Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[robertocarlos]

Horrible accident. CBC goofed by not blocking the plate number but still the photo was inappropriate because it was clearly a fatal accident. They later corrected the unblocked plate. Nice of the RCMP to remind us to wait for the intersection to clear before moving.
You can take that as blaming the victim or a warning. Years ago a big rigged ran the red at St. Mary's and the perimeter while I was waiting to proceed. I chased him down and he apologized. There is a warning light to tell you the light is turning red.

[Jets4Life]

Years ago a big rigged ran the red at St. Mary's and the perimeter while I was waiting to proceed. I chased him down and he apologized. There is a warning light to tell you the light is turning red.

Road rage?

[robertocarlos]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Road rage?

Well when a big rig goes through a red light about 5 seconds after it turns red you get a bit upset. How am I going to stop an 18 wheeler? We spoke at the next light. I didn't get out of my car.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Not only is the Perimeter the laughingstock of Canadian cities, but it has been getting increasingly dangerous with traffic volumes. Yesterday's crash only serves to solidify that fact. How many more people have to die before the province wakes up and starts spending the money to make the upgrades necessary to render it at the very least safe.

The challenge becomes do you spend money grade separating the Perimeter to make it safe, including roads like Pipeline on the north Perimeter stretch or do you bow to popular opinion and add extra lanes only on the south Perimeter which would largely be unneeded if the Perimeter was a free-flowing, fully grade separated route?

[bomberjet]

Grade separate before adding additional lanes. Allow for 6 lanes everywhere for future widening. Just so there's room. But I would do the bridges first, that would alleviate a lot of the issues. I don't think its really a capacity thing, just all the stopping and crossings.

Take the highest risk and highest traffic locations first. So would likely be South Perimeter first, as it's part of the national highway system (if you can call it that).

[jmt18325]

I hadn't realized until last night (skimming the budget documents again) that the PCs had not only not kept their promise to plow an extra $50M into roads, increasing the budget by 10%, but had actually removed $48M from the budget that is actually dedicated to roads. They literally have no money for patching on secondary highways, and many will be left with holes all winter.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Grade separate before adding additional lanes. Allow for 6 lanes everywhere for future widening. Just so there's room. But I would do the bridges first, that would alleviate a lot of the issues. I don't think its really a capacity thing, just all the stopping and crossings.

Take the highest risk and highest traffic locations first. So would likely be South Perimeter first, as it's part of the national highway system (if you can call it that).

Not that I defend the current state of the perimeter, but, we have actually made some progress. We removed two level crossings with the construction of CCW (Saskatchewan avenue and the adjacent rail crossing) and are removing two more with the interchange at 59 and 101 (the lights north and south of the former exit ramp bridge). I'd say that the next two should be highway 3 and then pipeline, but I doubt we'll see pipeline done any time soon.

[bomberjet]

So they took cash from one area and put it into another. Wow, good job.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

So they took cash from one area and put it into another. Wow, good job.

As far as I can tell, that $48M went to flood projects and personnel costs. The budget overall at MI actually went up by 3.3%, but the road portion fell by something like 9%. Really disappointing.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Not that I defend the current state of the perimeter, but, we have actually made some progress. We removed two level crossings with the construction of CCW (Saskatchewan avenue and the adjacent rail crossing) and are removing two more with the interchange at 59 and 101 (the lights north and south of the former exit ramp bridge). I'd say that the next two should be highway 3 and then pipeline, but I doubt we'll see pipeline done any time soon.

I totally agree progress is being made. Whatever the traffic engineers detrmine to be the priorities, I can live with that. Pipeline is a bit unique I guess. It is the only traffic light between #7 and will now extend past 59. #7 is usually as far west as I go on 101. So you go through all the interchanges and that down on the east end. Plowing along on a nice highway then you have this 80km zone with traffic light. Might be why people get distracted there.

South Perimeter is consistently shitty. Traffic lights everywhere.

[esquire]

6 lanes would be a huge undertaking because of the old structures that are only 4 lanes. I'd start with grade separations... once you eliminate the red lights, the congestion should be reduced as you won't have the large clumps of vehicles lurching from light to light.

The funny thing is it wouldn't take all that much to dramatically improve the safety and efficiency of the route. Obviously the cost would be immense, but it's really not a large number of grade separations:

Interchanges at:
100/2
100/3
100/330
100/St. Anne's
100/St. Mary's
101/Dugald
101/6

Block all the other access points or turn them into RIROs with proper accel/decel lanes so cars aren't lurching into or out of fast-moving Perimeter traffic. There is no reason whatsoever for a full uncontrolled intersection with streets like King Edward or Murdock when an interchange is a mile away. People who want to go from WB 101 to SB Pipeline should just get off at McPhillips instead of endangering lives with risky left hand turns.

[bomberjet]

Theres a map at the front of this thread which shows MI's (not MIT anymore) future interchange locations. Basically as you've outlines. Interesting they didn't include Gunn rd, which would have an interchange. Especially if the Oakbank thing happened.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Theres a map at the front of this thread which shows MI's (not MIT anymore) future interchange locations. Basically as you've outlines.

I don't see why Pipeline needs an interchange when the reality is that people living in those acreages north of the Perimeter could easily use McPhillips instead. An interchange there is essentially tens of millions of dollars spent to ensure this little clump of ugly sprawl doesn't have to drive an extra couple KMs to McPhillips:

https://goo.gl/maps/XiVzwrHjjvC2

[bomberjet]

Well that's an NDP map, so maybe the PC's will come up with their own!

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't see why Pipeline needs an interchange when the reality is that people living in those acreages north of the Perimeter could easily use McPhillips instead. An interchange there is essentially tens of millions of dollars spent to ensure this little clump of ugly sprawl doesn't have to drive an extra couple KMs to McPhillips:

https://goo.gl/maps/XiVzwrHjjvC2

A service road between highways #7 and #8 and close access to the Perimeter from Pipeline, would have saved two lives this week alone!

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

A service road between highways #7 and #8 and close access to the Perimeter from Pipeline, would have saved two lives this week alone!

Agreed - and would cost less than an interchange. It doesn't even need a hard surface.

[Biff]

Raise the taxes in West St Paul and make them pay for it......or close it.

[bomberjet]

That could also save the City cash on CPT. They're providing access to Pipeline because MI has identified it as a long term access point. Double whammy.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

That could also save the City cash on CPT. They're providing access to Pipeline because MI has identified it as a long term access point. Double whammy.

Hilarious. We're in a decades long freakout over rapid transit in this city, yet no one bats an eyelash at plans to spend what will surely amount to over $300 million on two interchanges to serve maybe a thousand or so acreage residents in West St. Paul.

[bomberjet]

The rapid transit debate has become ridiculous. In the end for the amount of money it costs. FFS. Nobody is questioning the CPT extension, but rapid transit, ohhhhhhhhhhhh f.