New Interchanges and Bypasses in MB / SK

Mininari · #1 Posted **Sep 21, 2009, 2:14 PM**

I can think of such a long list of needed interchanges and bypasses throughout these two provinces, it just makes me want to yell "federal stimulus money." Such as:

Lewvan Drive Interchange, Regina ( U / C)

TCH / 16 Intersection: Yes, its getting an interchange! Eliminate one traffic light in the middle of nowhere!

Interchanges in Brandon, MB (it is simply ridiculous... the two signalized interchanges there are busy enough to warrant some interchanges to keep the TCH flowing, and would improve safety too.

Interchange at Elie MB. Yes... I think a good rule for Hwy 75 and the TCH is that if an at-grade intersection warrants a traffic light, it should be immediately upgraded to an interchange.

Perimeter highway / Hwy 59 interchange (FINALLY U/C???)

Dugald Road and Peremeter... the road splits for a future interchange structure, and they're waiting for a new bridge over the floodway first... why?

Moosemin SK (spelling?), needed 4-lane bypass of the town --> So it is finished. I haven't been that way in a while.
Virden (4-Lane bypass)
Headingley (long 4-lane bypass, hook up with the new CentrePort road)
St. Nortbert (4-lane bypass)

I am aware of the Centreport Initiative, and I know that the city is preparing to extend Kenaston Blvd to the Peremeter Highway, but no interchange is planned for the intersection with the Peremeter highway. Why not??? Is this not where the St. Norbert Bypass of Highway 75 would connect to the Peremeter? Would it not make sense to build the interchange and have it ready for the bypass?

Removal of the Waverley Street at-grade interesection will follow, and then all you'd really need is interchanges at Hwy 3 and St. Mary's and you'd have a free-flow perimeter (light free at least) along the southern route. Throw in frontage roads, and you could have a proper freeway.

These all seem like logical improvements to address, especially if this CentrePort initiative is going to go anywhere.

Have I missed any other really BAD and obvious locations that should be grade-seperated, or by-passed?

macca · #2 Posted **Sep 21, 2009, 3:42 PM**

Oh, the trillions that have been spent to make life easier for cars...

harls · #3 Posted **Sep 21, 2009, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mininari

Lewvan Drive Interchange, Regina (finally getting money???)

http://www.marketwire.com/press-rele...a-1034306.html

Mininari · #4 Posted **Sep 21, 2009, 6:04 PM**

Good to hear that it broke ground!

Next up, the Hwy 1 / 16 interchange should start next year in MB.

Kinguni · #5 Posted **Sep 21, 2009, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mininari

Moosemin SK (spelling?), needed 4-lane bypass of the town.

That's already complete. Threw my Nuvi way of driving it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mininari

Removal of the Waverley Street at-grade interesection could follow

That should be "will follow". Waverley is to be realigned to meet Kenaston in Waverley West.

Mininari · #6 Posted **Sep 21, 2009, 10:19 PM**

Edited my original post & list to acknoweldge your comments.
WILL follow is definitely correct, and I haven't been west on the TCH through Saskatchewan since January 2008...
Thanks!

jmt18325 · #7 Posted **Sep 21, 2009, 11:17 PM**

There will be an overpass when the St. Norbert bypass is built. Until then, the road will end at the perimeter and probably won't be busy enough to warrant an overpass. It will happen when the justification is there and when the money is available.

grumpy old man · #8 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 2:26 AM**

How far will this intersection be from Waverly? And Pembina? Dow we really need three in such close proximity? An how many vehicles will use the new intersection to avoid traffic at Waverly?

There simply does not need to be an intersection there at this time. It is an accident waiting to happen.

Do it right or not at all...

hexrae · #9 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 2:32 AM**

There's no intersection at Pembina and Perimeter.

It's my understanding that the intersection at Waverley will be removed in favour of an intersection at Kenaston and Perimeter.

eternallyme · #10 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 2:35 AM**

Will Waverley be severed, or will a grade separation be constructed?

jmt18325 · #11 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 3:37 AM**

Waverly will turn and meet with the extended Kenaston as far as I know. There will be no change in the number intersections with the perimeter, but there will be an increase in lanes. It's an improvement no matter which way you look at it.

Kinguni · #12 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 4:49 AM**

Preliminary map from a few years ago. Kenaston was supposed to be extended in stages as Waverley West grew, at first as just a 2 lane road with the big split of north and south bound Kenaston to happen well into the future. They killed the flyovers for the future Bison Drive pretty quickly too.

jmt18325 · #13 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 4:53 AM**

When were the flyovers killed for the future Bison Drive? Wouldn't they be built when the drive is extended? As far as I know, the rest of the plan is proceeding as shown, with the split and the two interchanges north of the perimeter. The only thinga that won't be done now are the three flyovers.

Kinguni · #14 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 4:56 AM**

Just going by what I remember hearing in the news a while back. Eh, who knows what they'll do in the end, unless someone has some inside information. They seem to keep all the planning very private these days.

jmt18325 · #15 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 2:34 PM**

All I know is that they keep saying that there will be a split in the road somewhere and that there will be two interchanges. Up to there, it seems to jive with that map.

eternallyme · #16 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 3:49 PM**

They should also extend Waverley Street there westward to meet Highway 330 (although that would be in MacDonald RM, and a 2 lane rural secondary highway standard would likely be sufficient - could also be a provincial project), since that is where the next interchange should be and not Brady Road (better serves La Salle and other communities southwest of Winnipeg).

grumpy old man · #17 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 5:34 PM**

The announcement about Waverly West proceeding said the fly-overs were killed due to cost.

Pure horsh1te in my estimation. This project should have been paid for 100% by the developers. There should have been schools and flyovers and all necessary infrastructure included.

But this is how Winnipeg and Manitoba governments behave.

eternallyme · #18 Posted **Sep 22, 2009, 11:16 PM**

I also don't really get the splitting of Kenaston, as that would cut off the central area. Splitting freeways does not create a nice area in the middle. A good example is Interstate 75 in Cincinnati where it creates a couplet in a residential area, which is not a nice area mainly due to the low values created by its poor access and segregation.

http://www.aaroads.com/midwest/i-075se_oh.html

I'd move all the lanes to the eastern side (remove the western side) and add an interchange at Bison Drive.

Kinguni · #19 Posted **Sep 23, 2009, 3:16 AM**

The area in the centre is supposed to be the town centre area, so all commercial.

eternallyme · #20 Posted **Sep 27, 2009, 2:08 AM**

According to the CentrePort Canada site, there seems to be an interchange at Highway 6 also planned on the Perimeter. Eliminate the 409/Pipeline Road traffic light and there would be none across the northern part of Winnipeg.

There would still be up to four on the southern Perimeter and one on the east side though...except for Waverley (to be closed and relocated), there seems to be no plan for any of them although the remaining ones should all be replaced by interchanges.