Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Yes, probably just about any city. Winnipeg isn't the only place on Planet Earth that doesn't have infinite amounts of money.

Developers should be the ones paying for the infrastructure for these new developments and in this case they supposedly are.

[bomberjet]

Cities coming hot and heavy with RFP's.

http://www.winnipeg.ca/MatMgt/Folder...2017&YEAR=2017

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF ROUTE 90 WIDENING BETWEEN TAYLOR AVENUE AND NESS AVENUE

[Reignman]

I would hope that this project would involve removing some of the lights along that part of Kenaston between Taylor and Academy. But that is wishful thinking.

Seems like a helluva lot of money for what will likely amount to little improvement in traffic flow. Current traffic levels will be spread over 3 lanes instead of the current 2. Speed limits may be raised but what does that matter when you can't even get up to max speed because of all the traffic lights.

I would rather see this money spent to grade separate roads that still have an outside chance of being decent one day...like Bishop and Lag. Kenaston is way too far gone now...the city has made sure of that.

[MG922]

I doubt any lights would be removed, other than maybe the pedestrian controlled lights between corydon and grant.

I'd argue that traffic flows a LOT better on Rt90 north of Ness, where there are more lanes, but still quite a few lights. This project would essentially match that capacity. Add some lanes to the bridges, and AT paths, and I think it's a necessary project, and travelling through there will be much more pleasant.

[biguc]

I was under the impression that there already was a preliminary design for widening Kenaston. But why draw something on a napkin when a six figure consulting contract will do?

Anyway, click your heals together three times and repeat, "there's no building your way out of congestion" until the swirling waters of the toilet we flush money down carry us back to Kansas.

[buzzg]

I think the city could/should remove the light at Academy and Kenaston for traffic continuing on Rt 90. Keep the access to the Academy on/off ramp, but there's no need to keep the other side open for the little traffic that goes through there. Use Wellington.

Grant is the intersection that would benefit the most from eliminating lights, Taylor is pretty big and dangerous for whatever reason as well. With the land that will open up to the west of Kenaston @ Grant, i wonder if they'd be able to sneak in some sort of grade separation/interchange, realign the road a bit if needed.

[WildCake]

From what I remember of the old route selection diagrams, all the lights will remain except for the pedestrian activated one which will become an overpass. That being said I think access from some residential streets is eliminated forcing locals to go to this streets with lights.

Off topic from rt 90, but does anyone know if the rapid transit bridges (AT and bus) are being built to accomodate a 3rd lane for bishop grandin? Drove by the other day and it seems like they're being built with little space for roadway expansion

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by WildCake

From what I remember of the old route selection diagrams, all the lights will remain except for the pedestrian activated one which will become an overpass. That being said I think access from some residential streets is eliminated forcing locals to go to this streets with lights.

Off topic from rt 90, but does anyone know if the rapid transit bridges (AT and bus) are being built to accomodate a 3rd lane for bishop grandin? Drove by the other day and it seems like they're being built with little space for roadway expansion

That's just for the new stupid development on the old sugar beet plant grounds. The city loves dumping traffic onto expressways from retail malls. When they could have just taken the road north and left bishop alone. My guess is the long term goals is to turn bishop into RT 90 style lol

[buzzg]

Drove down Taylor today for the first time in a few weeks. God, it's going to be a nightmare during the underpass construction. Still can't believe the city isn't twinning Taylor before the underpass construction starts. Insane.

Also, I hope the city comes to their senses and ditches the plan for the ridiculous winding bike path through the north side field. Keep the bike path on the south side, extend it to Kenaston. Having a winding path is more annoying for cyclists, and it's not like this is a lush park or forest for a serene stroll. Plus, there's always lots of people doing activities there - why put a path through the middle?

[biguc]

That's my major gripe with how this city builds cycling infrastructure. They act as though cycling is strictly a leisure activity for grown up toddlers to piddle around at. They did the same thing with the Gateway bike path--pointless winding, as if anyone who uses it has time to waste covering significantly greater ground to go the same distance. And that just erodes cycling's viability as a real mode of transportation.

[buzzg]

Yeah, agreed. Saskatoon is doing things the right way. There's bike lanes or AT paths all over the place – and they're CLEARLY indicated with signage appropriate for both drivers and cyclists.

