Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg - Page 136

bomberjet · #**2701** Posted **Oct 23, 2020, 6:11 PM**

It's complicated because the future stage is a diverging diamond and the hydro substation. At the other locations that have a simple diamond, they are much more compact. IMO they could just go with signalized intersections like a normal diamond, instead of the roundabouts.

bomberjet · #**2702** Posted **Oct 23, 2020, 8:03 PM**

Biff you wouldn't happen to have the other sheets from that St. Mary's plan would you? Specifically sheet 1.

dmacc · #**2703** Posted **Oct 23, 2020, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Biff you wouldn't happen to have the other sheets from that St. Mary's plan would you? Specifically sheet 1.

Biff doesn't believe in sheet 1 or 2, he only comes 3 sheets to the wind.

bomberjet · #**2704** Posted **Oct 23, 2020, 8:39 PM**

LOL good one haha

Biff · #**2705** Posted **Oct 23, 2020, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Biff you wouldn't happen to have the other sheets from that St. Mary's plan would you? Specifically sheet 1.

I do, but I can’t get it till Monday as it’s on my computer at work.

bomberjet · #**2706** Posted **Oct 23, 2020, 10:00 PM**

In pouty Homer voice: I guess I'll wait...

dam_well · #**2707** Posted **Oct 24, 2020, 8:01 PM**

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/hpd/pth100/index.html

Pout no more. You can download all kinds of sheets here.

Dengler Avenue · #**2708** Posted **Oct 24, 2020, 9:21 PM**

I'm still disappointed that there's no flyover from TCH WB to PTH 100 WB...

Hockey · #**2709** Posted **Oct 24, 2020, 10:06 PM**

Why did they decide to access to Brady landfill via a service road from Waverly instead of kenaston in the short term?

If they chose kenaston, they could close the intersection at Waverly right away, no?

bomberjet · #**2710** Posted **Oct 25, 2020, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dam_well

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/hpd/pth100/index.html

Pout no more. You can download all kinds of sheets here.

Oh snap. Thanks. I like they keep that area up to date. Will have to check back more often.

bomberjet · #**2711** Posted **Oct 25, 2020, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hockey

Why did they decide to access to Brady landfill via a service road from Waverly instead of kenaston in the short term?

If they chose kenaston, they could close the intersection at Waverly right away, no?

I dont know why they didnt extend kenaston across and close the old Waverly intersection completely. Seems odd and makes no difference for access to that area.

(sub)urban · #**2712** Posted **Oct 25, 2020, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dam_well

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/hpd/pth100/index.html

Pout no more. You can download all kinds of sheets here.

That interchange at Wilkes.... I don't even know man lol. By the time the ultimate plan is finally taking shape in like the 2040s, you gotta think Wilkes will be a higher-traffic, twinned road, and it doesn't look like this plan is accounting for any growth at all. It's just the same intersection with longer acceleration/de-celeration lanes (which of course are needed).

Feels short-sighted to me that they wouldn't just plan ahead to move the intersection further south, away from the CN tracks so that they could make a full diamond to account for future growth and the eventual twinning of Wilkes.

Hockey · #**2713** Posted **Oct 25, 2020, 5:17 PM**

With the completion of the 2020 safety plan and st Mary's funded, is the South Perimeter free flow from Waverly to somewhere just north of fermor ( but for St Anne's)?

WildCake · #**2714** Posted **Oct 25, 2020, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by (sub)urban

That interchange at Wilkes.... I don't even know man lol. By the time the ultimate plan is finally taking shape in like the 2040s, you gotta think Wilkes will be a higher-traffic, twinned road, and it doesn't look like this plan is accounting for any growth at all. It's just the same intersection with longer acceleration/de-celeration lanes (which of course are needed).

Feels short-sighted to me that they wouldn't just plan ahead to move the intersection further south, away from the CN tracks so that they could make a full diamond to account for future growth and the eventual twinning of Wilkes.

They did take population growth into account. Look at St Marys and St Annes. Both diamonds (modified at St Marys) and that area is built up as close as can be. Sure the south side will densify but diamonds are ok for those roads.

Diamond interchanges are fine in situations where a major highway meets a secondary or non-free flow route. Once built-up, Wilkes will have lights at many places along the route.

Fiy wilkes is a folded diamond interchange, it is a full interchange with 4 ramps, just with 2 of them doing 180 turns. It will be adequate once the ramps are extended.

bomberjet · #**2715** Posted **Oct 26, 2020, 2:30 AM**

What's going to happen with all these locations is they go through a preliminary design phase much like st marys is going through now. I'd believe before the wilkes structure was rebuilt, theyd assess future plans for wilkes.

Judging by the staging of st marys, I'd assume st anne's will get the same treatment.

bomberjet · #**2716** Posted **Oct 26, 2020, 2:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hockey

With the completion of the 2020 safety plan and st Mary's funded, is the South Perimeter free flow from Waverly to somewhere just north of fermor ( but for St Anne's)?

Not quite. Although most of the median openings have been closed (there is one at Symington road I think) there are still access points from loads of service roads.

harls · #**2717** Posted **Oct 26, 2020, 3:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I'm still disappointed that there's no flyover from TCH WB to PTH 100 WB...

Looks like Kenaston will have one. Reminds me of the one in Fargo from I-29 S to I-94 W.

Dengler Avenue · #**2718** Posted **Oct 26, 2020, 3:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by harls

Looks like Kenaston will have one. Reminds me of the one in Fargo from I-29 S to I-94 W.

Haha I've been through that interchange. Maybe MIT's like, "Meh, we expect more trucks from 75N than from 1W, so we will get a flyover for the former but just a bigger loop for the other."

harls · #**2719** Posted **Oct 26, 2020, 3:40 AM**

Oops, I meant I-94 East. Bad harls.

My gut still burns from the Chick-fil-a I had there two years ago.

Biff · #**2720** Posted **Oct 26, 2020, 1:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Biff you wouldn't happen to have the other sheets from that St. Mary's plan would you? Specifically sheet 1.

I don't know if these images are on the Provincial Web page because they are from a recent tender for the project, so here they are: