I am hopeful they stick with the diverging diamond design they selected for that intersection. The design study for south Perimeter requested a "shovel-ready" plan for both St Mary's and PTH 3 so if they stick with the designs the study group came up with, it shouldn't take as long to get ready and construction should start early next year.

^^ The whole pandemic is likely to have a Flood of 99 impact on infrastructure spending. No formal insight there, just a gut feel.

The pendulum may swing either way, I think.

I think in Pallister's Manitoba, you might see "increased" infrastructure spending over the next two or three years, but then a severe reduction once the pandemic subsidies and economic activity returns to regular levels because you know he's gonna get back to hammering the "deficit must come down" message once COVID isn't at the front of everyone's minds.

And by increased spending, I mean accelerating a few projects here and there that they already planned on doing in the future.

The provincial and federal debt fallout from COVID will be enormous, and my guess is that the differing political philosophies on how to manage government debt and spending are going to take up most political debates at all levels of government in 5 years or so.

It appears the conversation on debt capacity is already starting to creep in. It seems even within the Federal Liberals, the issue is already being raised. We could see a huge draw back from deficit talk and in turn infrastructure spending sooner than later.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/ca...161518745.html

I’m just curious because of the couple things that have to be expropriated in order to start. It would seem smart to get the detour started before winter, would it not?

Expropriation seems limited to that old dairy farm inside the perimeter and farmer fields outside the perimeter if the study document maps are accurate. Since the interchange wiĺl be a bit east of the intersection, they probably won't need a detour, especially at the start.

The St. Mary's interchange is part of the stimulus package in Manitoba. If they cancel it then by golly I don't know what's what.

So when they build that interchange do they build it so as to accommodate the future completion of all the other plans they have for the South Perimeter, such as the frontage roads and six-laning? Or is doing some of that a part of this project?

PC's know to stay in power they need to keep south winnipeg happy as that is what changes them from a 19 seat rural manitoba opposition party to a majority government on broadway.

Yes, the St. Mary's interchange will be built to acommodate a future widening of the perimeter highway to six lanes.
It will be like what they did at Roblin and the perimeter when they rebuilt the overpass a couple of years ago:

https://i.postimg.cc/gcRKscJ8/perimeter.png

I was thinking they should do the st Mary’s, ste Anne’s, and the the rail crossing before 59 as a package of three. It would fully solve the problems in the area.

Makes sense and do it as a P3.

I think the idea was/is that the St Mary's project will be fairly easy and relatively inexpensive. Only two bridges and some ramp work.

The St Anne's project will be much more complicated and costly - 2 bridge diamond, box culvert over the Seine, 2 bridge rail crossing, service road on the north side requiring bridge structure over the Seine.

Whoa there, that's like wishing to win the lottery. This is the first interchange for Manitoba highways since 59/101 and before that it was decades since the last one. We take baby steps in Manitoba.

Biff - do you know if the 59S interchange would be too close to that rail overpass? Seems like they would have a lot of earthwork to do in order to elevate the exit lanes for that interchange.

There is enough room for the lanes east of the overpass to return to grade and pass under the 59 interchange.

South Perimeter Highway Design Study released:

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

I haven't yet taken a look, but based on the news release the first phase is mostly unsexy stuff... apart from the St. Mary's interchange, it's mainly just a bunch of service roads. The second phase is when the more noticeable improvements will happen. (Did the McGillivray Road interchange plan just fall off the face of the earth or what?)

Direct link to the report.
https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/hpd/pth100...nal_report.zip

Overall seems good. Nothing really new from the last stage of information. Clarifies some finer details on staging.

There is an initial stage and ultimate stage. None of which include traffic signals, except for the St Norbert Bypass initial stage. I'm not 100% clear if that's just to get the Kenaston interchange built. So the south end would terminate at Rue de Trapisstes. Or if they'd actually have lights on the bypass for the initial stage.

Initial stage would close of a couple locations and have no interchanges. With diamonds to be added in the future when needed. Initial stage is 4 lane. So existing interchanges would be kept as is, and upgraded in the ultimate stage when going to 6 lanes.

Seems like a very reasonable plan to get the highway upgraded to a freeway. Money is the next question. It noted they have planned segments of the highway to be packaged together for traditional design-bid-build delivery model. These segments could also be packaged together into a larger design-build or P3 project. So there is some flexibility.

I really dislike the interchanges for Portage and St. Mary's, I feel they are over complicated diamond interchanges. I don't understand the need to crisscross traffic to the left lane and back again.