HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 3:20 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
Really? I thought the city owned a small piece of it p, south of Little Mountain Road, or whatever it is.
Rosser's eastern border runs from Notre Dame Avenue to Mollard Road.

Last edited by Riverman; Mar 11, 2014 at 3:25 PM. Reason: corrections
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 3:40 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Exchange, Winnipeg
Posts: 1,396
Just search for "Winnipeg" in Google Maps, it will highlight the border with a red dotted line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 3:46 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,104
^ I always forget how far south Winnipeg goes. The Perimeter is like a second beltway down there, in 100 years when the sprawl get's that much further south.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 3:48 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
I don't want to argue, but I would like to clarify this statement a little.
No problem Biff, your quite right, water was not the only issue involved. I still connect Google to Facebook but it was always FB, I posted it my self several times in the CCW thread as well as the cost involved. Again, 1.2-1.5 billion was the estimated cost, did not add that crucial (.) to the figure, big difference $ 15 B to 1.5 B. Iowa apparently did win the contract as it was announced shortly after the failed attempt here.
__________________
♥ ♥
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 3:53 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,278
I stand corrected.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 4:10 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
The whole interchange is basically back to square one. They are looking to see where they can cut some costs to spend on the other possible interchanges at Birds Hill and Garvin (this is a good thing). I would much prefer to see a functional but downgraded 59/100 so that we could get 2 more grade separations at the other sites.

So to answer your question about layout, I really can't say because nothing is defined yet.
Definitely a good thing. It would be great to have the fly-over. But if not, a cloverleaf with the extra bridges should do fine. Thanks for the info.

I'm thinking there should be some info coming out soon (at least over the summer), as the AT overpass was to have another open house in the new year. Time will tell.

Another question for you guys out there. Is Highway 59 inside the Perimeter under CoW jurisdiction, or is that MIT? It's a provincial highway. I know in most small towns, the highways and sometimes couple main streets are under MIT control. This could help with the Headmaster lights just south of the Perimeter and with the Reenders/Lag area. Or just in general..

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
The province released a plan a couple of years ago outlining upgrades to 59 from 101 to 44. I recall that it included provisions for those interchanges as well as turning part of the road to 6 lanes from the Perimeter to at least Garven Road, maybe farther. (That would make it the first significant stretch of 6-lane road in Manitoba.)

I wonder how MIT will downgrade the 59/101 interchange, though? The plan calls for a basic cloverleaf modified to incorporate the existing EB to NB ramp... eliminating the EB to NB ramp would let MIT build a standard cloverleaf with only 3 bridge structures, but there would certainly be costs associated with dismantling that EB to NB ramp and replacing it with a cloverleaf ramp.
Interesting. Do you know if there are any documents available to look at? I'm thinking after Garven, there would be a diamond at Dunning (or somewhere around Coronation maybe) and another diamond up around Kirkness Road/Gonor Station area. There's you freeway from Perimeter to 44. 3 diamonds, 2 trumpets and 2 cloverleaves, and thing thing at the east end of the Floodway bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 4:24 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
^ I always forget how far south Winnipeg goes. The Perimeter is like a second beltway down there, in 100 years when the sprawl get's that much further south.
Yup, we don't fool around in Winnipeg we build the second beltway first (whether it's needed or not), inner ring roads are for wimps!
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 4:35 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Interesting. Do you know if there are any documents available to look at? I'm thinking after Garven, there would be a diamond at Dunning (or somewhere around Coronation maybe) and another diamond up around Kirkness Road/Gonor Station area. There's you freeway from Perimeter to 44. 3 diamonds, 2 trumpets and 2 cloverleaves, and thing thing at the east end of the Floodway bridge.
For some reason MIT never posts this stuff online. The plan I saw showed the eternally-promised interchange at 101/59 and diamonds at Birds Hill and Garven Road. It also mentioned 6 lanes for at least part of it. I don't recall seeing any other interchanges although certainly one or more would be appropriate... I guess the goal was to eliminate the very busy but dangerous at-grade intersections on 59.

You can get at least a partial idea of the plan by looking at (of all places) the Bike to the Future website. It's a 5 MB PDF document that you can find here:
http://biketothefuture.org/attachmen...publicinfo.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 5:21 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
This could help with the Headmaster lights just south of the Perimeter and with the Reenders/Lag area. Or just in general...
I can't tell you who is in control, but I can tell you that the City pays for the on going maintenance and the addition of intersections on this stretch within the City. They paid either 1.4 or 1.8 MM for the intersecion at Headmaster (I can't remember the exact number) and they paid for re-doing the Grassie intersection, which was lumped in to the CPT extension project. I believe a line item in the project fund said it was 1.2 MM for that widening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 6:12 PM
roccerfeller's Avatar
roccerfeller roccerfeller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,623
Fantastic idea for a thread, bomberjet!

For me the biggest surprise was this.

http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.htm...ted=2013-11-26

Building diamond interchanges south west perimeter so basically the perimeter will (finally) become free flow from the pembina interchange alllllll the way up highway 6(?)

