Manitoba | Highways

[borkborkbork]

It's wild to me that the "rural voices" claiming that RCUT isn't safe enough have been treated seriously. There's absolutely no evidence about RCUT being unsafe.

If the province decides to build an overpass for them for $100M or whatever it is, just wait until everyone goes nuts demanding the same for the intersections with 83, 21, 10, 12, 11 and 44.

Why do we even bother hiring engineers for design studies if we're going to ignore them and throw their work in the bin?

[Carboy15]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VoNjk4aUkCzD6aZg8?g_st=ic

Solution to Carberry somewhere in North Dakota LOL

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VoNjk4aUkCzD6aZg8?g_st=ic

Solution to Carberry somewhere in North Dakota LOL

Waste of money.

While the accident on PTH 5 and the Trans Canada was tragic, there are bigger priorities, where the Province can build an overpass (i.e. Yellowhead/TCH).

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Waste of money.

While the accident on PTH 5 and the Trans Canada was tragic, there are bigger priorities, where the Province can build an overpass (i.e. Yellowhead/TCH).

For sure Highway 1 & 16 needs an interchange. But Highway 1 & 5 still needs an interchange too. Not to mention it is probably cheaper to build an Interchange in Carberry because all that's needed is just a small diamond. Highway 1 & 16 would need a cloverleaf or Parclo, along with a railway overpass in one Interchange.

[bomberjet]

Display variable messages? Haha. Weather, accidents, construction. The ones on the Perimeter will likely get most use to display traffic conditions.

[bomberjet]

The comment from the Province regarding pth 1 and pth 5. Not enough traffic to warrant an interchange. So they've focused their lense away from the social aspect ( the big accident) to data based aspect. I'm still at the do nothing approach and focus efforts on the higher priority locations.

They're also clearly not focusing at all on the larger aspect of #1 being limited access to any extent. Just purely on conditions at specific locations based on traffic data. So maybe the prioritize the 5 or 6 locations on pth 1 west that have traffic lights and reduced speeds, and knock them off one by one with overpasses. The province can afford the 10 or 20 million needed per year to do this.

[dennis]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The comment from the Province regarding pth 1 and pth 5. Not enough traffic to warrant an interchange. So they've focused their lense away from the social aspect ( the big accident) to data based aspect. I'm still at the do nothing approach and focus efforts on the higher priority locations.

They're also clearly not focusing at all on the larger aspect of #1 being limited access to any extent. Just purely on conditions at specific locations based on traffic data. So maybe the prioritize the 5 or 6 locations on pth 1 west that have traffic lights and reduced speeds, and knock them off one by one with overpasses. The province can afford the 10 or 20 million needed per year to do this.

Those rural interchanges used on limited access highways are low cost and suitable. That is if your goal is to have a limited access highway. That seems to be what most places use, especially in low traffic areas.

[Hockey]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Grump

No RCUT at the Carberry intersection.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breaki...-for-dangerous-trans-canada-intersection

With the overpass reinstated among MTI’s proposed options, and given the province’s commitment to delivering a solution that garners public trust—combined with strong local support for the overpass—the direction seems clear. MTI has officially rejected the RCUT design, which had previously been favored over alternatives like median widening and a roundabout. Now, with the province actively pursuing an alternate design, all signs point to the overpass being the chosen solution.

Whether it actually gets built will depend on factors like budget constraints, political timing, and upcoming elections. That said, the political timing is ripe, the premier has a high approval rating, and the estimated cost of $80MM would be spread over 4 or 5 fiscal year budgets. Not to mention the the TCH is on MBs nation building project list (unapproved)

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by Hockey

With the overpass reinstated among MTI’s proposed options, and given the province’s commitment to delivering a solution that garners public trust—combined with strong local support for the overpass—the direction seems clear. MTI has officially rejected the RCUT design, which had previously been favored over alternatives like median widening and a roundabout. Now, with the province actively pursuing an alternate design, all signs point to the overpass being the chosen solution.

Whether it actually gets built will depend on factors like budget constraints, political timing, and upcoming elections. That said, the political timing is ripe, the premier has a high approval rating, and the estimated cost of $80MM would be spread over 4 or 5 fiscal year budgets. Not to mention the the TCH is on MBs nation building project list (unapproved)

To clarify, MTI (professional) recommended the RCUT and the provincial government (elected) rejected the idea based on public pushback. Fair enough.

What will happen now is that in about a half year, the government will state that the long term solution is an interchange but as an interim step ‘while we budget for the interchange’ traffic lights will be installed. Again, fair enough.

The interchange will be referenced every five years in long range improvement plans but those traffic lights will end up being there for three or four decades while the government (professional and elected) focus on building interchanges at the 20-30 intersections along PTH 1, 75 and the Perimeter that more urgently warrant one. Again, fair enough.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The comment from the Province regarding pth 1 and pth 5. Not enough traffic to warrant an interchange. So they've focused their lense away from the social aspect ( the big accident) to data based aspect. I'm still at the do nothing approach and focus efforts on the higher priority locations.

Agreed, much bigger fish to fry. I was, however, of the mindset that if the province was insistent on doing something with this intersection beyond the marginal safety improvements already implemented, that it was interchange or bust. I'm tired of half-measures that cost sizeable fractions of doing it right the first time.

Originally Posted by bomberjet

They're also clearly not focusing at all on the larger aspect of #1 being limited access to any extent. Just purely on conditions at specific locations based on traffic data. So maybe the prioritize the 5 or 6 locations on pth 1 west that have traffic lights and reduced speeds, and knock them off one by one with overpasses. The province can afford the 10 or 20 million needed per year to do this.