We need to be using signage like this at places where there are vehicles turning in front of bike lanes:

https://voony.files.wordpress.com/20...bikes_sign.jpg

In Saskatoon, they built buffered bike lanes downtown, where cars separate bikes from traffic. Similar to Sherbrook setup, but didn't do any permanent curbs - just bollards, painting, and good signage. The smart thing they did though, was force cyclists out closer to traffic at intersections, so cars can clearly see them, if they're going to be turning right. See here:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@52.12808...7i13312!8i6656

They've just generally done a much better job then in Winnipeg. Actually have painted lanes crossing the intersections and bike boxes as well which increase safety and awareness to vehicles a lot. Winnipeg gets an F in terms of how cyclists are supposed to make turns and handle intersections. It's a joke.

[biguc]

That's impressive in Saskatoon. Good on them. I have to admit, though, that I hate the European left turn system for bikes. Just make a box in front of stopped vehicles and allow cyclists to turn left. Forcing cyclists to cross two streets treats them like pedestrians, not vehicles, is inefficient, and its safety advantages seem dubious since it's creating more intersections with vehicles.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by biguc

That's my major gripe with how this city builds cycling infrastructure. They act as though cycling is strictly a leisure activity for grown up toddlers to piddle around at. They did the same thing with the Gateway bike path--pointless winding, as if anyone who uses it has time to waste covering significantly greater ground to go the same distance. And that just erodes cycling's viability as a real mode of transportation.

The winding is a bit goofy. Good thing it's only about the last 900 metres of the 7 KM path that is windy. I wouldn't quite characterize the gentle bends for that last km as "significantly greater ground", but to each their own.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Bdog

The winding is a bit goofy. Good thing it's only about the last 900 metres of the 7 KM path that is windy. I wouldn't quite characterize the gentle bends for that last km as "significantly greater ground", but to each their own.

You know how I like my hyperbole. I like it so much I'd die if I couldn't drastically overstate things.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by biguc

That's impressive in Saskatoon. Good on them. I have to admit, though, that I hate the European left turn system for bikes. Just make a box in front of stopped vehicles and allow cyclists to turn left. Forcing cyclists to cross two streets treats them like pedestrians, not vehicles, is inefficient, and its safety advantages seem dubious since it's creating more intersections with vehicles.

I think the bike boxes are a pretty decent option, you turn when the light goes yellow/red. The best option I've seen was in Boston, there's 10 ft of green paint in front of the entirety of a street width at lights, so bikes (which travel on the right) can cross over to the left side at a red and turn first. Not easy Tom implement though, and cars already have enough trouble stopping behind the existing lines, god forbid they stop 10 extra feet back.

Originally Posted by Bdog

The winding is a bit goofy. Good thing it's only about the last 900 metres of the 7 KM path that is windy. I wouldn't quite characterize the gentle bends for that last km as "significantly greater ground", but to each their own.

The issue with it though was that it appears they're removing it on the south side. So you will have to cross the street for 2 blocks, then cross back again. And it's not at the end, it actually connects the Waverley and Kenaston AT trails.

[bomberjet]

Yes, the City already went through a functional design of the Route 90 thing a few years back. It was going to be 6 lanes, that's it really. Move some roads around, add a path.

We'll see what the latest study will determine. I assume the previous study will form the basis for the new one, I don't really know though.

Old study homepage.
http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...es/route90.stm

Direct link to the PDF.
http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...mendedPlan.pdf

[buzzg]

Biggest question for me is why are they gutting and renovating all the military housing right now if some are going to be torn down?

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Biggest question for me is why are they gutting and renovating all the military housing right now if some are going to be torn down?

There's been no significant reno's done to any of the PMQ's along Rt. 90.
All the work which started last fall is for houses that are set back from the area in question.
Besides which, launching a study now doesn't mean there will be shovels in the ground any time soon. Study, consult with public, revise plans, do detailed design work, tenders,...
Is this work even in the city's 5-year capital plan?

[jmt18325]

They said road work wouldn't begin for at least 4 years, so, probably a decade.

[The Jabroni]

So, from what I understand, the study is for the bridge(s) only, and not the route itself, since that study was already done, yes?

Had it not been for the dispute about the old base between the federal government and first nations, this project would have been done by now, and the bridges redesigned.

But from what I can tell, since this whole thing was only a study anyway, the bridges are in need of repair or replace regardless.