Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension

[Reignman]

Originally Posted by mcpish

Thanks for the link. Well that's not bad. Much better than what they were saying at that Open House a few months back. Where they were basically saying that Ferrier was going to be an "AT GRADE INTERSECTION". Every resident that I heard from at the Open House seemed to against that and I was hoping that it wasn't the case. So this report is good news.

As for a Parclo at Main and a Diamond at McPhillips, that's reasonable. I just don't know how they are going to have the land to squeeze in a parclo at Main that's why I figured a folded diamond made more sense because it wouldn't interfere with the Kildonan Park Golf Course or that "Chuck's Landscaping" place. As long as they aren't intersections I'm happy. I couldn't believe they used intersections at Henderson and Gateway, that was just dumb. My main worry/concern that I want to fight for is NO intersections at Main or McPhillips. I recently went for a drive down "Stoney Trail" in Calgary. I'm jealous, I'd love a street like that. I even made a dashcam video for that ride.

My Dashvideo of Stoney Trail:

• Video Link


Ideally I'd like Chief Peguis Trail to look something like that :-)

That is an awesome video mcphish!! Great job!

Very interesting...fully limited access, no median crossovers, no gravel road accesses, and no lights! Makes one realize how far behind we are in this province...third world infrastructure.

As a comparison you should make a video like that for the perimeter highway lol

[mcpish]

Originally Posted by Reignman

As a comparison you should make a video like that for the perimeter highway lol

Funny you mention that. I have one (fully made), I just haven't uploaded it yet. It's embarrassing compared to my Calgary Freeway videos ;-) It's full of uneven pavement and inadequate intersections. I do find it curious however that the north perimeter is so much better than the south perimeter (ie. Full interchanges at Brookside, McPhillips, Main, Henderson). I do have some existing videos for the current portions of Chief Peguis Trail and Centreport Canada Way.

Youtube Channel
www.youtube.com/mcpish

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Reignman

That is an awesome video mcphish!! Great job!

Very interesting...fully limited access, no median crossovers, no gravel road accesses, and no lights! Makes one realize how far behind we are in this province...third world infrastructure.

As a comparison you should make a video like that for the perimeter highway lol

Realistically the Perimeter doesn't have to be fully limited access... I think improving some of the worst aspects of it (for example, replacing the urban-style kerbs with barriers, adding proper merge lanes, replacing the traffic lights with interchanges) would really get it where it needs to be for now. 5th and 6th lanes on the busy stretches that involve river crossings (between 59 and Brookside, CCW and Roblin, as well as between Lagimodiere and Kenaston) would also make good sense.

[rypinion]

Texas spent $2.8 billion widening a freeway. Traffic now moves 51% slower.

http://streetsblog.net/2015/05/28/the-23...nument-to-texas-transportation-futility/

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Texas spent $2.8 billion widening a freeway. Traffic now moves 51% slower.

http://streetsblog.net/2015/05/28/the-23...nument-to-texas-transportation-futility/

Hah. OK, scratch the expansion to 6 lanes.

[North_Regina_Boy]

Originally Posted by esquire

Hah. OK, scratch the expansion to 6 lanes.

When I was 17 years old we were at Houston Space Centre and my dad threw me the keys and said, "here you drive back to the hotel" Drove in rush hour traffic from 20 miles south of downtown (Interstate 45) to 5-6 miles west of downtown (Interstate 10, only about 12 lanes at that time) You learn very quickly how to drive defensively in conditions like that.

Now 10 years later I can drive pretty much any condition in North America.

Perimeter may not need widening. But a few overpasses would be nice in key locations. Which it looks like they are finally starting to realize.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Reignman

That is an awesome video mcphish!! Great job!

Very interesting...fully limited access, no median crossovers, no gravel road accesses, and no lights! Makes one realize how far behind we are in this province...third world infrastructure.

As a comparison you should make a video like that for the perimeter highway lol

Yep, Stoney Trail is a dream to drive on. Its not yet fully complete (SW portion is still being planned) but one can also compare the Perimeter to Anthony Henday in Edmonton (its smaller than the Perimeter but also a very beautiful ring road to drive on)


The province of Alberta invested a lot into these two ring roads however, the issue of money always comes up with the Perimeter. There will need to be multiple grade separations and more importantly, imo, street lighting - something both Anthony Henday and Stoney Trail have that the Perimeter does not, all the way around. It makes night time driving significantly safer especially at those high speeds or when coming off an interchange.

