Manitoba | Highways

[Dengler Avenue]

Yea it’s nearing 2 years now.
For one, I’m happy that the project survives the change of government.
Also, Donald Trump may be pushing this forward unintentionally.

[optimusREIM]

I understand standards, due diligence and risk management, that's literally my job. What I don't understand is how we've allowed ourselves to get crippled by endless studies and indecision. Like enough with the endless stakeholder consultation. Is it an important project? Can we afford it? Are there special design challenges or considerations? Hire a contractor to start the work if we have cash for it.

[bomberjet]

First Nations engagement takes lots of time..

From the sounds of the update, they still only have options identified and are working with the First Nations looking for approval of basically all the options before putting it to public consult.

They don't want to present something that the First Nations disagree with. That's my take on it.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

First Nations engagement takes lots of time..

From the sounds of the update, they still only have options identified and are working with the First Nations looking for approval of basically all the options before putting it to public consult.

They don't want to present something that the First Nations disagree with. That's my take on it.

This is actually why the future phases of TCH twinning on the Ontario side towards Kenora are taking a long time.

[bomberjet]

And this is how it will be for all highway and Hydro projects when they're located in undeveloped areas. Extensive consult and negotiation with First Nations. Which to be clear I believe is a good thing. It just takes a long time.

Widening the Perimeter for example is less restrictive as everything is developed and the Province can simply expropriate properties as needed.

[Dengler Avenue]

Also will it be too much to ask M.I.T. to grade-separate that entire stretch?
It will require additional rock blasting, yes, but at least there’s sufficient bearing capacity from the Shield rock, unlike the soil in the ancient Western Seaway further to the west.

Ps: Who here has learned that Interior Plains (including Canadian Prairies) used to be under an ocean that stretched from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico??

[bomberjet]

They want to maintain the interchanges. They should put the new highway to the north and have it as a bypass of the current highway through the Falcon area. We'll see what they come up with.

The province also has identified the renewal of PTH 44 throughout the entire whiteshell in their 5 year plan.

Like this.

[Dengler Avenue]

I wouldn’t even be that generous. If it were up to me, I’d abandon the bypassed portion of TCH altogether.

[drew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

They want to maintain the interchanges. They should put the new highway to the north and have it as a bypass of the current highway through the Falcon area. We'll see what they come up with.

The province also has identified the renewal of PTH 44 throughout the entire whiteshell in their 5 year plan.

Like this.

If you were to do that, it makes that diagonal part of the TCH east of Falcon redundant to 301.

I think the best value proposition is to maintain the existing highway as a one-way and build the new 2-lane section north - but also as a one way in the opposite direction.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by drew

If you were to do that, it makes that diagonal part of the TCH east of Falcon redundant to 301.

I think the best value proposition is to maintain the existing highway as a one-way and build the new 2-lane section north - but also as a one way in the opposite direction.

The biggest issue with that is Barren Lake access. Even if people can only turn onto TCH EB and not onto 301, there may still be security concern about slow vehicles turning into the left lane of a controlled-access highway.
Also, the proximity of 301, at < 10 m away, may confuse EB drivers who aren’t familiar with the area. It’s always better to keep the rural road somewhat far from the divided highways.

Barring inefficiency and/or corruption, the cost of building a brand new divided freeway here should be comparable to that of some stretches between Thunder Bay and Nipigon. It will cost slightly more, but it’s worth the price to eliminate a safety hazard.

[drew]

^ maybe the Barren lake access needs to be reimagined to connect directly to 301 via a bridge or underpass over or under the existing TCH.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by drew

^ maybe the Barren lake access needs to be reimagined to connect directly to 301 via a bridge or underpass over or under the existing TCH.

That could work too, although at that point, @bomberjet and friends might start wondering whether it’d be cheaper to just get rid of that causeway on Barren Lake and put all 4 lanes north of it altogether.

Ps: Were Barren and Falcon Lakes connected at one point in time?

[drew]

^ perhaps, but you would save on that interchange that appears to connect the new north road to the existing (now wasted) TCH - so at best its a wash, but I still think more economical to keep the road already in place.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by drew

^ perhaps, but you would save on that interchange that appears to connect the new north road to the existing (now wasted) TCH - so at best its a wash, but I still think more economical to keep the road already in place.

That will depend on whether the interchange (really, just the entire roadway in general) was built to current standard, and if not, whether it’s simply cleaner (construction-wise) to abandon it and build a new one. I’d like to retain that interchange too, but I won’t know how messy it’ll be to modernize it until I examine the details. Also don’t forget about service roads.
Ideally one doesn’t need to build guardrails for divided freeways (except to protect bridge piers and to fence off animals). This is because protective measures like guardrails are technically obstructions in themselves.

