Manitoba Highways

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

I personally think Highway 16 and 1 need an interchange way more than this. But an interchange should get built there soon. I wish Canada would come up with a National Freeway System analogous to the Interstate or Autobahn. A federally funded Highway system. Yes, we have the National Highway system, but what the heck is that? It has no national standards at all. Canadian Highways are still in the US Route days (like Route 66). Ontario 400 Highways and Autoroutes of Quebec don't count as a National Freeway system. We need it Nationwide

Agreed.

I mean we have one friggin coast-to-coast highway, and we can't even fully twin it, let alone, make it a limited-access freeway. We're supposed to be one of the richest countries in the World. Considering the terrain the the TCH passes through, and the need to safely transport goods and cargo, one would think this would ahve been completed in the 1960's.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

I can say 1 thing. Of all the overpasses Manitoba needs, Perimeter @ McGillivray isn't even in my top 10. But it's up next.

By the time they get around to the McGillivary-Permieter overpass, Oak Bluff will have at least 7500 people in it's town limits. This is on top of all the industrial area that will be built inside the Perimeter, in the RM of MacDonald.

I can see the #3/100 overpass being essential.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

By the time they get around to the McGillivary-Permieter overpass, Oak Bluff will have at least 7500 people in it's town limits. This is on top of all the industrial area that will be built inside the Perimeter, in the RM of MacDonald.

I can see the #3/100 overpass being essential.

I do agree with that Interchange. We do need it. I just wish the Perimeter Hwy would do two interchanges at a time so they could all be done faster. McGillvary and St Annes (plus CPKC Overpass) deserve interchanges soon.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Agreed.

I mean we have one friggin coast-to-coast highway, and we can't even fully twin it, let alone, make it a limited-access freeway. We're supposed to be one of the richest countries in the World. Considering the terrain the the TCH passes through, and the need to safely transport goods and cargo, one would think this would ahve been completed in the 1960's.

There has been little to know forward thinking throughout the years. If it was planned in the 60's, we could have had it complete by now.

But Northern Ontario needs lots of twinning done to it. There should also be more alternate routes instead of just Hwy 17. For example, there should be a Highway build parallel to the CN Reddit subdivision that would go North of Lake Nipigon. Yes, there are landform contraints, but it would be easier to do in Northern Ontario than the Rockies (yet the rockies have more roads). That's probably why Ontario 17 is so busy. Not only is it Nationwide traffic, but this is the only road for some people.

Some may argue with me that Southern Ontario needs more roads, but I think Northern Ontario needs it the most. There are too many roads we we don't need it as much, but less where they do need it.

[bodaggin]

My top 10 Manitoba-wide overpasses, in priority-ish order, with AADT, would be:

1) Bishop @ St Mary's/Dakota .....(57,000 x 31,600) ..7th in accidents
2) Bishop @ River Road ..............(67,300 x 5,400) ....Or delete light elsehow
3) Kenaston @ McGillivray ..........(53,600 x 21,700) ...1st in accidents
*4) Lagimodiere @ Regent .........(52,300 x 36,500) ...3rd in accidents, but no room
5) Lagimodiere @ Dugald ...........(52,300 x 26,200) ...Combine Marion
6) Perimeter @ Pipeline .............(25,540 x 1960) .......Cheap
7) Perimeter @ St Annes ............(27,340 x 12,300) ...Expensive
8) Deacons Corner ....................(20,120 x 6290) .......Cheap
9) TCH @ Yellowhead ................(8670 x 3690) ..........Cheap, dangerous
10) TCH @ Carberry...................(8300 x 2520) ..........Cheap, political
11) Perimeter @ McGillivray .......(21,520 x 8040)


Problem with McGillivray/Perimeter is the design is horrible + expensive. Traffic is low-moderate. And even if you overpass it, you've still got 3 more EB lights at La Salle Road, Kenaston, Waverley. So what have you really solved for a ton of money?

Most of the above create large free-flow sections at a time (River, Pipeline, St Annes, Deacons). They eliminate that 1 nuisance light. Levels of gov't need to work together here. Winnipeg needs their share of the pot.

Winnipeg AADT Data: https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/publicwor...lowMap24HR.pdf

Manitoba AADT Data: https://www.gov.mb.ca/mti/traffic/pdf/flowmap2019.pdf

[anthonyk]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Problem with McGillivray/Perimeter is the design is horrible + expensive. Traffic is low-moderate. And even if you overpass it, you've still got 3 more EB lights at La Salle Road, Kenaston, Waverley. So what have you really solved for a ton of money?

Most of the above create large free-flow sections at a time (River, Pipeline, St Annes, Deacons). They eliminate that 1 nuisance light. Levels of gov't need to work together here. Winnipeg needs their share of the pot.

I agree that it would be nice to create more free-flow-kilometers per interchange, but I reality, the government should be prioritizing safety with the limited funding that they have, rather than just free-flow-kilometers

[harls]

I always thought River at Bishop should be deleted, or just have off ramps from one direction. But then there's just another light down the road, so..

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by anthonyk

I agree that it would be nice to create more free-flow-kilometers per interchange, but I reality, the government should be prioritizing safety with the limited funding that they have, rather than just free-flow-kilometers

I agree. Both matter. But even using what scant accident data is available, Perimeter @ McGillivray still doesn't make the top 10 from an accident standpoint.

