Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

These are called "collectors". Or "collector lanes". And you're exactly right.

They "collect" and isolate the merging/turning traffic, and buffer the speed differential from the main throughfare. Merging/turning literally doesn't get any safer than this.

Montreal has tons of those and they get bad during rush hour, all of them.

[bomberjet]

Montreal has 4 million people. We're talking about the north perimeter where those lanes are basically empty 100% of the time lol montreal freeways during rush hour are slow. Even just during the day. Tbose side lanes are basically frontage roads that confusingly turn into the collectors.

[Spocket]

The whole reason cloverleaf designs have tapered off over the years is that the weaving makes them dangerous. Now, if there isn't a lot of traffic, they work just fine but as traffic increases, their safety does go down.

The likely reason that MTI is considering a new design is because there's been and will be a lot of growth in that area over the coming years. The whole swath of the city bounded in the West by McPhilips right up to the Perimeter is designated for development that has already begun. Add to that that the RM of West St. Paul has started developments on either side of the Perimeter. Traffic is going to increase dramatically over the next couple of decades.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Spocket

The whole reason cloverleaf designs have tapered off over the years is that the weaving makes them dangerous.

Moot argument. Traffic ultimately has to merge no matter what interchange type is used. Diamond, Clover, Stack, so on. Traffic is 'weaving' to exit and 'weaving' to join. Merging is unavoidable.

Clovers WITH COLLECTORS have higher flow, safer merging, and the biggest bang for buck of any interchange type. Only a 4-level stack beats a clover, but the tradeoff is cost.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Moot argument. Traffic ultimately has to merge no matter what interchange type is used. Diamond, Clover, Stack, so on. Traffic is 'weaving' to exit and 'weaving' to join. Merging is unavoidable.

Clovers WITH COLLECTORS have higher flow, safer merging, and the biggest bang for buck of any interchange type. Only a 4-level stack beats a clover, but the tradeoff is cost.

Go to Montreal and try the clover leaves, then let us know.
Quite frankly, right now I’m concerned that MIT sees your comments and the like, becomes convinced that the laypeople know nothing about engineering in Manitoba, and then doubles down on lousy design.

That said, I’ll draw something about 101 & 8 that’s free flowing without weaving if I have time.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Go to Montreal and try the clover leaves, then let us know.

False Equivalence Dengler. BomberJet was right here in his response to you. Montreal is 4m people and you're getting into the limitations of roadways entirely, which cap out at 1600-2000 cars per hour per lane. When roads tap out, we start talking rapid mass transit.

Winnipeg's 2-lane perimeter is not tapped out. Nowhere near. And the premise is invalid: McPhillips has no problems, and frankly won't for decades if ever. But many others do. Focus on them.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Moot argument. Traffic ultimately has to merge no matter what interchange type is used. Diamond, Clover, Stack, so on. Traffic is 'weaving' to exit and 'weaving' to join. Merging is unavoidable.

Clovers WITH COLLECTORS have higher flow, safer merging, and the biggest bang for buck of any interchange type. Only a 4-level stack beats a clover, but the tradeoff is cost.

Merging is not the issue; the issue is decelerating traffic and accelerating traffic having to share lanes, often a short amount of space. If you had unlimited land to build an interchange on, this would be no problem, as you could continuously expand the length of the weaving zone so that the problem becomes moot. The McPhillips interchange functions decently right now, but again, one of the considerations is what is the final intent for hwy 8. If the answer is that its purpose is not to be a freeway ultimately, then no need to have free flow. The argument that free flow is always better, no matter the circumstances or end use is preposterous.

Again, not here to say that the plan for mcphillips makes any sense. I am here to say that if their intention is to make mcphillips a city road on one side and a regular rural highway on the other, there’s no problem with downgrading it.

Another good example of where turning an interchange from clover to diamond or parclo is not only benign but actually an upgrade in terms of safety is Pembina at the perimeter. There is no need for Pembina to flow freely, the idea that it will ever be a freeway is not something that is going to happen. On top of this, the geometry of the clover currently there makes the weaving issue on the perimeter part extremely dangerous, as the lanes are super short and the clover loops are very tight, meaning that the contrast in speeds between vehicles entering and exiting is quite stark. As the site is quite tight and there is no reason for Pembina to be free flowing, the actual best and safest option is a diamond or parclo there.

As many other posters have pointed out, the tendency is to move away from clover leaf interchanges as they require a ton of land, are often overkill when we don’t need systems interchanges, and are more dangerous in a lot of cases than diamonds or parclos depending on the configuration and available space. Traffic engineers haven’t been getting rid of them for fun, unless you have the space to put in a huge one, there aren’t many strong arguments to put them in or keep them.

