Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg - Page 35

bomberjet · #**681** Posted **Sep 8, 2015, 5:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinus

This is a tired old government desperate to keep an "updated and progressive" image. I simply cannot wait until next spring to do my part in giving them the boot.

Not disagreeing with you. But any government anywhere, will take every opportunity to be looking rosey to the public.

CoryB · #**682** Posted **Sep 9, 2015, 2:56 PM**

I haven't seen this posted yet but the province has started a complete replacement of the Roblin bridge over the Perimeter. Whatever the specific issue was it was pretty extreme as the entire east bound span including the support pillar has been demolished. It would be interesting to know more about this story as it seems several over grade separations on the Perimeter are of a similar design and age.

esquire · #**683** Posted **Sep 9, 2015, 3:17 PM**

^ Interesting... Roblin is actually one of the "newer" interchanges having been built in either the late 70s or early 80s. Although that said, a good number of bridge decks have been rebuilt at Perimeter interchanges... probably all of them except for 59 S @ 100 and 7 @ 101, the two interchanges which are newer than Roblin.

Speaking of interchanges, any word on when that interstate quality diamond is going to get under way at 100@2/3?

CoryB · #**684** Posted **Sep 9, 2015, 4:54 PM**

At first I thought Roblin was going to get a similar rehab to what we have seen elsewhere. Then they started tearing down the decking and I thought the support would at least be kept. Now the support it gone too. I sort of wonder what the issue is they are solving.

The Jabroni · #**685** Posted **Sep 10, 2015, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

At first I thought Roblin was going to get a similar rehab to what we have seen elsewhere. Then they started tearing down the decking and I thought the support would at least be kept. Now the support it gone too. I sort of wonder what the issue is they are solving.

They've been doing that for a couple months now, and I was shocked that they would go to "extreme" measures to actually tear down the whole span. There has to be a very good reason why they did that though.

Quote:

Speaking of interchanges, any word on when that interstate quality diamond is going to get under way at 100@2/3?

That's what I want to know too. Any dice on when this is going to happen?

mattpa · #**686** Posted **Sep 10, 2015, 3:29 AM**

if u look at mit 2018/19 and i cant believe they changed the design that the highway 3/100 interchange from a parlco interchange to a diamond what a mess that will be atleast they should make it a european diamond interchange instead of lights on both ends put roundabouts but again people are very anti change here

CoryB · #**687** Posted **Sep 10, 2015, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

They've been doing that for a couple months now, and I was shocked that they would go to "extreme" measures to actually tear down the whole span. There has to be a very good reason why they did that though.

At first the Roblin interchange seemed to be the standard rehab we have seen elsewhere, ie McPhillips and Pembina, so it wasn't overly note worthy. It wasn't until much more recently though that the support pillar between the north and south lanes was removed. It also makes me wonder if there is a similar plan for the other span.

njaohnt · #**688** Posted **Sep 10, 2015, 11:49 PM**

I don't understand why they need a two lane through-pass at 101 and Gateway. When did they makes plans to make gateway an emergency vehicle freeway?

No one is going to make Gateway more congested by going through the pass. There isn't really anywhere to go, people will just go to places where Gateway congestion is fine, people will use Lag and Henderson to travel far out where Gateway is congested. Really, it should be a basic stop signed diamond, that way people won't have to go to 202 to get across.

Also, I don't know why they don't rebuild the old nb-wb ramp(requiring moving the eb lanes to the south of the left turn stack which would save money reducing the structure by two). The new one will have a poor acceleration lane that requires 930 cars per hour to weave across other traffic(for comparison the left turn stack will only have 1060 cars per hour).

Also the design show a completely unnecessary four lane diamond at 202 as a future option. They should just build a two lane one now.

bomberjet · #**689** Posted **Sep 11, 2015, 3:03 PM**

MIT doesn't want an interchange at Gateway. I think the biggest issue that blew up was the Wal-Mart proposal. Truck traffic coming down roads that are not meant for large trucks and endless people getting their diapers at all hours.

And I totally agree about the weaving that will occur between 101 and 202. Simple, 2 lane bridge. If ever there was a need for another set of lanes, build a second bridge then.

Similar issues are happening at the Kenaston-Bishop flyover. Go left, then right, then left.

bomberjet · #**690** Posted **Sep 21, 2015, 7:18 PM**

It appears the contractor at 59N/101 is moving the fill pile that's been there for a year now. Looks like it's being placed for some of the road embankment, but I could'n t5 get a good look at what was going on. They were packing it, etc. So seems it's being used in some capacity.

bomberjet · #**691** Posted **Nov 9, 2015, 7:00 PM**

http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/contracts/p...g_schedule.pdf

2016 tendering schedule is out for MIT. Nothing too exciting in there. A lot of rehab's.

The only thing that caught my eye is a tender scheduled for the south perimeter concrete median barrier from Waverley to St. Mary's. This came up previously. Does anyone know what exactly will be going on there? Simply putting up a concrete barrier down the middle. Or will they be closing median openings, any other grading for widening??

CoryB · #**692** Posted **Nov 9, 2015, 8:08 PM**

^^ South Perimeter from Waverly to St Marys, there was talk some time back about how that area was going to be turned into six lanes. I can't remember to full details on it but its pretty complex series of changes.

bomberjet · #**693** Posted **Nov 9, 2015, 8:15 PM**

Yeah. There was talk about doing grading works ahead of the widening and interchange plans that are to come over the next couple years. But it sounds like a lot of folks from MIT were/are tied up with the 59N/101 interchange. Now that that project seems to be rolling, maybe more will come out about the south perimeter upgrades.

esquire · #**694** Posted **Nov 9, 2015, 8:24 PM**

6 lanes on the south Perimeter is a good start, but it still won't eliminate the dicey situations at overburdened at-grade intersections like 100 @ St. Mary's Road. Time for a couple new grade separations.

