HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1421  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2015, 3:19 AM
yellowghost yellowghost is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 99
Yeah man. That would be wise. I would guess most traffic using that street is going to the shopping mall or all the condos past it. That design would help them get to they're destination quicker.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1422  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2015, 7:31 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
North End Troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowghost View Post
Yeah man. That would be wise. I would guess most traffic using that street is going to the shopping mall or all the condos past it. That design would help them get to they're destination quicker.
There is no chance that access will be taken away from the people who live in Meadowood. If this was recommended, they would complain that this will cost them far too much and the councillor will fight tooth and nail to get either an interchange there or no change.

The only reason we have a fly-over at Rothesay and CPT is because Rothesay never had access, so it was never taken away. If it was originally built to a lighted intersection Rothesay would always have access.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1423  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2015, 9:45 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
If the hard decisions cannot be done (ie no left turns at Dakota and Bishop) then they might as well not bother with any grade separations there at all.

Yes, taking away from access from Dakota to Bishop would be negative for a small group of people but the overall benefit to everyone, including that group, would be far larger.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1424  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2015, 7:57 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,505
I always thought it was pretty obvious that you can't have separate interchanges for those two intersections. What you'd almost certainly get is a partial on either side of Dakota and St. Mary's with lanes running adjacent between them parallel to Bishop. Maybe some traffic study would suggest a flyover somewhere but I doubt it. Most likely a full diamond split between two corridors.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1425  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2015, 3:10 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
It would seem possible to setup a diamond at Dakota, and a full interchange at St Mary's with Bishop free-flowing through both. The biggest negatives on this setup would be NB St Mary's to EB Bishop would likely need a light at Dakota and SB Dakota would have no access to WB Bishop (turn onto SB St Mary's instead). You can then even curl NB Dakota to WB Bishop and only have a single light on Dakota south of Bishop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1426  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2015, 5:52 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
It would seem possible to setup a diamond at Dakota, and a full interchange at St Mary's with Bishop free-flowing through both. The biggest negatives on this setup would be NB St Mary's to EB Bishop would likely need a light at Dakota and SB Dakota would have no access to WB Bishop (turn onto SB St Mary's instead). You can then even curl NB Dakota to WB Bishop and only have a single light on Dakota south of Bishop.
Well, it can always be done but in such a case you just couldn't do it without weave ramps. What I mean is that there simply isn't enough room for a diamond at Dakota and then something else at St. Mary's without keeping them mutually exclusive corridors. Like, you couldn't just enter Bishop on Dakota and then exit at St. Mary's. Those would be incredibly short ramps and most certainly wouldn't meet safety requirements.

The point really being that it's costly and since the city just refuses to do anything more complicated than ramps (without structures) two interchanges as you describe are pretty much out of the question. About the only way you'd get two full-direction interchanges would be to build one east of Dakota and then connect it with a new road. Not gonna happen.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1427  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 8:02 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 2,756
So I was at the parade of homes on the weekend over in waterford green. Got to talking to one of the realtors and he said that the CPR line that runs from the north straight through the area (with lots backing onto the line) would be decommissioned once the chief peguis trail is extended into the area.

Figured I'd ask here if there's any truth to that since I haven't heard anything along those lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1428  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 8:14 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
So I was at the parade of homes on the weekend over in waterford green. Got to talking to one of the realtors and he said that the CPR line that runs from the north straight through the area (with lots backing onto the line) would be decommissioned once the chief peguis trail is extended into the area.

Figured I'd ask here if there's any truth to that since I haven't heard anything along those lines.
That's the CP Arborg Subdivision which no longer goes to Arborg... it only goes to the grain terminal south of Stony Mountain these days, so it's basically just an industrial spur now.

