Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Regarding CP. Railways would have agreed to a crossing originally. Not sure what exactly the agreement at McPhillips was.

Say it was for four lanes with no sidewalks and CP agreed to pay for 10% of the project.

If the City wants to expand to 6 lanes and add pathways on both sides, CP will only contribute 10% for the 4 lanes worth of the project. They ain't paying anything extra to be a good citizen I'll tell you what.

I wouldn't expect CP to pay more then they are required to. If my neighbour wants to redo his fence I can agree to pay 50% of our shared fence but you can be sure I wouldn't pay 50% of the rest of his fence just to be a good neighbour.

[plrh]

I have worked on a number of utility/rail crossings and usually CP doesn't even pay their own guy to inspect the work. The owner of the crossing utility or the contractor doing the work has to pay the wages of the CP guy inspecting the work on their right-of-way (depending on the contract). I don't disagree with it. Why should they care about a project that brings no value to them? I would imagine it would similar with roads; why should the rail lines be accommodating when they have nothing to gain from a project?

[pacman]

I agree, the tracks are already there so there's no benefit to the railways at all so no reason to pay a penny over and above their requirements. But sometimes being a good neighbour is simply eliminating roadblocks to proposed improvements in the vicinity. Wouldn't be the first time that there are crazy demands or requirements asked of property owners that simply add cost to the situation. Using the fence example, say you agree to share 50% of the fence costs with a neighbour but demand that you will only agree if the fence is precast concrete on piles instead of a standard pressure treated brown fence? Now your 50% portion ends up being more expensive than 100% of a basic solution, are you really being a good neighbour?

[buzzg]

I noticed the city planted a ton of new boulevard trees on Wellington Crescent between Academy and Grosvenor. I hope this is a pre-emptive plan to remove the (very) few trees that would be in the way of making separated bike lanes there. There’s sooooo much extra space on that section. And could easily find a way to connect all the way to River/Stradbrook.

[GreyGarden]

Does anyone know what the plan for Corydon is? Especially west of Stafford where all the construction is. I walked down it today and the sidewalk has been narrowed. I assume/hope it's temporary.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

Does anyone know what the plan for Corydon is? Especially west of Stafford where all the construction is. I walked down it today and the sidewalk has been narrowed. I assume/hope it's temporary.

It's all temporary. They are replacing everything with a nearly identical design. Except the intersection with Cambridge will be enlarged with left turn lanes.

[bomberjet]

Anybody know what this is all about?
http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/perm...00622(RM)AC-11

Agenda – Assiniboia Community Committee – June 22, 2020

REPORTS

Item No. 7 Wellington Crescent Riverbank, Path, and Roadway Project
(Charleswood-Tuxedo-Westwood Ward)

Councillor Klein, Charleswood-Tuxedo-Westwood Ward has submitted the following motion to
the Assiniboia Community Committee for consideration:

WHEREAS The City of Winnipeg has confirmed their intentions of proceeding with the selected
Wellington Crescent Riverbank, Path, and Roadway Project;

AND WHEREAS hundreds of residents have contacted the office of Councillor Klein and
Councillor Orlikow to share their opposition with the City of Winnipeg’s current plan, some of
those emails being forwarded to Councillor Klein’s

AND WHEREAS hundreds of area and effected residents were denied participation in the
stakeholder meeting,

AND WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg previously suggested closing that portion of the road for
an enhanced pedestrian and cyclists’ path which is no longer an option due to a traffic study not
made available to the area Councillor or residents,

AND WHEREAS there are a number of residents that feel the City of Winnipeg is ignoring their
concerns, issues, and suggestions;

AND WHEREAS the City of Winnipeg has not confirmed if the traffic study considered traffic
volumes over a 10 year period from Wellington Crescent and Academy Road to Wellington
Crescent and Park Blvd. Which would be a nearly 5KM stretch of residential road with NO
traffic calming measures, a safety hazard for all residents;

AND WHEREAS the issue has been evident since 2011 when the bike path collapsed and Public
Works indicated there was no rush;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Standing Policy on Infrastructure Renewal and Public
Works be requested to direct the Public Service to pause the Wellington Crescent Riverbank,
Path, and Roadway Project and schedule more community meetings and consider more
economical and alternative solutions.

[buzzg]

The riverbank is eroding and the city needs to shore it up, relocate underground infrastructure, and move or change where the road/path are. One early option was just closing Wellington permanently and converting that portion to AT only, which a lot of residents supported. City said no but wouldn't share traffic data to prove it'd be bad, or consult with them. City wants to move the road south to accommodate road relocations. Residents don't.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by buzzg

The riverbank is eroding and the city needs to shore it up, relocate underground infrastructure, and move or change where the road/path are. One early option was just closing Wellington permanently and converting that portion to AT only, which a lot of residents supported. City said no but wouldn't share traffic data to prove it'd be bad, or consult with them. City wants to move the road south to accommodate road relocations. Residents don't.

That's what they did on lyndale drive 3 years ago. They moved 600m of it 1m north and stabilized the riverbank.

[buzzg]

I think they’re saying “hey if we’re spending all this money anyway maybe there’s a better way to build this” as opposed to just moving the exact same thing over. I actually think cutting it off to vehicles isn’t that bad an idea as it’d take a lot of traffic going to Assiniboine Park from the east off of Wellington and onto Corydon/Grant.

