Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[cllew]

looking at the tender drawings it looks like you can go one arm or a T config.

There are 3 different lengths of cross arm and provision to put a mast on the pole for intersection occupancy cameras (not red light ones), and/or the new wireless synchronization system transceivers.

There was no drawing of any poles with street light masts attached, so I guess they are not sharing poles with Manitoba Hydro anymore.

[northern_hoser]

Flipping thru one of the various magazines I get at work and came across this. I'm guessing this would have been a decent option for the Plessis Road underpass and might have reduced the timeframe for the project. Unfortunately the bass ackwards thinking of roadway/rail projects in Manitoba would not allow something innovative like this to happen.

From Rock to Road magazine (July/August 2013):

http://www.rocktoroad.com/content/view/2510/

[Cyro]

We've been hear many times in the past, but is the time finally nearing to bring down, "Fortress Portage and Main"? Open up our famous intersection to people again at street level?

I understand the agreement to keep the bunkers and wall's in place until 2017, and the affect it may have on the underground buisness, but I believe the time to remove them is nearing? They did it in Europe after the cold war, Why not Winnipeg. Thoughts?


Article:
OPEN your heart, WINNIPEG
Time to take down the barriers, Portage and Main
This CityBy: Robert Galston
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...219152821.html

[Biff]

The tender for the Bishop Grandin overpass of the Kenaston Blvd extension is out. The project is supposed to be complete by Nov 22, 2014. I am surprised that they are actually proceeding with this. This seems like one of those projects where the city has good intentions to do things properly then decides to shelve the project and place it in the vault with all of the other 'should have was" projects.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by northern_hoser

Flipping thru one of the various magazines I get at work and came across this. I'm guessing this would have been a decent option for the Plessis Road underpass and might have reduced the timeframe for the project. Unfortunately the bass ackwards thinking of roadway/rail projects in Manitoba would not allow something innovative like this to happen.

From Rock to Road magazine (July/August 2013):

http://www.rocktoroad.com/content/view/2510/

This was contemplated but was concluded that it wasn't an option for this project. Something to do with the utilities and risk. Not saying it isn't a great idea. Maybe it can be used for something like Waverley.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Biff

The tender for the Bishop Grandin overpass of the Kenaston Blvd extension is out. The project is supposed to be complete by Nov 22, 2014. I am surprised that they are actually proceeding with this. This seems like one of those projects where the city has good intentions to do things properly then decides to shelve the project and place it in the vault with all of the other 'should have was" projects.

Had a quick look at some of the drawings and they allow for the westward Bishop extension to pass under this flyover. Which is great news. Essentially if you're driving westbound on Bishop as it is now, you will pass under this flyover to continue westbound on the new extension. No funny curves or bridges to go straight if you will.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Had a quick look at some of the drawings and they allow for the westward Bishop extension to pass under this flyover. Which is great news. Essentially if you're driving westbound on Bishop as it is now, you will pass under this flyover to continue westbound on the new extension. No funny curves or bridges to go straight if you will.

No funny curves or bridges, but in true Winnipeg style you will have to contend with a traffic light:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/M...hop-phase2.pdf

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by esquire

No funny curves or bridges, but in true Winnipeg style you will have to contend with a traffic light:

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/M...hop-phase2.pdf

Yeah, correct. I was more referring to the future extension of Bishop Grandin westward. At least the traffic light is only for the two left turns once the flyover is complete. All other movements have dedicated lanes. The new Kenaston northbound should have its own flyover to get you to the existing northbound Kenaston. That would get rid of the traffic light.

[chrisallard5454]

So essentially this design does nothing to alleviate traffic snares during rush hour. Why not just do a normal cloverleaf, or something of that nature.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

So essentially this design does nothing to alleviate traffic snares during rush hour. Why not just do a normal cloverleaf, or something of that nature.

Bishop Grandin will have no problems, free flow traffic. Left turns in/out of Waverley West will have to wait at the lights. I could see that getting busy during rush hour. See traffic currently on Waverley during the rush.