[Dengler Avenue]

^ either that, which takes up a lot of developable space, or something like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Y4Q6pMT3GLJWjYMT8?g_st=ic (which still takes up quite a bit of space

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Merging is not the issue; the issue is decelerating traffic and accelerating traffic having to share lanes

Collector lanes guys. Please. Understand collector lanes within cloverleafs which buffer speed differences before making these comments. Examples Hwy 7 @ Perimeter. And there's already one at Perimeter WB @ McPhillips too.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

If you had unlimited land to build an interchange on, this would be no problem

It's already built. Land is not an issue because it's already there!

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

The argument that free flow is always better, no matter the circumstances or end use is preposterous.

Not preposterous. Factual. Free flowing is always safer and higher capacity. End of story. Objects in motion, stay in motion.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

there’s no problem with downgrading it.

There's HUGE problem with downgrading it. It costs money! Which the entire thing preventing desperately needed interchanges being BUILT around the province.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Another good example of where turning an interchange from clover to diamond or parclo is actually an upgrade in terms of safety is Pembina at the perimeter.

Again, name a single accident or fatality (not the pedestrian one) at Pembina/Perimeter. There isn't any. Because the intersection works. If it ain't broke, don't break it.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

clover leaf interchanges are more dangerous in a lot of cases than diamonds or parclos depending on the configuration and available space.

Give a single shred of real world accident data. Not traffic imagineer opinions, real data.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Traffic engineers haven’t been getting rid of them for fun

That's exactly what they're doing. And that's why I'm battling this misguided train of thinking so strongly. Course correction is needed.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Go to Montreal and try the clover leaves, then let us know.
Quite frankly, right now I’m concerned that MIT sees your comments and the like, becomes convinced that the laypeople know nothing about engineering in Manitoba, and then doubles down on lousy design.

That said, I’ll draw something about 101 & 8 that’s free flowing without weaving if I have time.

Im an engineer. Not specializing in interchnage design.

To my point that those collector lanes are frontage toads for all sorts of businesses in montreal. Spent 2 months in montreal this year driving allover, and yes theyre a shit show most of the day.

The lanes at pth 8 are specifically for the 2 ramps only. And are bloody empty alllll the time. They could add these lanes in the other quadrants. But its probably cheaper to switch to something else, so that is preferred. The perceived weaving issue, in my layman perspective, is neglible. Reconstructing the entire interchange to a diverging diamond seems dumb as it now adds 2 intersections for people to collide. If the engineers and traffic analysts say its safer so be it.

[bomberjet]

I feel like the old man in the room. Stuck in my ways yelling at clouds lol

I find new road designs to be too winding. St marys has all sorts of curves a ridiculous stuff. Drivers want to move in straight lines.

Just like AT paths. They're winding to create some sort of whimsy. Then all the comutter cyclists just want straight lines and make cut trhoughs.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Im an engineer. Not specializing in interchnage design.

To my point that those collector lanes are frontage toads for all sorts of businesses in montreal. Spent 2 months in montreal this year driving allover, and yes theyre a shit show most of the day.

Are you thinking of something like A-15 & A440 in Laval? That one's bad enough that MTQ has to build a ramp between the main freeway lanes, yes.
I've had more so in mind the ones like A-10 & A-30 in Brossard and A-20 & A-30 in Saint Bruno/Beloeil. No businesses line the collector lanes and yet traffic is still bad. It's to the point that MTQ is planning to replace the loop from A-20 West to A-30 West with a flyover: https://www.transports.gouv.qc.ca/fr...vrier-2022.pdf

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The lanes at pth 8 are specifically for the 2 ramps only. And are bloody empty alllll the time. They could add these lanes in the other quadrants. But its probably cheaper to switch to something else, so that is preferred. The perceived weaving issue, in my layman perspective, is neglible. Reconstructing the entire interchange to a diverging diamond seems dumb as it now adds 2 intersections for people to collide. If the engineers and traffic analysts say its safer so be it.

For something like cloverleaf vs flyover for system interchanges, it comes down to practice vs principle, I guess.
If I have time, I will draw something. My brain's just burned from doing overtime today.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I feel like the old man in the room. Stuck in my ways yelling at clouds lol

I find new road designs to be too winding. St marys has all sorts of curves a ridiculous stuff. Drivers want to move in straight lines.

Just like AT paths. They're winding to create some sort of whimsy. Then all the comutter cyclists just want straight lines and make cut trhoughs.

No BomberJet you're spot on and your voice needs elevating. It needs to drown out the nonsense being proposed around this city.