[CoryB]

Wellington Ave west of Route 90 acts more as an arterial road than a residential one. There are no houses on it and it works to connect up a number of truly residential streets. Not sure how to check the snow clearing status but my gut feel is it is listed as a P2.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Wellington Ave west of Route 90 acts more as an arterial road than a residential one. There are no houses on it and it works to connect up a number of truly residential streets. Not sure how to check the snow clearing status but my gut feel is it is listed as a P2.

I just looked at the city snow web page and Wellington Ave is considered an Active Transportation route for snow clearing priority. It may not get cleared to the same standard as a P1 street but they get plowed before the P2's.

After Berry St. it reverts back to a P3 status.

If you meant Wellington Crescent it is also classed an Active Transport route for snow clearing.

https://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/snow...t-priority.stm

[bomberjet]

nevermind..

[esquire]

^ I'm cool with Winnipeg not building huge freeways, but at the same time it is weird that just about every other place has them yet somehow they are impossible here. And as you point out, whatever rinky dink versions we do build come with massive pricetags attached to them anyway.

[CoryB]

My thinking it that since Wellington Cres is classed so highly on snow clearing it means that it is an important traffic route in the city.

It is extremely difficult to get any route moved up beyond a P3 for snow clearing. Trust me I spent years having this conversation on a sole access, low traffic volume collector route. Does it need to be a full P2? Heck no. Does it need to be something better than a P3? Absolutely. Is there anything between P2 and P3? No. That is one of the big issues with the current snow clearing policy.

If the stretch of Wellington Cres people want closed to motorized vehicle traffic is indeed a "residential street" as that group is claiming I welcome them to actively push the city to reclassify it as such for snow clearing purposes first.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by CoryB

My thinking it that since Wellington Cres is classed so highly on snow clearing it means that it is an important traffic route in the city.

It is extremely difficult to get any route moved up beyond a P3 for snow clearing. Trust me I spent years having this conversation on a sole access, low traffic volume collector route. Does it need to be a full P2? Heck no. Does it need to be something better than a P3? Absolutely. Is there anything between P2 and P3? No. That is one of the big issues with the current snow clearing policy.

If the stretch of Wellington Cres people want closed to motorized vehicle traffic is indeed a "residential street" as that group is claiming I welcome them to actively push the city to reclassify it as such for snow clearing purposes first.

Well if it is closed off where it no longer is a through street to Assiniboine Park, that would make lots of sense.

[Biff]

I know i have always been a big booster of this kind of stuff happening and reiterated it on this forum many times....but I didn't figure I would honestly see it in my lifetime....

June 29, 2020
PROVINCE ANNOUNCES NEW INTERCHANGE
AT ST. MARY’S ROAD AND SOUTH PERIMETER HIGHWAY
- - -
Improvements Planned to Improve Safety and Traffic Flow
Along Major Economic Corridor: Schuler
As part of the $500-million Manitoba Restart Program, the province is planning to construct a new interchange to improve safety and the flow of traffic at the intersection of Provincial Trunk Highway (PTH) 100 and St. Mary’s Road, Infrastructure Minister Ron Schuler announced today.

“As part of the Trans-Canada Highway, the South Perimeter Highway is one of Manitoba’s most important trade corridors and plays a strategic role as it also connects with PTH 75, our major route to the United States,” said Schuler. “A new interchange will improve reliability and efficiency of Canada’s international and inter-provincial trade flows and support the growth of our economy.”

PTH 100 (South Perimeter Highway) and St. Mary’s Road is an at-grade intersection with traffic signals. The minister noted the intersection currently leads to high levels of traffic congestion during peak hours and has a high rate of vehicle collisions.

“The safety of the South Perimeter Highway has been a priority of our government, and these improvements will build on the measures we’ve taken over the past few years to create a safer and more efficient roadway for the approximately 30,000 vehicles that use it daily,” said Schuler. “With residential, commercial and industrial growth in south Winnipeg and communities south of the city, it is time to build the South Perimeter Highway to a freeway standard.”

In 2018, the province developed a South Perimeter Highway Safety Plan, which included closing some uncontrolled access points and median openings. It also launched a long-term South Perimeter Highway design study to reconstruct PTH 100 to a freeway standard with no at-grade crossings from the Trans-Canada Highway West interchange at Portage Avenue to the Trans-Canada Highway East interchange at Fermor Avenue. Intersecting roadways and railways would be separated through interchanges and overpasses. The province held public consultation and expects to complete its study this summer, the minister noted.

Schuler added the design study recommends an interchange at PTH 100 and St. Mary’s Road, and construction is expected to begin in 2021.

Funding for the St. Mary’s Road interchange is part of the $500-million Manitoba Restart Program, an economic stimulus package to help restart Manitoba’s economy and ramp up construction in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The province has included $65 million for major highway projects, including the PTH 100 and St. Mary’s Road interchange. Further projects funded under the Manitoba Restart Program will be announced in the coming weeks.

[esquire]

^ They've kind of framed it up as a covid stimulus thing, but I wonder if that's just PR and it was going to happen anyway?

Anyway, great news about eliminating a treacherous intersection. I am curious to see what the final form will look like... IIRC all of the concepts were varying degrees of unusual franken-interchanges instead of the standard parclo one might expect. It will be interesting to see how much it ends up costing too.

[buzzg]

Would this signal then that St. Mary's would likely be the first to get upgraded at Bishop then too, if we ever get anything? I know one is city and one province, but they must communicated on these things.

[bomberjet]

Good news the Province is making this effort. The Province said there is $65 million for highways in total. I'm not sure they can get this interchange done for that price.

Here is the plan for this area: