HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1701  
Old Posted Yesterday, 3:51 AM
Bluenote's Avatar
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
The challenge here is the day that 32 becomes another traffic light on the Perimeter is a lot closer that most people think. It is why getting a diamond up at Pipeline needs to be a very high priority as does closing the limited uncontrolled crossing between 59 and HWY 6 that exist today. Then there is a protected limited access highway and when a land developer comes calling wanting access at 32 (King Edward) for their planned residential development the full cost of the diamond for that location can be downloaded to them.

It is similar to how 20 (Symington Rd) is going to pop up as a pressure point not too far down the line to service access to Sage Creek.





It isn't that simple since a lot of that area is outside the floodway protection and also outside the City of Winnipeg boundaries. It is why there is lots of push to open up areas west of Kennaston and south of Grant for newer residential developments.

The other piece is Sage Creek will continue to push east ward towards to Perimeter. Basically all the undeveloped land inside the Perimeter needs to be filled in first. And for people that absolutely must be building in south Winnipeg La Salle and Oak Bluff are going to need to pull some of the load too.

Not looking forward to when Winnipeg needs to start having the conversation about needing to extended the floodway further south.

--

Separately, in terms of the state of the proposed St Norbert By-Pass and comparing it to the Headingley By-Pass, my guess is it is more in the 20+ year target range at this point.

Just an FYI. Alll that land is INSIDE the floodway and protected. It’s even serviced by gas. No water yet. But that section has gas. Those fields have always beeen set aside for St Vital to extend. I don’t care about Sage creek. That’s St boniface.

But vermette which is now st vital isnall city limits. Hence why Dakota from day one back in the 1980’s plan was always to fly over the south perimeter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1702  
Old Posted Yesterday, 3:57 AM
Bluenote's Avatar
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
Wouldn't the city acquire the land from the RM of Macdonald once the city sprawls out that way and require city ammenities and services? I feel like by the time this extension gets built that area will be part of winnipeg
I work mainly in that RM. it will not allow that to happen. They are one of the richest RMs in the province and they want f all to do with Winnipeg. There is a lot of land in Charles wood that can be developed and a lot of land that is currently industrial that can be converted. Since they are all moving themselves to the RM anyway for cheaper land and taxes.

But Lasalle won’t become the Transcona of Winnipeg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1703  
Old Posted Yesterday, 2:32 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Keep yo pimp hand strong
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Changchun , China
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
If NAFTA doesn't get renewed then who cares about improving the US connection anyway.
Because the US is by far our largest trading partner? You always want to do what you can to encourage more trade between nations and considering the US is a colossus, it makes sense to keep that economic goldmine open and active.

The US was our largest trading partner before NAFTA. It will be our largest trading partner after NAFTA. In fact, I can't see a day when anybody else will come close. Even China currently does a fraction of the trade volume with Canada (vis-a-vis the States) and considering we're importing far more from them than we're exporting, that's the one that seems less profitable to pour money into.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1704  
Old Posted Yesterday, 3:18 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Keep yo pimp hand strong
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Changchun , China
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
The challenge here is the day that 32 becomes another traffic light on the Perimeter is a lot closer that most people think. It is why getting a diamond up at Pipeline needs to be a very high priority as does closing the limited uncontrolled crossing between 59 and HWY 6 that exist today. Then there is a protected limited access highway and when a land developer comes calling wanting access at 32 (King Edward) for their planned residential development the full cost of the diamond for that location can be downloaded to them.

It is similar to how 20 (Symington Rd) is going to pop up as a pressure point not too far down the line to service access to Sage Creek.


It isn't that simple since a lot of that area is outside the floodway protection and also outside the City of Winnipeg boundaries. It is why there is lots of push to open up areas west of Kennaston and south of Grant for newer residential developments.

The other piece is Sage Creek will continue to push east ward towards to Perimeter. Basically all the undeveloped land inside the Perimeter needs to be filled in first. And for people that absolutely must be building in south Winnipeg La Salle and Oak Bluff are going to need to pull some of the load too.

Not looking forward to when Winnipeg needs to start having the conversation about needing to extended the floodway further south.

