Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[Biff]

The Headingley Bypass has been put on hold till at least 2020 or later. There are still some ongoing land negotiations but all of the Perimeter related efforts are focused on the redevelopment of the South Perimeter.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

The Headingley Bypass has been put on hold till at least 2020 or later. There are still some ongoing land negotiations but all of the Perimeter related efforts are focused on the redevelopment of the South Perimeter.

Thanks for the tidbit.

Seems to me that Manitoba Infrastructure is doing this the right way... it makes sense to fix an existing piece of well-used infrastructure before moving on to building something new.

I wonder when we're going to start seeing some action on the south Perimeter? We've been hearing bits and pieces about improvements to come for quite a while now, but unless I'm forgetting something, I don't think there has been anything of significance done to that stretch of road in a very long time.

[bomberjet]

Biff. The legend. Always in the know. Thanks Biff.

[Reignman]

I've heard suggestions on here that the south perimeter rebuild will involve adding a third lane only and no interchanges at the start. I really really hope that's innacurate.

Can somebody (Biff?) confirm or deny that?

[bomberjet]

That would be the dumbest thing ever. Are three lanes actually needed? I don't think so. If you made it a freeway, that would help traffic flow/volumes immensely.

[esquire]

^ Yeah, I've driven on a lot of 4 lane highways that were much busier than the Perimeter. What makes them flow is the absence of at-grade intersections.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Speaking of the Headingley Bypass, I wonder what the timeline is looking like that for that project?

From what I recall they were working on proposed routes for the Headingley bypass and were going to come back to the public. The CPT west extension presented their planned route and is now doing their second round on the proposed route. Considering the bypass hasn't hit the first presentation stage it gives you a sense where things fall.

It could also be worth considering that politically the Headingley area has some history as more of a swing riding both provincially and federally compared to the Springfield/Oak Bank area that is waiting on its own highway project. In terms of need both would likely score similar on a provincial level.

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That would be the dumbest thing ever. Are three lanes actually needed? I don't think so. If you made it a freeway, that would help traffic flow/volumes immensely.

I have to agree. The problems on the south Perimeter at not that the existing lanes are truly at capacity but the design in the area is extremely poor leading to congestion issues. Adding more lanes doesn't address the poor design aspect of the area.

[bomberjet]

From what Biff described a while back now, they were going to design for future 3 lane expansion. All bridges would be built for 3 lanes. The roadway base would be widen to account for more median space and for the future lane. The pavement would be installed to two lanes at first. Making it easy to add the third lane later since the base is already built. And lighting would be added for the whole stretch. That is my expectation for the 100 rebuild. And with interchanges and no median openings hahaha

[WildCake]

New and rehabed bridges should be built to accomodate a 3rd lane since the perimeter will likely need three lanes in the foreseeable future and within the lifespan of new infrastructure. That being said, grade separation should be done well before a 3rd lane is added. The only 2 locations on perimeter might warrant a 3rd lane right now are the red river crossings (north & south).

Having lights every 3 kilometers or so on south perimeter changes the dynamics of traffic flow, where traffic becomes more clustered in large packs, making merging difficult when a cluster is passing and creating the illusion that the highway is busier than it is. With free flow there would be larger gaps between cars, easing a merges.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

From what Biff described a while back now, they were going to design for future 3 lane expansion. All bridges would be built for 3 lanes. The roadway base would be widen to account for more median space and for the future lane. The pavement would be installed to two lanes at first. Making it easy to add the third lane later since the base is already built. And lighting would be added for the whole stretch. That is my expectation for the 100 rebuild. And with interchanges and no median openings hahaha

This^^^. The road bed and ditches will be built for 3 lanes but constructed with 2. MIT realizes their priority involves limiting access points and widening the median to current highway standards. From my conversations interchanges will be designed for St Anne's, St Mary's, Kenaston, Brady/330 and 2/3.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Biff

From my conversations interchanges will be designed for St Anne's, St Mary's, Kenaston, Brady/330 and 2/3.

That's basically all of the major intersections on the south Perimeter... the other roads intersecting with the south Perimeter can all be closed. Except for one... Waverley. It's a bit awkward because it's a somewhat busy road but given proximity to Kenaston and Pembina it wouldn't make sense to build a grade separation. I wonder what MB Infrastructure has planned for that? Perhaps reroute Waverley to the west so that it could just run right into Kenaston and use that interchange?

