barrage of traffic lights and trucks. However now that Circle South is open I can now zip around at twice the travel distance and get home in 20-25 minutes! And if there were no lights at two places (the only two going that way) It would easily be a 15 minute commute.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It costs (apparently) $10M-$15M per diamond interchange. Put up seven or eight of those on Bishop and it's done. 8 of those at $15M a piece would be $120M. Theoretical yes, but do that over a span of 5 or 10 years and it's totally doable.

$10-15M wouldn't even get you a diamond on the TCH in the middle of the country. It would barely get the shovels going in an urban area with much higher costs for land acquisition, utility relocation, lift stations, detours, etc.

For context, the Rothesay underpass on Chief Peguis, which doesn't even have any on or off ramps to it, just a simple 2-lane bridge, cost $45 million to build.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It costs (apparently) $10M-$15M per diamond interchange. Put up seven or eight of those on Bishop and it's done. 8 of those at $15M a piece would be $120M. Theoretical yes, but do that over a span of 5 or 10 years and it's totally doable.

Along Bishop, diamonds would be more like $30 to $40 M. The pump station alone would be almost $10 M, not to mention utility realignment, property purchases, accel/decel lanes, etc. The flyover at Bishop/Kenaston is probably closer to $15 M, to put things in perspective.

[Biff]

Rural diamond interchanges, like the ones on I-29 in North Dakota run approximately $10 - $15. They start to get pricey in an urban setting with lift stations and utility relocations as mentioned above. My guess like Bdog said likely $30-$40 million each along Bishop.

[yellowghost]

Originally Posted by Riverman

A lot of Winnipeggers are quite proud of this, for some reason.

Kinda like "I can't afford a Mercedes Benz. Heck I cant even get approved for a 2013 civic..and DAM proud of it!". I guess the point is eventually we will possibly need a few freeflowing routes and it might very well run into the billions NOW, but how much will it cost 100 years from now, which might be when and if we reach a population of one million people.

[Riverman]

^^^ Yes, exactly, although I would use different cars as examples.

Some see the need, some act as apologists.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by yellowghost

Kinda like "I can't afford a Mercedes Benz. Heck I cant even get approved for a 2013 civic..and DAM proud of it!".

No, I think it's more like: "I can't afford a Hummer; at least not without taking on a big loan and cutting down maintenance on my existing car. But then again, maybe I don't want a Hummer. Most of my friends stopped buying them long ago, and some are trying to get rid of theirs. Those that have kept theirs are facing huge ongoing maintenance costs, not to mention the price of gas."

[yellowghost]

I do really miss Phoenix. Well planned city. Great freeway system. Every attraction was no more than 25 minutes away from the condo in Scottsdale with one execption. The Glendale arena where the local hockey team plays. Now..Phoenix has a ring road as well and on the way back from the game we used that freeway and it took us 62 minutes to go from the entrance to the freeway to the condo, not including the time to exit the parking lot which was about 15 minutes. However..the route we took to get there was right thru the city, using just regular streets. That would have been about 5 o'clock on a weekday. I believe it took us an hour and a quarter. Glendale is the city just west of Phoenix I believe. So 75 minutes to drive thru half of Scottsdale, thru Phoenix and Glendale entirely. That might not so impressive but you really have to visit the area to get to get a full perspective of how massive that metro is.

[yellowghost]

Originally Posted by Bdog

No, I think it's more like: "I can't afford a Hummer; at least not without taking on a big loan and cutting down maintenance on my existing car. But then again, maybe I don't want a Hummer. Most of my friends stopped buying them long ago, and some are trying to get rid of theirs. Those that have kept theirs are facing huge ongoing maintenance costs, not to mention the price of gas."

I respect that anology..but still.. is not being able to afford something a thing to be proud of? I will never own a '67 Nova and I am indifferent, but don't take pride in it. I believe Winnipeg needs to grow UP, not OUT. We can't afford the upkeep on what we have. We should really be decommishioning streets if possible. But at the same time, if a place like Green Bay can afford a freeway system, why can't we. They got potholes too. Heck even Fargo has a freeway. Well, it is a part of the interstate system but essentially a freeway nonetheless.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by yellowghost

I respect that anology..but still.. is not being able to afford something a thing to be proud of? I will never own a '67 Nova and I am indifferent, but don't take pride in it. I believe Winnipeg needs to grow UP, not OUT. We can't afford the upkeep on what we have. We should really be decommishioning streets if possible. But at the same time, if a place like Green Bay can afford a freeway system, why can't we. They got potholes too. Heck even Fargo has a freeway. Well, it is a part of the interstate system but essentially a freeway nonetheless.

I don't think anyone is "proud" of not being able to afford things. I think it's about priorities. Is a freeway system Winnipeg's top priority? I think upgrading to interchanges where feasible and practical makes sense personally.

You mention wanting to build up and not out, and note that we can't even maintain what we already have. Aren't these arguments against a freeway system?

The interstate system is federally funded in the States, which is why they can have interchanges/flyovers ever 3 miles in rural areas, and many more in urban centres. Property taxes can't compete with that...

[dennis]

If I am not mistaken, every province in Canada has a free flowing highway ( freeway) except Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. Heck,even poor old New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland found ways to do it.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Bdog

You mention wanting to build up and not out, and note that we can't even maintain what we already have. Aren't these arguments against a freeway system?

I can sum up Winnipeg's problem with 1 picture:
https://maps.google.ca/

That intersection cost 1.2 million to build (according to City of Winnipeg capital budget) and it services a strip mall a vacant lot and a car dealership with a total assessed value of 3.8 million. At those numbers, that intersection will not pay for itself in tax revenues before it needs to be re-built.

This is not a system that is sustainable (and I don't mean just this intersection).

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I can sum up Winnipeg's problem with 1 picture:
https://maps.google.ca/

That intersection cost 1.2 million to build (according to City of Winnipeg capital budget) and it services a strip mall a vacant lot and a car dealership with a total assessed value of 3.8 million. At those numbers, that intersection will not pay for itself in tax revenues before it needs to be re-built.

This is not a system that is sustainable (and I don't mean just this intersection).

Why on earth, did they concentrate on spending all that money on that Lagimodiere intersection, when just a few hundred metres to the north, the Lagimodiere-Perimeter intersection is still at-grade? When are they going to complete it looks like a cloverleaf?

[cllew]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I can sum up Winnipeg's problem with 1 picture:
https://maps.google.ca/

That intersection cost 1.2 million to build (according to City of Winnipeg capital budget) and it services a strip mall a vacant lot and a car dealership with a total assessed value of 3.8 million. At those numbers, that intersection will not pay for itself in tax revenues before it needs to be re-built.

This is not a system that is sustainable (and I don't mean just this intersection).

It was put in to help with residential traffic coming out of All Seasons on Headmaster. The commercial on the fringes get a benefit from it, but probably would have gone in there anyway.

I can't recall if the subdivision developer had to pay for the changes which if they did makes it no cost to the city for the initial installation.