Manitoba | Highways

[bomberjet]

To Biff's point. We looked at that map before and had the same conclusions. Just leave PTH 5 as is and spend the money on the big red circles first.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

To Biff's point. We looked at that map before and had the same conclusions. Just leave PTH 5 as is and spend the money on the big red circles first.

Totally.

The Province has studied converting the Entire Perimeter to a freeway, I hope to see that done within the 2030s. After that I think they want to do 75 and then Highway 1. In my lifetime I'd like to see Highway 1 freeway from Brandon to Winnipeg. Highway 75, I'd really like the see the St Norbert and Morris Bypasses get done and maybe straighten the Intersection at 205. 75 is pretty good and it won't really need Interchanges for a while. The only places besides Morris and St Norbert I can see Interchanges being needed (in the medium term) on 75 is 305 (Ste Agathe), 210 (St Adolphe), and Highway 14 (Winkler Exit).

But I notice that on 75 most Intersections have a median that's around 30m wide, which is sufficient for trucks. Carberry is not sufficient for modern trucking standards with such a tiny median. They should've widened the median as the preliminary solution.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

Looking at this diagram, I am a little disappointed myself that they're putting an Interchange at McGillvary instead of St Annes Road. St Annes is a pretty simple design that could be built easily. And since it's near the CP US Line, it would make even more sense.

McGillvary? Yes, it's needed but they're opting for a realignment of both Highways and a Diamond Interchange instead of a Parclo.

https://stroadz.glide.page/dl/d0a5f4/s/c0a8e8/r/YG3mlyHeZcEREk5U8w9F

This should be done there. It's simple to design, and it actually would help the businesses in Oak Bluff. The realignment would just bypass the services and be further off the Highway instead of right there.

Unless something has changed, St Anne's road and rail overpass is still happening and the next Perimeter project once McGillivray is completed.

Anecdotally, it seems like the lineups at St Anne's road during rush hour in all directions except NB are getting very long, much like how St Mary's was pre-interchange.

Re: PTH 5 - It's too bad the current NDP and Wab are leaning heavy on the populist approach and making decisions to placate strong emotions. It was an unbelievable tragedy, but the data on that map clearly illustrates that there are much worse intersections in this province. Probably many that have claimed more lives from poor design, just not all at once like at Carberry.

Hopefully this can be kept at the $50 mil mark like Biff said rather than the $100 mil WSP came up with. WSP's interim solutions would probably cost ~15-20 million so at least those costs are now avoided.

[borkborkbork]

Oof. This overpass vs RCUT thing.

The RCUT would have cost $12M. The overpass is going to be $100M.

Everyone's thrilled about this. But I don't think people really think about the opportunity cost.

$88M could build you something like the Westman Cancer Centre from scratch. It could build you a brand new K-8 school (and then some)

$88M is a lot to pay for "I don't understand what an RCUT is but I know what an overpass is"

[plrh]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Oof. This overpass vs RCUT thing.

The RCUT would have cost $12M. The overpass is going to be $100M.

Everyone's thrilled about this. But I don't think people really think about the opportunity cost.

$88M could build you something like the Westman Cancer Centre from scratch. It could build you a brand new K-8 school (and then some)

$88M is a lot to pay for "I don't understand what an RCUT is but I know what an overpass is"

If Wab hadn't discounted the gas tax for a year, we could of had everything in your post. I don't think he understands numbers.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

^That's harsh. I hope you're wrong.

[bomberjet]

The Province gave up 9 figures on the gas tax thing.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

I remember hearing the province lost about $300 million in gas tax revenue when it was cancelled but actual hit on provincial revenue was likely much lower since that money ended up in the local economy anyway (sales tax, etc.). Anyway, it’s not like the gas taxes collected go into a dedicated interchange building fund.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

Looking at this diagram, I am a little disappointed myself that they're putting an Interchange at McGillvary instead of St Annes Road. St Annes is a pretty simple design that could be built easily. And since it's near the CP US Line, it would make even more sense.