Perimeter Top 5 Dangerous: https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/polopoly..._620/image.png
Winnipeg Top 10 Dangerous: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=htt...622e4ee2d5ed1b

Originally Posted by harls

I always thought River at Bishop should be deleted, or just have off ramps from one direction. But then there's just another light down the road, so..

Totally. Any ideas though? They should have made the Red River bridge taller when they just redid it recently, and ran River Road underneath (how the bike path goes now). Now, I dunno what to do, R-Cuts? Sure, but weaving occurs. It doesn't warrant a full overpass. But needs something.

But deleting the River Rd Light and overpassing St Mary/Dakota gives 6.7km free flowing from Waverley to St Annes. That's significant progress for a 50,000-60,000 AADT artery with dangers. Great bang for buck.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by harls

i always thought river at bishop should be deleted, or just have off ramps from one direction. But then there's just another light down the road, so..

100%

[bryan_ca]

Originally Posted by harls

I always thought River at Bishop should be deleted, or just have off ramps from one direction. But then there's just another light down the road, so..

Had they had any foresight, they could have pulled a Kingston Row there. There is a bridge over the river there anyway. They could have built it higher and depressed River Rd. under it at the same time. They did that on both sides of the St. Vital (Dunkirk/Osborne) bridge with Kingston Row and Churchill Dr. Good design there.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

I agree. Both matter. But even using what scant accident data is available, Perimeter @ McGillivray still doesn't make the top 10 from an accident standpoint.

Perimeter Top 5 Dangerous: https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/polopoly..._620/image.png
Winnipeg Top 10 Dangerous: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=htt...622e4ee2d5ed1b

This is wild. Some of these intersections have something like a collision every two days on average? Or do multicar pileups get counted as multiple collisions in these counts?

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

This is wild. Some of these intersections have something like a collision every two days on average? Or do multicar pileups get counted as multiple collisions in these counts?

I'm thinking the latter now that you mention it.

Originally Posted by bryan_ca

Had they had any foresight, they could have pulled a Kingston Row there. There is a bridge over the river there anyway. They could have built it higher and depressed River Rd. under it at the same time. They did that on both sides of the St. Vital (Dunkirk/Osborne) bridge with Kingston Row and Churchill Dr. Good design there.

Exactly. And they just re-did that Red River Bishop bridge. Why do they never think!!?

[bomberjet]

I like to play devils advocate sometimes. When they re-did the fort garry bridges, it was a deck rehab. To lengthen the bridges with new abutments and girder spans would be uber expensive and the city has no interest in that as we know lol

There would be opportunity in the future to simply build a separate bridge(s) if the City ever found money to go ahead with something at River rd. It will be cheaper than lengthen those behemoth river bridges

[Mr Tall Forehead]

It's tough for the City to rationalize spending money to soup up the bridges so that an interchange could be added at River Road when there's a broken sewer pipe spewing sewage into the river at the base of the bridge. There's only so much $$ available.

[bryan_ca]

Originally Posted by Mr Tall Forehead

It's tough for the City to rationalize spending money to soup up the bridges so that an interchange could be added at River Road when there's a broken sewer pipe spewing sewage into the river at the base of the bridge. There's only so much $$ available.

Nobody is saying "demo the bridges and rebuild them". We were just saying "it would have been nice had they built them that way originally." In theory. Had they planned out Route 165 as a high-speed, developed roadway. That's all. Even the Perimeter bridge over the Red River was built so Cloutier Drive could pass under it. Why put in lights when you're building a bridge anyway?

[harls]

Originally Posted by bryan_ca

Even the Perimeter bridge over the Red River was built so Cloutier Drive could pass under it. Why put in lights when you're building a bridge anyway?

That's the way this should have been built. You don't need a full intersection there. Patrons of River Rd. can just be inconvenienced and get on at the other stop light on Dakota or St. Mary's.

[HydraY]

Google Maps has no idea how to deal with St. Mary's Overpass

[1ajs]

pr391 churchill river bridge sure has gotten bad again

wooden deck with serious pot hole problem
the wood has plywood patches and such its rediculas

these photos poped up on fb this eve i havent been out that wat since august

anyhow with the rising demand for heavy equipment and a camp getting ready to be setup for the new mine this is not good...........

[bodaggin]

Don't worry 1ajs, MTI is spending $35 million to fix the Highway 34 bridge over the Assiniboine, with 250AADT and alternate options 20km on each side.

... Instead of fixing critical sole access points to northern communities and their GDP contributing mines, like this bridge.

Ohh our MTI are such shrewd capital allocators.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Don't worry 1ajs, MTI is spending $35 million to fix the Highway 34 bridge over the Assiniboine, with 250AADT and alternate options 20km on each side.

... Instead of fixing critical sole access points to northern communities and their GDP contributing mines, like this bridge.

Ohh our MTI are such shrewd capital allocators.

its the longest free standing bridge in manitoba as well

and for the last several yrs theres been a slated next year for rehab posting on their map but nothings ever happend such poor planning with the mine about to start construction........ and the supper B's of lime that come up all summer and still comming up atm