Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension

[DowntownWpg]

Originally Posted by Biff

The problem seems to be closed minded thinking - or so it seems. I think i would be crazy to think the city does not look at all options but it seems like it here. I have talked to some of the top city engineers on this project and they seem to say an underpass will cost between $25 and $40 million because of relocation of utilities and lift stations etc. I can see how that can break a project with an overall value of approx $65 million. But where is the option of a simple OVERPASS. No relocation of utilities, a 4 lane bridge over Rothesay with no access to the residential street. How much might that bridge cost - $10 to $15 million. Seems doable.

Maybe there is something I don't understand, but why would they not consider having Rothesay as the street that becomes a bridge passing over the CP Trail (as in, CP Trail is built on the surface), no need to dig down and move sewers around, etc. As well, there would be no Rothesay to CP Trail onramps. They can drive to Henderson (or Gateway/Raleigh ?) if they want to get on the CP Trail.

This way, they only need to build an overpass bridge for Rothesay that is two lanes wide, rather than 4 lanes if it were the CP Trail as the overpassing bridge.

Just to provide a crude visual of what I'm trying having trouble explaining:

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

Maybe there is something I don't understand, but why would they not consider having Rothesay as the street that becomes a bridge passing over the CP Trail (as in, CP Trail is built on the surface), no need to dig down and move sewers around, etc. As well, there would be no Rothesay to CP Trail onramps. They can drive to Henderson (or Gateway/Raleigh ?) if they want to get on the CP Trail.

This way, they only need to build an overpass bridge for Rothesay that is two lanes wide, rather than 4 lanes if it were the CP Trail as the overpassing bridge.

Just to provide a crude visual of what I'm trying having trouble explaining:

That's what the original proposal was, before they "modified" it to be an intersection with an "eventual" Rothesay at-grade overpass.

What most of us are saying is that they should just stick to the plan on what it was, and do it right the first time, and not be so cost conscious about it because in the long run, it WILL cost more than what was planned at the time.

The same would go to other proposals around this city as well, but that will go into other existing topics in this board.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by DowntownWpg

Maybe there is something I don't understand, but why would they not consider having Rothesay as the street that becomes a bridge passing over the CP Trail (as in, CP Trail is built on the surface), no need to dig down and move sewers around, etc. As well, there would be no Rothesay to CP Trail onramps. They can drive to Henderson (or Gateway/Raleigh ?) if they want to get on the CP Trail.

This way, they only need to build an overpass bridge for Rothesay that is two lanes wide, rather than 4 lanes if it were the CP Trail as the overpassing bridge.

Just to provide a crude visual of what I'm trying having trouble explaining:

The problem and reason why they can't do that is there are houses built up to the right of way for the Chief Peguis Trail. You wouldn't be able to build a bridge for that street unless you bought up some houses on either side. The Expressway is the only way to build an over/underpass. Good idea though.

[0773|=\]

^Approaches to that require a lot more soil and cost more money. If it's an 80 km/hr design speed, I'd said it's nice, but not necessary (the level-ness of CPTrail, obviously the grade-separation is needed if it's close to several schools!). Those type of overpasses will be reserved for routes like the Perimeter.

That being said, I've never seen the area of this proposed intersection, but I understand what you mean. In Edmonton, if you drive along Whitemud Drive or Yellowhead Trail (the two major thoroughfares through our city) most interchanges are dig-outs, and it makes your trip feel like a roller-coaster ride of sorts!

[DowntownWpg]

Thanks for the info guys! Good to know.

[0773|=\]

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

That's what the original proposal was, before they "modified" it to be an intersection with an "eventual" Rothesay at-grade overpass.

What most of us are saying is that they should just stick to the plan on what it was, and do it right the first time, and not be so cost conscious about it because in the long run, it WILL cost more than what was planned at the time.

The same would go to other proposals around this city as well, but that will go into other existing topics in this board.

