HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1081  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 3:29 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 12,365
Ah yeah, haha. I wouldn't expect anything to be happening anytime soon. By the time the PC's "right the ship" it'll be a decade from now.

I suspect we are entering into a time similar to the beginning of the NDP reign. Nothing will happen. Not to be a downer, but I just don't see a lot happening. Hopefully I'm wrong.

All the PC's keep doing is saying the NDP messed up. Nothing of substance is being produced at this point. Although I see Pallister is the second most liked Premier in Canada. He hasn't done anything yet except cancel stuff. Fiscal management I guess.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1082  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 7:17 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
It looks like there is a lot of room between PTH 15 and the CN mainline... hard to believe that they couldn't fit another 2 lanes of traffic in there.

I always thought it was kind of weird that MI wanted to build a short 4 lane expressway to a town that isn't particularly large, as opposed to just twinning 15 instead. If the plan had just been to twin 15 to the Oakbank turnoff, it probably could have happened years ago.

Anyone know what the ROW for the Oakbank highway would look like? I presume it would be an extension of Gunn Road? Crazy to think that it could mean adding another at-grade intersection on a busy highway.
I think, back in the day the proposals first came out, there was significant development on both sides of HWY 15 making the exportation costs extremely high. The project also does not align at all with the east-west corridor route including CPT/CCW/Headingley bypass. The current traffic flow also requires crossing the CN main line at 206 while the proposed routes all stayed north of the CN main line and south of the CP main line. The proposed ROW were variations of along the hydro corridor through what at the time was almost exclusively agricultural land.

Also as this is part of the master plan for a high speed east-west route through the north side of the capital region it isn't exactly fair to call it a "short 4 lane expressway". Back when the proposal first came up the traffic volume HWY 15 was pushing on a daily basis were crazy for a two lane road and the area has only grown since.

It also would not be adding an at grade intersection to the Perimeter as it would be at extension to CPT which itself would replace Gunn Rd at the Perimeter. The proposal is very similar to how CCW is a net new road but ended up replacing Saskatchewan at the Perimeter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Sorry, I meant to say another traffic signalled intersection... it would be quite busy. One would hope they'd build an interchange there on day one as with CCW/101, but man... who knows.
It is actually rather shocking that Gunn/Perimeter allows left turns today with nothing more than a stop sign. It really should be upgraded to a traffic signalled intersection ASAP. Yes traffic signals on the Perimeter are the wrong way to be going but if they can add one for 330 they sure as heck should be doing the same for Gunn Rd, as it is today to improve safety until a full grade separation can be built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1083  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 7:21 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 12,365
I'm of the opinion if you are closing and/or upgrading an existing at grade crossing with traffic lights, its okay. I'd rather have lights than nothing at all, safety wise. It would make it more palatable if all median openings were closed and traffic lights installed at the access points. Even still, Pipeline is signalized and there has been a rash of crashed within the last month or two.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1084  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 8:05 PM
EastK EastK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
I'm of the opinion if you are closing and/or upgrading an existing at grade crossing with traffic lights, its okay. I'd rather have lights than nothing at all, safety wise. It would make it more palatable if all median openings were closed and traffic lights installed at the access points. Even still, Pipeline is signalized and there has been a rash of crashed within the last month or two.
Because the lights at Pipeline have done so much for safety right??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1085  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 8:13 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastK View Post
Because the lights at Pipeline have done so much for safety right??
I wonder why that intersection causes the most problems?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1086  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 8:23 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
I'm of the opinion if you are closing and/or upgrading an existing at grade crossing with traffic lights, its okay. I'd rather have lights than nothing at all, safety wise. It would make it more palatable if all median openings were closed and traffic lights installed at the access points. Even still, Pipeline is signalized and there has been a rash of crashed within the last month or two.
One of the big challenges with traffic lights on the Perimeter has always been they break up people's progress on what should be a free flowing highway with a consistent speed. Every time you enter a light zone you are supposed to drop from 100 km/h to 80. Far too many drivers choose to ignore that and keep going at 100 km/h. Worse, the warning lights that come on 8 seconds before the red end up acting as a "speed up" warning as much as a "prepare to stop" warning. Been that way since more than just this week.

That lights come with lower speeds for intersections and to some extent stop traffic to make cross traffic movements safer. As bad as traffic lights are on the Perimeter it would still be a step forward for Gunn Rd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1087  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 8:34 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 12,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastK View Post
Because the lights at Pipeline have done so much for safety right??
Did you read my post? I mentioned that as my "hmmm, well maybe, maybe not" point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1088  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 8:35 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 12,365
My wager is that having say I don know 6 lighted intersections is better than having 20-30 uncontrolled median openings. If I'm wrong, then great. Seems like MIT's plan was exactly that. Close all the median openings and install lights at a few locations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1089  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 3:47 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,459
Currently the Perimeter has 8 intersections with traffic lights and two that should. Anything not on the list is a very minor access point such as a farmer's field.

Needing lights:

HWY 2
Gunn Rd.

