Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by (sub)urban

That interchange at Wilkes.... I don't even know man lol. By the time the ultimate plan is finally taking shape in like the 2040s, you gotta think Wilkes will be a higher-traffic, twinned road, and it doesn't look like this plan is accounting for any growth at all. It's just the same intersection with longer acceleration/de-celeration lanes (which of course are needed).

Feels short-sighted to me that they wouldn't just plan ahead to move the intersection further south, away from the CN tracks so that they could make a full diamond to account for future growth and the eventual twinning of Wilkes.

There are plans to twin Wilkes, it is basically building a full replacement four lane road to the south. The existing Wilkes will likely remain in place as more of a lower speed, local collector route. The newer four lane road tends to be referred to as the western extension of Sterling Lyon Parkway. Current thinking is will go about halfway between Route 90 and the Perimeter before it meets up with the south extension of William Clement. William Clement will continue south past that point to eventually cross McGillivray and meet up with Bishop.

In terms of Perimeter access, Sterling Lyon will likely eventually meet the Perimeter around the midpoint between Wilkes and McGillivray but that is a lifetime away.

[bomberjet]

Thanks Biff. Those are indeed on the website. There are sheet just like that for both the initial and ultimate stages for the whole study.

Originally Posted by CoryB

There are plans to twin Wilkes, it is basically building a full replacement four lane road to the south. The existing Wilkes will likely remain in place as more of a lower speed, local collector route. The newer four lane road tends to be referred to as the western extension of Sterling Lyon Parkway. Current thinking is will go about halfway between Route 90 and the Perimeter before it meets up with the south extension of William Clement. William Clement will continue south past that point to eventually cross McGillivray and meet up with Bishop.

In terms of Perimeter access, Sterling Lyon will likely eventually meet the Perimeter around the midpoint between Wilkes and McGillivray but that is a lifetime away.

Have they actually figured that out? The last study ended pretty bad with the rogue consultant. The City received the study as information. The community wanted Wilkes to stay on the current alignment, at least for the part east of William Clement.

[bomberjet]

On the topic of those directional ramps. Not sure why MI chooses to run them in the direction they do. Take 59N/101 for example. That ramp was just a leftover from the days of when 101 dead ended at 59N. If anything, there should be a directional ramp from NB 59 to EB 101. I did see it as a future option in some of the open houses boards. CCW also showed a future directional ramp. I think.

Same with Kenaston at 100. Why is there not a directional ramp from NB St Norbert Bypass to WB 100? or WB 100 to SB st. Norbert? Those are the major routes. Instead people exiting the city get a ramp. And WB 100 traffic get a small loop.

Kenaston should be stack interchange. 100 at Fermor and 101 at CCW should all have directional ramps.

[bomberjet]

The 59N was from a slightly older design. It had the NB to WB directional ramp. Not sure if it was accommodated for in the current design.



CCW has it in the right direction for exiting Centreport. going WB to SB. This was from the bypass proposal but I know I saw that same thing on other plans. They currently that have in place as a loop. They should also have a NB to WB directional ramp.



These are all slower speed ramps. What they really should have is a mainline at full speed for the major routes, like the interstate would have.

[Dengler Avenue]

I agree. That's why I had directional ramps from 101 to TCH (Deacon's Corners) and from TCH to 100 (Deacon's Corners) in my drawing from early this year. Ditto for from 100 to Headingley Bypass, from St Nobert Bypass N to 100 W.
In the far future, when MIT gets serious about twinning 3 and 6, such consideration should be had for them as well.

[optimusREIM]

^ I totally agree. I don't exactly understand the reasoning? Does it have anything to do with traffic volumes at all?

59/101 - definitely should have been high speed flyover NB to WB
CCW/101 - future design should definitely be the same, in addition to the one marked
St Norbert Bypass/100 - WB to SB high speed, as well as NB to WB
TCH E/100 - WB to WB should be the same (and a Deacon's corner interchange to actually make the whole free-flowing perimeter thing useful)

IMO we should be doing these things right the first time (duh, I don't think anyone on here disagrees with that idea anyway) instead of setting ourselves up for long term shite

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

^ I totally agree. I don't exactly understand the reasoning? Does it have anything to do with traffic volumes at all?

Probably has to do with $$$

A classic cloverleaf loop is a pile of dirt, compacted, and with a roadway on it.

High speed ramps usually consist of that plus at least 2 bridges, if not more. 59N and 101's high speed ramp added 4 additional bridges to the project. They're not going to add high speed ramps unless capacity of a cloverleaf loop is the bottleneck, especially under the current highway fund allocation.

[bomberjet]

That's what I mean though. They chose the routes with seemingly less traffic. The 59 101 ramp is a leftover and they rebuilt it for some reason. If we checked the traffic volumes I'd be shocked if that route had more traffic that NB 59 to WB 101.

Same at the new Kenaston interchange. The bypass is supposed to be the new highway to the States and they build a directional ramp for SB Kenaston??