Biff and other posters have mentioned that MIT is slowly but surely working towards this

[esquire]

Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy

When I was 17 years old we were at Houston Space Centre and my dad threw me the keys and said, "here you drive back to the hotel" Drove in rush hour traffic from 20 miles south of downtown (Interstate 45) to 5-6 miles west of downtown (Interstate 10, only about 12 lanes at that time) You learn very quickly how to drive defensively in conditions like that.

Gulf Fwy is pretty serious business in comparison to any road on the Canadian prairies, but I do find that drivers on roads like that tend to be more courteous than the ones here, partly as a matter of survival... if people drove as aggressively there as they do here... well at those speeds and traffic volumes, it would be carnage every day.

The Perimeter is like a country road compared to some of those US freeways.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

Yep, Stoney Trail is a dream to drive on. Its not yet fully complete (SW portion is still being planned) but one can also compare the Perimeter to Anthony Henday in Edmonton (its smaller than the Perimeter but also a very beautiful ring road to drive on)


The province of Alberta invested a lot into these two ring roads however, the issue of money always comes up with the Perimeter. There will need to be multiple grade separations and more importantly, imo, street lighting - something both Anthony Henday and Stoney Trail have that the Perimeter does not, all the way around. It makes night time driving significantly safer especially at those high speeds or when coming off an interchange.

Biff and other posters have mentioned that MIT is slowly but surely working towards this

I completely agree that the Perimeter needs to be free-flowing the whole way around. But I have to ask... If the Perimeter is completely free-flowing, what is the value of an inner ring road? I've never really understood why we would need both to be free-flow.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I completely agree that the Perimeter needs to be free-flowing the whole way around. But I have to ask... If the Perimeter is completely free-flowing, what is the value of an inner ring road? I've never really understood why we would need both to be free-flow.

It probably would have made more sense to build one free-flowing ring road instead of the province and the city each building their own kind of half-assed ones.

[OverUnder]

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? The province never built a proper Perimeter, so the city gets pressured to build a half-assed ring road. Manitobans get stuck with the bill and two bad highways.

[Reignman]

Originally Posted by mcpish

Funny you mention that. I have one (fully made), I just haven't uploaded it yet. It's embarrassing compared to my Calgary Freeway videos ;-) It's full of uneven pavement and inadequate intersections. I do find it curious however that the north perimeter is so much better than the south perimeter (ie. Full interchanges at Brookside, McPhillips, Main, Henderson).

The perimeter highway has been so badly neglected over the past few provincial administrations. Zero interchanges built throughout both the Filmon and Doer reigns. Seriously, besides completing the NE section, what upgrades WERE done under either of them? And no the intersection "upgrade" of 15/101 does not count. So it's really no wonder it's decades behind what it should be. I'm certainly no Selinger fan, but he's working on his second interchange with a third already announced (although CCW was likely started as a Doer admin project).

The problem I really have with the perimeter is how MIT allows the current improper access points to exist in the first place. Why does every bloody road need to have direct access to the perimeter? I personally believe that no access should be allowed unless it's done right with a grade separation in the first place. You would never see a road such as Kenaston, Pipeline, 330, etc connected to a U.S. interstate or Stoney Trail, etc with a traffic light and a promise of a future interchange. Never would that be allowed to happen. Why here?? It seems for every interchange that does get built, another 2 traffic lights are put up. We will never catch up at that pace. But we just continue the stupidity. And it doesn't matter if the south perimeter will be rebuilt in a few years...if that's the case these roads should be connected at that time.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Texas spent $2.8 billion widening a freeway. Traffic now moves 51% slower.

http://streetsblog.net/2015/05/28/the-23...nument-to-texas-transportation-futility/

Ah, this is a bit of stretch, isn't it? Maybe if you said that Texas widened a highway and approved a ton more residential subdivisions at one end of it you'd be telling the story. The highway itself didn't increase traffic - the local planners did.

This is also a freeway - the perimeter is essentially a ring road. Everybody from all over the city uses a portion of it - not just commuters in one area. The greater Houston area is also the fifth largest metro area in the US. I don't think it's fair to suggest a place like Winnipeg would end up with the same issues given the differences in both population and makeup of the highway. Perhaps if we were comparing Bishop Grandin (Kenaston).

[biguc]

^But it demonstrates induced demand and the point we revisit on this board every other week that we can't simply build our way out of congestion.

[vjose32]

I think everyone needs to stop thinking of Chief Peguis and the rest of the inner ring as a freeway, that would be the Perimeter more than anything. This is not Calgary or Toronto, we don't millions of people, nor do we have millions of dollars to spend. If anything they should spend the money to make the Perimeter free flowing. Why they didn't build an overpass at Kenaston when they extended it, I don't know.

