HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3841  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2018, 3:35 AM
buzzg buzzg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,704
I don't think the average Winnipegger has a clue about route numbers aside from Route 90. ^I've never heard a single person say Route 62, or anything other than 90 before – it's the only one I've EVER heard used in conversation.

That being said – route numbers are a good thing to have for tourists, especially with the proliferation of GPS. The failed experiment of the city forcing route numbers ONLY onto major signage for the Pan Am Games seems to have ended, as FINALLY the city is actually putting street names on overhead signs, along with route numbers, as they're being replaced.

Confusion Corner was a prime example of the disconnect before – it only displayed route numbers on major signage, but no one here really follows them. As if CC wasn't confusing enough already lol. They've finally added street names on most of them.

I don't think if you showed most people here these signs, they'd have a clue what they were referring to (obviously taking them out of context for people that drive there all the time). They've been updated with names since this image was taken.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3842  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2018, 12:46 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennis View Post
Living in garden city, I always use route 62 when referring to salter-Isabel-balmoral-colony-Osborne-Dakota, as I drive to the south end of the city. I find it easier to say.
You missed Dunkirk lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3843  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2018, 12:50 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
I don't think the average Winnipegger has a clue about route numbers aside from Route 90. ^I've never heard a single person say Route 62, or anything other than 90 before – it's the only one I've EVER heard used in conversation.

That being said – route numbers are a good thing to have for tourists, especially with the proliferation of GPS. The failed experiment of the city forcing route numbers ONLY onto major signage for the Pan Am Games seems to have ended, as FINALLY the city is actually putting street names on overhead signs, along with route numbers, as they're being replaced.

Confusion Corner was a prime example of the disconnect before – it only displayed route numbers on major signage, but no one here really follows them. As if CC wasn't confusing enough already lol. They've finally added street names on most of them.

I don't think if you showed most people here these signs, they'd have a clue what they were referring to (obviously taking them out of context for people that drive there all the time). They've been updated with names since this image was taken.
haha, I take Donald everyday and I still had to pause to figure it out. Maybe it's so confusing because of the poor signage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3844  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2018, 7:07 PM
buzzg buzzg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmacc View Post
haha, I take Donald everyday and I still had to pause to figure it out. Maybe it's so confusing because of the poor signage.
I actually joked about that with a friend a while back – it's only confusing because there's no street signs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3845  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2018, 8:50 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,817
One the way home from work this afternoon I used the Google map app on my cell and it references both the route number and street name when announcing turns.

Waze on the other hand when I drove to work this morning only announces the street name when announcing the next turn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3846  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 1:43 AM
trebor204's Avatar
trebor204 trebor204 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 590
Route 90 Improvements and Conceptual Plan


http://winnipeg.ca/PublicWorks/const...ute90-2018.stm

Map
http://winnipeg.ca/publicworks/const...Map_FIN-sm.pdf


Open House: June 20 6-8pm and June 28 2-4pm - Outlet Mall

One option - Pedestrian & Cyclist overpass at Lockston (North of Corydon)
New St James Bridge.
Redesign of Route 90 / Academy intersection
Redesign of Route 90 / Portage
- Ramp from Westbound Portage to Southbound Portage to be closed (around the fire station)
- Ramp to be replaced by Flyover on the left lane of Portage to Southbound Route 90
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3847  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 3:44 AM
GarryEllice's Avatar
GarryEllice GarryEllice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by trebor204 View Post
Route 90 Improvements and Conceptual Plan
Redesign of Route 90 / Portage
- Ramp from Westbound Portage to Southbound Portage to be closed (around the fire station)
- Ramp to be replaced by Flyover on the left lane of Portage to Southbound Route 90
Doesn't look like a flyover to me, just an ordinary left turn across traffic, with a new traffic light added on Portage to accommodate it.