That's awesome! I had no idea this was in the cards "short term"

Fantastic news.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2014, 6:53 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 5,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveosnyder View Post
I can't tell you who is in control, but I can tell you that the City pays for the on going maintenance and the addition of intersections on this stretch within the City. They paid either 1.4 or 1.8 MM for the intersecion at Headmaster (I can't remember the exact number) and they paid for re-doing the Grassie intersection, which was lumped in to the CPT extension project. I believe a line item in the project fund said it was 1.2 MM for that widening.
The Headmaster intersection is City owned.
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2014, 12:16 AM
original original is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 95
Wow... We're finally getting diamond interchanges. The stuff that's been talked about for years on these message boards is finally seeing some action. I'm in disbelief.

As far as new plans for 59/101. Does anyone think they could somehow incorporate the unused westbound on-ramp? The 101 bridge that goes over 59 right now has 3 lanes, but only 2 eastbound are in use. Why was it build that way if it's been closed for so long?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2014, 1:16 AM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
...

Another question for you guys out there. Is Highway 59 inside the Perimeter under CoW jurisdiction, or is that MIT? It's a provincial highway. I know in most small towns, the highways and sometimes couple main streets are under MIT control. This could help with the Headmaster lights just south of the Perimeter and with the Reenders/Lag area. Or just in general..
It was built by the old Metro Corporation of Winnipeg but paid 100% by the Provence of Manitoba. City of Winnipeg does all the maintenance on it at city taxpayer expense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2014, 3:10 AM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by original View Post
Wow... We're finally getting diamond interchanges. The stuff that's been talked about for years on these message boards is finally seeing some action. I'm in disbelief.

As far as new plans for 59/101. Does anyone think they could somehow incorporate the unused westbound on-ramp? The 101 bridge that goes over 59 right now has 3 lanes, but only 2 eastbound are in use. Why was it build that way if it's been closed for so long?
They were all open before the interchange was reconfigured around 1996. When 101 used to end at 59, that ramp also carried NB to WB traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2014, 5:59 AM
The Jabroni's Avatar
The Jabroni The Jabroni is offline
Go kicky fast, okay!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Kingdom of Skeletor
Posts: 2,422
Reading through this thread, and all I can say is wow. Is this for real? Will this actually happen?

The cynic in me says I'll believe it when I see it. With that said, this is actually great news!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2014, 12:12 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by original View Post
Wow... We're finally getting diamond interchanges.

We are getting pictures of diamond interchanges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2014, 3:39 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by original View Post
The 101 bridge that goes over 59 right now has 3 lanes, but only 2 eastbound are in use. Why was it build that way if it's been closed for so long?
The issue was that the 1996 plan would have had the traffic path from the now closed west-bound ramp crossing the through traffic east bound lanes.

If the ramp is to be used in a redesign the interchange could been done with three new bridges:

1 - 101 through traffic over the east bound to north bound ramp.
2 - 101 over 59 and the west bound to south bound ramp.
3 - east bound through traffic over the north bound to west bound lane.

That is going under a heavy assumption that there would be room to squeeze in an acceptable west to south transition in the available space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2014, 3:43 PM
alittle1 alittle1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 441
As I had previously said, the authority for building MAJOR roadways in Winnipeg should be removed from the City of Winnipeg.

The taxation for paying for these major roadways should be divided up as follows:

CoW 40%

MB Highways 40%

Feds 20%

Especially on the North and South Perimeters where TransCanada traffic wears out the highways due to high loading and traffic frequency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2014, 6:23 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,104
Thanks for all the info. Yes we will be getting pictures of interchanges first, hopefully everything will actually get built. However, we all know the election could change all this. If/when the PC's win, all will be cancelled..

It seems MIT has stuff posted online, but with no links to actually find most of the stuff. They seem to be posting a lot of the newer stuff on the MIT main page.

The 59n/101 interchange is posted on the MIT website. I have the link attached to the first page. But where to actually find a page with that link shown is a good question.

And it boggles the mind why they never put the NB to WB ramp back into service. It's been unused for going on 20 years. And, potentially, could have saved a life without the north set of lights..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2014, 4:23 PM
alittle1 alittle1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post

And it boggles the mind why they never put the NB to WB ramp back into service. It's been unused for going on 20 years. And, potentially, could have saved a life without the north set of lights..
The original overpass comes under the Blue team's (Cons.) playbook in the section "What the Hell we're they thinking?". Notably, a senior official in the Conservative camp was lamenting to the Minister of Highways about the hell of a wait that he had to endure while going the North Perimeter from his St. James residence to his cottage at Hillside Beach. Consequently, the North 59 overpass was born and if memory serves correctly, this was the very first three lane bridge in Manitoba. (My apologies to the NDP Party accusing them of being the first with the Dugald bridge over the floodway.)

The reason why the WB portion was closed and re-routed Northward was, the sharp turning radius coupled with the sloped gradient of the bridge approach caused 18 wheelers to lose traction during winter icy conditions and spin out or jackknife, thus blocking the roadway and tying up traffic. A left-hand turn was found to be a better solution. (Tell that one to Crystal's family.)

That clap-trap of a bridge has been the major stopping block for development of the North Perimeter for the past 25 years. Apparently, they believe that there is value in that outdated POS, bearing in mind, wasn't it (the NDP), the jerkoffs that tore down a five year old bridge on South 59 at the floodway because it didn't conform to their 700 year flood plan??? HUH! WTF.
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 12:47 PM.

     

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