--

Separately, in terms of the state of the proposed St Norbert By-Pass and comparing it to the Headingley By-Pass, my guess is it is more in the 20+ year target range at this point.
So much wrong here.

Firstly, it's not just land developers chomping at the bit to develop land along King Edward. The most recent developments were actually provincially dictated as they were the ones who owned the land. They'd initially planned all residential development in the square bounded by King Edward, Inkster, Jefferson, and Brookside. Then the 90's showed up and the province kiboshed those plans in favor of industrial since it was easier to fill at the time. Then they went back to the residential plan once growth picked up in the city.

The problem with Pipeline isn't traffic volume along Pipeline itself but rather the Perimeter. It's just an unsafe crossing for whatever reason. King Edward sits too close to Brookside/7 and the rail line to build any sort of interchange. At best you'd get a flyover but considering the volume of traffic is next to nothing, it's years and years and years away from happening if ever. There's no push to develop anything up that way and it's not even COW land. In any case, even with the CPT extension (which makes upgrades to the north Perimeter less necessary) , city land terminates halfway between the Perimeter and Jefferson at Mollard Rd. It's unlikely anything will come of it barring some unprecedented boom in the city. No matter what, however, there will never be a diamond at that location.

Symington Rd. isn't going to service Sage Creek. I'm not even sure where you got that idea from, to be honest. Sage Creek is already at its furthest limit to the east and just needs to develop north to the future Bishop extension and south to the Perimeter. Do you mean Plessis? If you do, it's possible but it's unlikely to ever become some sort of choke point. Currently, you can't access Plessis directly and by the time that you can, it'll all just be funneled to Bishop anyway. That's clearly the plan but maybe I'm wrong on that.

As for unprotected land in the city, I think you may be confused about where the city boundaries actually are in relation to the Floodway. There's room south of the Perimeter to build another Waverley West between the highway and the Floodway. The "push" to develop the lands south of Wilkes have been on the books for decades. It's attractive to the city because so much of it is farm fields and it doesn't require any more flood protection than already exists. It's essentially a blank slate for the city and developers. It also presents the city with a slew of opportunities such as designing rapid mass transit lines without having to worry about much expropriation. Also, there's no real "push". There's a plan to develop the land between the current contiguous city and Wilkes but that's pretty much it. All development right now is focused on Waverley West. Oak Bluff and La Salle are neither particularly large nor are they within the city boundaries anyway. In other words, they can do what they want so long as the province allows it. The provincial plan is (ostensibly) to upgrade the south Perimeter in the near term future. That alone will solve most of the "problems" coming from those communities.

Finally we come to the St. Norbert Bypass. That's going ahead in the near future. It's part of the provincial plan to upgrade 101 and it's not contingent on any development in the area. While it's not actually part of the upgrade plan, the province has earmarked it for priority funding vis-a-vis other infrastructure projects and it only makes sense to do it at the same time as the upgrade. The Headingley Bypass is the one I'm not so sure will happen any time soon.

Considering the US is an order of magnitude larger in terms of trade partners compared to every other bloc or individual partner in the world, and it's still growing, upgrading connections to them makes the most sense by far. NAFTA or not, 75 should be our primary concern for upgrades after 101.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1705  
Old Posted Yesterday, 4:15 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
Finally we come to the St. Norbert Bypass. That's going ahead in the near future. It's part of the provincial plan to upgrade 101 and it's not contingent on any development in the area. While it's not actually part of the upgrade plan, the province has earmarked it for priority funding vis-a-vis other infrastructure projects and it only makes sense to do it at the same time as the upgrade. The Headingley Bypass is the one I'm not so sure will happen any time soon.
Considering I have been hearing about "high priority" projects like the Headlingley Bypass and the Oak Bank Corridor/HWY 15 relocation for over 20 years now and the St Norbert Bypass is a much newer project we will see how that plays. Just look at how long 59/101 took to get funding for construction. Also you generally don't spend major cash building an interchange for a road and then never build the road (ie Headingley By-Pass).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1706  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:42 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Considering I have been hearing about "high priority" projects like the Headlingley Bypass and the Oak Bank Corridor/HWY 15 relocation for over 20 years now and the St Norbert Bypass is a much newer project we will see how that plays. Just look at how long 59/101 took to get funding for construction. Also you generally don't spend major cash building an interchange for a road and then never build the road (ie Headingley By-Pass).
High priority is political terminology to buy votes. The new bypasses (headingley, st Nob, oakbank) should be lower priorities than interchanges to replace traffic lights, yet we hear a lot more talk about the bypasses since a glitzy new road tends to lure the masses.

