Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure - Page 108

buzzg · #**2141** Posted **Jun 25, 2016, 6:06 PM**

^Pisses me off too. I get that the hydro poles may be a little different, but they're the same shape, surely they could find a way to make it work. The city and Hydro obviously do communicate a lot when it comes to putting up non-standard light fixtures in signature areas, can't be that difficult. Or sign some sort of agreement that says "sure, you can put a no stopping sign on our pole.

This is one of the ones that gets me the most, and it happens a lot of places with the diamond lane signs, especially on Portage. Parking sign pole, bus stop, light, diamond lane sign. Like, come on.

Kind of an aside, but I find it funny how the diamond lane signs on Portage are mounted right against the buildings, but yet hydro and street poles are right at the street. If we pushed everything back to the building edge, we could EASILY have bike lanes on Main and Portage, without losing a traffic lane in most areas, and maintaining enough room for wheelchairs and pedestrians on the sidewalk.

bomberjet · #**2142** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 4:07 PM**

There's a map posted on the City website for the CPT west extension. Direct link to PDF: http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...p_June2016.pdf

Or here. http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...peguiswest.stm

Interchange at Main st on day one. Future interchanges at McPhillips and Route 90. At grade intersection for Ferrier, Pipeline, Jose Rizal and rail crossings. So pretty much typical Winnipeg.

CoryB · #**2143** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 4:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg

Does anyone know why the city insists on making all the sidewalk tactile warning strips yellow?

There is quite the range of visual impairment from completely no sight to being able to see some shapes/colours. Without deep knowledge I would guess the yellow sidewalk markers are targeting the segment with limited but not normal vision. The Braille like bumps of the warning strips also seem to be designed to assist those with vision impairments using a guide stick to find when they are about to cross a road.

buzzg · #**2144** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

There is quite the range of visual impairment from completely no sight to being able to see some shapes/colours. Without deep knowledge I would guess the yellow sidewalk markers are targeting the segment with limited but not normal vision. The Braille like bumps of the warning strips also seem to be designed to assist those with vision impairments using a guide stick to find when they are about to cross a road.

Fair enough, that's what I assumed, but just figured the tactile-ness was enough. That the new crossing signal beepers are yellow now though has me stumped.

Reignman · #**2145** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 5:26 PM**

Changing topic here...but does anyone here know if Plessis NB from about Sanford Fleming to Gunn Rd. is being repaved this year? My understanding was that it was supposed to be done last year.

That stretch is easily one of the worst in the city, especially in winter when frost pushes up the joints. Total front end wrecker....

bomberjet · #**2146** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 5:28 PM**

It keeps coming up in the EK meeting at City Hall. But it's always shown as "Information will be provided at meeting". Then it get's deferred to the next meeting. Or verbal reports taken as information. But no info provided. Rinse and repeat.

Reignman · #**2147** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 5:40 PM**

^ that in response to my post, bomberjet?

bomberjet · #**2148** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 5:54 PM**

Oops, yes it is. Sorry.

There is also supposed to be traffic signals going in at Plessis/Gunn/CP tracks. So maybe they're holding off until they figure everything out. In other words, doing nothing so your front end gets destroyed even more.

On good news from the EK meetings. There is a remaining stretch of Reenders that is in terrible condition. EB lanes just east of Stapon. They poured the new sections of pavement, but left a small stretch of shitty old street. That will be re-constructed as part of the overall project, thank goodness. I guess it was originally planned to stay, until someone complained. Brand new and re-constructed road with super shitty piece left over lol...

In other news, Concordia rehab is coming along nicely. Looks like it will be a rehabilitation of the entire street. Long overdue. Lots of cash being spent in that area on road upgrades. They were in pretty rough shape. Hopefully now that Concordia is fixed, people will use it more. Lots of traffic detours to Munroe, McLeod and other streets.

EastK · #**2149** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There's a map posted on the City website for the CPT west extension. Direct link to PDF: http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...p_June2016.pdf

Or here. http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...peguiswest.stm

Interchange at Main st on day one. Future interchanges at McPhillips and Route 90. At grade intersection for Ferrier, Pipeline, Jose Rizal and rail crossings. So pretty much typical Winnipeg.

What is the point in building it like this with a whole bunch of traffic lights? It wont be much faster than going up Leila or Murray, at least not worth the 100 million it will cost to build this road. Classic Winnipeg I guess.

bomberjet · #**2150** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 6:10 PM**

They have/had estimated $400M to build that thing... As much as I like properly connected transportation networks, actual freeways, etc. They could spend this cash on something else. Transit maybe. Or just upgrading the existing expressway network. I don't know. It'll be quicker than Leila, just like the east extension is quite handy getting to/from Lag. But really it's stupid with the traffic lights..