McGillvary? Yes, it's needed but they're opting for a realignment of both Highways and a Diamond Interchange instead of a Parclo.

The reason they chose McGillivray over St Anne's is that St Anne's is actually more complex and significantly more expensive. The detours will be challenging as the space is fairly tight with St Anne's, the Seine River, the commercial on Aimes Rd and having to deal/negotiate with the railways.

The McGillivray interchange is basically being built on a greenfield site with no need for any detouring except for when finished connections are made.

St Mary's was actually easier than St Anne's - it looks complex with all the crazy road connections they made - but again it was mostly on a greenfield site with lots of room.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Does anyone have a wealthy connection that can pay for a short lobbying effort, LOL?

Maybe a few billboards, some simple 30-second spots that ask why those overpasses pencil in at $100+ M here but other jurisdictions can build them for less than half that?

I recall Biff pointing out earlier in this discussion that the bridge sections on the St. Mary's overpass project were ~$30M or something - why not pressure Broadway for some answers on that?

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg Grump

Does anyone have a wealthy connection that can pay for a short lobbying effort, LOL?

Maybe a few billboards, some simple 30-second spots that ask why those overpasses pencil in at $100+ M here but other jurisdictions can build them for less than half that?

I recall Biff pointing out earlier in this discussion that the bridge sections on the St. Mary's overpass project were ~$30M or something - why not pressure Broadway for some answers on that?

St Mary's makes sense that it was more expensive. A lot of utilities in the area, a lot of traffic to manage, and they rebuilt the Perimeter lanes from scratch between the Red River bridges to about 2/3 the way to St Anne's road. $135 million was the price tag if I remember correctly. Most projects on the Perimeter will have the same problem given that the medians are inadequate to modern standards and the whole highway will have to be widened. Any utilities will have to be shifted out and service roads also moved.

The Carberry interchange, on the other hand, is in the middle of dipshit nowhere (sorry Carberry), so for WSP to throw out $100 million seems to be double what it should cost considering the scope of the work should be pretty much contained to the overpass structure, unlike the Perimeter projects.

[Winnipegger]

Honestly, upgrades to the TransCanada should be partially funded by the feds, full stop. In the states, many interstate projects are entirely, or at the very least partially funded by by the federal government.

If American states had to solely rely on state level funding mechanisms to build highways, the US interstate system as it is today would never exist, and there would be vast differences in quality depending on each state's fiscal capacity. Texas, California, New York, Florida, and other high income/high population states would have decent systems while states more analogous to Manitoba like North and South Dakota and Nebraska would have a more rudimentary system like ours.

It's a shame the federal government doesn't maintain it's own inter-country transportation system.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Honestly, upgrades to the TransCanada should be partially funded by the feds, full stop. In the states, many interstate projects are entirely, or at the very least partially funded by by the federal government.

If American states had to solely rely on state level funding mechanisms to build highways, the US interstate system as it is today would never exist, and there would be vast differences in quality depending on each state's fiscal capacity. Texas, California, New York, Florida, and other high income/high population states would have decent systems while states more analogous to Manitoba like North and South Dakota and Nebraska would have a more rudimentary system like ours.

It's a shame the federal government doesn't maintain it's own inter-country transportation system.

I agree with you. I believe Canada should have an Interstate-like or Autoroute system that's cross country spanning beyond Quebec and Ontario. TCH should be federally funded. Even the Quebec Autoroutes and 400 Series should be too.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

I agree with you. I believe Canada should have an Interstate-like or Autoroute system that's cross country spanning beyond Quebec and Ontario. TCH should be federally funded. Even the Quebec Autoroutes and 400 Series should be too.

I’ve been harping on this a long time. If we’re allegedly nation buildinga nd funding all these huge projects, I can’t think of a better way to show the people something tangible.