Honestly I find the destruction required for this project to be horrendous. The new Kenaston will be absolutely massive in comparison with what's currently there. The giant new intersections at Grant, Corydon, and Tuxedo are going to be very unpleasant for pedestrians. I think it's a mistake to push something like this through a mature residential neighbourhood, and I find it especially painful that it's going to take half a billion dollars to do it. But I realize that for many Winnipeg drivers, this project is the holy grail...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3848  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 5:45 AM
buzzg buzzg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,704
There's a very tiny amount of things I like about this... maybe only one thing.

1) No point of a pedestrian overpass when there's already traffic signals every block – half-signal is fine, it's not even that busy of a crossing.

2) While the current WB Portage>Rt 90 ramp isn't ideal, changing it to a traffic light is just absurd – rework the ramp connection to SB Rt. 90 so it can be a proper merge. It's dumb and dangerous adding in a light on Portage just for this left turn, and that single turn lane will be backed up 4 blocks every rush hour.

3) I agree this is way too overbuilt for the area, especially since they're keeping so many signalled intersections. If this was going to be interchanges, at least the 3+ lanes each way would be justified. But this is a once-in-a-lifetime to work with FNs to build out Kapyong, and use this new neighbourhood to connect the long-separated areas of Tuxedo and River Heights. Don't waste this opportunity – if anything, grow a pair regarding William Clement Parkway and extend it to Wilkes instead – most of that corridor is already a freeway with double the ROW of Kenaston.

4) The connection of Rt. 90 & Academy is a mess. Do those AT paths go under the bridges and ramps? Across them? Is there no real way for people biking down Wellington to get over the bridge? ... Either make an AT path on the NB bridge as well, or convert the old rail bridge into an AT path/park.

5) Why does the AT path dead-end at Portage? No connection to the Berry St bike lanes, or the river, or the AT paths being installed with the Empress reconstruction...?

6) FOUR LANES GOING WB ON ACADEMY, WITH THREE TURNING ONTO THE BRIDGE?! WHAT THE HELL?! There's one lane now and it's more than adequate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3849  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 7:51 AM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 956
I would limit the destruction to the north part near the bridge and then make a free flowing cut and cover tunnel with a reduced capacity street above. Then fix the bridge and the approaches. If the tunnel were 2 lanes each way that would easily deal with the traffic volumes going through especially in the absence of stoplights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3850  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 12:25 PM
Authentic_City's Avatar
Authentic_City Authentic_City is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,255
This looks like a complete mess to me. The traffic light at WB Portage>Rt 90 ramp would be a disaster. I can't believe they're even considering it. Imagine this turning lane in rush hour?

The biggest mistake the city made was selling off the railway right of way through River Heights. The St. James bridge was originally designed to align with this. Now we have this proposed mess that will disrupt/displace/destroy a significant part of an established neighbourhood and cost what, half a billion dollars at least? And it will still have traffic lights and choke points? Good god, time to abandon this plan and move on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3851  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 12:51 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
6) FOUR LANES GOING WB ON ACADEMY, WITH THREE TURNING ONTO THE BRIDGE?! WHAT THE HELL?! There's one lane now and it's more than adequate.
They'll need more lanes since it will be light controlled. One lane works now since traffic moves continuously. Kenaston will be three lanes so might as well put three turning lanes. That also tells me they'll extend the green light for Kenaston, allowing traffic to build up on Academy before going green
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3852  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 12:53 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Keep yo pimp hand strong
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Changchun , China
Posts: 2,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Authentic_City View Post
Now we have this proposed mess that will disrupt/displace/destroy a significant part of an established neighbourhood and cost what, half a billion dollars at least? And it will still have traffic lights and choke points? Good god, time to abandon this plan and move on.
For half a billion bucks you'd think they could do it right and remove all lights and stops.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3853  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 12:54 PM
buzzg buzzg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,704
^Seriously, cut losses - fix the bridge are and do minimal expropriation to add turn lanes at intersections. Focus on William Clement where “collateral damage” is significantly less.

