Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

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...

I think this is where our ideas diverge. I believe that building transportation infrastructure will induce demand even without an increase in population or additional subdivisions. Sure, we have a finite number of people, but we will never get to a point where, at a near-free cost of using, all demand for automobile transportation will be sated.

It doesn't matter if we approve further subdivisions or not, building capacity will, in essence, create demand. You use the example of Bridgwater and Plessis, so I will continue on these anecdote. When/If the Plessis Underpass gets completed people in Transcona will drive more; on a micro-level it will be almost unnoticable -- maybe 1 more trip every 2-3 weeks per household -- but on a macro-level it will consume the capacity generated as the "benefit" of the underpass in the first place.

EDIT: Just to add, even though you don't like examples outside the narrow scope of Winnipeg... During 2002 west coast port labour lockout, truck traffic in and around the port of LA was decreased to the point that driving was more economicially sensible. Within 1 day the capacity was filled without a noticable difference on any of the other freeways. After 10 days when the lockout was over the traffic on the freeway was actually worse in all areas, and stayed that way without any new people, just the hint of additional capacity.

[CoryB]

I think Winnipeg needs to have both the inner ring road and a free flowing Perimeter (aka outer ring road).

As we saw before the recent CPT extension opened between Henderson and Lag when the proper roads don't exist traffic will find its own way around that lack of infrastructure. In this example is pushed the residential street, Springfield, well beyond where it ever should have gone to.

Long term, in an ideal vision, the inner ring road would have minimal constraints such as traffic lights and at grade train crossings. It would effectively form a "box" with the lines drawn past the corners so they connect with the outer ring road. Speed limit on the inner ring road would be 80 km/h. It would primarily target people going a medium distance but less than that covered between two contact points with the Perimeter.

The Perimeter would then be a completely free flowing route with a speed limit of 100 km/h or 110 km/h. It would be targeted towards people that are either by-passing the city and trying to quickly travel from one side to the other.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I think Winnipeg needs to have both the inner ring road and a free flowing Perimeter (aka outer ring road).

As we saw before the recent CPT extension opened between Henderson and Lag when the proper roads don't exist traffic will find its own way around that lack of infrastructure. In this example is pushed the residential street, Springfield, well beyond where it ever should have gone to.

Long term, in an ideal vision, the inner ring road would have minimal constraints such as traffic lights and at grade train crossings. It would effectively form a "box" with the lines drawn past the corners so they connect with the outer ring road. Speed limit on the inner ring road would be 80 km/h. It would primarily target people going a medium distance but less than that covered between two contact points with the Perimeter.

The Perimeter would then be a completely free flowing route with a speed limit of 100 km/h or 110 km/h. It would be targeted towards people that are either by-passing the city and trying to quickly travel from one side to the other.

Where is the value in this? And not just to the people using the streets to the City and Province? Also, to the best of my knowledge, Springfield, while busy, wasn't anywhere near capacity and hadn't had any major accidents along it, so it really wasn't that bad. A free flowing perimeter would be good because truck traffic wouldn't come through the City because the perimeter would actually be faster (unlike now). Better trade, less trucks in the city, valuable.

Where does an inner ring road generate value? My answer would be it doesn't. It actively destroys value by taking up huge swaths of potentially valuable tax base for the sole purpose of moving single occupancy vehicles.

But "that's what people want." And while I agree that in the current system it is, this neglects to acknowledge the fact that it is written right into the city's development policy. People want this because they don't have a truly viable alternative.

Whatever, enough ranting.

[vjose32]

If CPT ever connects to Oakbank it will not be for a very long time and I think that is a big if. I don't see a need or reason for that. Oakbank residents can get to Lag off other routes. As for the plan to connect it to Headingly, how is that going to work? Currently it is Centre Port Way that is being connected to Headingly and I don't see any reason to extend CPT from Route 90 to CPW. Traffic can just as well get to CPW via Route 90.

[mattpa]

the point of that will be if it is extented think of all the trucks that will be taken of other city streets and the hedingly bypass will extend around the weight station when heading into the city

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Where is the value in this? And not just to the people using the streets to the City and Province? Also, to the best of my knowledge, Springfield, while busy, wasn't anywhere near capacity and hadn't had any major accidents along it, so it really wasn't that bad.

It was not uncommon for vehicles on Springfield to be travelling 10 KM/H or more over the posted limit. With on street parking it was also dangerous as vehicles moving needed to dart around those that were parked. There also were a number of accidents on the route with the Rotheasy intersection being especially problematic. There is also the issue of the street being originally designed as a residential street and becoming a high volume traffic corridor.

In terms of the Oakbank corridor, aka CPT extension, it has long been on the books as a priority route due to the volume of traffic occurring on HWY 15 and is being viewed as a replacement to HWY 15 between 206 and Winnipeg. This would also address the mess that is currently Gunn Rd and the Perimeter, another high accident intersection.

