Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[Dengler Avenue]

Another thing: I’ve always heard people say that Highway 15 is too built up for widening. Are they referring to Dugald Road between Perimeter and Plessis Road? If yes, is it possible to just widen it by eliminating the shoulders, slightly narrowing the lanes to 3.2 meters each and lowering to speed limit to 50~60 kph? Then, we only need to do a semi-cloverleaf interchange at 101/15 (with 101 flying over, obviously). If one wanna be fancy, we can put roundabouts on both intersections.

[optimusREIM]

Yeah 15 doesn't need to be free flowing. The interchange could be built to accommodate future widening of both roadways. Diamond is warranted here and maybe parclo although I think most traffic there is through traffic, commuters using Dugald rd to get to work

[bomberjet]

https://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.ht...ve=&item=44684

PROVINCE ANNOUNCES SOUTH PERIMETER SAFETY UPGRADES PLANNED

Proposed work as part of this safety plan includes:
• affecting median openings and accesses in 24 locations from Fermor Avenue to Portage Avenue, wherever intersections are controlled with stop signs;
• opening the roundabout at PTH 2 and PTH 3;
• PTH 3/PTH 100 intersection improvements;
• service road improvements at PTH3/PTH100/Oakland Road;
• constructing a service road from Oakland Road to the Wilkes Avenue interchange;
• service road improvements to more safely connect Brady Road to the South Perimeter Highway;
• constructing a service road and railway crossing to connect Aimes Road and Melnick Road; and
• constructing left turn lanes at Symington Road.

I'm not quite clear on the 'affecting median openings' part. I assume they mean closing them?

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

https://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.ht...ve=&item=44684

PROVINCE ANNOUNCES SOUTH PERIMETER SAFETY UPGRADES PLANNED

Proposed work as part of this safety plan includes:
• affecting median openings and accesses in 24 locations from Fermor Avenue to Portage Avenue, wherever intersections are controlled with stop signs;
• opening the roundabout at PTH 2 and PTH 3;
• PTH 3/PTH 100 intersection improvements;
• service road improvements at PTH3/PTH100/Oakland Road;
• constructing a service road from Oakland Road to the Wilkes Avenue interchange;
• service road improvements to more safely connect Brady Road to the South Perimeter Highway;
• constructing a service road and railway crossing to connect Aimes Road and Melnick Road; and
• constructing left turn lanes at Symington Road.

I'm not quite clear on the 'affecting median openings' part. I assume they mean closing them?

Sounds like closures to me. Interesting that Symington is now getting a left turn lane instead of a median closure. RM of Springfield is notorious for interfering with anything that might impact business, even if it is in the name of public safety. I wonder if they had a play in this.

Another change is Aimes/Melnick getting a rail crossing, so it looks like they will remove one access on either side of the road, on top of the already promised median closures.

P.S. for any map nerds like myself the 59/101 interchange is updated on google maps

[bomberjet]

Really? I was just looking there today, including in historical images. It was still showing from last year.

Edit: Oh I was thinking Google Earth images. But yeah Maps shows the new loops. It looks so odd, having a proper interchange there. Still missing one loop!

[Bluenote]

I was reading CBC online and you know how the older ads come up. One was from 2015 from the Ndp and the redevelopment of the south perimeter. Had they been elected and kept their promise. St Anne’s and st Mary’s would have overpasses by now. Or well under way. Yet here we have Pallister bragging about cutting off access to the perimeter which should have been done in 1980 as some huge improvement. Yet it’s going to take till 2022 to do.

Let’s be honest. This would take a month to do with an excavator and tearing out these roads. Throw up some temp con concrete barrriers and voila. Done.

The service roads then can be done. But ffs it will be 2030 when they get to any real improvements.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

I was reading CBC online and you know how the older ads come up. One was from 2015 from the Ndp and the redevelopment of the south perimeter. Had they been elected and kept their promise. St Anne’s and st Mary’s would have overpasses by now. Or well under way. Yet here we have Pallister bragging about cutting off access to the perimeter which should have been done in 1980 as some huge improvement. Yet it’s going to take till 2022 to do.

Let’s be honest. This would take a month to do with an excavator and tearing out these roads. Throw up some temp con concrete barrriers and voila. Done.

The service roads then can be done. But ffs it will be 2030 when they get to any real improvements.

Wow, you really believe that, I'm selling part of the Disraeli Bridge, want to buy a share?

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by WildCake

RM of Springfield is notorious for interfering with anything that might impact business, even if it is in the name of public safety. I wonder if they had a play in this.

People need to keep in mind Springfield is one of the strongest of all Tory strongholds in terms of ridings. Searching as far back as I can in records online they have never voted in anyone that wasn't a Tory. Hence no "interference" is needed with provincial transportation plans.

And in terms of HWY 15 being over built, it is between 206 and 207 that is the zone of the issue as is the proximity to the CN main line. There would be lots of expropriations required to properly twin the highway. Alternatively they could go the green field route to the north in the "Oak Bank corridor" proposal that would better align with the north-east highway (aka CPT, CCW, Headingley By-Pass, etc). Cost of the two projects would be fairly similar. Moving to the north would largely go through agricultural fields so lower property cost but higher construction cost. It would also move away from the CN main line and indirectly address a long list of safety issues.

[Glenn99]

Drove through the new traffic circle @ highway 2 and 3 on Friday. What an improvement. So, much safer and faster.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by CoryB

People need to keep in mind Springfield is one of the strongest of all Tory strongholds in terms of ridings. Searching as far back as I can in records online they have never voted in anyone that wasn't a Tory. Hence no "interference" is needed with provincial transportation plans.