And these aren't even high speed ramps, they're 70 kmh. High speed ramps, which aren't even ramps just mainline highway that bypasses the interchange, would be even more costly.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That's what I mean though. They chose the routes with seemingly less traffic. The 59 101 ramp is a leftover and they rebuilt it for some reason. If we checked the traffic volumes I'd be shocked if that route had more traffic that NB 59 to WB 101.

Same at the new Kenaston interchange. The bypass is supposed to be the new highway to the States and they build a directional ramp for SB Kenaston??

And these aren't even high speed ramps, they're 70 kmh. High speed ramps, which aren't even ramps just mainline highway that bypasses the interchange, would be even more costly.

Found the forecasted traffic volumes for 59N/101 from the original project. The EB to NB does have fractionally more traffic. NB to WB is a close second, and as previously posted, it seems they have accounted for a future high(er)-speed ramp in the future if needed. It least for now it has it's own C/D lane, and the EB to SB loop has very low traffic counts.

https://www.winnipegtrails.ca/wp-con...email-only.pdf

As for Kenaston, yes I hope that they accounted for more traffic using the St Nob bypass than the current route when they added the SB to EB directional ramp. It would be stupid of them to use traffic counts that end up turning on 75 thru St Norbert. It would be intereseting to know their methodology.

[bomberjet]

Pretty similar numbers. With correcting the interchange to get the WB 101 traffic going straight through helped the situation with people needing to turn left from 59N to go WB on 101. (They go rid of the stupid right left turning pattern for people heading WB on 101).

I'm not sure how much they actually accounted for the future ramp there. The current ramp that goes under 101 had sloped paving and whatever else. There's physically room to add more lanes under there with a bit of work. It will also be a bit weird to get the future ramp to go under the current ramp. it will be quite close to the end of the bridge that goes over 59.

Probably never happen anyways.

[Biff]

The tender is out for the bridge on Aimes Rd over the Seine River. This is one of the first steps in eliminating the access points to the Perimeter near St Anne's Rd and will allow for the future interchange at that location.

The Government is making quick work of the S Perimeter improvements (I can't believe I said that)

[bomberjet]

Thanks Biff.

Not to get ahead of ourselves. But have you heard what would be the next location to go ahead after St. Mary's? McGillivray was at the top of the list previously.

[Biff]

Purely my guess but I would say St Anne's. It is the second most congested of the South Perimeter intersections.

[akorn]

Originally Posted by Biff

The tender is out for the bridge on Aimes Rd over the Seine River. This is one of the first steps in eliminating the access points to the Perimeter near St Anne's Rd and will allow for the future interchange at that location.

The Government is making quick work of the S Perimeter improvements (I can't believe I said that)

The deadline for this bridge to be completed is March 30th of next year, seems relatively quick when compared to other Manitoba Infrastructure projects.

[bomberjet]

That's light speed haha I assume before the melt hits.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Biff

Purely my guess but I would say St Anne's. It is the second most congested of the South Perimeter intersections.

Didn't the province request shovel-ready plans for St Mary's and McGillivray as part of the south perimeter study? Would that be an indicator of priorities or would they go exclusively off traffic count.

It was mentioned here that St Annes is likely a combined project with the rail overpass and will likely cost a bit more due to the few properties that need to be acquired south of the intersections.

[Wpgstvsouth94]

This is all really exciting news! The speed of the service road completion makes me wonder if they will announce something about st Anne’s and the perimeter with the railway crossing. With the cost savings of only building one bridge at st Mary’s makes me think the other half will be spent somewhere else. It makes sense to get going with st Anne’s. Why build a brand new interchange at st Mary’s only to stop once again in less than two kilometers at a traffic light and rail crossing.... Makes zero sense. I guess we will have to wait and see what pans out

[bomberjet]

Also, with them only doing one bridge at St. Mary's surely they will only build one bridge at St. Anne's.

The rail bridges will be built to accommodate the 4 lane ultimate configuration, with only 3 lanes at the initial stage. So they will build the foundations and piers, and save on the girders.

Edit: I guess St. Anne's already is only 1 bridge, 3 lanes.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Biff

The tender is out for the bridge on Aimes Rd over the Seine River. This is one of the first steps in eliminating the access points to the Perimeter near St Anne's Rd and will allow for the future interchange at that location.

The Government is making quick work of the S Perimeter improvements (I can't believe I said that)

Excellent and congrats to hear things are moving forward.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Also, with them only doing one bridge at St. Mary's surely they will only build one bridge at St. Anne's.

The rail bridges will be built to accommodate the 4 lane ultimate configuration, with only 3 lanes at the initial stage. So they will build the foundations and piers, and save on the girders.

Edit: I guess St. Anne's already is only 1 bridge, 3 lanes.

Yea St Anne's is 1 bridge for the "interim" plan. Not like St Mary's where there is an interim - interim plan.