Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by WildCake

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...

It's actually shown as an expressway, which isn't a full freeway - mostly controlled access but can have intersections. They look similar but you can see the difference where they intersect (Highways 11 and 400 in Ontario for example). Google Maps is kind of like Wikipedia in that regular users can make edits. The edits are reviewed before they're published but the standards aren't always consistently applied.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by biguc

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.

The challenge with Deacon's Corner is HWY 1 east needs a truck stop. Rather than closing the corner it needs to be turned into a diamond with the HWY 1 through traffic being free flowing much like I29 in Pembina.

[bomberjet]

Deacons needs an interchange. As its the only place to go for gas for a long ways. Beyond that close all those tiny crossings. We all know what needs to be done..

[Biff]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The challenge with Deacon's Corner is HWY 1 east needs a truck stop. Rather than closing the corner it needs to be turned into a diamond with the HWY 1 through traffic being free flowing much like I29 in Pembina.

I believe the long range plan is for an interchange around the north side of Deacons Corner. It lines up well with the new Floodway bridges. There is no room with the current alignment and there is too much commercial development to economically make it viable to buy it all out an move it.

...of course, you all know what future plans equate too.

[Gm0ney]

Originally Posted by biguc

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.

What? I almost never stop at Deacon's. Everyone knows Prawda's the place to go...

[biguc]

I mean you have to stop at the light. Agreed on Prawda, I even prefer Richer over Deacon's.

As for actually leveling Deacon's corner, that was a bit of hyperbole. But the proximity of the tracks to the highway would make designing an interchange tougher. Something like the Falcon Lake interchange would work, anyway.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Gm0ney

What? I almost never stop at Deacon's. Everyone knows Prawda's the place to go...

Except when you need A&W. haha

The alignment of Hwy 1 Biff talked about makes a lot of sense.

[Biff]

Kind of like this

[bomberjet]

Yup, looks good. Git'r done Biff!

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Biff

Kind of like this

I'm impressed you even took the time to match the colours of the crops.

[Chrisforpm]

Drove by the other day and the 59N/101 interchange is starting to look pretty impressive. Almost like it doesn't belong in the Manitoba road network. Not to complain, but I feel like they should've scaled this project back and used the extra money for a couple of other interchanges at key locations.

[CoryB]

I was by 59N/101 two weeks ago and didn't notice anything that seemed really out of scope for MB. The work I have seen proposed and under construction seems very similar to 101/CCW and actually might be a little less complex and 101/CCW has a second road and a railway passing under it.

In terms of the funding side, that is pure BS in itself. Sorry but 59N/101 has waited in the neighbourhood of 50-60 years to be properly built out so to suggest funding should have been diverted elsewhere is just wrong. That project was long overdue and there is no way to not acknowledge that.

In terms of funding side, if anything the province who looks after the Perimeter should be chasing the city for funding to improve the situation with St Annes and St Marys at the Perimeter. And I say that as someone paying taxes to the City.

[esquire]

^ I would agree with you, Cory. I'm no traffic engineer, but from my own experience I would say 59/101 is a pretty appropriately scaled interchange considering existing and likely future need. Even if it is slightly overbuilt now, I don't think it'll take traffic volumes long to catch up with that capacity.

[bomberjet]

I know I've said this a few times before. 101 between 59 and Hwy 8 is the busiest stretch of roadway in the Province. Higher than 1, 75, 100, everything. They spent $200M in the right spot.

[Chrisforpm]

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, much needed. However it seems kind of odd to spend the money that they are spending on this intersection when traffic lights exist at 8 or so other intersections. Maybe would've been better to spend a bit less to build a few more diamonds at other intersections and get it free flowing.

[bomberjet]

I get what you're saying. That location is a highway to highway, or systems, interchange. So should be big like they're building, just like the CCW interchange (ignoring the white elephant aspects of that project). Intersections like 100/St. Mary's or 100/ St. Anne's should get diamond, like you outlined, as they're smaller roadways.

When the Province rehabbed 59/100 a couple years back, they should've put in the other two ramps, instead of leaving it as the half-clover. Again, systems interchange. 59 is quite busy heading south, with all the new homes out that way. Having people cross 59 like they do is danger.

The Province had 59/101 on the slate for decades, sitting in a half finished configuration, Glad they got it done. Province also has plans to upgrade all that stuff on the South Perimeter. But as we know, governments change and things get cancelled. With Pallisters track record so far, I wouldn't hold your breath for anything to happen soon.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I get what you're saying. That location is a highway to highway, or systems, interchange. So should be big like they're building, just like the CCW interchange (ignoring the white elephant aspects of that project).

It is actually surprising to see CCW had some design compromises built in that could be very dangerous in the long term. The south to east and west to south traffic actually need to cross and share a single lane. In the initial design they likely could have pulled the west-south loop further north and run the south-east traffic under it and then over CCW and into a loop. Now the only fix, if it would even be possible, would a full on stack style design but considering it would need to accommodate large trucks it would be a huge undertaking.

The other compromise on CCW is in south-west traffic pattern. Considering the size and scope of that whole interchange it is surprising to see the south-west flow needs to make a left turn with potentially four lanes of through traffic. It might be possible to fix that one longer term if warranted but would still be somewhat awkward to retrofit.

Of course the thinking in the design at the time is that south-east and north-west flows will always have minimal traffic.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by CoryB

It is actually surprising to see CCW had some design compromises built in that could be very dangerous in the long term. The south to east and west to south traffic actually need to cross and share a single lane. In the initial design they likely could have pulled the west-south loop further north and run the south-east traffic under it and then over CCW and into a loop. Now the only fix, if it would even be possible, would a full on stack style design but considering it would need to accommodate large trucks it would be a huge undertaking.

The other compromise on CCW is in south-west traffic pattern. Considering the size and scope of that whole interchange it is surprising to see the south-west flow needs to make a left turn with potentially four lanes of through traffic. It might be possible to fix that one longer term if warranted but would still be somewhat awkward to retrofit.

Of course the thinking in the design at the time is that south-east and north-west flows will always have minimal traffic.

The current weaving of the two ramps is rather difficult to eliminate without elaborate ramps. That's why they put those merges on the separate lanes. They're separate from the through lanes where people are travelling at speed. This is typical at other locations, such as 101/7 and 59/100.

The new 59/101 interchange would be a very similar set-up to the completed 101/CCW interchange. They would add loops, or a loop and a flyover in the ultimate case, in the future for the north-west and east-north movements. I think there are plans to have a fly-over ramp for the north-west movement when the project is completed, if ever. That would maintain traffic at speed through the interchange. May even be a two lane fly-over similar to what's at Bishop and Route 90, although they already built a single lane bridge for the exit ramp... The Headingley bypass would be the main Trans-Canada route, so keeping speeds at 100km/h, or 110 km/h, is preferred. Maybe this is why they left out those ramps and didn't construct the 4th bridge yet, like they did for the rail overpass. The unused bridge from nowhere.

[CoryB]

When CCW was built (street) lights were added to the Perimeter from almost Inkster Roser Rd to Portage Ave. Work is now underway to add lights between Portage and Roblin. This would seem to be in keeping with the previously announced plan to convert the Perimeter to a fully light roadway.

[bomberjet]

Good news. It can be hard to see at times with glare from oncoming vehicles in the pitch black of night.