I don't think we can even have a conversation about getting the 400km or so of TCH limited access when the Perimeter isn't anywhere close to that. Yes, keep prioritizing all provincial highway intersections by need (traffic, collisions, collision severity, regional importance), but that basically puts most of the Perimeter intersections ahead of everything else.

And unfortunately I don't think we can keep assuming 10-20 mil per intersection is going to cut it anymore. Clearly WSP thinks a diamond here is in the 100 mil range, and the 3 on the Perimeter (St Mary's, St Anne's, and Oak Bluff) are all clocking in at 135-150 mil. Unless there's serious corruption that needs to be investigated, it might be a reality of highway construction in our province.

The Province does have in mind road closures as they implement interchanges though. The TCH/Pth 5 drawings had closures marked at the next east and west mile roads on the TCH.

[bomberjet]

Never in my life will the tch in manitoba be a freeway.

What i was meaning is that they could pick away at the key locations with a similar program as they're doing on the Perimeter. Virden, Brandon, Carberry, PTH 16 and Elie. Those are all the locations on PTH 1W that have lights or slowdown. Brandon is at some stage of planning and is on the short term planning lost. The rest could be basic diamonds.

They don't need the full st Mary's treatment woth mega highway work. They can just build an overpass of the highway and add the ramps.

I keep going in circles on this I know..

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Never in my life will the tch in manitoba be a freeway.

What i was meaning is that they could pick away at the key locations with a similar program as they're doing on the Perimeter. Virden, Brandon, Carberry, PTH 16 and Elie. Those are all the locations on PTH 1W that have lights or slowdown. Brandon is at some stage of planning and is on the short term planning lost. The rest could be basic diamonds.

They don't need the full st Mary's treatment woth mega highway work. They can just build an overpass of the highway and add the ramps.

I keep going in circles on this I know..

I swear there needs to be some organized campaign on this nonsense. Force to province to come out with justifications why other jurisdictions around us can do a simple highway overpass for less than half of what we get told it will cost.

As Biff, and others, have stated in the past, you could come out with a 20 year timeline of projects, lay out what is going to be built when, so the industry can bank on that work coming. And the public knows what direction we're going with the long-term work to get key highways up to a proper standard.

[rivercity]

I see in MTI's assignment schedule that they have two interesting highway twinning projects on the list for studies:

-Functional design for twinning of PTH 15 between Perimeter and Dugald (scheduled for advertisement October)
-Functional design and Owner Engineer for for twinning of TCH through Whiteshell (scheduled for advertisement November)

[bomberjet]

Those 2 projects are listed in their short term projects list. I thought they were doing the functional design for1E Whiteshell twinning lmao.. they're just spitballing routes I guess.

The PTH 15 twinning thing may play into the Periamayer highway stuff as they need to add a second floodway bridge for the interchnage. Dugald twinning inside the city is on the long term future project list per the latest master plan from CoW. So they may have this sort of odd aramgement of twinned, untwinned, then twinned again.

[KnickKnack]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Those 2 projects are listed in their short term projects list. I thought they were doing the functional design for1E Whiteshell twinning lmao.. they're just spitballing routes I guess.

The PTH 15 twinning thing may play into the Periamayer highway stuff as they need to add a second floodway bridge for the interchnage. Dugald twinning inside the city is on the long term future project list per the latest master plan from CoW. So they may have this sort of odd aramgement of twinned, untwinned, then twinned again.

What they’re doing in the 1 now is the “conceptual” design. Based on the last update I can find on the MTI website it would end this fall. I guess they’ll roll right into the functional design after that.

Re the 15 if they’re twinning that relatively soon I hope we get the interchange at 101 at the same time. Seems to make sense to combine those two… I guess we’ll see when the tender comes out?

[bryan_ca]

From today's Freep: http://https://www.winnipegfreepress.com...ld-be-wiped-out-by-trans-canada-twinning

This is just a lack of planning par excellence. This is the only major connection to Ontario and by extension to Eastern Canada. Did they think it would be a two-lane road forever? It's like a single point of failure waiting for something to happen (if you discount going through another country and PR 312 and Freedom Road).

[craner]

^ Link is not working for me but what are they complaining about - loss of business ?

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breaki...ld-be-wiped-out-by-trans-canada-twinning
There’s a paywall but the title may give you an idea.
I am checking the map. The current twinned portion actually ends at a strategic spot, so that a completely new alignment to the north of the ranch (and north of Barren Lake) is doable.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by bryan_ca

From today's Freep: http://https://www.winnipegfreepress.com...ld-be-wiped-out-by-trans-canada-twinning

This is just a lack of planning par excellence. This is the only major connection to Ontario and by extension to Eastern Canada. Did they think it would be a two-lane road forever? It's like a single point of failure waiting for something to happen (if you discount going through another country and PR 312 and Freedom Road).

The crazy thing about all of this is when I was working out at West Hawk in the early '90s, there was public consultation about twinning and several conceptual designs were presented. But let's study it again.

[Biff]

I can't imagine that (aqua coloured line) would be more cost effective then just expropriating a couple of cottages on Barren lake. Building a brand new 4 lane bridge over the middle of a lake would most certainly be more expensive then buying maybe 2 cottages and using some fill to create 2 new lanes north of the existing highway alignment.

I can understand that the owners of the ranch are not happy with the potential alignments proposed, but sometimes the value to the masses outweighs the value to the one.

I think the simplest solution here is the best solution...and likely the most cost effective. Expropriate what is needed and just add the extra lanes along the existing alignment and get it done.