Simplicity, function, cost-effectiveness. It's not rocket science. You'd be amazed how many traffic engineers don't even possess a driver's license. They'd turn the perimeter into a bike freeway if we let them.

Don't stop BomberJet. Keep quashing silly thinking.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Talking about all this weaving and the Province is proposing an RCUT at PTH 5. The ultimate weave design, which may include the uturn part requiring the vehicles to cross all the lanes and use a bulge out on the opposing shoulder to make the turn. ffs.

Does the city not have two sets of those on Dugald road? I think there is one set by the Tim Horton's and one set further east by the police station. I think the city calls it a jug handle turn but they look to be the same design as the RCUT to my untrained eye

[pacman]

Spending money downgrading McPhillips is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. I use that interchange daily and its one of the few locations in this city that was actually built with foresight and remains overbuilt to this day. The collector road mitigates a lot of the safety concerns and it doesn't just function well, but functions beautifully.

The whole discussion about clover vs diamond/parclo is absolutely valid and worth it at time of original construction. But this thing is already built and spending money to downgrade it even in the next decade or two when its current physical condition is excellent and is nowhere near replacement level is ridiculous.

The Pembina/perimeter and Main St/perimeter cloverleafs are a different discussion since their geometry is tighter, there are no collectors, and the weaving is actually dangerous. I really don't like using those at all, but McPhillips is night and day better than those. Leave it alone and concentrate on the dozens of other locations that are way lower hanging fruit.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by pacman

Spending money downgrading McPhillips is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

The Pembina/perimeter cloverleafs are a different discussion since their geometry is tighter

Nailed it on McPhillips 100%.

Regarding Pembina, remember it will be rendered obsolete when the St Norbert Bypass is constructed. Which is why no money should be spent on it either. Although I do agree the EB to SB ramp is funky.

This touches on the bigger picture issue. If these idiotic ideas are allowed to run rampant, we're going to end up with a bulk rubber stamped $2B bypass monstrosity like Regina, or worse. And no money left for other priorities around the province. Work needs to be done on priority basis.

The perimeter priorities are as follows, in order:

1: Pipeline Rd Overpass ~$60m
2: St Anne's Rd Overpass ~$80m (a simple diamond, not nonsense like St Mary's)
3: McGillivray Overpass ~$90m
4: LaSalle Something. ~$80m Not sure exactly.

Now South Perimeter is grade separated you go full speed at bypasses:

5: St Norbert Bypass with Kenaston Clover and Brady access (tricky) ~$200-300m?
6: Headingly Bypass $300-400m

Then focus on the rest of the north perimeter, now that Ontario-bound, and USA-bound are free flowing grade separated. And after the 5 urgent rural TCH overpasses are done.

Because if I see an overpass at Perimeter and Selkirk being built before Yellowhead at TCH, I'm gonna lose it.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I find new road designs to be too winding. St marys has all sorts of curves a ridiculous stuff. Drivers want to move in straight lines.

I though the same about this intersection until I actually looked at it. How else would you design it.
- They had to move the intersection east to get away from the eroding and yearly flooding of the curve in the Red River
- They needed to leave room for access to Maple Grove Park
- Brought the geometry up to the current standards of 90 degree intersection leaving room for a future twin span
- Navigated around the Hydro substation

Seems like they actually did a pretty good job

Sorry, I forgot to add the image

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Biff

I though the same about this intersection until I actually looked at it. How else would you design it.

How about like this. We're building for St. Mary's Rd, not the Katy Freeway. It's a 60-80kph zone with minimal flow that simply needs grade separation.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

How about like this. We're building for St. Mary's Rd, not the Katy Freeway. It's a 60-80kph zone with minimal flow that simply needs grade separation.

Here are Biff's comments regarding the site challenges:

- They had to move the intersection east to get away from the eroding and yearly flooding of the curve in the Red River
- They needed to leave room for access to Maple Grove Park
- Brought the geometry up to the current standards of 90 degree intersection leaving room for a future twin span
- Navigated around the Hydro substation

The only thing your suggested design accomplishes is navigate the substation, so 1/4. Your ramps are also likely too short, and sightlines for the intersections on both ends of the bridge are too short because the bridge curves.

The current interchange design is finally something that won't be inadequate on the Perimeter (aside from 101/59N) and you're nitpicking it because it's too good? Too future-proof? I'm not getting what you're trying to argue here.

[Dengler Avenue]

Let me see:
@bomberjet’s an engineer,
@sonysnob’s an engineer,
@Biff’s an engineer.
Who else??
(The most that I’ve done was skimming through the currently available geometric design guideline from Ministry of Transportation of Ontario written in 1985.)

Qui est ingénieur icitte?