In Alberta, we've found P3 funding on road-related projects to work out very well. I know this is opening a can of worms when it comes to other public infrastructure, but as long is the contract is written out in good detail, it can lower the costs of construction and often gets projects built in half the time. Check out the SE leg of Edmonton's ring road. 11 kilometer freeway built in 2 years, with a 40-year warranty. Conventional delivery can't compete with that.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

In Alberta, we've found P3 funding on road-related projects to work out very well. I know this is opening a can of worms when it comes to other public infrastructure, but as long is the contract is written out in good detail, it can lower the costs of construction and often gets projects built in half the time. Check out the SE leg of Edmonton's ring road. 11 kilometer freeway built in 2 years, with a 40-year warranty. Conventional delivery can't compete with that.

Our city government was saying that this, along with other projects around this city, will be, or at least should be, P3 projects.

[DowntownWpg]

Caught Browaty on the news yesterday, talking about the CP Trail extension and the intersection/overpass controversy. The drunkard fumbled around trying to advocate both... believe it or not. Started his statement by yapping that is should be a controlled intersection with lights, because the project will get done faster and more cost effective that way. Then, without really a segway, he was blabbing about how it is of vital importance it is built as an overpass.

He eventually caught the fault of his argument, and tried to smooth it out with a statement like "build it as an intersection with lights... then one day we can easily turn it into an overpass." (my commentary: as if! We know that once it gets finished, they ain't going to be doing a major modification in the next few decades).

Browaty is an idiot.

[rrskylar]

^Browaty is ineffective at best, even at that he's better than the last idiot ''failure to launch" Lu-botch. I'm sorry to report that I have voted for both, but that mistake won't happen again!


As for the clusterfuck the CP extension is becoming, would you expect anything different in Winnipeg and in particular in this quadrant of the city.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

^Browaty is ineffective at best, even at that he's better than the last idiot ''failure to launch" Lu-botch. I'm sorry to report that I have voted for both, but that mistake won't happen again!


As for the clusterfuck the CP extension is becoming, would you expect anything different in Winnipeg and in particular in this quadrant of the city.

Probably not. With how things are being ran in this city right now WITHOUT a city planner, we're basically stuck in an endless and vicious circle of repeated mistakes from the past, yet again.

[MrGrinch]

Sorry for bringing up an old thread, but with the CentrePort announcement yesterday perhaps an appropriate time to ask this question.

I noticed the map presented in the Free Press today re: the CentrePort project demonstrated how the CP Extension would connect to Centreport. It seems (albeit based on the unlabeled map) like the plan in the NW corner of Winnipeg is:

1) to create a new road running from Main @ CP Bridge to McPhillips, and
2) then use Templeton to connect Brookside Blvd to McPhillips

I know the long-term plan in concept is indeed to have Templeton curve southwest so that's what makes me think they have Templeton in mind.

Does anyone know if this is the case? Couldn't find anything on the city's capital projects website.

Thanks.

[Only The Lonely..]

I noticed that too.

The real shame is how phase two of the CPT is so riddled with lights.

I can't imagine what it will be like once 18 wheelers from Centreport start crossing NK residential streets at grade.

Nevermind the fact that on Rothesay street you have four schools and a daycare nearby.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail and we will get some flyovers put in place.

[Biff]

The idea is to construct Chief Peguis from Main St west along the edge of existing development (south of Murray Rd & Storie Rd) curving SW around the furthest extent of Amber Trails (north of Templeton) into the Inkster/Brookside area. The city is currently assembling land now. If you zoom in on google earth you can an outline of some type of ditch or something that essentially is the same path.

[MrGrinch]

^^^^

I hope by “north of Templeton” you don’t mean the current Templeton! I am going to fess up right now and say that I am one of those residents in Amber Trails and just a stone’s throw (4 houses away) from the current Templeton. Maybe I am jumping the gun… but obviously I am concerned about the noise and pollution, and hopefully they have the ability to move it well north of the current Templeton. Don’t get me wrong… I am all for the project and frankly feel that the north end gets the short end of the stick in terms of infrastructure development. If it has to be there, so be it. But it just would have been nice for the city to advise those of us purchasing $300k+ homes over the past few years in advance that they were planning on putting a freeway adjacent to our backyards so that we could have made different lot choices.