Originally Posted by mattpa

the point of that will be if it is extented think of all the trucks that will be taken of other city streets and the hedingly bypass will extend around the weight station when heading into the city

In terms of the point of the inner ring road, the Oakbank corridor, the Headingly bypass, the St Norbert by pass and the grade separations on the Perimeter it ultimately is about improving safety.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by CoryB

In terms of the Oakbank corridor, aka CPT extension, it has long been on the books as a priority route due to the volume of traffic occurring on HWY 15 and is being viewed as a replacement to HWY 15 between 206 and Winnipeg. This would also address the mess that is currently Gunn Rd and the Perimeter, another high accident intersection.

I won't bother with Springfield anymore, I'm sure everyone here knows my opinion, but as for the Oakbank corridor, why does it need to continue into the City from there? Or rather, why does it continue to be a highway into the City. All of these bypasses can end at the perimeter. If we truly wanted to "improve safety" the best thing we can do is slow cars down where pedestrians are present.

This is part of my problem -- highways don't belong in a city, streets belong in a city.

Streets

Highway

Street creates value for a city... promotes land development, increases street life, in general are a human place to live. Highways create value for the province... promote fast movement and trade between places that are a long distance apart. These shouldn't be mixed.

Seriously, North/South the City is around 20-25km, the difference between 50km the whole way and 80km the whole way is around 11 minutes (19 minutes vs. 30 minutes non-stop). East/West the City is between 25-30km, so around the same time savings. And that's assuming we don't make the perimeter free-flow the whole way -- something I have supported.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

If we truly wanted to "improve safety" the best thing we can do is slow cars down where pedestrians are present.

No, the best thing we can do is limit the interactions between pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed roadways would work to accomplish this goal. Slowing down vehicles is already a compromise solution.

The challenge with saying the capital region corridors beyond the Perimeter should not connect to Winnipeg ignores that the traffic exists and will continue to exist. It is better to manage it in a controlled manner that let it find its own ways around your barriers.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

If we truly wanted to "improve safety" the best thing we can do is slow cars down where pedestrians are present.

This is part of my problem -- highways don't belong in a city, streets belong in a city.

Steve O

The next thing you will be proposing is that they put 'WALK and DON'T WALK' signs at each intersection along the Perimeter. What next? A bicycle Path on the Perimeter???

The governments of Manitoba and the City have to work together and combine their monies that will be put aside to build the roads that are needed to move traffic around in the Winnipeg area. Both governments are working on their own agendas and duplicating costs that have no benefit for the common good.

I agree with others who have posted that surface intersection serve no useful purposed and should be changed (immediately) in the foreseeable future.

The City of Winnipeg has control of Planning regulations within 20 kms of the City and should be aware of future development that effects the roadways in and around the City. Developers should contribute to build new roadways to and from outlying developments, I.E. Pritchard Farm Properties on Henderson, Oakbank, LaSalle, Oak Bluff, etc. Someone should be collecting funds for future road building to and from these Communities and not just placing the burden upon the citizens of Winnipeg to foot the bill for new access roads.

Point in question is, Oakbank places a burden on Hwy 15 and PR213 Garven Rd. each and every day. The so-called proposal of joining at new bridge over the floodway to CPT does sound inviting, but what are they going to do with the CPrail crossing at PR207? another overpass? And, how about the Perimeter too? Not going to happen in my lifetime.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by alittle1

Point in question is, Oakbank places a burden on Hwy 15 and PR213 Garven Rd. each and every day. The so-called proposal of joining at new bridge over the floodway to CPT does sound inviting, but what are they going to do with the CPrail crossing at PR207? another overpass? And, how about the Perimeter too? Not going to happen in my lifetime.

It has been a while since I have seen the plans for the Oakbank corridor so I am sure the details have changed. It had nothing to do with joining HWY 15 and PR213. Instead it is effectively a four lane replacement for HWY 15 between PR207 and PR206. The existing HWY 15 road would likely be converted to a local road not unlike what happened when Inkster west of route 90 was chopped up and made into Roser Rd.

With the new route running entirely north of the CP Rail line no new crossing would be needed. In terms of the connection at the Perimeter the corridor would have a single interchange that addressed the needs of CPT, the Oakbank corridor and what is currently Gunn Rd. In terms of Gunn Rd this will be similar to what happened with Springfield at Lag where the old high traffic route is replaced by the newer road (CPT) and the old route loses direct access to the high speed route.

I never heard the exact plan but I would imagine the new corridor would cross PR206 and then curl back to the south hooking into HWY 15 just east of Dugald with its only crossing of the CP Rail line at that point. Traffic going to or from Dugald would enter at this point. It is not ideal but the entire route could be set up with only three grade separations in Springfield (PR207,PR206 and the CP Rail line.

