Manitoba | Highways

[Biff]

I think the thing with the Feds making the TCH a true Interstate style cross country highway is that the only areas of the country that truly need major improvements are Sask and MB if you exclude the northern part of ON. I don't imagine that gets a lot of traction in areas where the highway is already built to acceptable standards. The interior area of BC would also cost a ton of money.

I'm sure though that provinces like On, QC and others would love to devote TCH maintenance to other provincial highways.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Biff

I think the thing with the Feds making the TCH a true Interstate style cross country highway is that the only areas of the country that truly need major improvements are Sask and MB if you exclude the northern part of ON. I don't imagine that gets a lot of traction in areas where the highway is already built to acceptable standards. The interior area of BC would also cost a ton of money.

I'm sure though that provinces like On, QC and others would love to devote TCH maintenance to other provincial highways.

This is why (and this may be one of the only instances I can think of) I would say we should nationalize the TCH and other vital trade highways and corridors.

[BorealLynx]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

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.

That almost packages the selling point right there. Canada is unreasonably dependent on US infrastructure for its east-west commercial transport (and passenger transport to a lesser degree). In the Trump Era, is that not a threat to national security? Trump loves to hold a "trump card" over those he "negotiates" with, and he has never been afraid to use it. If there was ever a threat to our nation, it would be Trump stopping all inter-Canadian traffic from transiting through the US, or imposing an onerous toll.

Have you ever driven the TCH between the Whiteshell and Kenora on a weekday? It's not unusual to see convoys of 12-15 semis huddled together in a row on endless stretches of 2-lane highway with lots of twists, turns and rises. Occasionally you'll see a small car wedged in between the convoy, and we should all say a little prayer that they make it to their destination that day without becoming the meat in a semi-trailer sandwich. Yes, I know that someday in my great-grandchildren's lifetimes that portion of the TCH will be twinned, but that is the situation all across the north shore of Lake Superior, for hundreds of kilometers. It is a driving death trap.

And this is WITH inter-Canadian transit through the US!! Imagine just how congested and additionally dangerous the TCH would become if Trump cut off that commercial lifeline. And those strings are in his hands to pull at his whim.

How is that not the very definition of a National Security Threat?!

[CoryB]

I would honestly be shocked if something doesn't happen with CCW/Perimeter/HWY 1 with the next 6 years, likely an announcement before the next election in 2027 or sooner and construction not long after the election.

St Annes isn't anywhere near the top 3 busiest on the Perimeter and Portage Ave (Hwy 1) was before the Costco opened. Also the existing intersection is among the most dangerous on the Perimeter due to the outdated design. Mixing that with the traffic volume it won't be long before serious collisions start.

Another factor is that intersection is in Kirkfield Park which is a swing riding and an absolute must win for the NDP. It is sort of opposite of why the Oakbank corridor route (HWY 15 relocation and twinning) is sitting on ice right now.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I would honestly be shocked if something doesn't happen with CCW/Perimeter/HWY 1 with the next 6 years, likely an announcement before the next election in 2027 or sooner and construction not long after the election.

St Annes isn't anywhere near the top 3 busiest on the Perimeter and Portage Ave (Hwy 1) was before the Costco opened. Also the existing intersection is among the most dangerous on the Perimeter due to the outdated design. Mixing that with the traffic volume it won't be long before serious collisions start.

Another factor is that intersection is in Kirkfield Park which is a swing riding and an absolute must win for the NDP. It is sort of opposite of why the Oakbank corridor route (HWY 15 relocation and twinning) is sitting on ice right now.

For Portage Ave, thankfully a new design is fairly easy as they could just simply convert the Interchange to a Parclo A4 as a preliminary design. It wouldn't be that hard to do.

https://stroadz.glide.page/dl/d0a5f4/s/c0a8e8/r/HPke8QCTyR6Em6YcZWnR

Yes, a diverging diamond was planned there, but I feel like it would be a bit more expensive and would cause lots of traffic disruptions during conversion as opposed to this, which could be done for pretty cheap. Most of the Interchange would stay as is, just add turning lanes to turn onto Portage from the Perimeter, and remove the loops going onto Portage Ave.

[bomberjet]

Let's not get beside ourselves here. The South Perimeter is plenty busy. St Annes is flagged as one of the top 3 intersection for collisions and is well suited for the interchange.

I would love for a good ole bypass mega project though. Maybe we'll here more in the near future on the finalization of the North Perimeter freeway study and some plans on what's coming first.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

That almost packages the selling point right there. Canada is unreasonably dependent on US infrastructure for its east-west commercial transport (and passenger transport to a lesser degree). In the Trump Era, is that not a threat to national security? Trump loves to hold a "trump card" over those he "negotiates" with, and he has never been afraid to use it. If there was ever a threat to our nation, it would be Trump stopping all inter-Canadian traffic from transiting through the US, or imposing an onerous toll.