I haven't heard anything about the line being decommissioned given that the terminal most likely depends on it, and I certainly wouldn't bet on it disappearing, but I guess the silver lining is that even if it does remain in place there wouldn't be much more than maybe a couple of trains a week (maybe more around harvest season), and certainly not the mile long monsters you get on the mainline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1429  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 8:26 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
CP stores old cars on that line. Like Esquire mentioned, only goes to the grain elevator and I don't think there is another line that could be easily tied in to maintain service. So i would see it being in operation for some time as that elevator is relatively new. IIRC, a worker died during it's construction maybe 15 years ago. Fell off the top of the concrete slip.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1430  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 8:30 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
That's the CP Arborg Subdivision which no longer goes to Arborg... it only goes to the grain terminal south of Stony Mountain these days, so it's basically just an industrial spur now.
Assuming the line from start to finish is only used for that grain terminal taking the existing spur and running it into the purposed cargo terminal at CentrePort might make more sense. That would then allow the existing line the be decommissioned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1431  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2015, 9:16 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,980
It's not currently on the CP Rail 3 year line discontinuation notice site. So it will be around until at least 2018.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1432  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2015, 3:54 AM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
So I was at the parade of homes on the weekend over in waterford green. Got to talking to one of the realtors and he said that the CPR line that runs from the north straight through the area (with lots backing onto the line) would be decommissioned once the chief peguis trail is extended into the area.

Figured I'd ask here if there's any truth to that since I haven't heard anything along those lines.
Realtor's will and usually do offer bits of information to prospective buyers trouble with that is only about 1% is actually true and factual. Used to love when realtors would say that the empty lot on the corner was set aside for a new school as if new schools are actually built anymore!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1433  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 12:19 PM
vjose32 vjose32 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 671
Wow no activity in a long time. It seems after a recent public consultation they have decided to do an overpass at Main for day one and an eventual overpass at McPhillips but who knows when.

On a side note I noticed recently they are finally twinning Keewatin from Inkster to Jefferson at the least. Maybe one day they will do the same to Leila since they left a bunch of land in front of houses for just that purpose.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1434  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 1:41 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 2,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjose32 View Post
Wow no activity in a long time. It seems after a recent public consultation they have decided to do an overpass at Main for day one and an eventual overpass at McPhillips but who knows when.

On a side note I noticed recently they are finally twinning Keewatin from Inkster to Jefferson at the least. Maybe one day they will do the same to Leila since they left a bunch of land in front of houses for just that purpose.
Have they decided on the path heading west from mcphillips? One of the options have Leila dead ending where it is now. If they do that nonsense it'll never get twinned. I think the remaining options had it connecting to a route that went on to meet CPt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1435  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 1:47 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Leila will continue on and intersect with Jose Rizal. Templeton will dead end. The plan is here. I would directly post it, but the file is kind of large.

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/c...p_June2016.pdf

(And we discussed this is the Roads & Infrastructure thread a couple weeks back. Didn't forget about it! )
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1436  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 4:09 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,843
Would it really kill them to just put the last bit to ccw out of its misery?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1437  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 4:29 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Haha ya, Route 90 is the boundary between the City and RM of Rosser. I would assume if the CPT extension goes ahead, the Province would coordinate and make the CCW extension. They point out timing of the Route 90 interchange in that PDF. It would only make sense to do it all at once.. All about the monies of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1438  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 4:59 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Haha ya, Route 90 is the boundary between the City and RM of Rosser. I would assume if the CPT extension goes ahead, the Province would coordinate and make the CCW extension. They point out timing of the Route 90 interchange in that PDF. It would only make sense to do it all at once.. All about the monies of course.
I don't give a damn about the budget. If you commit to a project of this nature you gotta do it right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1439  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 5:44 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Totally agree with that. Tell it to the politicians. They're pretty much clueless as to whats the right thing to do. The right thing would be to make this fully grade separated freeway. But we all know I've completely wasted my time typing that. Doesn't happen around here..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1440  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2016, 8:10 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
This is the kind of stuff that happens at the intersections being proposed.

Sounds like the driver of the SUV pulled a Ryan O'Reilly and took off. Wait until the alcohol clears your system, then go in to the police and claim "Oh, I was scared so I ran away".





Source:
https://twitter.com/IceCreamMan108/s...48398645137408
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:20 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.