New Interchanges and Bypasses in MB / SK

[SKYSTHELIMIT]

Originally Posted by Biff

The difference is that the proposed Birds Hill proposal is a Provincial project. The province has the money to do things right (hopefully they will start doing things right). The CPT or any intersection for that matter on 59 from Knowles St to the south perimeter would be a City project. The City has no money.

......i don't want to make anyone more unhappy with the state of signalized intersection along Lagimodiere Blvd but there are a couple more awaiting city approval at Sage Creek Blvd and Warde Ave (Warde doesn't yet connect with Lagimodiere, but it will)

I could sense Sage was coming, especially with a Tims and large format grocery about to commence construction. The speed will be reduced down to 80 as well up to the new lights from the current 90.

[Joshy]

Originally Posted by esquire

A cloverstack is essentially a modified cloverleaf with flyover ramps, usually replacing two of the four loops in a cloverleaf. It gets used for those instances where traffic is too heavy for a traditional cloverleaf but not heavy enough for a full-on stack interchange.

In the case of 101-59, the last word from the Province was that there will only be one flyover ramp for eastbound 101 traffic turning on to northbound 59.

You can see a detailed diagram on page 15 of this PDF document: http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/pdf/info.pdf

Thanks!

[The Bess]

here's a link to some up to date photos of the bridge and overpass project in saskatoon

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Photos...793/story.html

[Jack1983]

Originally Posted by original

It probably is a money issue. If they had more funds, I'm sure they would of placed a cloverleaf at CPT/59 for the future link.
That's just me day dreaming right now though.

Does anyone know what kind of interchange their building at Kenneston/Bishop? Drove by last week, lots of dirt hills...

The intersection at Kenaston and Bishop will be a flyerover from Soutbound Kenaston to Eastbound Bishop. There will be lights to get onto/off the kenaston extension.

Drawings for the first contract can be found at:
http://www.winnipeg.ca/MatMgt/Folder...2011&YEAR=2011

I heard somewhere that it will be a 50M dollar job.

[Mininari]

I guess this is acceptable; through traffic on route 90 won't have to stop.

I was looking at some of the other drawings associated with that, and it looks like they're going to be widening Bishop @ the Bishop - Waverley intersection to 6 lanes? Is that included in this contract, or on a future 'wish list'?

[roccerfeller]

Wow that actually looks really nice, I never saw this before.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Mininari

I guess this is acceptable; through traffic on route 90 won't have to stop.

I was looking at some of the other drawings associated with that, and it looks like they're going to be widening Bishop @ the Bishop - Waverley intersection to 6 lanes? Is that included in this contract, or on a future 'wish list'?

yeah that's what it appears will happen

[Jets4Life]

I love what Winnipeg has done on Kenaston and Sterling Lyon, near the new Ikea. More traffic lights! I'm so glad they banned limited access highways or off ramps within the city limits. I would rather be congested in traffic in Winnipeg than breeze through Calgary using the Deerfoot Trail at 100km/h.

[Riverman]

Why is that Winnipeg has such an aversion to build limited access roads or expressways?

[1ajs]

the city does not have the money to build them

[Joshy]

Considering that diamond interchanges are about 15 to 20 million, there is no reason why the city can't construct a few of these every year at key intersections to improve traffic flow throughout the city. The whole "not enough money" excuse is just that, an excuse.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

the city does not have the money to build them

Funny, Saskatoon does. Fargo does. Even Chicoutimi does.

That's a cop out.

[Joshy]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Funny, Saskatoon does. Fargo does. Even Chicoutimi does.

That's a cop out.

Exactly. I think it has less to do with actual funding, but rather this "anti-change" mentality that grips this city's mind-set.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Why is that Winnipeg has such an aversion to build limited access roads or expressways?

I think there are a few reasons. First, there's the cost argument. People mention that places like Calgary and Fargo can afford them, so why not here? Fargo's freeways are paid for by the federal government, cause they are part of the interstate system; Calgary, as a newer city, doesn't have the maintenance costs of fixing older infrastructure like we do here.

