Winnipeg | Perimeter Highway

[Mr Tall Forehead]

So instead of collaborating on the site configuration of Buffalo Crossing to accommodate additional lanes, they'll have to eventually buy up a dozen properties on the south side of McGillivray. Go Winnipeg!

[Biff]

I think if you look at the layout of the loop at Buffalo Crossing you can see that room has been set aside for the road. There is approximately 65 ft of frontage and the road is already 2 lanes and a turn lane at that point. It will be tight, but doable.

[bomberjet]

If you look at the right of way width and the median width closer to Costco, that would be the typical scenario. Definitely way tighter at Buffalo Crossing area. They left some space but who knows what the plan is.

~100' right of way near Buffalo.


~200' right of way near Costco.

[bomberjet]

Based on the situation with 2303 Main St and CPT, I have zero expectation here the City had any foresight. There probably is no plan for twinning. From what I heard, MTI and City of Winnipeg were at odds over the McGillivray twinning scenarios.

[bomberjet]

Forgot to hit post.. The Province also carries min 200' right of way and has over 300' in some spots. The City can get to 130' at Buffalo crossing.

As Mr Tall Forehead mentioned, they'll probably blast away all the houses on the south side to make a big deal out of it. That would align better with the MTI right of way too.

[Carboy15]

Maybe in the gap where the Highway 3 twinning would terminate and the twinned McGillvary Blvd West of the tracks, maybe they'll just simply have it as an undivided 4-lane roadway, and maybe adding a center turn lane. I feel like that's all they'll really need to do for now. It would also help save some money and also save land expropriation on the south side of the road.

It's highly likely that they'll expropriate the houses on the south side. And yeah of course there will likely be a Nimby that will oppose that like in South Transcona. But that's one of the dangers of living and developing alongside a Highway.

[Carboy15]

https://stroadz.glide.page/dl/d0a5f4/s/c0a8e8/r/Dhb5DDkUmAuIA6tSLzsY

Most likely something like this.

[bomberjet]

If there's a need or want to twin it. then an undivided 2,3, or 4 lane in the gap is half assed cheap out solution. It should be twinned 4 lanes like the rest.

They could do 4 lanes with a narrow median or a barrier. That'd be the bare bones cheapest out in my books. To properly do it like the rest of it (proper in the loosest of terms with 9 traffic signals) they'd need to buy the houses.

[KnickKnack]

Originally Posted by Mr Tall Forehead

Hopefully the city shells out to twin the remaining 500 metre stretch inside city limits by Fort Whyte and the church at the same time so we don't end up with a weird orphaned two lane piece.

The functional design report talks about coordinating with the city at the detailed design phase to address this. But if I’m the city, this is not going to be very high on the priority list. It seems almost petty for the province not to chip in to close that gap.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by KnickKnack

The functional design report talks about coordinating with the city at the detailed design phase to address this. But if I’m the city, this is not going to be very high on the priority list. It seems almost petty for the province not to chip in to close that gap.

Good point. Finishing the 1/2 km inside city limits would be a small portion of the province's overall budget to twin this stretch of the highway - provided that there isn't any added expropriation costs.

[WildCake]

The city is working with the province for the St Anne's interchange to twin it's portion of the road.

St Anne's road has funds earmarked for twinning to Creek Bend Road. In the 2026 budget, it's listed as a 2028 project.

Search "St. Anne's Road Widening" in this doc:

https://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/ViewDoc...0&InitUrl=/DMIS/Documents/pw/2025/a27349

IIRC this project was initially earmarked for 2027 to coincide with the original timeline for the St Anne's interchange project start, and got deferred a year because the Province wasn't getting the interchanges done in a timely manner. Whether the city will just go ahead in 2028 regardless, or defer and try and bundle it with the interchange contractors to save a few bucks remains to be seen.

Hopefully the province can get out of the "one interchange at a time on the Perimeter" mindset since these projects seem to be 4 year slogs.

[bomberjet]

0% chance the Province will pick up the tab for City streets just to be nice about it.

I'd expect St Annes twinning work to get bumped again until there is some firmer timelines for the interchange.

[bomberjet]

I know we're polluting this thread. But on the twinning front. There's a road like Concordia which could've been twinned decades ago. But we have new roads like Dr Jose Rizal which is twinned straight to the dead end. Pipeline which will be twinned through the new area. And then Concordia still single lane so everyone can speed down Munroe and streets like that.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by Mr Tall Forehead

So instead of collaborating on the site configuration of Buffalo Crossing to accommodate additional lanes, they'll have to eventually buy up a dozen properties on the south side of McGillivray. Go Winnipeg!

This isn't the City's problem. MacDonald should pay for this. It only hurts the city to twin this stretch.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

Originally Posted by plrh

This isn't the City's problem. MacDonald should pay for this. It only hurts the city to twin this stretch.

Macdonald pays? What about the RMs and cities down the road the also use this highway (Carman, Winkler, Altonta, Morden, etc). Maybe the solution is that the province pays for upgrades to key highways in Winnipeg just like they do in every other municipality in MB? The current system doesn’t make sense.

[bomberjet]

The road authority, Ie: whoever owns it, pays for it. IN this case PTH 3 is owned by the Province. When it hits Brady Rd, McGillivray is owned by the City. That's fairly standard arrangement across North America.

Saying that, the City could apply for Provincial dollars to finish the twinning. Just ask them to pay for it. Maybe they've done that, who knows.

[Mr Tall Forehead]

I guess the question is around ‘road authority’ for major cross jurisdiction roads then. There are basically only two in the province: MB and Wpg.

Winnipeg has to pay for upgrades to roads like McGillivray, Lag, Fermor, Main, Portage, etc. bur Brandon, Steinbach, Portage, Winkler just lobby the province to upgrade 18th St, Reimer Ave, Saskatchewan Ave, Hwy 14, etc.

Arguably Winnipeg taxpayers are getting a raw deal.

[WildCake]

There is only about 800m of city road between Brady and McGillivray's twinned section near Post St. which would also be subject to City standards (or lack thereof) to how they'll build it.

So the 200ft ROW minimum for highways the Province has won't be applicable and those houses fronting McGillivray on that Sigma Ave/Alpha St cluster might not need to be expropriated.

[optimusREIM]

I think that Lagimodiere was technically pth 59 and under provincial authority until the east perimeter was completed a couple decades ago. In my opinion, and even if just to keep numbering consistent, the major expressway roads that connect to provincial roads ought to be under provincial jurisdiction, including route 90, lagimodiere, bishop, and cpt should all become provincial roads. And Carthage must be destroyed.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Mr Tall Forehead

I guess the question is around ‘road authority’ for major cross jurisdiction roads then. There are basically only two in the province: MB and Wpg.

Winnipeg has to pay for upgrades to roads like McGillivray, Lag, Fermor, Main, Portage, etc. bur Brandon, Steinbach, Portage, Winkler just lobby the province to upgrade 18th St, Reimer Ave, Saskatchewan Ave, Hwy 14, etc.

Arguably Winnipeg taxpayers are getting a raw deal.

No that's not right. Many roads are responsibility of the municipalities. The main roads in those places MAY be provincial responsibility if they are a highway or provincial road, yes like you outlined. But otherwise they're the responsibility of the municipality just like Winnipeg (which is also a municipal government).