I did manage to find a nice Amber Trails concept drawing on Genstar’s website… and it does show the road running well north of the current Templeton. Hopefully the city sticks to this and gives the people buying new lots along the road advance warning.

http://www.genstar.com/comm_phase.asp?ID=214

[Reed Solomon]

I don't see how templeton could be considered as a major route. at no point is it wide enough. im pretty sure its only two lanes.

[hexrae]

While I understand your concern, wouldn't you take "north of Templeton" to mean...north of Templeton and not Templeton? It's not like I'd say, Selkirk is Northeast of Winnipeg and then it'd be on top of West St. Paul. Although, I'm sure stranger things have happened in Winnipeg

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by MrGrinch

^^^^

I hope by “north of Templeton” you don’t mean the current Templeton! I am going to fess up right now and say that I am one of those residents in Amber Trails and just a stone’s throw (4 houses away) from the current Templeton. Maybe I am jumping the gun… but obviously I am concerned about the noise and pollution, and hopefully they have the ability to move it well north of the current Templeton. Don’t get me wrong… I am all for the project and frankly feel that the north end gets the short end of the stick in terms of infrastructure development. If it has to be there, so be it. But it just would have been nice for the city to advise those of us purchasing $300k+ homes over the past few years in advance that they were planning on putting a freeway adjacent to our backyards so that we could have made different lot choices.

I did manage to find a nice Amber Trails concept drawing on Genstar’s website… and it does show the road running well north of the current Templeton. Hopefully the city sticks to this and gives the people buying new lots along the road advance warning.

http://www.genstar.com/comm_phase.asp?ID=214

You mean, something like this right?



That red line runs along the old CP Rail line that used to be there. If you look closely in Google Earth, you can see the old bank that used to have the rail line there.

As for a future extension west of Main Street to McPhillips, I believe the alignment would look something like this...


It's questionable, I know, but it seems logical and plausible. Here's the overall look of Chief Peguis Trail for the long term inner ring road plan from the 60's...

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by MrGrinch

^^^^

I hope by “north of Templeton” you don’t mean the current Templeton! I am going to fess up right now and say that I am one of those residents in Amber Trails and just a stone’s throw (4 houses away) from the current Templeton. Maybe I am jumping the gun… but obviously I am concerned about the noise and pollution, and hopefully they have the ability to move it well north of the current Templeton. Don’t get me wrong… I am all for the project and frankly feel that the north end gets the short end of the stick in terms of infrastructure development. If it has to be there, so be it. But it just would have been nice for the city to advise those of us purchasing $300k+ homes over the past few years in advance that they were planning on putting a freeway adjacent to our backyards so that we could have made different lot choices.

I did manage to find a nice Amber Trails concept drawing on Genstar’s website… and it does show the road running well north of the current Templeton. Hopefully the city sticks to this and gives the people buying new lots along the road advance warning.

http://www.genstar.com/comm_phase.asp?ID=214

When you buy a home that backs on to a long narrow stretch of city owned property that looks like it might be set aside for a roadway there is a good chance that one day that long narrow stretch of property will be a road.

[rrskylar]

On another note I can't wait until trueviking starts complaining about the total destruction by an increase in noise and exhaust fumes of his quietville neighbourhood (behind the current Cheif Peguis Trail wall) and how residents of quietville never wanted the Chief Peguis Trail or Settlers bridge built because the city awarded quietville a variance in perpetuity against noise, light, dust, movement of time past 1974, construction, insects and whatever else bothered them.

[1ajs]

cheif pequis where u nave it meeting regen could not be don there as thats a nature preserve there

it would most likly turn and use plessis also back in there is all marsh