[mcpish]

I'm at the CPT workshop right now. Looks like they are seriously looking at interchanges for both main and mcphillips. Lots of placards for the various examples they are thinking. Single Point urban interchange, parclo, diamond, and even flyover. Looks promising, very different tone than that open house last fall.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

If we truly wanted to "improve safety" the best thing we can do is slow cars down where pedestrians are present...

And that's assuming we don't make the perimeter free-flow the whole way -- something I have supported.

Originally Posted by alittle1

Steve O

The next thing you will be proposing is that they put 'WALK and DON'T WALK' signs at each intersection along the Perimeter. What next? A bicycle Path on the Perimeter???

It's a little disingenuous to only quote part of what I said. I try not to use slippery slope, straw men, and appeals to emotion, but I suppose that can't be said for some of us. Perhaps you should attack the validity of the argument instead.

But the thing is I agree with you. At-grade intersections and rail crossings on the perimeter should be eliminated. As for CPT, if the Perimeter is completed with no at-grade intersections or rail crossings then I think it's a pointless road and a duplication of cost with no real value to the general public, or either provincial or civic government.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

As for CPT, if the Perimeter is completed with no at-grade intersections or rail crossings then I think it's a pointless road and a duplication of cost with no real value to the general public, or either provincial or civic government.

'

Claiming CPT is "a pointless road and a duplication of costs" would mean the same could be said about Bishop, a road few would dare to attempt to take away. Let me explain why I strongly disagree that CPT is not needed.

In the north side of the city we have development from the east side of the Perimeter all the way to route 90. Currently to get from the start of development to route 90 on the north side this would be your approximate route:

Gunn Rd, Plessis, Grassie (a residential street), Lag, CPT, Main, Lelia (a residential street), McPhillips, Inkster (through a residential stretch).

In comparison, at a similar distance from the Perimeter on the south side of the city, development starts approximately at Lag. To reach route 90 you take the following route:

Bishop Grandin.

The plan to build out CPT is to establish a similar route on the north side of Winnipeg at a similar distance from the Perimeter as Bishop on the south. For comparison, if Bishop didn't exist the south side route would likely be:

Fermor, Osborne, Jubille (residential), Pembina, Taylor which is still using fewer streets than the north side currently needs.

It is also worth mentioning that Bishop is a high speed route while the majority of the streets needed on the north side are not. There are a lot of people living on the north side and it is time to invest in infrastructure for them and to support the continued growth inside the Perimeter.

[EastK]

Originally Posted by mcpish

I'm at the CPT workshop right now. Looks like they are seriously looking at interchanges for both main and mcphillips. Lots of placards for the various examples they are thinking. Single Point urban interchange, parclo, diamond, and even flyover. Looks promising, very different tone than that open house last fall.

I hope you're right about that. While the Chief Peguis extension is nice they really messed up the intersection with Lag. I don't understand why this city is allergic to interchanges and merge lanes. Even the right hand turn has a traffic light when there is easily enough room for a merge lane. Instead you have to come to a complete stop for a minute or so till the light changes.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by CoryB

'

Claiming CPT is "a pointless road and a duplication of costs" would mean the same could be said about Bishop, a road few would dare to attempt to take away. Let me explain why I strongly disagree that CPT is not needed.

In the north side of the city we have development from the east side of the Perimeter all the way to route 90. Currently to get from the start of development to route 90 on the north side this would be your approximate route:

Gunn Rd, Plessis, Grassie (a residential street), Lag, CPT, Main, Lelia (a residential street), McPhillips, Inkster (through a residential stretch).

In comparison, at a similar distance from the Perimeter on the south side of the city, development starts approximately at Lag. To reach route 90 you take the following route:

Bishop Grandin.

The plan to build out CPT is to establish a similar route on the north side of Winnipeg at a similar distance from the Perimeter as Bishop on the south. For comparison, if Bishop didn't exist the south side route would likely be:

Fermor, Osborne, Jubille (residential), Pembina, Taylor which is still using fewer streets than the north side currently needs.

It is also worth mentioning that Bishop is a high speed route while the majority of the streets needed on the north side are not. There are a lot of people living on the north side and it is time to invest in infrastructure for them and to support the continued growth inside the Perimeter.

You got me... I completely understand where you are coming from now. You want to subsidize single occupancy vehicles so they can commute from one side of the City to the other as fast as humanly possible. All at the expense of the possibility of creating some sort of community.

I agree that a direct route would be beneficial, but I disagree that it needs to be high speed. High speed streets (or stroads, if you want to use the Strong Towns vernacular) through the City destroy value, are unsafe, and function poorly. As I said before, the difference between 80km/h and 50km/h when you are talking the distances we travel within the City are around 11 minutes.