This is going off memory and what gets reported in the news, but traffic lights on highways are a bigger source of major collisions and fatalities than the roadways that the proposed bypasses would replace
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1707  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:17 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Vancouver/Waterloo
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
but traffic lights on highways are a bigger source of major collisions and fatalities than the roadways that the proposed bypasses would replace
And at-grade railway crossings too...?
__________________
Highway expansion (especially going from undivided 2 lanes to divided 4 lanes), practically speaking, is all about political will, not AADT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1708  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:54 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
So much wrong here.

Firstly, it's not just land developers chomping at the bit to develop land along King Edward. The most recent developments were actually provincially dictated as they were the ones who owned the land. They'd initially planned all residential development in the square bounded by King Edward, Inkster, Jefferson, and Brookside. Then the 90's showed up and the province kiboshed those plans in favor of industrial since it was easier to fill at the time. Then they went back to the residential plan once growth picked up in the city.

The problem with Pipeline isn't traffic volume along Pipeline itself but rather the Perimeter. It's just an unsafe crossing for whatever reason. King Edward sits too close to Brookside/7 and the rail line to build any sort of interchange. At best you'd get a flyover but considering the volume of traffic is next to nothing, it's years and years and years away from happening if ever. There's no push to develop anything up that way and it's not even COW land. In any case, even with the CPT extension (which makes upgrades to the north Perimeter less necessary) , city land terminates halfway between the Perimeter and Jefferson at Mollard Rd. It's unlikely anything will come of it barring some unprecedented boom in the city. No matter what, however, there will never be a diamond at that location.
What I think would happen is a flyover of the railway with a crossing underneath for locals. One thing highways create is a barrier for farmers. There's no place to cross. There would be an actual interchange of some kind to the east. Roughly centred between Pipeline and Hwy 7.

Of course this is me speculating. But that would seem the most logical if they ever wanted an interchange in there.

The plan (or at least was an option) for rail crossings is to close the CP crossing near Main St. and divert that traffic over to the King Edward CP crossing. So that's what I'd put a flyover there as it is CP's dedicated crossing. There was a study RFP'd recently by the Province to figure out how the new track would get from one line to the other. One option running next to Grassemere drain. I think it was cancelled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1709  
Old Posted Today, 2:11 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Keep yo pimp hand strong
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Changchun , China
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Considering I have been hearing about "high priority" projects like the Headlingley Bypass and the Oak Bank Corridor/HWY 15 relocation for over 20 years now and the St Norbert Bypass is a much newer project we will see how that plays. Just look at how long 59/101 took to get funding for construction. Also you generally don't spend major cash building an interchange for a road and then never build the road (ie Headingley By-Pass).
I agree with you on that but in this case St. Norbert is at the top of that list. When it comes to highways in this province, "high priority" just means until the Conservatives need to balance the budget and cut something or the NDP wants to give money away to some union boss to make sure his baby gets milk.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1710  
Old Posted Today, 1:40 PM
Bluenote's Avatar
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
What I think would happen is a flyover of the railway with a crossing underneath for locals. One thing highways create is a barrier for farmers. There's no place to cross. There would be an actual interchange of some kind to the east. Roughly centred between Pipeline and Hwy 7.

Of course this is me speculating. But that would seem the most logical if they ever wanted an interchange in there.

The plan (or at least was an option) for rail crossings is to close the CP crossing near Main St. and divert that traffic over to the King Edward CP crossing. So that's what I'd put a flyover there as it is CP's dedicated crossing. There was a study RFP'd recently by the Province to figure out how the new track would get from one line to the other. One option running next to Grassemere drain. I think it was cancelled.
That diversion of the two railways would have been extremely smart. But I don’t see it happening unless it’s federally funded. Both lines are not going anywhere soon. Seagrams needs it’s line and the other is to a major grain handling facility that was and is being expanded again.

