HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2101  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 4:16 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Here’s the overarching question though:
Having been used to major highways with at-grade crossings, intersections, traffic lights and immediate property access for 50 years, will Manitobans be able to embrace controlled-access freeways all of a sudden?

I’m asking this because I’m already sensing resistance coming when time comes to address the entire Perimeter Highway (plus Headingrley Bypass), TCH throughout the province, Highway 75 (Lord Selkirk Highway), possibly Highway 59 N and probably even Yellowhead Highway.

Are you people following??
If the province goes ahead and makes 100/101 controlled access (it'll be a while before it happens with the others), then what choice will people have?

Until recently, ad hoc access points were maintained due to political pressure and it wasn't a huge deal because the highways weren't all that busy. But when you have tens of thousands a car a day on some of these stretches of road now, you're going to have engineers at Manitoba Infrastructure putting their foot down to MLAs and telling them flat out no when they request continued access for some local yahoo who wrote them an e-mail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2102  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 4:23 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,597
Ah okay. I just wanted to see whether or not the province will cave in easily on this matter.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2103  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 4:37 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Here’s the overarching question though:
Having been used to major highways with at-grade crossings, intersections, traffic lights and immediate property access for 50 years, will Manitobans be able to embrace controlled-access freeways all of a sudden?

I’m asking this because I’m already sensing resistance coming when time comes to address the entire Perimeter Highway (plus Headingrley Bypass), TCH throughout the province, Highway 75 (Lord Selkirk Highway), possibly Highway 59 N and probably even Yellowhead Highway.

Are you people following??
....i'm not directing my snark at you.

Who cares if people complain about loosing their access to a major highway. Its time the Province brought a highway into the 1960's.
__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2104  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 6:22 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,699
So the way I see this is it is a major improvement overall. I read the bit about active transport which seems to be limited to providing crossing options to several locations which is fine. Oak Bluff and St. Mary's look a little awkward but we'll soon forget about that. I think the only real concern is that they haven't taken into account the TCH/207 intersection nor have they provided any information about the Headingly Bypass, which will be required before long. I'm very please with the alignment options for the St Norbert Bypass, one of which closely resembles what my idea was for the stretch.

Hopefully the rest of TCH, 75, and North Perimeter begin receiving this kind of attention too soon.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2105  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 6:43 PM
Winnipegger Winnipegger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
So the way I see this is it is a major improvement overall. I read the bit about active transport which seems to be limited to providing crossing options to several locations which is fine. Oak Bluff and St. Mary's look a little awkward but we'll soon forget about that. I think the only real concern is that they haven't taken into account the TCH/207 intersection nor have they provided any information about the Headingly Bypass, which will be required before long. I'm very please with the alignment options for the St Norbert Bypass, one of which closely resembles what my idea was for the stretch.

Hopefully the rest of TCH, 75, and North Perimeter begin receiving this kind of attention too soon.
With MIT having an annual budget of around $400 million, I don't know if ANY of our roads will be getting this sort of attention any time soon...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2106  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 6:51 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnipegger View Post
With MIT having an annual budget of around $400 million, I don't know if ANY of our roads will be getting this sort of attention any time soon...
Maybe we should start thinking about it if we're serious about labelling ourselves a 'transportation hub'
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2107  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 7:38 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,597
$400M? With 101/59 pegged at $204M, at least MI can spend half of that finishing up 100/59, 100/Ste Anne’s and 100/St Mary’s.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2108  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 7:47 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
$400M? With 101/59 pegged at $204M, at least MI can spend half of that finishing up 100/59, 100/Ste Anne’s and 100/St Mary’s.
I think the reconstruction of the section between St Mary's and 59 will be the most expensive and require the most structures, though I could be wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being around 400 or 450 for that whole stretch
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2109  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 7:53 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,597
Really? I thought the (2nd) most expensive part, other than 100/75 + St Nobert Bypass, will be 100/McGilivray Boulevard because MI will need to redo a lot of the streets.

By the way, for those worried about TCH/207 and 190X (X = extension), don’t forget there’s a 3rd consultation in summer.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2110  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 8:08 PM
Winnipegger Winnipegger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
$400M? With 101/59 pegged at $204M, at least MI can spend half of that finishing up 100/59, 100/Ste Anne’s and 100/St Mary’s.
I guess the one thing I don't know is how Manitoba Infrastructure finances roadway construction. If the total cost of redoing the south perimeter is pegged at say, $600 million (just as a random guess), I don't think they aren't going to plunk down $600 million in cash straight from their operating budget to finance the entire thing at once, not to mention it would likely take a decade or two to get all the work done.

If the province finances infrastructure projects say, through 30 year bonds (as is typical in municipal finance), then over the course of 30 years the province will instead pay annual payments to debt finance the entire thing. Under current conditions, the province might pay down 2% annually in principal and another 7% in interest, the annual payments on $600 million worth of debt over 30 years might be around $54 million annually.