Speaking of, whatever happened to the diamond planned for 100 @ 2/3? I don't think there has been a peep uttered about that since MIT's annoucement a while back (feels like 1 or 2 years ago already).

bomberjet · #**695** Posted **Nov 9, 2015, 9:40 PM**

Someone had mentioned that MIT was tapped out on resources. So like I said they were getting 59N/101 underway before moving onto other large projects. South Perimeter was next on the list, with the McGillivray interchange being #1. We'll see what the election does and go from there. I'll guarantee NDP will be trumpeting shiny interchanges, etc to the public again.

CoryB · #**696** Posted **Nov 9, 2015, 10:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

6 lanes on the south Perimeter is a good start, but it still won't eliminate the dicey situations at overburdened at-grade intersections like 100 @ St. Mary's Road. Time for a couple new grade separations.

Speaking of, whatever happened to the diamond planned for 100 @ 2/3? I don't think there has been a peep uttered about that since MIT's annoucement a while back (feels like 1 or 2 years ago already).

Honestly, controlled, at-grade intersection like 100 @ St. Mary's Rd aren't anywhere near as dicey as some of the at-grade one. Wilkes comes to mind quickly as a deadly intersection and how it is not topping the list of most dangerous intersections shocks me. The tight west to north coil and almost no tolerance before the forced merge is a pure recipe for disaster.

Reignman · #**697** Posted **Nov 10, 2015, 2:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

Honestly, controlled, at-grade intersection like 100 @ St. Mary's Rd aren't anywhere near as dicey as some of the at-grade one. Wilkes comes to mind quickly as a deadly intersection and how it is not topping the list of most dangerous intersections shocks me. The tight west to north coil and almost no tolerance before the forced merge is a pure recipe for disaster.

My apologies Cory but I have to disagree. Not saying Wilkes is not unsafe but St Mary's @ 100 has become unbelievably bad. The lineups on EB 100 in evening rush hour are often absolutely ridiculous...I have seen the lineup backed up all the way to the Pembina overpass. Nothing like flying over an overpass at 100+ kph and suddenly seeing a lineup dead stopped on the overpass decline. Extremely dangerous, especially in icy conditions. Not to mention the amount of accidents lately (some I have been privy to) because of that poorly designed intersection. Seriously...the left turn lane onto NB St Mary's needs to be at least tripled in length (why that couldn't be done this past summer is beyond me) because the left turning traffic backs up so bad it effectively cuts the through traffic down to one lane. And how about adding those fancy schmancy new inventions called merge lanes so traffic off St Mary's doesn't have to turn onto perimeter from a dead stop? This goes for St Annes @100 as well.

At least Wilkes has free flow for the perimeter and some form of a merge lane made available..St Mary's and St Annes both have (very poorly timed) traffic lights and zero merge lanes. On any highway that is a recipe for disaster.

esquire · #**698** Posted **Nov 10, 2015, 2:15 AM**

^ The left turn lane onto NB St Mary's is one of the worst parts of the Perimeter... traffic at a standstill on a busy highway due to an overflowing turn lane is one thing, but to have that standstill in the left lane where many people wouldn't expect it is very dangerous.

CoryB · #**699** Posted **Nov 10, 2015, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reignman

My apologies Cory but I have to disagree. Not saying Wilkes is not unsafe but St Mary's @ 100 has become unbelievably bad. The lineups on EB 100 in evening rush hour are often absolutely ridiculous...I have seen the lineup backed up all the way to the Pembina overpass. Nothing like flying over an overpass at 100+ kph and suddenly seeing a lineup dead stopped on the overpass decline.

That is definitely an extremely dangerous situation and is nearly the same setup as south bound Perimeter exiting to Wilkes. The exit is hidden on the decline of the overpass so you often gets vehicles slowing on the decline to make the exit while out of sight on traffic coming the same direction. It was to the point at one recent accident it required several police cars to clear as they needed to safely mark/block the collision from on coming traffic.

The short term solution for St Mary's seems to be to increase the duration of the left turn light. The impact of that would need to be monitored though to try and avoid solving one safety issues and creating a different one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reignman

At least Wilkes has free flow for the perimeter and some form of a merge lane made available.

The lack of any form of usable north bound merge lane is actually the dangerous part of the Wilkes over pass. Traffic entering the north bound stream exits a tight turn about a third of the way up the incline and needs to merge into the right lane before the bridge. This results is slower moving traffic being forced into the right high speed through lane with traffic often being highly reluctant to yield the lane. It's a slight variant on the St Mary's left turn issue but a very similar end result with traffic moving at two drastically different speeds wanting to occupy the same space.

The maddening piece of the Wilkes situation is a small redesign on current undeveloped land would significantly change the situation without needing the rebuild the overpass. Currently, the north bound entry ramp starts running parallel to the Perimeter heading south. Instead of entering at the current point if it continued about a third of a KM south, then turned and had about a third of a km merge lane running north the issue would virtually be eliminated.

For south bound traffic exiting to Wilkes, doing a similar move of the exit further south and off the decline ramp would improve the situation. The deceleration lane could even be extended for some distance to allow existing traffic to safely move out of the through stream before the start to slow down.

Sure, fixing Wilkes would require some capital spending but it would be a small fraction of any new overpass construction and have significant safety gains.

roccerfeller · #**700** Posted **Nov 10, 2015, 8:00 PM**

There should never be left turning lanes on a highway in the first place, especially one with speeds of 100 kph (and many cars do 10-20 kph over that limit)

hopefully these things get as fast tracked as possible, the perimeter could be a fantastic highway for motor travel but it is still far from being that. Even just putting lights around the entire stretch would do wonders for night time safety