If the left turn on Portage is due to some fear of the dangerous on/off merge lane WB, I’d just get rid of the merge ability turn the on ramp from 90 into a yield (it’s not very busy ever really) and then off ramp to 90 is just an exit lane without contending with incoming traffic.

I can’t imagine this would even be proposed if the d*cking fire Hall wasn’t idiotically built there. Part of me wonders if it’d just be cheaper to tear it down and move it, and build the roads properly and safely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3854  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 1:07 PM
Reignman Reignman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
and build the roads properly and safely.
Lol...that would be a first anywhere in this province!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3855  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 1:14 PM
Reignman Reignman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 299
I assume this will be an 70 or 80 km/hr stretch once complete...and yet it doesn't even appear they are adding any merge lanes! Classic Winnipeg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3856  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 1:56 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,528
After sleeping on it, I'm still dealing with some head-scratchers coming out of this proposal:

-Replacing the WB to SB loop with a left-turn lane and traffic light is terrible, IMO. It's a downgrade that will lead to traffic backups. How on earth could there not be a way to extend the merge lane to accommodate traffic safely?

-I find the SB bridge setup awkward as hell. It seems like a way to cut costs by using existing infrastructure which is OK I suppose, but the CBC article says that the SB bridge is 82 years old (!!). If so, how much longer can that bridge be expected to last with such heavy traffic?

-Those intersections on Kenaston are going to be beasts. Like a bunch of Kenaston and Sterling Lyons plunked in River Heights. That stretch of Route 90 will soon have the character of Century St north of Portage.

But in terms of the broad strokes, I'm not sure what choice the City had here. Traffic is growing at a rapid clip and Route 90 in its current form is still set up for 1970s traffic volumes. Something had to give here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3857  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 2:13 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 664
Instead of closing the WP-SB loop just have the right lane (route 90 south) turn into the off ramp taking a lane away from Route 90. Then the WP-SB90 on ramp would add a lane with no merging needed.

The academy section is insane and shouldn't have any lights and is a complete failure of a design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3858  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 2:35 PM
EndoftheBeginning's Avatar
EndoftheBeginning EndoftheBeginning is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 182
Bridge section of the conceptual plan

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3859  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 2:52 PM
buzzg buzzg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reignman View Post
I assume this will be an 70 or 80 km/hr stretch once complete...and yet it doesn't even appear they are adding any merge lanes! Classic Winnipeg.
Can’t imagine it being more than 60 since there’s lights every half kilometre. Plus all the Kapyong developments will need entrances, and all the condos south of Corydon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post

-Those intersections on Kenaston are going to be beasts. Like a bunch of Kenaston and Sterling Lyons plunked in River Heights. That stretch of Route 90 will soon have the character of Century St north of Portage.
.
They’re much worse than Century - at least there it’s still only 4 lanes wide and quite manageable for pedestrians, due to it being a one way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmacc View Post
Instead of closing the WP-SB loop just have the right lane (route 90 south) turn into the off ramp taking a lane away from Route 90. Then the WP-SB90 on ramp would add a lane with no merging needed.

The academy section is insane and shouldn't have any lights and is a complete failure of a design.
Ya why not keep (or rebuild) the one lane ramp from Academy and just let it merge. Whether as is or into it’s own lane – the bridge turns to 4 lanes Galway through anyway! He’ll even a yield onto the bridge would be a better solution – it’s really not that busy of a movement. The last thing we want is for people to start speeding down Academy to line up to get on our .8 km freeway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3860  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2018, 2:59 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,559
What a disaster. 3 river bridges?!?! With weird lanes I don't even know what they were thinking. Close the loop? Now the fire trucks have funny loops within their own site. Disaster. For $500M, ya could be much different and better than this. Put it out for P3 and let real people figure it out.

Who's the consultant on this? I can't remember. First guess is WSP. Our favourite rouge consultant.

Edit: IT'S WSP! HAHAHAH Oh man.... Hilarious.
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 5:55 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.