Secondly, because of Winnipeg's history (older city, amalgamation), there are actually very few roadways that could be converted into limited access expressways. Look at all the routes leading into downtown: Portage, Provencher, Notre Dame, St. Mary's, Henderson, Marion, Main, etc. All of these routes are major streets with countless cross-streets and lined with retail.

Realistically, the only streets that could be converted would be Bishop/Kenaston (only part of it, I might add), Plessis in the future, Parts or Lag, Chief Peguis, and Moray... As it stands, other than Kenaston, none of these routes (outside rushhour) necessitate grade separation - especially since none of them lead in/out of the core.

Look at Toronto, which you bring up as your dream location. Very little in the way of expressway infrastructure (unless you're commuting from the outskirts of the GTA). The freeways in the city are at a standstill for rushhour in both directions (especially the DVP). And, if you live anywhere near the centre of TO (say Yonge/Eglinton), you would actually have no use for those freeways to get around within the city... There's no question that as Winnipeg approaches 1M people, our streets will get more congested and traffic woes will increase. The way to address that will be rapid transit leading in and out of the core, and higher densities along established corridors, not freeways. And, as much as I love cruising the Deerfoot when I'm in Calgary, I find that at certain times of the day, you might have to wait 3 or 4 lights to make a left turn out of some of the other trails. You never see that hear in Winnipeg. Overall, it's pretty easy to get around our city (time-wise)...

[1ajs]

fargo? o u mean the interstates thats federaly funded

[Riverman]

Certainly frontage roads could be considered, are they being considered around the new retail in the south? I rarely drive down that way so I don't know what's happening.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Look at Toronto, which you bring up as your dream location. Very little in the way of expressway infrastructure (unless you're commuting from the outskirts of the GTA). The freeways in the city are at a standstill for rushhour in both directions (especially the DVP). And, if you live anywhere near the centre of TO (say Yonge/Eglinton), you would actually have no use for those freeways to get around within the city.

You kind of answered yourself there. Toronto doesn't have as much of a need for urban expressways as they have great public transit (great to Winnipeggers anyway). However there are very quick ways to avoid Toronto traffic, I have seen many amazing fast routes that locals use but can't describe them as I've been just a passenger.

I can cite one example, I took my car out there this summer to do beach trips and check out neighbourhoods for when we are ready to move. We took a ride up Younge one day just to see the whole thing - man is that a congested PITA. On the way back we went south down Mount Pleasant which is almost like an expressway. Travelling east and west, Richmond and Adelaide are kind of the same. It seems the lights are timed to make traffic flow quite quickly.

[roccerfeller]

BDog - great points, though I must say, while you are right that Winnipeg needn't strive for an all out conversion/style per se, I do think there are a few key points where there could be diamond lanes or at least something. I mean, Sterling Lyon from Kenaston to Shaftesbury is going to have more traffic light in between it. Is that something that could have been averted, especially considering the space they have right now? I think some more intelligent planning could have been beneficial in that case.

I am happy the Kenaston extension will not bring another set of traffic lights, which is a good sign. But the IKEA development bringing new traffic lights, on a road that served as a quick expressway route @ 80km/hr is disappointing.

[original]

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

But the IKEA development bringing new traffic lights, on a road that served as a quick expressway route @ 80km/hr is disappointing.

Kenaston has 3 lanes turning onto Sterling Lyon... *sigh*

With all the room they had their, a diamond interchange would of been a lot better, a cloverleaf with collector roads on the sides would of worked too.

The city *loves* at grade intersections. Even when they involve a ridiculous amount of lanes.

What happens a few decades down the line when there is a bunch of more developments behind/around Ikea and Season? That intersection is going to be a nightmare... The city has no long-term views on infrastructure.

Not to mention the current Route 90 bottle neck where it goes to 50-60km/h... Oh Winnipeg... *sigh*

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by original

Not to mention the current Route 90 bottle neck where it goes to 50-60km/h... Oh Winnipeg... *sigh*

There's nothing that can be done about that at this point.