Ps: What’s the minimum ROW width for freeway in Manitoba? In Ontario, it’s mostly 110 m in rural area and 90 m in urban area for new freeways (though I suspect that one can get down to 60 m in some cases).

[bomberjet]

Freeways? We don't have those things where I'm from! (Reference to Mairo/Peach rainbow road discussion from the movie, lame I know).

On the perimeter highway, current ROW appears to be about 120m (along the west side as an example) and they're widening it out even further than that. Same on north perimeter. But that includes access roads on both sides. I don't know what the actual standard would be for a location with no service roads.

[bomberjet]

The old section of highway would be redundant as a highway. it would be downgraded to a local road. My reasoning through the Falcon area is due to the overall proximity to the existing developed areas (the current highway being very close to both falcon and Faloma areas). Between Barren Lake and the 301 overpass, that highway could be abandoned and an interchange put in at 301 if so desired. It could just be left in place again as a local road. And for interchanges if so desired, we don't need to be providing access to all movements. Just provide an overpass for the bypass route.


We'll see what the options are when the next phase of engagement comes thorugh.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The old section of highway would be redundant as a highway. it would be downgraded to a local road. My reasoning through the Falcon area is due to the overall proximity to the existing developed areas (the current highway being very close to both falcon and Faloma areas). Between Barren Lake and the 301 overpass, that highway could be abandoned and an interchange put in at 301 if so desired. It could just be left in place again as a local road. And for interchanges if so desired, we don't need to be providing access to all movements. Just provide an overpass for the bypass route.


We'll see what the options are when the next phase of engagement comes thorugh.

Consolidating access to Falcon Lake and to Freedom Road into one interchange will be nice.
I’ve always found it interesting that M.I.T. has included JCT Freedom Road in considering twinning.

[Carboy15]

Honestly, a bypass route for Highway 1 would be kind silly. All that really needs to be done is to add two lanes on the North side of the current alignment and place a concrete or guardrail barrier between the lanes. I think it could save lots while ensuring safety standards. It could also save less land expropriation.

[bomberjet]

It all depends on what MTI wants the road to be. if they simply want to add 2 lanes, then sure just widen the existing. They're planning, I think, to rehab the existing interchanges/bridges that are at Falcon, 301 and West Hawk. So that leads me to think they'll stick to existing alignment.

If they want a proper twinned highway, the bypass route might be better. They could decommission the interchange at Falcon.

I know I get pie in the sky when thinking about these highway improvements. My POV is to build it right the first time. But then money comes into pay and we end up with something half assed.

Based on what MTI is doing with the perimeter highway, they should do the same here. In saying that, they just finished up the deacons corner work, talking about R-Cuts and roundabouts at PTH 5. So based on that and the expensive cost for this twinning, we'll end up with the half assed solution.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

Honestly, a bypass route for Highway 1 would be kind silly. All that really needs to be done is to add two lanes on the North side of the current alignment and place a concrete or guardrail barrier between the lanes. I think it could save lots while ensuring safety standards. It could also save less land expropriation.

A lot of people have suggested that in the past, but barriers don’t come free either. They also need to be maintained.
Personally, while I recognize that the traffic volume will never warrant 6 lanes, if it’s done as a divided freeway, the ROW should be sufficiently wide to future-proof 6 lanes without having to install additional drainage pipes and what not. That brings the ROW width to at least 70 m, sometimes 80 m. The current alignment won’t be able to handle that around Barren Lake (unless M.I.T. wants to purchase all the properties there).

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It all depends on what MTI wants the road to be. if they simply want to add 2 lanes, then sure just widen the existing. They're planning, I think, to rehab the existing interchanges/bridges that are at Falcon, 301 and West Hawk. So that leads me to think they'll stick to existing alignment.

If they want a proper twinned highway, the bypass route might be better. They could decommission the interchange at Falcon.

I know I get pie in the sky when thinking about these highway improvements. My POV is to build it right the first time. But then money comes into pay and we end up with something half assed.

Based on what MTI is doing with the perimeter highway, they should do the same here. In saying that, they just finished up the deacons corner work, talking about R-Cuts and roundabouts at PTH 5. So based on that and the expensive cost for this twinning, we'll end up with the half assed solution.

It’s still possible to retain the Falcon interchange and do a bypass route.
And… M.I.T. still considers a roundabout at PTH-5? Hasn’t killing the idea of a roundabout at PTH-16 taught them something?

I actually give M.I.T. the leeway about Deacon’s Corner because that area needs a bit more thought. (I have in mind an alternative crossing of the floodway south of TCH as a detour route.)