[Biff]

I thought I would re-start this conversation over here as to not litter up the other thread with exclusive Winnipeg only talk......

I often wonder if Winnipeg really has a plan for what our main transportation network will look like when we reach/surpass 1,000,000 people. I am not talking about that Plan2020 document or what ever type of crap document that is that they are not following anyways. I find it hard to believe that in a Province and City that is trying to build and sell itself as a transportation and distribution hub doesn't have ONE single plan for a limited access transportation link.

Why is there no future study to PROPERLY (not the Manitoba way) upgrade Hwy 75 to North American standards of limited access roadway. Where is the study to at least look at a limited access Bishop Grandin, Lagimodiere and Perimeter. Is someone, anywhere even thinking about it. Although I am a proponent of freeways, I do understand their huge costs and realize that Winnipeg is probably OK right now without any. But what is the plan as we continue to grow to one million? Adding the William Clement Parkway and Chief Peguis extensions wont cut it.

Lagimodiere will essentially become un-driveable in it's current state. Can you picture trying to drive down Route 90 with an extra 200,000 people in the CMA?

I have lots of contacts at the City and Province but have never heard of any such talk. I honestly believe that overpasses and interchanges are forbidden concepts at our respective legislatures.

....ehhhh, just a little rant before I attempt to commute home down Lagimodiere.

[esquire]

^ You are absolutely right. This is what happens when politicians do the planning. Most cities have long-range, detailed transportation plans that indicate what will be built and when. The best we get are vague plans with few if any specifics, and even that gets changed because Coun. Wyatt doesn't like this or Coun. Fielding wants that. It's all ad hoc.

The province isn't much better... check out the MIT planning page: http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/tspd/index.html . There's a 2007 road to Nunavut study, a new overhead sign at the Emerson border corssing, some northern/remote road studies, and that's pretty much it. Nothing about the major highways. Then there's CentrePort Canada Way...how did that get elevated over all the other priorities in the Winnipeg region? It's so random.

I am not a supporter of freeways by any stretch, but part of that is because there is so much that could be done to improve traffic in this city without resorting to costly freeway construction. For instance, with its traffic count, how can it be that Lagimodiere is still only 2 lanes each way, the same way that it was 40 years ago when there were hundreds of thousands fewer cars in this city? It should be 3 lanes each way, as should Bishop Grandin. It's things like that which would improve traffic flow.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Biff

....ehhhh, just a little rant before I attempt to commute home down Lagimodiere.

People choose where they want to live, and the commute that comes with it. Owning a house in the central areas of the city is still very affordable...

After living for about 10 years in Osborne Village and Wolseley, I cannot handle traffic, and now there is no way I would consider moving much further away.

If population growth eclipses road infrastructure - and of course it will - it will have one positive benefit in encouraging people to live in areas they likely wouldn't consider now (West End, downtown, exchange) and help to boost the property values and population of inner city areas.

I will grant you that highway infrastructure especially for truck transport is woefully inadequate.

[bomberjet]

You both are bang on with my thinking. Looking at both the city and provinces documents (especially MIT's website as mentioned above) is complete crap. The Cities TMP is okay, but doesn't get into specifics. Just say this is where the roads go, which everyone already knew..

That's what I was getting into in the other thread. There's a need for some long term program to actually get this stuff built in a sustainable way. When you look at building a potentially multi-billion dollar transportation system, it has to be broken down into small pieces. There's no way you're going to build a billion dollar mega freeway in Winnipeg in one shot. No chance. Even Calgary and the half billion dollar projects are just too much for here.

Make a sustainable, DETAILED, plan with costs of specific projects and plan to get them built. And the kicker, ACTUALLY BUILD THEM!

[Biff]

Originally Posted by esquire

I am not a supporter of freeways by any stretch, but part of that is because there is so much that could be done to improve traffic in this city without resorting to costly freeway construction. For instance, with its traffic count, how can it be that Lagimodiere is still only 2 lanes each way, the same way that it was 40 years ago when there were hundreds of thousands fewer cars in this city? It should be 3 lanes each way, as should Bishop Grandin. It's things like that which would improve traffic flow.

