Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[Jeff]

All of this makes me wonder, having just driven through Brandon, if that city is the largest city in Canada (maybe the world??) without a single overpass. I know they just did extensive work to the service roads off of the TransCanada to eventually get something done. The traffic in that city warrants some modern infrastructure someday hopefully.

[Dengler Avenue]

Without substantial contribution from the private sector (for PPP), doing all of that is basically impossible.

I just feel that, as cost rises, PPP will be only way to go from here on.

[bomberjet]

^ It'll be billions. Your numbers are reasonable just for the structures themselves. Then add in the roadways and all the other miscellaneous crap.

59N/101 is over $200M in 2014 dollars. It's quite elaborate by Manitoba standards and includes lots of roadway works. I would liken 59N/101 to the CCW/101 interchange. Kenaston/St. Norbert bypass would be similar.

[bomberjet]

On P3's. I've grown weary of them. The contractors are all about skimping out on every aspect. The owner really needs to stand firm and not be bullied by the contractors. In general P3's may be cheaper short term, but likely won't provide the best product in the end.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Yea to fully upgrade perimeter will be a large chunk of change.

Like your ideas. I think the solution to Portage and Pembina though is adding fly over ramps and limiting commercial truck traffic at both.

So Portage Ave NB to EB fly-over and SB to WB fly-over.

Pembina could like lose EB to NB and WB to SB. Both those would take the yield exit and then make left turns at grade using traffic lights in diamond interchange style.

Honestly not sure there is even enough space to make the SB/EB fly over happen for Portage Ave due to the tight constraints on the site. That is heavily trafficked currently by personal vehicles in addition to commercial trucks as is WB to SB so you can't easily close one off even after the Headingley by-pass opens. That is mostly just moving the commercial truck traffic.

[Dengler Avenue]

But then it’s gonna take forever to build anything... (referring to bomberjet’s comment)

[Biff]

The thing about the 59/101 N interchange making it so expensive is that there is a shitload of roadwork included. There is almost 10km of totally reconstructed 6 lane roadway + repaving of double that in service roads included in that $204 million budget. Overall probably a $120 million interchange.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Like your ideas. I think the solution to Portage and Pembina though is adding fly over ramps and limiting commercial truck traffic at both.

So Portage Ave NB to EB fly-over and SB to WB fly-over.

Pembina could like lose EB to NB and WB to SB. Both those would take the yield exit and then make left turns at grade using traffic lights in diamond interchange style.

Honestly not sure there is even enough space to make the SB/EB fly over happen for Portage Ave due to the tight constraints on the site. That is heavily trafficked currently by personal vehicles in addition to commercial trucks as is WB to SB so you can't easily close one off even after the Headingley by-pass opens. That is mostly just moving the commercial truck traffic.

Interesting ideas, although aren't flyovers implemented when a loop ramp is not enough ( i e you need high capacity for a lot of traffic)? They're pretty expensive and need a lot of space. Both the pembina and portage interchanges were one of the first interchanges built in the province and are constrained by nearby development.

My thoughs for my last post was that because pembina and portage will have the nearby bypasses (st nob and headingley, respectively) they will actually see a reduction in use, especially for commercial truck traffic and would not need large and expensive flyovers, but could be downgraded to an interchange design with less weaving, which would add additional lights on pembina and portage.

[bomberjet]

You build the fly-overs going over the existing bridge. More stack interchange than 59N/101 flyover. Wildcake is proposing they be reduced to parclo's as the heavy traffic is diverted the new highway network (St. Norbert and Headingley bypasses)

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

But then it’s gonna take forever to build anything... (referring to bomberjet’s comment)

Does it? I'm not sure what type of financing mechanisms the governments use to fund projects. But to my knowledge, they largely borrow money anyways. They usually don't save money to fund projects. It's paid off as debt. Maybe I' wrong on that.

So if they're paying a contractor vs a bank, is there really that much difference?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Does it? I'm not sure what type of financing mechanisms the governments use to fund projects. But to my knowledge, they largely borrow money anyways. They usually don't save money to fund projects. It's paid off as debt. Maybe I' wrong on that.

So if they're paying a contractor vs a bank, is there really that much difference?

I guess it really depends on how much the government ends up paying then.

