HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #401  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 4:26 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
I think it had to do with a proposed industrial park to the southeast, located at the very bottom righthand corner of the drawing. And if I remember correctly the main interchange at 1 and 16 was to be built first, with the diamond to come later.
Really, a proposed industrial park? I guess it meshes well with the interchange being built to serve a proposed industrial park in Northwest Winnipeg.

I have to wonder why these things aren't being built to serve actual existing demand as opposed to hypothetical future needs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #402  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 4:54 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Really, a proposed industrial park? I guess it meshes well with the interchange being built to serve a proposed industrial park in Northwest Winnipeg.

I have to wonder why these things aren't being built to serve actual existing demand as opposed to hypothetical future needs.
Whatever it says on the website is the extent of my knowledge about that project. I guess that's why the diamond is future, if it ever goes ahead. But yeah, planning for something that maybe happen at some point in the future isn't the best approach.

For the CCW, spending $250M for a roadway that will serve as the backbone for a major development is a bit of a risk. I guess we'll see in twenty years how it all plays out. The new water plant is slated for construction in the spring I heard?

I thought a good example was the "trail" system in Calgary that was discussed somewhere on SSP yesterday. If they were never built, the City of Calagry would not be what it is today. But at the time, they were freeways to nowhere when constructed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #403  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 6:58 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
North End Troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
  • Highways 100 and 2/3
  • Highways 100 and 330
  • Highway 100 and Waverley (to be replaced by Kenaston)
  • Highway 100 and St. Mary's Road
  • Highway 100 and St. Anne's Road
  • Highways 101 and 15
  • Highways 101 and 59
  • Highways 1 and 207
  • Highways 59 and 202
  • Highways 59 and 213
(I didn't feel justified to comment on the out of town intersections because I don't travel much by car, so I left them out)

I think we've had this discussion on Western Expresso, but the ones in bold I think could be closed and diverge traffic to a different (safer) junction. No reason to build at St. Anne's Road when traffic could just go 3 km west or east and get on 59 or St. Mary's (provided St. Mary's gets an interchange). 100 @ 330 is a bit on the edge too when it comes to volume vs. cost.

1 @ 207 is a bit of a gong show... On the one hand it is really REALLY unsafe, but on the other the traffic doesn't justify an interchange. It's just really bad planning all around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #404  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 7:05 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
North End Troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
I thought a good example was the "trail" system in Calgary that was discussed somewhere on SSP yesterday. If they were never built, the City of Calagry would not be what it is today. But at the time, they were freeways to nowhere when constructed.
We were talking about it in Western Expresso yesterday -- and it is a good example of building based on projections, but projections are notorious for being wrong. I actually wrote a piece (that got edited down badly) in the Manitoban about building based on projections. My main idea is that we don't need better methods to create projections, we instead need a system that is robust to change. It was coined based on Nassim Taleb's ideas from Antifragile

The main idea is that building based on projections is subject to catastrophic failure if an improbable event happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #405  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 7:07 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveosnyder View Post
(I didn't feel justified to comment on the out of town intersections because I don't travel much by car, so I left them out)

I think we've had this discussion on Western Expresso, but the ones in bold I think could be closed and diverge traffic to a different (safer) junction. No reason to build at St. Anne's Road when traffic could just go 3 km west or east and get on 59 or St. Mary's (provided St. Mary's gets an interchange). 100 @ 330 is a bit on the edge too when it comes to volume vs. cost.

1 @ 207 is a bit of a gong show... On the one hand it is really REALLY unsafe, but on the other the traffic doesn't justify an interchange. It's just really bad planning all around.
I agreed that some of the dangerous at-grade intersections along the Perimeter could simply be closed off. Unfortunately, MIT seems extremely reluctant to close off road access at some marginal intersections along the Perimeter... Gateway Road/Raleigh St. at 101 is one of the only cases where that has happened.

