Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension - Page 40

h0twired · #**781** Posted **Dec 9, 2011, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Why would that diamond interchange shown above create any more intersections than is currently at CPT and Henderson? I don't think i understand. CPT would turn into a free flowing road and Henderson would have a signalized intersection for access to CPT. I don't see where you would be creating any more than you currently have.

You need a controlled intersection for both sides of the diamond.

esquire · #**782** Posted **Dec 9, 2011, 3:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired

You need a controlled intersection for both sides of the diamond.

A single-point urban interchange is functionally the same as a diamond but only requires one intersection on the non-free flowing road. It would be a logical fit for Henderson and CPT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-...an_interchange

Techman224 · #**783** Posted **Dec 9, 2011, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

A single-point urban interchange is functionally the same as a diamond but only requires one intersection on the non-free flowing road. It would be a logical fit for Henderson and CPT.

Unfortunately, snow is difficult to remove on SPUI's, and you know how Winnipeg's winters are.

h0twired · #**784** Posted **Dec 9, 2011, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

A single-point urban interchange is functionally the same as a diamond but only requires one intersection on the non-free flowing road. It would be a logical fit for Henderson and CPT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-...an_interchange

So that would require CPT to go under Henderson while Henderson remains at grade.

Very unlikely to happen.

esquire · #**785** Posted **Dec 9, 2011, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired

So that would require CPT to go under Henderson while Henderson remains at grade.

Very unlikely to happen.

I'm not sure why you'd consider that to be very unlikely as there are already instances in this city where the free-flowing road goes under (e.g. the new Rothesay at CPT flyover, Pembina at Bishop Grandin), but in any event, CPT could go either over or under. The diagram on the wiki page is merely an example of how a SPUI could be laid out.

Kinguni · #**786** Posted **Dec 9, 2011, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired

The problem with a diamond interchange on Henderson at CPT is that it would turn one intersection on Henderson into two.

That style of diamond interchange only has one set of lights.

Cam · #**787** Posted **Dec 9, 2011, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Techman224

Unfortunately, snow is difficult to remove on SPUI's, and you know how Winnipeg winter are.

Why?
Is it because of a complex bridge? If so might I suggest that the intersection goes underneath CPT.

Donwood · #**788** Posted **Dec 10, 2011, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired

So that would require CPT to go under Henderson while Henderson remains at grade.

Very unlikely to happen.

I agree, if the city spends more money on CPT it will be on the extension to McPhillips.

EastK · #**789** Posted **Dec 11, 2011, 5:04 PM**

Anyone know if there are plans to develop the land between the tracks and McPhillips? Red River is already full and that area seems pretty prime for development. Maybe people don't want to live that close to the sewage plant....

Reed Solomon · #**790** Posted **Dec 11, 2011, 5:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastK

Anyone know if there are plans to develop the land between the tracks and McPhillips? Red River is already full and that area seems pretty prime for development. Maybe people don't want to live that close to the sewage plant....

People used to live there but the city expropriated that land for the extension to McPhillips a number of years back.

The plan is clearly to extend to McPhillips, however there is as yet no date on when that will begin. Hopefully it goes quicker than the extension to Lagimodiere.

In any case, there are still a ridiculous amount of houses being built close to the sewage plant.

Riverman · #**791** Posted **Dec 11, 2011, 6:58 PM**

I don't think anyone lived west of the tracks in the CPT area, the residential area that was expropriated was east of the tracks, Highland and Foley avenues. The City still owned a few houses on those streets and were renting them until they were torn down a few years ago.

The expropriations took place in the early seventies I believe.

rypinion · #**792** Posted **Dec 11, 2011, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

The expropriations took place in the early seventies I believe.

Started in the 70's but the homes weren't all gone until the late nineties.

Riverman · #**793** Posted **Dec 11, 2011, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

Started in the 70's but the homes weren't all gone until the late nineties.

Yes, the City was renting them out.

Jets4Life · #**794** Posted **Dec 11, 2011, 11:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donwood

I agree, if the city spends more money on CPT it will be on the extension to McPhillips.

I would love to see CPT extended to McPhillips sometime within the next three-five years.

The Jabroni · #**795** Posted **Dec 12, 2011, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rypinion

Started in the 70's but the homes weren't all gone until the late nineties.

The last homes along what used to be Highland Ave, were last cleared in 2001. It was an eerie sight for a while when there were just freshly filled in holes of what used to be houses.

That area still gives me the chills whenever I drive by that area.

I'm thinking more that if they decided to build houses west of the tracks to McPhillips, then it would be north of Murray Ave, until up to the North End Snow Disposal Area.

rrskylar · #**796** Posted **Dec 12, 2011, 6:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I would love to see CPT extended to McPhillips sometime within the next three-five years.

Personally I think it makes more sense to connect CPT to Plessis first with the amount of new development going in that area.

The Jabroni · #**797** Posted **Dec 12, 2011, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Personally I think it makes more sense to connect CPT to Plessis first with the amount of new development going in that area.

...and as mentioned in this thread a few pages back, the amount of traffic coming from Springfield (now CPT), going into Grassie Blvd east. It would definitely make sense to extend east to there. Whether it will be part CPT and then turning right into Ed Schreyer Pky is matter of debate for TPTB.

MrGrinch · #**798** Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 3:02 PM**

The city just finished paving Pipeline north of Amber Trail up to and past north Templeton (paving ends in the middle of nowhere). They also graded what looks like a new second lane that perhaps will be completed next spring (looks like they just ran out of time). While Pipeline this isn't part of the CPT project it will be a major connector to it and good to see the city getting ready. I would suspect where the paving ends is where CPT will run east-west across Pipeline.

And those who don't believe this is a priority area I would argue that Amber Trails is easily amongst the fastest growing parts of the city.

EastK · #**799** Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 4:47 PM**

It really is. Every time I am up there to visit a buddy of mine there is another bunch of new streets filled with houses. I wonder when they will twin Leila? There is easily enough room to add a couple more lanes to that street.

art deco · #**800** Posted **Dec 13, 2011, 4:55 PM**

Driven down the CPT a few times now and can't help but think that this thing was built quickly and cheaply so the City can demonstrate "success" on a P3. Has anyone heard about the effectiveness of the noise barriers? they look incredibly under-sized (too low) and are made of some kind of foam/rubber material? are they meant to absorb noise? Also no noise attenuation of any kind east of henderson on the north side where there is still residential on Douglas Ave. Most noise walls I have seen in larger urban centres use concrete, and they are taller. I would think height of wall improves attentuation. Even the ones to the west of Henderson near the bridge are made of concrete. The bridge over Rothesay seems shoe-horned in, and properties adjacent are right at the bridge, who would want to live, pay taxes there? nobody wants expropriation but in this case it might have made some sense. Would like to hear from anyone the lives there or knows someone who does.