[bomberjet]

What about the rail crossings Biff? Any plans for those?

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by esquire

That's basically all of the major intersections on the south Perimeter... the other roads intersecting with the south Perimeter can all be closed. Except for one... Waverley. It's a bit awkward because it's a somewhat busy road but given proximity to Kenaston and Pembina it wouldn't make sense to build a grade separation. I wonder what MB Infrastructure has planned for that? Perhaps reroute Waverley to the west so that it could just run right into Kenaston and use that interchange?

Waverley is the Kenaston interchange. Waverley will be closed completely when that goes ahead. I think the Kenaston interchange could go ahead regardless of the St. Norbert bypass.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Waverley is the Kenaston interchange. Waverley will be closed completely when that goes ahead.

Thank goodness.

As for railways, the only grade separation that is really needed is for the CP line to the USA just east of St. Anne's. That's the only railway grade separation anywhere on the Perimeter that is really necessary right now... the rest of the at-grade crossings are fairly lightly used trackage.

[bomberjet]

Ya they are. I would hope the rail crossing near PR 330 could be worked into an overall grade sep plan. Make one of the horseshoe style interchanges. Which are essentially parclos. The plan the Province had with the 330 interchange seems a bit too close to the Kenaston interchange for my liking.

CP Emerson Sub, between St. Annes and Lag, will be difficult to grade separate due ot the proximity of the Lag interchange. Probably need to raise the ramps/exit lanes.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Ya they are. I would hope the rail crossing near PR 330 could be worked into an overall grade sep plan. Make one of the horseshoe style interchanges. Which are essentially parclos. The plan the Province had with the 330 interchange seems a bit too close to the Kenaston interchange for my liking.

Yes, good point. Now that you mention it I seem to recall that the government's initial plan for the 330/100 interchange called for 330 to be pushed east for no apparent reason. I remember wondering why they didn't just do a horseshoe like at Wilkes or Inkster... since there's a grade separation anyway, why not kill two birds with one stone? That would also provide a little more distance between 330 and Kenaston.

[bomberjet]

Theres actually a link to the 330 functional plan in the OP opf this thread. However it no longer functions. I'll see if I have a copy of the plan on my home PC.

But yeah, it pushed 330 eastward to get away from the rail crossing. Future plan had an interchange and 4 lane roadway going northwards into the lands east of Brady road.

Basically if you could include the rail grade seps as part of another roadway grade sep, than that's great. If you're building grade seps for the lower used lines, find away to move those tracks and close the crossing.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

What about the rail crossings Biff? Any plans for those?

I don't know really. The line just east of St Anne's will be an interesting one considering it is close to and equidistant St Anne's and 59.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Biff

This^^^. The road bed and ditches will be built for 3 lanes but constructed with 2. MIT realizes their priority involves limiting access points and widening the median to current highway standards. From my conversations interchanges will be designed for St Anne's, St Mary's, Kenaston, Brady/330 and 2/3.

I am not an expert on what was designed but driving by them looks like the newly constructed CCW overpass was built with two lanes of through traffic each direction and the rehabbed Assinboine River Bridge also looks like 2 lanes each direction. Would love to see the business case to support doing a full rehab on the Inkster Roser overpass to expand it from 4 to six lanes. The Red River/Henderson overall is also going to be a costly one.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am not an expert on what was designed but driving by them looks like the newly constructed CCW overpass was built with two lanes of through traffic each direction and the rehabbed Assinboine River Bridge also looks like 2 lanes each direction. Would love to see the business case to support doing a full rehab on the Inkster Roser overpass to expand it from 4 to six lanes. The Red River/Henderson overall is also going to be a costly one.

I've been thinking about this one recently, as I've gone through that area quite a bit. That'll be expensive. There were some plans that came out as part of the 59 interchange. Just some ramp modifications for the Henderson interchange. But when that Red River bridge comes up for rehab, it won't be cheap. I bet they keep using the same piers and build off that. I'm sure they could expand to six lanes with the current piers. Maybe not though based on new standards for loading. That's not a small bridge.