Good points esquire. 3 laneing Lagimodiere would definitely help but would be costly.....but likely a lot less than building a new roadway. I realize that Winnipeg will never have a crosstown freeway and I am OK with that. I think that the expressway type roads we have right now need to be in the planning stages for massive upgrades for the near future. Hold off on building new and upgrade what we have.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by Biff

Good points esquire. 3 laneing Lagimodiere would definitely help but would be costly.....but likely a lot less than building a new roadway. I realize that Winnipeg will never have a crosstown freeway and I am OK with that. I think that the expressway type roads we have right now need to be in the planning stages for massive upgrades for the near future. Hold off on building new and upgrade what we have.

Agreed. Start by converting major busy intersections along major expressways that go to 80 km/h or more with interchanges. Route 90, and Lagimodiere are great starting points. Upgrades along Bishop Grandin would be great too.

Winnipeg needs to invest in diamond interchanges. Hell, this province needs to invest more into interchanges. We can't go by a year without at least hearing a major accident at the intersection of PTH100 and PTH3/McGillvray.

[bomberjet]

Okay, so here we go. This was posted on the MIT website today.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/uhf/index.html

NEW for 2013: Urban Highway Fund and Commercial Infrastructure Fund

Manitoba Budget 2013 introduced two new cost shared infrastructure funds, the Urban Highway Fund (UHF) and the Commercial Infrastructure Fund (CIF).

Each fund will dedicate up to $25 million per year in provincial funding to 50/50 cost-shared projects requested by either municipal governments (UHF) or private business and developers (CIF). The funds will allow Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT) to address more on-highway capital improvement projects of high local priority.

The UHF is intended to support urban infrastructure or growth in urban areas. Projects could include enhancing intersections or reconstructing sections of the designated highway network within a community. Other projects will also be considered.

The CIF will primarily support the commercial businesses and industries that build local economies. Projects could include intersection improvements to support new commercial establishments or road upgrades to allow for higher weight limits. As with the UHF, other projects will also be considered.

MIT has already begun accepting applications for both funds. To submit a project for consideration in 2013, or for more information about which projects qualify, please contact your local MIT regional office as soon as possible (http://www.manitoba.ca/mit/contact/regions.html).

Applications for future funding years must be received by January 30 for the following construction year.


So just as we were discussing. Take some of this cash each year and use it to build these interchanges we are talking about. Perfect opportunity. Just come up with a detailed plan of what to do first and get it done!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

So just as we were discussing. Take some of this cash each year and use it to build these interchanges we are talking about. Perfect opportunity. Just come up with a detailed plan of what to do first and get it done!

So which a) provincial and b) Winnipeg-specific intersections should be the highest priorities for a new interchange? 101/59 is excluded since there are actual plans to complete it at some point within the next 100 years.

For provincial, I nominate the Perimeter at 2/3. With McGillivray being as busy as it is, I find it amazing that this intersection is still at grade. Of course, deadly collisions are a fact of life there as a result.

For Winnipeg-specific, I think that an interchange at Bishop Grandin and River Road would offer pretty good bang for the buck. It would be a relatively small structure but would remove a big bottleneck and more importantly, make left turns off Bishop Grandin much safer during peak hours.

[bomberjet]

There's just so many its hard to pick one place to start.

Definitely PTH 100/2/3 intersection would be tops on my list for the Perimeter (minus the 101/59N one as mentioned). Pipeline Road, St. Mary's, St. Anne's would be up there for me. Then a bunch of the small median crossings could be closed.

It in the city, it's tough. Would have to get some stats on what intersections are most unsafe and start there. Waverley and Bishop, Lag and Reenders, Kenaston and McGillvray?

[The Unknown Poster]

Why couldnt Kenaston have been made intersection free with off-ramps and access roads instead of lights every ten feet? Everytime I drive through Regina I am envious.