Have you ever driven the TCH between the Whiteshell and Kenora on a weekday? It's not unusual to see convoys of 12-15 semis huddled together in a row on endless stretches of 2-lane highway with lots of twists, turns and rises. Occasionally you'll see a small car wedged in between the convoy, and we should all say a little prayer that they make it to their destination that day without becoming the meat in a semi-trailer sandwich. Yes, I know that someday in my great-grandchildren's lifetimes that portion of the TCH will be twinned, but that is the situation all across the north shore of Lake Superior, for hundreds of kilometers. It is a driving death trap.

And this is WITH inter-Canadian transit through the US!! Imagine just how congested and additionally dangerous the TCH would become if Trump cut off that commercial lifeline. And those strings are in his hands to pull at his whim.

How is that not the very definition of a National Security Threat?!

We may do well to be happy if MTO and the federal government ever team up to twin TCH from Kenora to T Bay.
MTO is only conducting geometric improvement on TCH along Lake Superior Shore here and there, nothing major.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

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?

I was wondering the same thing too, until I saw the high-speed-rail plan. That’s where most money is going.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I was wondering the same thing too, until I saw the high-speed-rail plan. That’s where most money is going.

Who exactly is asking for high speed rail? I’m all for it, but it seems like an awful lot of money to spend if we’re doing it at the expense of the rest of the country’s road network.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Let's not get beside ourselves here. The South Perimeter is plenty busy. St Annes is flagged as one of the top 3 intersection for collisions and is well suited for the interchange.

I would love for a good ole bypass mega project though. Maybe we'll here more in the near future on the finalization of the North Perimeter freeway study and some plans on what's coming first.

The public stats don't support that St Annes is top 3.

Main 34K
McPhillips 32k
Pipeline (traffic light) 32k
HWY 7 (Route 90) 32K
Portage 30k
Roblin 30K
Kennaston 24k
HWY 3 21k
St Marys 20k
St Annes 19k

And the north Perimeter is now fairly consistently 50% busier than the south Perimeter.

[bomberjet]

Are those vehicles per day or collisions? The MTI map had it as top 3 in collision location on the highway network.

I drive the north perimeter weekly at least, sometime twice a week. From Lag to Portage. It get's pretty busy and the traffic volumes show that. But I find since they closed all the access points (except 1), it is a pretty easy drive.

We can all argue about which one should be first. The Province prioritized the South Perimeter as it is the bypass route. So be it. North Perimeter program hopefully coming on line soon.

But in terms of building an interchange at PTH 1/5, or somewhere else. It should be somewhere else. Deacons corner wouldv'e been a good place for it. But alas they just spent shitloads of money on new pavement there.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Who exactly is asking for high speed rail? I’m all for it, but it seems like an awful lot of money to spend if we’re doing it at the expense of the rest of the country’s road network.

I may have to read the federal infrastructure plan if I have time. I’ve been recovering from jet lag recently and I still feel like today.

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Are those vehicles per day or collisions? The MTI map had it as top 3 in collision location on the highway network.

I drive the north perimeter weekly at least, sometime twice a week. From Lag to Portage. It get's pretty busy and the traffic volumes show that. But I find since they closed all the access points (except 1), it is a pretty easy drive.

We can all argue about which one should be first. The Province prioritized the South Perimeter as it is the bypass route. So be it. North Perimeter program hopefully coming on line soon.

But in terms of building an interchange at PTH 1/5, or somewhere else. It should be somewhere else. Deacons corner wouldv'e been a good place for it. But alas they just spent shitloads of money on new pavement there.

A very desperate solution is to convert JCT PTH207 into right in right out.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The public stats don't support that St Annes is top 3.

Main 34K
McPhillips 32k
Pipeline (traffic light) 32k
HWY 7 (Route 90) 32K
Portage 30k
Roblin 30K
Kennaston 24k
HWY 3 21k
St Marys 20k
St Annes 19k

And the north Perimeter is now fairly consistently 50% busier than the south Perimeter.

Cite your sources - you've been touting that the North Perimeter is much worse but you've yet to bring up any evidence of that.

The MTI 2023 traffic flow maps show pretty equal traffic counts on the North and South Perimeter.

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mti/traffic/mhtis/flowmap_2023.pdf

The hot spots are the Red River and Assiniboine River crossings, with fewer in-city options forcing traffic to use those bridges, and those areas also tend to be the areas of the Perimeter that are surrounded by the built-up portion of the city, not fields. Yes, PTH 8 to Henderson is the busiest segment, but those are currently interchange-controlled. Looking at that map, St Anne's to 59S is the busiest stretch of the whole Perimeter that isn't a river crossing.