Unfortunately, it looks like the stage is being set to create a new access point at Dakota St. and 100 judging by what I see on Google Maps. This tells you that, if anything, there may be even more intersections added to the Perimeter in the near future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #406  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 7:13 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
North End Troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I agreed that some of the dangerous at-grade intersections along the Perimeter could simply be closed off. Unfortunately, MIT seems extremely reluctant to close off road access at some marginal intersections along the Perimeter... Gateway Road/Raleigh St. at 101 is one of the only cases where that has happened.

Unfortunately, it looks like the stage is being set to create a new access point at Dakota St. and 100 judging by what I see on Google Maps. This tells you that, if anything, there may be even more intersections added to the Perimeter in the near future.
Who works for MIT? This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It actually makes me angry to read some of these things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #407  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 7:15 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Unfortunately, it looks like the stage is being set to create a new access point at Dakota St. and 100 judging by what I see on Google Maps. This tells you that, if anything, there may be even more intersections added to the Perimeter in the near future.
That would be horrendous. Hopefully it will not intersect and just have a north south road like Paddington and Highbury both do.

On another note in the area, there is property available as part of the Sugar Beat lands development (whenever that happens) to have a connection with Bishop Grandin between Waverley and the Pembina interchange. It's on a bit of a funny alignment connecting to Chevrier and to Bishop across from the Hydro station. Just to put it out there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #408  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 7:22 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveosnyder View Post
Who works for MIT? This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It actually makes me angry to read some of these things.
Just to be clear, I do not work for MIT!

Also, to further clarify, it appears that there has been land set aside to connect Dakota to the Perimeter, but who knows how long it could take to actually finish it. It might take 20 years, or it might not happen at all. There is no timetable in place that I'm aware of.

EDIT: Here's an illustration from the River Park South developer's website...there is clearly a connection contemplated.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #409  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 7:48 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Exchange, Winnipeg
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
EDIT: Here's an illustration from the River Park South developer's website...there is clearly a connection contemplated.
Hopefully, if ever done, it is either just on/off for west-flowing traffic on the Perimeter, a diamond interchange, or a full flyover to some future neighborhood south of the Perimeter.

I assume steveosnyder would be looking for the first, if anything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #410  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 7:49 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
North End Troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Just to be clear, I do not work for MIT!

Also, to further clarify, it appears that there has been land set aside to connect Dakota to the Perimeter, but who knows how long it could take to actually finish it. It might take 20 years, or it might not happen at all. There is no timetable in place that I'm aware of.

EDIT: Here's an illustration from the River Park South developer's website...there is clearly a connection contemplated.

Did River Park South draw that up? Who was their planning company (most likely MMM for traffic). I really need to send an email to my MLA about this idiotic idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #411  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 7:50 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Just to be clear, I do not work for MIT!

Also, to further clarify, it appears that there has been land set aside to connect Dakota to the Perimeter, but who knows how long it could take to actually finish it. It might take 20 years, or it might not happen at all. There is no timetable in place that I'm aware of.

EDIT: Here's an illustration from the River Park South developer's website...there is clearly a connection contemplated.

In my conversations with the planners involved with the south Perimeter they are actively planning to close most of the intersections between 330 and Hwy 1 East.

They are currently designing the closure of the two stupid access points east of St Anne's Rd. Traffic has no turn lane and has to essentially stop in the high speed lane to turn to access Budd Rd and Melnick Rd.

I would find it incredibly stupid to allow a new access point at Dakota when trying to close others further east. The only thing i can think of is that developers often depict access and other amenities that they do not have approval for to assist in selling lots.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #412  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 10:48 PM
brithgob brithgob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 833
From the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure presentation, here are a couple of renders of the proposed SE Regina Bypass/Highway 1 interchange:


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #413  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2013, 11:39 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post

I would find it incredibly stupid to allow a new access point at Dakota when trying to close others further east. The only thing i can think of is that developers often depict access and other amenities that they do not have approval for to assist in selling lots.
That land has been set aside for decades. I doubt there are any plans to extend Dakota to the Perimeter although obviously they don't want to preclude that possibility for all time. There's no reason for doing it now that I can think of and I'm sure there would be opposition from residents who would be afraid that it would mean turning Dakota into a truck route.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #414  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 12:53 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
That would be horrendous. Hopefully it will not intersect and just have a north south road like Paddington and Highbury both do.