Therefore if the province were to finance the entire thing through debt, it might only add $54 million to debt servicing charges for the next 30 years. But I'm not entirely sure how financing infrastructure projects works at the provincial level, but if it's anything like I've just outlined, it's probably more feasible than I originally thought.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2111  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 8:29 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
$400M? With 101/59 pegged at $204M, at least MI can spend half of that finishing up 100/59, 100/Ste Anne’s and 100/St Mary’s.
Manitoba should look to P3s and get their butts in gear. They'd save a lot of money and the area would bet some modern roads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2112  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2019, 10:05 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Manitoba should look to P3s and get their butts in gear. They'd save a lot of money and the area would bet some modern roads.
That’s what I said a few pages back.

Apparently Manitobans don’t like that idea though.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2113  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 1:29 AM
YWG-RO YWG-RO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 130
A few comments:

- I think the perfect is the enemy of the good here. This is far too ambitious and will likely cost in excess of $1.5 billion. I doubt it will happen in this format.
- We don’t need 3 lanes on 100 at present. Allow for this when building new structures.
- Start building diamonds ASAP. Do 100/3, St. Mary’s/100, and St. Anne’s/100. Just get rid of the GD traffic signals.
- Then focus on Route 90 / 100 and build at the same time as St. Norbert Bypass.
- then focus on reconstruction / rehab of existing structures within next 10 years.

- As far as 1E / 207, just look at what MIT did at 59N / 202. We have an overbuilt interchange at 101 / 59 N with a traffic signal 2 km away and a bridge over the Floodway that is down to one lane indefinitely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2114  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 4:11 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWG-RO View Post
A few comments:

- I think the perfect is the enemy of the good here. This is far too ambitious and will likely cost in excess of $1.5 billion. I doubt it will happen in this format.
- We don’t need 3 lanes on 100 at present. Allow for this when building new structures.
- Start building diamonds ASAP. Do 100/3, St. Mary’s/100, and St. Anne’s/100. Just get rid of the GD traffic signals.
- Then focus on Route 90 / 100 and build at the same time as St. Norbert Bypass.
- then focus on reconstruction / rehab of existing structures within next 10 years.

- As far as 1E / 207, just look at what MIT did at 59N / 202. We have an overbuilt interchange at 101 / 59 N with a traffic signal 2 km away and a bridge over the Floodway that is down to one lane indefinitely.

The study is supposed to show an ideal situation. Unless some sort of miracle funding from the Feds allows us to do like Regina did with their new bypass, this whole thing will have to be piecemeal slowly, over time, and 6 laneing as needed.

100/3 and 100/St Marys should be on deck. The study requested shovel-ready plans for those interchanges. Obviously the funding is another issue, but it shows which interchanges Manitoba Infrastructure wants to do first. St Annes will likely be all together with the rail overpass and upgrades to 100/59S
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2115  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 4:21 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,597
With the federal government probably going to be liberal again though, funding from them will be like the Sun rising from the west.
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2116  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 1:45 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
With the federal government probably going to be liberal again though, funding from them will be like the Sun rising from the west.
So now people are complaining that the Liberals aren't spendy enough?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2117  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 2:37 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,597
I mean, Manitoba’s a political dead zone to the libs, no?
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2118  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 2:51 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I mean, Manitoba’s a political dead zone to the libs, no?
Fully half the MPs are Liberal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2119  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 2:52 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Highway Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Fully half the MPs are Liberal.
Woah I’m surprised. Never mind then. Federal funding in that case is likely (although it’s quite likely that it’ll go towards twinning the remaining 15 km of TCH instead ).
__________________
On s'casse, on s'cache.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2120  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2019, 4:09 PM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Woah I’m surprised. Never mind then. Federal funding in that case is likely (although it’s quite likely that it’ll go towards twinning the remaining 15 km of TCH instead ).
They're all in Winnipeg and I don't think that the MP who represents that 15km is a Liberal.

◾Ashton, Niki, Churchill - Keewatinook Aski (New Democratic Party)
◾Bergen, Candice, Portage-Lisgar (Conservative Party)
◾Bezan, James, Selkirk - Interlake - Eastman (Conservative Party)
◾Blaikie, Daniel, Elmwood-Transcona (New Democratic Party)
◾Carr, Jim, Winnipeg South Centre (Liberal)
◾Duguid, Terry, Winnipeg South (Liberal)
◾Eyolfson, Doug, Charleswood St. James-Assiniboia (Liberal)
Falk, Ted, Provencher (Conservative Party) - East Manitoba TCH rep
◾Lamoureux, Kevin, Winnipeg North (Liberal)
◾Maguire, Larry, Brandon-Souris (Conservative Party)
◾Mihychuk, MaryAnn, Kildonan-St. Paul (Liberal)
◾Ouellette, Robert-Falcon, Winnipeg Centre (Liberal)
◾Sopuck, Robert, Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette (Conservative Party)
◾Vandal, Dan, Saint Boniface-Saint Vital (Liberal)

Last edited by VANRIDERFAN; Jan 16, 2019 at 4:19 PM. Reason: Ted Falk not James Bezan
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 11:20 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.