Even with similar enough traffic counts, we have to also be looking at collisions, including severe collisions and fatalities. Which MTI has presented with that graph using the coloured circles. We don't know the methodology behind it but it provides a good snapshot. So St Anne's, Dugald, and Deacons are the 3 worst ones in the Province. Pretty obvious to me which intersections on the Perimeter should be addressed first, which MTI seems to be working towards. Unless you have compelling evidence otherwise, I can't understand this fixation on the North Perimeter being dramatically worse than the South Perimeter.

[jim_bred]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Are those vehicles per day or collisions? The MTI map had it as top 3 in collision location on the highway network.

I drive the north perimeter weekly at least, sometime twice a week. From Lag to Portage. It get's pretty busy and the traffic volumes show that. But I find since they closed all the access points (except 1), it is a pretty easy drive.

We can all argue about which one should be first. The Province prioritized the South Perimeter as it is the bypass route. So be it. North Perimeter program hopefully coming on line soon.

But in terms of building an interchange at PTH 1/5, or somewhere else. It should be somewhere else. Deacons corner wouldv'e been a good place for it. But alas they just spent shitloads of money on new pavement there.

Pipeline is a very bad intersection and it's only getting worse.

[bomberjet]

Definetly. But in general one can now predict where vehicles are coming from. The controlled locations only. Grandma isn't pulling out from the nearest grid road anymore.

One can also predict what would likely be the first or at least first 2 projects for the 101 program. Pipeline and Duagld Rd. The province is iniating functional design study for twinning pth15 accross the floodway, which is needed for an interchange at 101. If I had to bet it would be pipeline first, then dugald due to the cost of the floodway bridge and timing of the functional design program. Hoping for some news on all this in the next number of months.

The other intersections have all been recently upgraded. #6, Wenzel and Gunn.

[cammy85]

OK, that's a first for provincial roads in MB that I know of!! I do also remember them screwing up and using a Manitoba shield for 16 instead of the TCH sign closer to Russell.

Hmm... the image isn't showing up... Anyway, it's supposed to be an accidental Manitoba Highways shield on Provincial Road 262 instead of the Provincial Road sign. 16A isn't usually designated as a Trans-Canada Highway either. Before the 16 became a TCH, 16A was already designated that way like any iteration of 1A in Alberta or BC. It be nice to be consistent as they were pretty fast on replacing every single speed drop warning sign on every highway n Manitoba etc.

[Wpgstvsouth94]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Cite your sources - you've been touting that the North Perimeter is much worse but you've yet to bring up any evidence of that.

The MTI 2023 traffic flow maps show pretty equal traffic counts on the North and South Perimeter.

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mti/traffic/mhtis/flowmap_2023.pdf

The hot spots are the Red River and Assiniboine River crossings, with fewer in-city options forcing traffic to use those bridges, and those areas also tend to be the areas of the Perimeter that are surrounded by the built-up portion of the city, not fields. Yes, PTH 8 to Henderson is the busiest segment, but those are currently interchange-controlled. Looking at that map, St Anne's to 59S is the busiest stretch of the whole Perimeter that isn't a river crossing.

Even with similar enough traffic counts, we have to also be looking at collisions, including severe collisions and fatalities. Which MTI has presented with that graph using the coloured circles. We don't know the methodology behind it but it provides a good snapshot. So St Anne's, Dugald, and Deacons are the 3 worst ones in the Province. Pretty obvious to me which intersections on the Perimeter should be addressed first, which MTI seems to be working towards. Unless you have compelling evidence otherwise, I can't understand this fixation on the North Perimeter being dramatically worse than the South Perimeter.

I drive it daily for work. The only problem with the north perimeter is the pipeline lights. That intersection needs to be completely closed off until they come up with a final solution i.e. interchange. It’s quicker taking the service road to the interchange rather than waiting at the light half the time. Plus it ruins the flow of traffic. Oh, and the other thing with both side sides of the perimeter is people’s limited concept that the left lane is for passing and not driving 80-90 kms kilometers an hour in… the stretch from pembina to st Mary’s drives me nuts.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Wpgstvsouth94

I drive it daily for work. The only problem with the north perimeter is the pipeline lights. That intersection needs to be completely closed off until they come up with a final solution i.e. interchange. It’s quicker taking the service road to the interchange rather than waiting at the light half the time. Plus it ruins the flow of traffic. Oh, and the other thing with both side sides of the perimeter is people’s limited concept that the left lane is for passing and not driving 80-90 kms kilometers an hour in… the stretch from pembina to st Mary’s drives me nuts.

Main Street exit onto perimeter over Henderson overpass… dangerous spot. Zero space to merge efficiently.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Main Street exit onto perimeter over Henderson overpass… dangerous spot. Zero space to merge efficiently.

For the North Perimeter design study, they looked at adding collector lanes between Main Street and Henderson.

Link: https://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/enga...ds-phase-3-engagemb-segment-4-boards.pdf

[bomberjet]

That stretch is proposed to be 6 lanes with median concrete barrier and collector lanes basically from east of McPhillips to Lag.

Big time dollars.