Could it be that PPP makes more political sense? For example, instead of dumping $3B in one go, all of a sudden the government's only paying $25M instead (if it can find 120 companies to join). At least, for the time being.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

You build the fly-overs going over the existing bridge. More stack interchange than 59N/101 flyover. Wildcake is proposing they be reduced to parclo's as the heavy traffic is diverted the new highway network (St. Norbert and Headingley bypasses)

The change to Portage Ave though largely ignores that most of the traffic is private vehicles, not commercial trucks. Also there is no direct access between Portage Ave/HWY 1 and CentrePortCanada Way/Headingley By-Pass. Same is true for Pembina and Kennaston/St Norbert by-pass.

[bomberjet]

I was just talking in a general sense for the fly-overs. Nothing like that should/would be built at Portage.

In terms of the highway network, there is a shit ton of truck traffic using the Portage interchange. It's the Trans Canada. They have to use the old cloverleaf and when exiting NB 101 to WB #1, they slow right down on the ramp. With Headingley Bypass, all truck traffic will be routed there. A fly-over of some sort would be the best solution instead of more loops, so trucks vehicles could maintain speed. Likely why the loop were never built. Hopefully?

For routing. If a vehicle was coming from the USA. They'd head north on 75, exit onto the new St. Norbert bypass via a fly-over. Travel on the bypass and connect to 100 and Kenaston. Again, fly-over to direct them onto WB 101. Travel around and up to CCW. Again, fly-over to get onto WB Headingley bypass. For the core route, directional ramps are best for the mainline. This is how interstates are built. Lesser routes get loops, and then diamonds.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Biff

The thing about the 59/101 N interchange making it so expensive is that there is a shitload of roadwork included. There is almost 10km of totally reconstructed 6 lane roadway + repaving of double that in service roads included in that $204 million budget. Overall probably a $120 million interchange.

Yeah. Lots of bridges and lots of roadway. Any of the interchange projects would also include a certain amount of roadway. I would assume each interchange project would include enough roadway to reach the midway point to the next interchange. So all the roadway would eventually be replaced.

[YWG-RO]

Spending $200 M per year will go a long way. Yes, it’s going to be a 10 year program, but at least there’s a plan now.

I see the need to move quickly on interchanges rather than 6 lanes. Widen when repaving is needed. There’s reasonable capacity at 4 lanes - the problem is the traffic signals. Even $1 B will make a huge difference.

[DancingDuck]

I know it's a ballpark estimate and doesn't include road widening etc, but $1 billion for all the interchanges/overpasses seems like a bargain when compared to the $450 million Kenaston/Route 90 "improvements"

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by DancingDuck

I know it's a ballpark estimate and doesn't include road widening etc, but $1 billion for all the interchanges/overpasses seems like a bargain when compared to the $450 million Kenaston/Route 90 "improvements"

Kenaston improvements involve a massive amount of expropriation and logistics to keep 2 lanes of traffic each way on the st james bridges during construction. The expropriation is the killer. Even the run down houses on kenaston could fetch at least 200K for sale on the market, so the city has to give the owners of each of those many propreties market value plus some. They also have to content with buried electrical, gas lines, and sewers which will likely be replaced.


Most interchanges proposed for perimeter don't even exist yet, so no structures in the way, they will be built on provincial land or need minimal expropriation of cheap farmland.

[Biff]

Improvements can't come soon enough

https://globalnews.ca/news/4401550/s...e_notification

[CoryB]

The big challenge with both Pembina and Portage as they are now is that even if you restrict/limit commercial truck traffic there is still a large volume of non-commercial traffic that access them from all four directions. As bad as the weaving pattern is they are likely to stay with commercial trucks possible being limited only by signs in favour of the two new by-passes.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Yet that is 100% wrong and could even get you found at-fault in a collision.

The accepted rules for multi-lane roadways is through traffic needs to yield the right most lane to other traffic attempting to enter the road way. Failure to follow that rule is a "Failure to Yield" moving violation, a similar infraction class to speeding and running a red light.

I see that happening daily and easily more than 50% of the vehicles on the Perimeter committing it.

And before someone asks, if a merging vehicle takes the right most lane and a vehicle already in that same lane collides with them it is not the entering vehicle that is at-fault in the collision if the other vehicle could have simply moved to the left....

That is not the driving practice I was referring to. I was referring to people who are simply travelling in the left lane while not passing (incl. passing any vehicle on the shoulder of the highway), intending to make a left turn or yielding to traffic entering the highway.

And yes, a driver is required to move to the left to allow a vehicle to enter a highway providing that the vehicle entering the highway is not subject to any traffic control device (ie. a yield sign).