On another note in the area, there is property available as part of the Sugar Beat lands development (whenever that happens) to have a connection with Bishop Grandin between Waverley and the Pembina interchange. It's on a bit of a funny alignment connecting to Chevrier and to Bishop across from the Hydro station. Just to put it out there.
The "Dakota extension" land has been set aside for a future flyover, in case enough land was ever assembled for development in St. Vital south of the Perimeter (which is still City of Winnipeg). If anything, it's good planning to set aside land for potential right of ways, even if they're not needed for several years (or in some cases, decades).

As for the Sugar Beat lands, iirc, they were granted (or were going to be granted) a right-in, right-out only (not an intersection). Similar to what you see at the Home Depot/Sobeys development on Bishop, just west of St. Annes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #415  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 2:36 PM
North_Regina_Boy North_Regina_Boy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Regina, SK (formerly Saskatoon)
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by brithgob View Post
From the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure presentation, here are a couple of renders of the proposed SE Regina Bypass/Highway 1 interchange:


I was going to do this.. haha beat me to it oh well.

But in the second picture that bridge over the rail and new NB-SB lanes of the Bypass will be really tall! I would say close to 20M. Going to be able to see that thing from a LONG way away. Curious as to see what the final build-out would be when the North Bypass gets built. I have an idea but would be nice to see theirs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #416  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 4:32 PM
Treesplease Treesplease is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy View Post
I was going to do this.. haha beat me to it oh well.

But in the second picture that bridge over the rail and new NB-SB lanes of the Bypass will be really tall! I would say close to 20M. Going to be able to see that thing from a LONG way away. Curious as to see what the final build-out would be when the North Bypass gets built. I have an idea but would be nice to see theirs.
I was wondering the same thing about the north bypass. In the interim it looks like there will be another intersection on Vic East at what is now tower road until the interchange for the north bypass gets built - don't know how many years out that will be (Saskatoon may get a new north bridge before the north bypass gets built in Regina?). I also had ideas about a potential interchange but would rather see what the actual plans are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #417  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 5:09 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
The "Dakota extension" land has been set aside for a future flyover, in case enough land was ever assembled for development in St. Vital south of the Perimeter (which is still City of Winnipeg). If anything, it's good planning to set aside land for potential right of ways, even if they're not needed for several years (or in some cases, decades).

As for the Sugar Beat lands, iirc, they were granted (or were going to be granted) a right-in, right-out only (not an intersection). Similar to what you see at the Home Depot/Sobeys development on Bishop, just west of St. Annes.
Well that's good news on both fronts. I don't mind the right in/right out things, but they should be constructed such that the right in turn lane ends, if you will. The ones currently on Bishop have almost like a shoulder lane that people use as a third lane to pass, pretty dangerous some times. See the one on Lag at Rona.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #418  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2013, 11:57 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,504
Dakota is unlikely to be connected at-grade to the Perimeter.

For one thing , there's room set aside for an overpass. Secondly , the province is actually trying to remove at-grade access points. Thirdly , there's no reason to extend it because the traffic is too light at that point anyway.

I could be wrong of course but even the diagram doesn't look like it's meant to be an at-grade intersection.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #419  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 3:58 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Further to the Bishop Grandin Sugar Beets land access. There was a posting in the Free press today for some land zoning or something. The new access to Bishop will be called Newmarket Blvd. Didn't show anything in the way of design, just the property lines with the road names. Scurfield would be extended east to connect with the new road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #420  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2013, 4:42 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Further to the Bishop Grandin Sugar Beets land access. There was a posting in the Free press today for some land zoning or something. The new access to Bishop will be called Newmarket Blvd. Didn't show anything in the way of design, just the property lines with the road names. Scurfield would be extended east to connect with the new road.
Newmarket has been shown on the Sherlock's map for awhile.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
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 9:32 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.