But since everyone is talking about Chief Peguis, what about what they have at west bound Perimeter at McPhillips? Not sure what that is called, but it seems to work good and is similar to a lot of a freeways it would seem. Though it would require space.

[mattpa]

^ chief will connect to the centre port way aka hendinly bypass and also provide the oakbank corridor. the city has no east - west routes only bishop and chief that will be direct

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by biguc

^But it demonstrates induced demand and the point we revisit on this board every other week that we can't simply build our way out of congestion.

The thing is that we should want to send that "congestion" to the perimeter. It takes the pressure off of municipal infrastructure, it flows more freely, and it's higher speed. If the effect is to induce more traffic to use it, then that's exactly what should be happening given that a ton of the subdivision traffic would be better off using it anyway, and it would start to relieve pressure on the inner ring roads (Chief, Bishop, etc...).

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

The thing is that we should want to send that "congestion" to the perimeter. It takes the pressure off of municipal infrastructure, it flows more freely, and it's higher speed. If the effect is to induce more traffic to use it, then that's exactly what should be happening given that a ton of the subdivision traffic would be better off using it anyway, and it would start to relieve pressure on the inner ring roads (Chief, Bishop, etc...).

But it won't relieve pressure on the inner ring roads... That's the whole thing about induced demand. People leaving the inner ring road will create underutilized capacity which will be filled.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

Realistically the Perimeter doesn't have to be fully limited access... I think improving some of the worst aspects of it (for example, replacing the urban-style kerbs with barriers, adding proper merge lanes, replacing the traffic lights with interchanges) would really get it where it needs to be for now. 5th and 6th lanes on the busy stretches that involve river crossings (between 59 and Brookside, CCW and Roblin, as well as between Lagimodiere and Kenaston) would also make good sense.

The number one worst aspect of the Perimeter is the unsignalled, at-grade crossing. Everyone one of those should be closed immediately or changed to an on-demand light for cross traffic but with a good delay built in too.

In terms of upgrades, I strongly feel the Perimeter does not need six lanes free flowing the entire length it covers. If we could add an extra pair of lanes that basically go interchange to interchange with a forced exit, and good warning signage, then the existing two lanes would be used far more efficiently. As it stands now there are places where you have merging traffic exiting a hairpin turn and dropping immediately into the 100 KM/H lane. This effectively means that for some stretches the Perimeter has a single lane of free flowing through traffic.

My other suggestion would be to look at all the other at-grade access points and determine the distance to the nearest signalled or grade separation access and work on plans to close them based on short to longest distance. Some for example, the access point on the west side just north of CentrePort Way might not have a good alternative currently. Others, though such as the dirt road about a mile east of HWY 6 might be better of directed to entering the road crossing the Perimeter.

The final thought is a plan needs to be put in place that says: no new access to the Perimeter unless it is either a complete replacement for an existing signalled intersection or it is will fully grade separated from the start. Then say a new development like Southpointe is being planned and needs access the costs for the grade separation would be on the table for discussion as part of approval for their plans.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

But it won't relieve pressure on the inner ring roads... That's the whole thing about induced demand. People leaving the inner ring road will create underutilized capacity which will be filled.

That's why it matters where you're talking about and how you plan around it. The idea that road usage will always be at capacity is not unassailable logic. There are a finite number of people who live in Winnipeg and who specifically live in areas that certain infrastructure services. You're suggesting that because the Perimeter does a very good job of servicing Bridgewater Lakes that somehow people who have no business on Bishop Grandin are going to find themselves using it. If you continue to approve subdivisions, then I wouldn't argue the point because those residents are directly served by it. But if you start upgrading another acceptable option, you aren't going to induce demand amongst people in East Kildonan for Bishop Grandin in any sort of meaningful way just like the Plessis underpass doesn't give me reason to drive to Transcona and in the same way it makes Waverley a more acceptable option for those in Lindenwoods - it relieves the pressure on Bishop Grandin. Sure, you may get more people from those outlying southern suburbs using Waverley over Bishop, but that's the point. And with proper planning, you might succeed.

I think this argument is only used in its bluntest form. The truth is that increased transportation infrastructure is often used as the rationale for extending populations outward and therefore the effects become evident - more people eventually use the excess capacity because more people need to. That doesn't mean that *has* to be the case.

An acceptable amount of infrastructure is what one city can afford. Determining that is the difficult part, I guess...