[Winnipeg Grump]

Originally Posted by WildCake

St Mary's makes sense that it was more expensive. A lot of utilities in the area, a lot of traffic to manage, and they rebuilt the Perimeter lanes from scratch between the Red River bridges to about 2/3 the way to St Anne's road. $135 million was the price tag if I remember correctly. Most projects on the Perimeter will have the same problem given that the medians are inadequate to modern standards and the whole highway will have to be widened. Any utilities will have to be shifted out and service roads also moved.

The Carberry interchange, on the other hand, is in the middle of dipshit nowhere (sorry Carberry), so for WSP to throw out $100 million seems to be double what it should cost considering the scope of the work should be pretty much contained to the overpass structure, unlike the Perimeter projects.

This was all hashed out back in mid-January 2024 on pages 111 and 112. Biff had numbers from contractors that build this stuff and there was pricing for a variety of projects like this. There's no way this should be even $50 -- $100 M is lunacy.

[Winnipeg Grump]

And yes, I wish Ottawa would nationalize the major transportation routes.

[BorealLynx]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I’ve been harping on this a long time. If we’re allegedly nation building and funding all these huge projects, I can’t think of a better way to show the people something tangible.

I couldn't agree more.

What would it take to make this happen? How is it possible that even in this era of "Nation Building" projects a National Highways Strategy still can't make it onto the list?

How did the Americans decide to make the Interstate thing happen at a federal level? They're one of the last countries on earth to embrace some degree of universal healthcare, so how were they bought in to the idea of a super-expensive federally-funded national highways system?

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

How did the Americans decide to make the Interstate thing happen at a federal level? They're one of the last countries on earth to embrace some degree of universal healthcare, so how were they bought in to the idea of a super-expensive federally-funded national highways system?

The aftermath of World War II is one of the main reasons. The Federal-Aid Act of 1956 created a fund that enabled most interstates to be built, with 90% of funds provided by the federal government and 10% by the states. It was mostly done under the optics of enabling better transportation and economic growth across the entire US, but being able to move soldiers quickly throughout the US in the event of an invasion was also one of the reasons cited by the US government. Wikipedia says a a cross-country journey that would have taken 2 months in 1919 would now take 4 days upon completion of the interstate system.

While I doubt adding interchanges to the TransCanada highway or twinning it in certain sections would change any military outcome in the event of an invasion from Russia, China, or the US, there certainly is a safety aspect that needs to be considered.

However, in normal times, most economic trade in Canada is north-south, not east-west, and trips that are east-west can often rely on better, alternative routes through the US at no additional cost, so it makes the business case for upgrading the entire TransCanada to "interstate standards" a bit more challenging.

[bomberjet]

The thing that would make a big difference is twinning through northern ontario. You go out into the void of nothingness for the most part. And historically has been one of the most dangerous stretch of highway.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

The aftermath of World War II is one of the main reasons. The Federal-Aid Act of 1956 created a fund that enabled most interstates to be built, with 90% of funds provided by the federal government and 10% by the states. It was mostly done under the optics of enabling better transportation and economic growth across the entire US, but being able to move soldiers quickly throughout the US in the event of an invasion was also one of the reasons cited by the US government. Wikipedia says a a cross-country journey that would have taken 2 months in 1919 would now take 4 days upon completion of the interstate system.

While I doubt adding interchanges to the TransCanada highway or twinning it in certain sections would change any military outcome in the event of an invasion from Russia, China, or the US, there certainly is a safety aspect that needs to be considered.

However, in normal times, most economic trade in Canada is north-south, not east-west, and trips that are east-west can often rely on better, alternative routes through the US at no additional cost, so it makes the business case for upgrading the entire TransCanada to "interstate standards" a bit more challenging.

Well it shows how concerned the feds are about our relationship with the states (spoiler, not much). If only for the purposes of national defence and upgrading our road network to better integrate with american standards for the purposes of trade and general travel, it would be a worthwhile endeavour. The personal automobile and trucking aren't going anywhere, and neither are threats to national security.