Basically they'll analyze traffic using software, determine that it may not warrant building interchanges because traffic won't be at a large enough volume. Plan future interchanges, that obviously will never get built. So if that's the case, then don't built the road.

jmt18325 · #**2151** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 11:07 PM**

Even with the at grade, it will speed things up a lot. Still wish that they'd at least do Route 90 grade separated though.

vjose32 · #**2152** Posted **Jun 27, 2016, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastK

What is the point in building it like this with a whole bunch of traffic lights? It wont be much faster than going up Leila or Murray, at least not worth the 100 million it will cost to build this road. Classic Winnipeg I guess.

I beg to differ. There would only be like 1 set of lights between Main and McPhillips which means it would surely be faster than taking Leila and going through like 4 sets of lights. The traffic signals on CPT between Henderson and Lag don't slow traffic down much so I don't see the problem. The only problem i've had with traffic on CPT is westbound at Main, so hopefully they do something that will make traffic flow better there. Whether it's just different light timing or a fly over or something else.

I've been driving a lot on route 90 recently and I have to wonder why some sections have a speed limit of 80 since many times you can't reach 80. Now THAT is a street with too many traffic lights, especially in the south end!

buzzg · #**2153** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:56 AM**

I just hope to all that is holy that as we start linking some of these roads we make them all have the same name.

LilZebra · #**2154** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 5:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

There is quite the range of visual impairment from completely no sight to being able to see some shapes/colours. Without deep knowledge I would guess the yellow sidewalk markers are targeting the segment with limited but not normal vision. The Braille like bumps of the warning strips also seem to be designed to assist those with vision impairments using a guide stick to find when they are about to cross a road.

I read once that it's mainly for cell phone users looking down at their device so they don't walk into traffic.

The thing that bothers me about this is that if people were smart enough they wouldn't use a cell phone while walking down the street.

This would in turn leave more $ for road resurfacing projects.

rkspec · #**2155** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 2:04 PM**

Plans For New Arlington Bridge Taking Shape
http://www.cjob.com/2016/06/28/plans...-taking-shape/

EastK · #**2156** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vjose32

I beg to differ. There would only be like 1 set of lights between Main and McPhillips which means it would surely be faster than taking Leila and going through like 4 sets of lights. The traffic signals on CPT between Henderson and Lag don't slow traffic down much so I don't see the problem. The only problem i've had with traffic on CPT is westbound at Main, so hopefully they do something that will make traffic flow better there. Whether it's just different light timing or a fly over or something else.

I've been driving a lot on route 90 recently and I have to wonder why some sections have a speed limit of 80 since many times you can't reach 80. Now THAT is a street with too many traffic lights, especially in the south end!

Exactly! If we don't build these roads correctly now then they will just end up like route 90 or Bishop. Traffic at Main and Chief is already pretty bad at rush hour, just think of how bad it will get in a decade with an additional road meeting at the intersection. Besides how much extra does a diamond interchange really cost? They built that pedestrian bridge at Gateway that nobody uses and probably could have just put a span across for the street instead. A proper interchange for a small road like that cannnot be too much extra.

esquire · #**2157** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkspec

Plans For New Arlington Bridge Taking Shape
http://www.cjob.com/2016/06/28/plans...-taking-shape/

I still find it a bit odd that the Arlington Bridge is poised to be rebuilt in the first place. Arlington never became the major N/S route connecting the north and south sides of the river that it was originally intended to be, and the Arlington Bridge is just an interesting relic of that initial proposal... if it didn't exist previously, there is zero chance that it would get built.

It's so lightly used that I'd think it could be decommissioned without serious impact to Salter and McPhillips. Yet here we are, talking about replacing it.

Riverman · #**2158** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

It's so lightly used that I'd think it could be decommissioned without serious impact to Salter and McPhillips. Yet here we are, talking about replacing it.

How often do cross it at rush hour? Not often me thinks.

I do. It is needed.

esquire · #**2159** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 5:29 PM**

^ People would say the same thing if there was a block-long bridge that randomly existed between any two points along the Red or Assiniboine. There's definitely a bias that favours the status quo even though if there was no Arlington Bridge, it's more than likely no one would be calling for one.

Riverman · #**2160** Posted **Jun 28, 2016, 5:33 PM**

Do you thing Osbourne bridge is needed? Of course you do. That is because it is in your neighbourhood. And your bias is favouring the status quo.

See how that works?