The mistake here was tearing up the tracks after that went to tuelon etc. It would have been much easier to connect Gimili to that line north of the city then it would be now with all the old tracks torn up. There was even a set of tracks from Gimli through fraserwood that did connect to that line. But federal governments don’t think like Europeans when it comes to rail. And yes it was the federal government that started that as they sold the lines to Americans. Who then when steal prices were high tore them up and sold for scrape.

Our roads are shit not just because we dont take care of them. It more to do with the fact all the feeder lines were torn up forcing all farm traffic onto highways and gravel roads not meant to handle it. Farmers hated the idea. But the federal government always has a stupid plan.

And the ultimate which is way off topic it the Pilot Mound line. The federal government spend million. In the 100s of millions replacing bridges on that line. Then 2 years later sold the line. Then a few years later the line was torn up. You now have all these glistening new multi million dollar bridges with no tracks. And Highway 3 and 2 take the brunt of all the traffic now are in extremely poor shape.

Fly overs though should be at all farm crossings. 90% of the ones we are used to seeing in North Dakota are just for that purpose. For farmers to get to the other side. It’s ectremly dangerous this time of year having these machines cross or be forced to even drive on the highways when they take up both lanes or more.

I’m amazed there honestly has not been more accidents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1711  
Old Posted Today, 1:50 PM
Bluenote's Avatar
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Considering I have been hearing about "high priority" projects like the Headlingley Bypass and the Oak Bank Corridor/HWY 15 relocation for over 20 years now and the St Norbert Bypass is a much newer project we will see how that plays. Just look at how long 59/101 took to get funding for construction. Also you generally don't spend major cash building an interchange for a road and then never build the road (ie Headingley By-Pass).
There will never in our lifetime be some 4 lane highwaybto oakbank. The government just spent millions on giving you guys paved shoulders all the way to the city already. You even got a set of new traffic lights in dugald to boot.

The population of OakBank isn’t soaring As it once was. That’s all changed to Niverville. Lasalle amd Oakbluff. And even the perimeter highway still has gravel shoulders in parts. So I think you OakBank folks have it better then a major highway.

Pipeline needs a flyover and that’s it.

Gunn should just be right hand turn to exit perimeter and right hand to enter. No need to cross it as it was never supposed to even join. Trucks can drive to the new super dooper highway 59 maze to turn around and come back.

South perimeter needs to be done period. It’s not even a joke anymore. It’s a matter of time before a major accident happens at rush hour in the evening between Pembina and St Mary’s. I’m surprised there hasn’t been an American style multi car pile up yet.

The red river bridge causes a blind hill affect to the traffic that’s doing 110 Kms then all of a sudden it’s doing 0kmh. Then black brake marks will show you. They are added daily.

St Knob needs a bypass of sorts. But if the province would connect the Lasalle road then Bradey and dump it into that bypass. You’d get rid of two fly overs and use the one a set I’m sure mega interchange for this. Brady is a horrible and stupid intersection that can easily be solved NOW by just using the gravel roads or diverting traffic behind the dump to Waverly anduse the lights already there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1712  
Old Posted Today, 4:36 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
I think you OakBank folks have it better then a major highway.
LOL. I haven't even been to Oak Bank for 15+ years now.

In terms of political priorities you should go research the Springfield area and see why things might be different than you think.

As much as I agree a St Norbert by-pass is needed the same is true for Headingley and the HWY 15 relocation. HWY 15 alone has more spots on the most deadly railroad crossings than virtually all the other roads in the whole province.

The Headingley by-pass is a major commercial transportation route and aligned with the whole CentrePort vision making it a priority on all three levels of government.

The other big question on the St Norbert by-pass is would they build the interchange or the road first? Based on the current alignment of the Perimeter and the likely connection point for the by-pass the road might come first followed by an interchange later, basically the opposite of the Headingley by-pass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 6:25 PM.

     

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