New Interchanges and Bypasses in MB / SK - Page 46

esquire · #**901** Posted **Dec 17, 2019, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

So does Ireland, trouble with roundabouts here is that no one knows how to use them!

Maybe in 2007 that might have been the case, but there have been enough of them built over the last decade that I'd say most people are generally familiar with them.

Dengler Avenue · #**902** Posted **Dec 18, 2019, 1:51 AM**

I just noticed one thing: SK-7 Vanscoy Bypass is still not showing up on Google Map.

bomberjet · #**903** Posted **Jan 17, 2020, 8:02 PM**

Brought this over from the other thread at Denglers request.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Here is the highway:
http://www.brandonareaplanning.mb.ca...s/Highways.pdf

Here is the north gateway secondary plan proposal:
http://brandon.ca/images/pdf/plannin...mber4_2013.pdf

The Bess · #**904** Posted **Jan 22, 2020, 6:22 PM**

Some updates on proposed Saskatoon Freeway

https://saskatoonfreeway.org/phase-1/

blacktrojan3921 · #**905** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 7:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bess

Some updates on proposed Saskatoon Freeway

https://saskatoonfreeway.org/phase-1/

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the Saskatoon Freeway is not enclosed, much like the West Regina Bypass?

I just find it odd that both projects involve making 3/4 of an entire circle.

Dengler Avenue · #**906** Posted **Feb 8, 2020, 3:45 AM**

Also, does anyone have the link to MB-1 Deacon Corners Bypass? Thanks in advance. Initially, I thought that the proximity of Petro Canada wouldn’t be a concern because (I thought) there would be enough space in the median to put in the overpasses. It turned out that such median doesn’t exist... Now that I think about it, with the Petro Canada and rail track so close to the highway, TCH’s better off realigned.

YWG-RO · #**907** Posted **Feb 8, 2020, 8:23 PM**

We’ll have flying cars by then.

WildCake · #**908** Posted **Feb 8, 2020, 8:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Also, does anyone have the link to MB-1 Deacon Corners Bypass? Thanks in advance. Initially, I thought that the proximity of Petro Canada wouldn’t be a concern because (I thought) there would be enough space in the median to put in the overpasses. It turned out that such median doesn’t exist... Now that I think about it, with the Petro Canada and rail track so close to the highway, TCH’s better off realigned.

Could be wrong but I think that was just an SSP'er drawing. I'm not aware of any official plan for a realignment.

Dengler Avenue · #**909** Posted **Feb 8, 2020, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildCake

Could be wrong but I think that was just an SSP'er drawing. I'm not aware of any official plan for a realignment.

I saw it too. He drew a diamond at Deacon’s Corner, though, which I’m starting to disagree with. I will draw my proposal of TCH/207 and Perimeter Highway/TCH (Fermor Avenue) when I get to it.

bomberjet · #**910** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 3:58 PM**

There is no actual public study of Deacon's Corner. Biff drew up a nice sketch in Google earth. I think the diamond was north of the current intersection, pushed away from the railway. having the railway 100' from the highway is not good for any type of grade seps.

Biff · #**911** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 4:08 PM**

This is what I envisioned years ago.

bomberjet · #**912** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 4:09 PM**

Yippee. It makes sense. doesn't really add any new curves into the highway. just relocates them from at the floodway bridges to east of deacon.

optimusREIM · #**913** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 4:10 PM**

Yeah it wouldn't be the most disruptive project. Just need to move a couple access roads and maybe add a rail over pass to the 207. One homeowner would be displaced.

bomberjet · #**914** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 4:37 PM**

Pie in the sky for #1. Diamond interchanges at Deacon, Realigned Station Road to the west, 206, and the east end of 207 connecting to Rosewood Rd on the north side. There's your freeway out to #12. 4 diamonds required.

Dengler Avenue · #**915** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 5:14 PM**

My bad, I thought you were referring to the diamond at 207 as pie in the sky. I guess your proposal will be one in terms of funding, but in terms of engineering that’s the way to go.

Dengler Avenue · #**916** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There is no actual public study of Deacon's Corner. Biff drew up a nice sketch in Google earth. I think the diamond was north of the current intersection, pushed away from the railway. having the railway 100' from the highway is not good for any type of grade seps.

Now that I think about the last part a bit more, this isn’t entirely true. Just look at Turcot Interchange in Montreal. In Ontario, 401 through eastern GTA is very close to the tracks, yet the grade-separations are just fine.

bomberjet · #**917** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 5:49 PM**

Yes of course. Just like the Perimter/#1 interchange has the bridges over the tracks. But it requires grade seps which cost millions. Add that up over the 4 interchanges I mentioned and it increases cost significantly.

How would you fit a diamond interchange at Deacon with the railway right there? Or any of those locations really. It becomes difficult and messy. Having no railway there is much easier. Seeing as how the province recently rebuilt that entire stretch, I doubt there are nay plans for this anyways.

Dengler Avenue · #**918** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Yes of course. Just like the Perimter/#1 interchange has the bridges over the tracks. But it requires grade seps which cost millions. Add that up over the 4 interchanges I mentioned and it increases cost significantly.

How would you fit a diamond interchange at Deacon with the railway right there. You can't really. Having no railway there is much easier.

Watch me. I’ve intended to draw and showcase my version of the two interchanges across the floodway.

Also my thinking is this: If you grade-separate the cross road from the highway, you may as well include the rail track in the package.

esquire · #**919** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Watch me. I’ve intended to draw and showcase my version of the two interchanges across the floodway.

Also my thinking is this: If you grade-separate the cross road from the highway, you may as well include the rail track in the package.

There is some merit to including a rail overpass there as part of the plan... it is a fairly heavily used rail line, and PR 207 is a somewhat significant road leading into the town of Lorette.

bomberjet · #**920** Posted **Feb 10, 2020, 6:25 PM**

How will you connect to 207 to #1 in between the track and highway?

If you're following any sort of standards, you can't. Look at the diamond interchanges proposed on the south Perimeter and how far offset the ramps are. You'd have to start pushing the highway north, and building either vertical walls for the ramps or make them on structure entirely. Even then the railway owns their property, so I don't think there's room.

Maybe start looking at the U-shaped interchanges I suppose.