And in terms of HWY 15 being over built, it is between 206 and 207 that is the zone of the issue as is the proximity to the CN main line. There would be lots of expropriations required to properly twin the highway. Alternatively they could go the green field route to the north in the "Oak Bank corridor" proposal that would better align with the north-east highway (aka CPT, CCW, Headingley By-Pass, etc). Cost of the two projects would be fairly similar. Moving to the north would largely go through agricultural fields so lower property cost but higher construction cost. It would also move away from the CN main line and indirectly address a long list of safety issues.

You get that when the rest of us get a fully functional perimeter highway and number one highway. Last thing we need to spend our limited funds on is another highway from OakBank. You guys have a lot of options to the city. You don’t need more. And wrecking prime agriculture land just so you can save a few minutes on your commute is insane.
I’ve driven Hwy 15 countless times. In snowstorms and rush hour. It is have paved shoulders. Traffic lights. You seem to like those. Maybe we need to have transit make a special line for you guys also.

Either way. All the other bedroom towns are growing faster now and have even crappier roads. I don’t see then on here crying about the stupid Oakbluff corridor that some person dreamed up 50 years ago.

[rrskylar]

Drove Centre Port Way on the weekend (day time) and as usual I was about the only vehicle on it, still can't believe the unnecessary expenditure on a little used roadway when there were dozens of more pressing road upgrades needed throughout the capital region!

The money would have been better spend upgrading the existing Perimeter, building either the St. Norbert or Headingley bypasses, cloverleafs at St, Mary's or St. Annes or just about anything else!

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Glenn99

Drove through the new traffic circle @ highway 2 and 3 on Friday. What an improvement. So, much safer and faster.

I also drove through the new circle last night. Seemed fine and moved traffic really well. I would have liked to sit nearby and watch an 18 wheeler go through though. It seemed much too tight for a 53ft trailer.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Drove Centre Port Way on the weekend (day time) and as usual I was about the only vehicle on it, still can't believe the unnecessary expenditure on a little used roadway when there were dozens of more pressing road upgrades needed throughout the capital region!

The money would have been better spend upgrading the existing Perimeter, building either the St. Norbert or Headingley bypasses, cloverleafs at St, Mary's or St. Annes or just about anything else!

On one level I can agree, but when you look at all the deficiencies that had to be addressed either way (Inkster and Sturgeon in need of twinning, grade separation/interchange necessary at Saskatchewan Ave., railway overpass needed at CP main line), then CCW as built actually starts to make some degree of sense.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by esquire

On one level I can agree, but when you look at all the deficiencies that had to be addressed either way (Inkster and Sturgeon in need of twinning, grade separation/interchange necessary at Saskatchewan Ave., railway overpass needed at CP main line), then CCW as built actually starts to make some degree of sense.

Exactly. The amount of big truck traffic that uses it is high. It’s wasn’t built for the daily commuters. And once it’s complete to bypass Headingly it will then be probably underbuilt for the volumes of traffic it will get. Right now it’s really just a dead end highway.

The part I hate of the design was northbound traffic on perimeter that will eventually want to go west has to cross what will eventually be the number one highway. They didn’t think of actually putting I’m a cloverleaf here and that’s a mistake in the design.

The other isn having two sets of lights somclose together when they could have just had one set. Or better no lights.

But when it’s done and hopefully soon the amount of idiots merging off portage to perimeter might drop. One can only hope.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

The part I hate of the design was northbound traffic on perimeter that will eventually want to go west has to cross what will eventually be the number one highway. They didn’t think of actually putting I’m a cloverleaf here and that’s a mistake in the design.

I would think they'd modify the interchange once CCW is extended west toward the TCH, no?

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

The part I hate of the design was northbound traffic on perimeter that will eventually want to go west has to cross what will eventually be the number one highway. They didn’t think of actually putting I’m a cloverleaf here and that’s a mistake in the design.

NB Perimeter to WB CCW is planned to remain a light traffic flow with mostly personal passenger vehicles. Most of the commercial truck traffic is going to be approaching from the east, west and south with EB not really needing access to the NB lanes. There also seems like a NB to WB fly over could be added later if the traffic flows warrant it.

I also think other than commercial truck traffic the overall impact to Portage and the Perimeter ramps will be minimal. A lot of that is relatively local in destination/origin.

--

PS I continue to find it humorous that

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Bluenote

thinks I have anything at stake in the HWY 15 redevelopment. I will likely never drive on that route in my lifetime but at the same time I see its importance in the overall capital region road network, the safety related upgrades on the Perimeter and the political importance of the route. All details people seem to overlook here.

[bomberjet]

The NB 101 to WB CCW will be very busy. It will be the main route of the #1.

I believe they left out the loop and the 4th bridge so the decision can be made whether to make it a flyover from the start or put in the loop. It'll either be 2 loops or a flyover and 1 loop. Same setup as 59N/101.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The NB 101 to WB CCW will be very busy. It will be the main route of the #1.

I believe they left out the loop and the 4th bridge so the decision can be made whether to make it a flyover from the start or put in the loop. It'll either be 2 loops or a flyover and 1 loop. Same setup as 59N/101.

I would guess flyover because of traffic volumes.

[bomberjet]

Same here. Funny this map is part of a news post in the OP. Shows a fly-over interchange, but not in the right configuration. Rotate that 90 degrees clockwise. Again, Same as 59n/101.

https://news.gov.mb.ca/asset_library...ey_by_pass.pdf

[Biff]

I would have to say that the Conceptual Plan seems correct. The idea is that the traffic from CCW going West goes straight through and the traffic going to the east and to the US would be the heaviest, so it gets a flyover. You are right in there would probably be suitable traffic numbers to support a flyover from NB Perimeter traffic to the WB Headingley Bypass.

I don't believe the render is wrong though.