EDIT: I have the same feelings for Bishop.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

It's a little disingenuous to only quote part of what I said. I try not to use slippery slope, straw men, and appeals to emotion, but I suppose that can't be said for some of us. Perhaps you should attack the validity of the argument instead.

But the thing is I agree with you. At-grade intersections and rail crossings on the perimeter should be eliminated. As for CPT, if the Perimeter is completed with no at-grade intersections or rail crossings then I think it's a pointless road and a duplication of cost with no real value to the general public, or either provincial or civic government.

Steve O and Cory,

The problem that I see with the proposal is 'lack of communication' between the Local Municipalities and the City (the Provence). The Proposal, starting from Oakbank (PR 206) extending to PR 207 (Deacon's Rd. North) to the West, has a dual track CPR mainline running on a diagonal from NE to SW. Somewhere on this line a flyover has to be constructed because of where Springfield Rd. (RM of Sprfld) meets PR 207 and CPR Main line. West of there, the roadway has to duck under 3 power lines, and go over the Floodway, and the Perimeter highway. With the roadway now on the North side of the CP line, the next obstacle is going thru a couple of wrecking yards at Redonda over to Day Street. At Day Street, we have a CP spur that goes into the North Transcona CP Yards, this has to be crossed to get into the open area North of Gunn Rd. and make its way behind AutoPac to Plessis Rd. This is all Springfield Municipality!

Crossing Plessis and joining to CPT is a breeze if they stay to the North of Grassie Blvd.

Any proposal that suggests a roadway going to the south side of the CPR main line is in trouble, bigtime! The stopper are Transport Rd. Industrial Park, Border Chemical, residential area on S/S of Gunn Rd. and Plessis Rd.

This is an aerial photo looking west from the Perimeter towards CPT (at the top right of the picture) Gunn Rd is to the lower left and the CP main is the converging line that meets at Plessis Rd. The area to the south of the North Transcona Yards is the proposed CPT that turns south to Join Edward Schreyer Parkway.

[CoryB]

As most of CPT east of Lag falls into Springfield and this road would be a provincial highway there was fewer communications issues. It is pretty much the Province, the RM of Springfield and possibly the feds that need

If I am not mistaken, as CPT crosses Lag the CPR mainline is just north of there. The route would then stay south of the mainline the whole run. In terms of the spur line, it would seem the plan it to keep CPT north of the MPI compound, jump the spur northeast for Gunn and Day. Likely have a diamond (aka traffic lights) at Gunn and Day serving both roads. Go under the Perimeter and across the floodway with an at-grade bridge. The Hydro lines would be similar to HWY 59 near Birds Hill (town). For PR207 setup a diamond with the east-west route free flowing. At PR206 the east to south route would use a stop sign similar to the north to west transition at the Perimeter the CCW.

Once the CPT west build out is done I would guess the focus will shift to Lag-Perimeter leg. The Perimeter-PR206/HWY15 piece will wait out the St Nobert by-pass but would seem to be close behind that on priorities in the greater capital region. The only other one I see under consideration is HWY 6 to Sturgeon Rd or Sturgeon Access.

[yellowghost]

Ya know...I used to be a firm believer in a freeway system in this city. Either a inner "ring" road or a north- south and a east-west. But now that I am on my third busted sway bar link in less than a year and now my car is making some new suspension related problem, I say screw it...use the money and fix the roads. You might get a few interchanges built over the years but that will over turn the controlled intersections to either side of it into major bottlenecks. We will never have a full one so why bother tryin to begin. For petes sake, I dont even enjoy driving my 73 plymouth that much anymore. Theres not enough smooth roads I can drive it on.

[alittle1]

Originally Posted by yellowghost

Ya know...I used to be a firm believer in a freeway system in this city. Either a inner "ring" road or a north- south and a east-west. But now that I am on my third busted sway bar link in less than a year and now my car is making some new suspension related problem, I say screw it...use the money and fix the roads. You might get a few interchanges built over the years but that will over turn the controlled intersections to either side of it into major bottlenecks. We will never have a full one so why bother tryin to begin. For petes sake, I dont even enjoy driving my 73 plymouth that much anymore. Theres not enough smooth roads I can drive it on.

Just a thought, but have you ever thought of putting some QA1 adjustable coil-overs on that old Plymouth to adjust to the different road conditions that you've been encountering?

[yellowghost]

Originally Posted by alittle1

Just a thought, but have you ever thought of putting some QA1 adjustable coil-overs on that old Plymouth to adjust to the different road conditions that you've b������een encountering?

Yeah theres a few different kits out there..all pricey. But I just rebuilt the front suspension two summers ago. I already bought two brand new torsion bars , so too late to change directions now.