Has Lights:
Pipeline
HWY 6
McGilllvary/Hwy 3
HWY 330
Kennaston
St Marys
St Annes
Dugald
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1090  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 5:37 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 12,365
So basically they could close all the median openings and access points, leave everything else as is, and install maybe one more set of lights at Gunn. Hwy 2 should just be closed and traffic routed to #3. And that would be the maximum number of traffic lights with no uncontrolled access points.

Then start witling away at the traffic lights with interchange projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1091  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 6:38 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,459
^^ It's not that simple though. For example Assinboine Downs has a massive right in/right out access point that it also used by the Red River Ex. There is a long term plan to basically route that traffic to the yet to be built Headingley b-pass and the interchange. Others have smallish properties that are really only accessible from the Perimeter which would mean access roads need to be built first. All that is just to close existing crossing. The south Perimeter even has an uncontrolled at grade median crossing between St Anne's and Lag. There is lots of work to do to get all those crossing closed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1092  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2016, 2:08 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 576
Not sure what algorithm or sources Google Maps uses to determine highway status but apparently perimeter from Roblin to Hwy 59 North is now a freeway. Little do they know its so far from reality that is...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1093  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2016, 2:26 AM
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Currently the Perimeter has 8 intersections with traffic lights and two that should. Anything not on the list is a very minor access point such as a farmer's field.

Needing lights:

HWY 2
Gunn Rd.

Has Lights:
Pipeline
HWY 6
McGilllvary/Hwy 3
HWY 330
Kennaston
St Marys
St Annes
Dugald
Forgot one.

Waverly still has a stupid light.

And more lights is fn stupid. Nothing like doing 100 for a 2-3 Kms and then stopping. Then getting up to speed then stopping. Then getting up to speed then stopping. Then again back up to speed then stopping. Then travelling for 15 Kms to stop again. Travel another 7 Kms to stop again. Keeps going. But that was trip from 59 west to 59 again.

Drive a semi and see how much fn fun it it.

All residential entrances need to be close and routed to a close overpass. You don't even need to make more overpasses. Just more side roads ( pave them ) that could lead to a main over pass.

Example. Lasalle lights and Brady Road cluster phuck could all be routed to the New Kenaston lights. Then Labarrier park lights could be routed to Kenaston lights. Eventually a new over pass could be built here and look what I just did with one over pass. Got rid of 3 lights and one very dangerous turnoff to Brady.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1094  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2016, 3:42 AM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
Not sure what algorithm or sources Google Maps uses to determine highway status but apparently perimeter from Roblin to Hwy 59 North is now a freeway. Little do they know its so far from reality that is...
I noticed that same thing yesterday - thought I was imagining things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1095  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2016, 6:33 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
I don't know why the province doesn't do a RIRO (right-in-right out) style "freeway". There are frontage roads all along the Perimeter, so access could probably be maintained to most, if not all properties.

It would be relatively easy from a cost and design standpoint - the province owns the right-of-way and acceleration and deceleration lanes aren't very expensive. Just close the very small access points and focus the RIRO-style interchanges on the larger cross roads. There are currently enough interchanges/stoplights to provide complete access for most motorists within a reasonable driving distance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1096  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2016, 1:53 AM
YWG-RO YWG-RO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 219
Yup.

You still need at least 4-5 diamonds / parclos: 6/101, 3/100, Kenaston/100, St. Marys/100, 15/101. Close everything else except RIRO.

Could probably do it for $500 M.

Do it in 5 years, then focus on 1W bypass, then 75 bypass
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1097  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 6:05 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,459
^^ Mostly agree with YWG-RO except close 15/101 and build at Gunn RD/CPT instead. Would need to build out the east side to 207 for the interim but its the long term direction.

Just wanted to add, another day, another collision at Pipeline and the Perimeter. Easily the second most dangerous intersection on the Perimeter behind Gunn Rd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1098  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 8:28 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 33,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
I don't know why the province doesn't do a RIRO (right-in-right out) style "freeway". There are frontage roads all along the Perimeter, so access could probably be maintained to most, if not all properties.

It would be relatively easy from a cost and design standpoint - the province owns the right-of-way and acceleration and deceleration lanes aren't very expensive. Just close the very small access points and focus the RIRO-style interchanges on the larger cross roads. There are currently enough interchanges/stoplights to provide complete access for most motorists within a reasonable driving distance.
I agree. This would improve traffic flow on the Perimeter and save lives. We need to get people away from the mentality that every podunk road needs full access to high speed, high volume highways... if Manitoba Infrastructure started to run the 401 in Ontario today, then tomorrow you'd be seeing new intersections with gravel roads on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1099  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 9:48 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,533
It's a bit beyond the Perimeter, but while we're at it how about bulldozing Deacon's Corner into the ground and pretending it never existed? Only stop on Highway 1 between Lag and Ontario and you always have to stop.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1100  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2016, 1:55 AM
The Jabroni's Avatar
The Jabroni The Jabroni is offline
Go kicky fast, okay!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Romulan Star Empire
Posts: 2,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
It's a bit beyond the Perimeter, but while we're at it how about bulldozing Deacon's Corner into the ground and pretending it never existed? Only stop on Highway 1 between Lag and Ontario and you always have to stop.
I've never recalled the time when I actually passed through that intersection on the Trans-Canada without stopping.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:45 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.