Winnipeg Roads & Infrastructure - Page 36

bomberjet · #**701** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 7:15 PM**

That bishop flyover is coming along nicely. October 1 is the deadline for in service, which sounds and looks like they'll meet. I'm quite impressed with that whole project. Thinking to the future.

They have extensive line painting as well, with the newer method of gouged lines. I should snap a quick photo if I can. Looks like its a powder then they heat up to become solid, like a porcelain baking type method.

bomberjet · #**702** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 7:16 PM**

I used to work with Glenn up until last year. He's a nice, down to earth family guy. Has his head on straight. I'd vote for him, hands down.

bomberjet · #**703** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 3:18 PM**

Here's a few photos of the Kenaston/Bishop fly-over from yesterday.

Immediately south of Scurfield

The new two lane exit to fly-over on Kenaston.

The machine used to gouge the lines out is on the right.

You can see how the fly-over approach (road on the right) drops way down to allow for the future Kenaston southbound fly-over.

Where the cars are driving will be the access to the new southbound Kenaston. The temporary asphalt will be removed to reveal the permanenet concrete below that was placed two years ago.

The fly-over structure itself.

The last of the paving that was/is being completed yesterday. They already had lines painted this morning when I drove by.

esquire · #**704** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 3:38 PM**

^ Nice pics. So does all SB Kenaston to EB Bishop Grandin through traffic have to squeeze into one lane on the flyover? If so, that seems awkward.

bomberjet · #**705** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 3:45 PM**

Nope, it's two lanes. It's the same style exit as WB bishop to Pembina.

Bishop will be three lanes from Scurfield to the interchange. In the second photo, the far right lane with the solid line, is the third lane that starts at Scurfield. Then you can see the dotted line starts where the cones are. That's the second exit lane, which you access from the middle lane on SB Bishop.

This photo might help a bit. Two lanes to the right of the divider, which are the exit lanes that go over the fly-over. The two lanes on the left will be the lanes that go under the fly-over.

esquire · #**706** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 3:46 PM**

^ Makes sense. Thanks!

bomberjet · #**707** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 3:55 PM**

Also, here's a direct link to the plan from CoW website!
http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/M...hop-phase2.pdf

roccerfeller · #**708** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 4:23 PM**

fantastic pic updates bomberjet, thanks!

looks really nice. hopefully it leads to more discussion in the city for more flyovers and better traffic flow

BigG · #**709** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 7:03 PM**

Thanks for those pictures bomberjet. The drawing really helps us understand how this will work. I just wonder if they could have designed it in a manner where there would be NO traffic signals. Maybe grade separation at the intersection.

bomberjet · #**710** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 7:12 PM**

The traffic lights are for the two left turns only. To get rid of them, you would need NB Kenaston to go over top of a lot of this stuff. That's what's causing the problem. I wonder what that would look like. Might be a double high fly-over, or else it would be on some type of curve.

rrskylar · #**711** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reignman

That's kinda what I figured too...but seriously how long can they hold off? It's not like it just got bad two years ago. It's been awful for a long time now. There are huge sections of curb completely missing along that stretch...isn't there standards that cover that?

Winnipeg like Moldova has no standards, as long as four wheel drive vehicles can manage on a particular roadway that's good enough.

Reenders should have been connected to Peguis during this construction season especially with Peguis already being closed this summer to realign and repave the road.

alittle1 · #**712** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Winnipeg like Moldova has no standards, as long as four wheel drive vehicles can manage on a particular roadway that's good enough.

Reenders should have been connected to Peguis during this construction season especially with Peguis already being closed this summer to realign and repave the road.

You do realize that there is a portion in-between that is privately ownered, namely where the pavement stops on Reenders EB and the blacktop begins and unlike as in Moldova, the State doesn't own everything. Sky, you been living in the North(end) too long. Take the red pill now.

njaohnt · #**713** Posted **Sep 18, 2014, 1:02 AM**

I don't think the fly-over was necessary. Our gas tax is too low to be doing stuff like that. Using property tax to pay for things like this is stealing from car-less people.

The Jabroni · #**714** Posted **Sep 18, 2014, 5:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by njaohnt

I don't think the fly-over was necessary. Our gas tax is too low to be doing stuff like that. Using property tax to pay for things like this is stealing from car-less people.

To be fair, it is a solution to a problem that never should have existed in the first place.

Riverman · #**715** Posted **Sep 18, 2014, 12:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by njaohnt

I don't think the fly-over was necessary. Our gas tax is too low to be doing stuff like that. Using property tax to pay for things like this is stealing from car-less people.

Just like busses are stealing from people with cars.

bomberjet · #**716** Posted **Sep 18, 2014, 1:27 PM**

Just like the opera is stealing from me.

Riverman · #**717** Posted **Sep 18, 2014, 1:41 PM**

Haha like the bad roads are stealing life from my roadster!

steveosnyder · #**718** Posted **Sep 18, 2014, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Just like busses are stealing from people with cars.

Can you explain how this is true? I think I understand how using property tax to fund transportation infrastructure "stealing" from non-drivers, but how does a person taking a bus steal from cars?

cheswick · #**719** Posted **Sep 18, 2014, 4:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Can you explain how this is true? I think I understand how using property tax to fund transportation infrastructure "stealing" from non-drivers, but how does a person taking a bus steal from cars?

I believe he's referring to the fact the bus system in Winnipeg isn't self sustainable. Taxes go to subsidize the cost of running it. So someone who never takes the bus still pays taxes that go to the cost of running the bus system.

steveosnyder · #**720** Posted **Sep 18, 2014, 4:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheswick

I believe he's referring to the fact the bus system in Winnipeg isn't self sustainable. Taxes go to subsidize the cost of running it. So someone who never takes the bus still pays taxes that go to the cost of running the bus system.

That makes sense -- but I don't understand "self sustainable". Is the infrastructure that we build for vehicles other than buses "self sustainable"?

I've always been of the impression that it has been operating at a deficit for a while, hence the reason it is in its current condition.