Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension - Page 75

rrskylar · #**1481** Posted **Sep 1, 2016, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alittle1

BJ,

If the City was interested in saving money and utilizing existing structure for a pedestrian walkway, there is a perfectly good hollow core that runs under the bridge that serves as a service alley for the bridge structure. Furthermore, I would hope that the City isn't thinking of duplicating the Prominade Walkway to St B. or the Disrali, when they are considering a walkway, that may or may not be used, but costs a horrendous amount of money to produce and maintain for a 'few'. Perhaps they should put a count on WHO is using the other ones....?

The Disraeli active transportation bridge was a complete waste of money, I never see anyone using it no matter what the time of day, there really is no viable connection on either side of the bridge, it can't be used at night for safety reasons and it duplicates the sidewalk on the Disraeli Bridge.

MG922 · #**1482** Posted **Sep 1, 2016, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

The Disraeli active transportation bridge was a complete waste of money, I never see anyone using it no matter what the time of day, there really is no viable connection on either side of the bridge, it can't be used at night for safety reasons and it duplicates the sidewalk on the Disraeli Bridge.

Biked over that bridge many times and I disagree. It's MUCH nicer to use the AT bridge than using a narrow sidewalk on the vehicle bridge. Like you said, the connections on each side are bad. It would be used so much more if there were viable AT paths near Henderson, a proper connection to Northeast Pioneers Greenway on Raleigh/Gateway, and a proper connection through Annabella to Waterfront and Exchange areas.

bomberjet · #**1483** Posted **Sep 1, 2016, 8:25 PM**

The city is supposed to be getting the raleigh/gateway pathway up to the bridge. I think via Stadacona St, as they plan to upgrade it to 4 lanes to Munroe at least. Not much to do on the south side. Use Annabella to get to the river pathway.

If people were more informed or there was better signage, they would take the ped bridge. I'm not sure why people don't. Instead of taking a left in PD to go up the bridge, take a right. and you're done lol. In Elmwood you end up at the same location on Talbot very quickly, in front of Studio 11. Signage would be helpful.

h0twired · #**1484** Posted **Sep 1, 2016, 9:24 PM**

When you are going south it makes even less sense to take the Disraeli compared to the AT bridge as when I cycle I either go down Brazier which leaves me at the AT bridge first or I go under the Disraeli because I was going southbound on Henderson to Riverton/Midwinter.

The AT bridge also has less of a grade to deal with.

Taking the sidewalk on the Disraeli as a cyclist makes little sense.

mcpish · #**1485** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 10:20 AM**

My new video, featuring a quick look at the Highway 59/Perimeter Interchange and a westbound drive down Chief Peguis Trail:

• Video Link

wags_in_the_peg · #**1486** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 12:37 PM**

Good work on the video, great music and editing skills!

NK59 · #**1487** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcpish

My new video, featuring a quick look at the Highway 59/Perimeter Interchange and a westbound drive down Chief Peguis Trail:

• Video Link

I find it amazing, almost a miracle that you were able to hit a green light at Gateway and CPT.

rkspec · #**1488** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 3:11 PM**

twisted sister....classic mcpish

great vid too

Biff · #**1489** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 3:49 PM**

Excellent video, crystal clear.

...only issue is there will be no stack at 59 & 101N. The flyover from 101N eastbound to 59 northbound will bridge over 59 like the old bridge did and then go under 101N and connect to 59 near the old weigh station. As much as I would like to have seen a stack it ended up proving to be to costly.

bomberjet · #**1490** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 3:56 PM**

No, not a stack. Ultimate design allows for a second ramp, in a similar configuration as the one being built, that goes from NB 59 to WB 101. It was shown in some of the renderings as a faded out linework. It's a 3 legged cloverleaf with 1 fly-over ramp.

Ah, here. I think this is a slightly outdated plan, but the new interchange is being built the same as this one. I would assume they have still allowed for the second flyover ramp.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/roadinfo/pd...nterchange.pdf

esquire · #**1491** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:04 PM**

^ Basically the same configuration as the I-29/I-94 interchange in Fargo, isn't it? That's the only one I can think of around here which is like that.

Biff · #**1492** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:06 PM**

I was going to post the same thing

.....i guess I did

It is not a stack as there are no 3 level portions.

bomberjet · #**1493** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Basically the same configuration as the I-29/I-94 interchange in Fargo, isn't it? That's the only one I can think of around here which is like that.

Except that the ramp in Fargo is set-up like a stack interchange. Where the ramp goes over the centre of the interchange. The ramp(s) at 59/101 doesn't go over the centre. It goes around the backside of the interchange and is at the same level as the rest of the structures. In Fargo, the ramp goes up to another 2nd level. It's quite high when driving over.

esquire · #**1494** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Basically the same configuration as the I-29/I-94 interchange in Fargo, isn't it? That's the only one I can think of around here which is like that.

Whoops, just correcting myself... I looked at Bing Maps and it turns out that Fargo's is actually a 3-level stack as the flyover ramp passes directly over the N-S/E-W bridge.

EDIT: bomberjet beat me to it. Damnit bomberjet will you not let me maintain a shred of dignity here

bomberjet · #**1495** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:16 PM**

^Yeah you got it. The stack set-up requires more structure than the 59 interchange, but is a more direct and shorter route.

bomberjet · #**1496** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:17 PM**

hahahah sorry Esquire..

esquire · #**1497** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

^Yeah you got it. The stack set-up requires more structure than the 59 interchange, but is a more direct and shorter route.

I wonder if the planned configuration was the one originally envisioned when the original 101/59 interchange was built in the mid 60s? It always seemed like that interchange was meant to be the first phase of something bigger.

The design is not bad, but it's unfortunate there won't be a better way of getting from NB to WB.

bomberjet · #**1498** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:37 PM**

Yeah I'm unsure on the what original plan was from back in the 90's or from even earlier as part of the original 101 construction.

If the second ramp I talked about ever went ahead, I don't think the interchange would really need much more. Eastbound on 101 from 59n isn't all that busy. Still lots of traffic, but I don't think it would warrant flyover ramps or a full stack interchange. I keep mentioning it. But 101 from 59 to main is the busiest highway in the province. So would think the second flyover ramp from NB to WB should've gone ahead right from the start. Lots of traffic heading west on the Perimeter, coming form inside Winnipeg.

Biff · #**1499** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:38 PM**

Funny, because I always thought that should be the primary ramp - NB 59 to WB 101N

bomberjet · #**1500** Posted **Oct 6, 2016, 4:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

Funny, because I always thought that should be the primary ramp - NB 59 to WB 101N

Right? I think they are maintaining the ramp to head north on 59 because its a historical thing. 2 lane ramp at that. They already have it and all the ESP'ers would be up in arms if it disappeared. No offence as I think you live out that way.

But might have been more financially responsible to change the ramp to the NB to WB direction.