Manitoba Highways

[bomberjet]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/geraldton-main-street-rehabilitation-project-9.7211679

lmao lets re-pave the road!

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I'll try to fix some of the formatting. That text is all copied form the RFP using AI as the RFP is locked and unable to copy directly from the PDF.. Note the RFP is 314 pages long lol

In general. Either on existing alignment, or a couplet with WB lanes going north of Barren Lake.

All interchanges seem to be compact diamonds. Possibly move the Falcon interchange location to Freedom Road.

Throughpass for Lyon's Lake access. Not sure yet about the south end of Barren Lake cottages.

Do you have the link? I went to M.T.I.’s website and I couldn’t find the PDF there.

[craner]

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

While I definitely see 2+1 as a viable option for lower-volume stretches of highway, I am hoping that this doesn't become a cheap replacement for a properly twinned Trans Canada Highway from coast to coast. So for example, if Hwy 17 is determined to be the primary TCH route connecting East to West, then 2+1 would be a good option for Hwy 11, and vice versa. But Canada needs a primary highway running from coast to coast with at least a minimum 4-lane standard. Preferably a freeway ("interstate-grade") with limited access and grade-separated interchanges the entire length, but 4 lanes at a minimum. One highway - that is all I am asking for.

I really hope that 2+1 isn't a cop-out, or settling for second-best.

And to those who bring up the highways in Sweden and Norway, first of all those are very mountainous countries - think interior BC. But more importantly, the north-south divide in these countries is more like connecting Thompson/Churchill to Winnipeg or James Bay to Sudbury. Canada's population is split east-west, separated by Northern Ontario, and to a lesser extent, the Rockies. Roughly 15 million people live West of Lake Superior, and 25 million East. There is no parallel in Norway or Sweden. The TCH literally connects two halves of a nation; it glues them together.

For the average Canadian looking to travel from one half of the country to the other, flying is expensive, and train travel is non-existent. Like it or not, the highway is the primary means of travel. Same for most commercial traffic - flying is far too expensive, and rail is only really viable for large-volume commodities. The rest is sent by truck on the TCH.

Seriously, I am baffled by how upgrading the TCH from a 2-lane path doesn't instantly qualify as a "Nation-Building" project. It literally holds this country together!

Hear Hear !
Agree with everything you said. When I first heard the new Federal government was pushing “Nation-Building Projects” the TCH was the first thing I thought of - seems so obvious. I hate when the Feds use the “Provincial responsibility” cop-out.

[Carboy15]

Yeah. As long as we don't just Band-Aid our highways and actually make real improvements, we could be so much further ahead. Even if the real solution is expensive, it's best to spend more now and save more in the long run. Not to mention that doing a band aid solution is a moving goalpost. Even if the band aid is a minor improvement, they still see it as better than before, so the real solution can wait till later.

[Carboy15]

But 2+1's aren't a bad idea, just as long as it's used in a smart way. If the traffic volumes stay consistent over time or seasonal, then it's fine. Say Highways in Manitoba such as PTH 6 or PTH 16 (Saskatchewan). Those would be okay with a 2+1 as they need better solutions for passing, but will be a while before they can justify a full twinning job.

Some parts of 17 and 11 in Ontario would be okay, but in moderation. But if that's all they do and in areas where traffic volumes are heavy and constantly increasing, then it's not a good solution.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Do you have the link? I went to M.T.I.’s website and I couldn’t find the PDF there.

The RFP is on MERX.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

The last time I spoke with Melillo personally, he told me that highways "were a Provincial responsibility". And I would much rather harass Rickford about broken promises regarding the twinning of Hwy 17 from the MB border to Kenora. Nothing but crickets these days.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1616350023255809/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

Melillo’s back at advocating for twinning TCH to Kenora, again.

[BorealLynx]

Pardon me for being confused, but is it really a money problem? Because the Ford government has been promising a twinned highway from the MB border to Kenora for years and years now. Rickford said that the twinning in its entirety would be completed by 2025, and the government hasn't changed since then. So why now beg the Feds for money? I can see how it would be nice to have, but it also looks like serious scapegoating on their part.

Personally, I don't think it's about money. I think it's a First Nations roadblock. This next segment is the one that goes past Royal Lake, and that has historically been a royal pain. It's simple, really. There are two choices for the road - either push north closer to Royal Lake and in the process expropriate a whole bunch of really nice rich people cottages, or build it south, which puts it squarely on First Nations land. And the First Nations people are asking, "Why is it always us? Why is it easier to take more of our land? Why not ask others to make that sacrifice for the common good?" And they have a point, in my opinion.

But that's not the issue I'm raising. I think they are hung up on the Royal Lake negotiations, and the Ford government hasn't always been on amicable terms with the First Nations of NWO. I think this is at a log-jam, and it will stay there until someone with true leadership qualities steps up. That isn't going to be Rickford; he's good at photo ops and claiming credit for accomplishments that have already been achieved, but he's not much of a negotiator in complicated situations. And Melillo, despite being Rickford's protege (he used to work for him), conveniently passes it off to the Province or to the Carney government instead of actually doing something constructive.

In other words, I believe we are seeing politics at its finest, and in the meantime there has been no progress for years. We here in Kenora are condemned to be led by spineless incompetents. I bet Wab Kinew could make this happen...

[Dengler Avenue]

Ford government hasn't always been on amicable terms with the First Nations of NWO.

It isn’t on amicable terms with FN’s in NEO, either. Case in point: Extension of Highway 400.

In the case of Royal Lake, maybe the compromise is to use 60-m ROW for the 4 lanes divided by 15 m of median (as opposed to 30 m) and 30-m ROW immediately to the north for service roads.

Ps: https://keephwy17north.ca/
There’s surely merit in their proposal since it leaves the current route as an EDR.

[BorealLynx]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

It isn’t on amicable terms with FN’s in NEO, either. Case in point: Extension of Highway 400.

In the case of Royal Lake, maybe the compromise is to use 60-m ROW for the 4 lanes divided by 15 m of median (as opposed to 30 m) and 30-m ROW immediately to the north for service roads.

Ps: https://keephwy17north.ca/
There’s surely merit in their proposal since it leaves the current route as an EDR.

I've never seen that link before. It just seems to me, like the case with Hwy 1 in MB through the Whiteshell, that it's always easier to build on existing infrastructure, i.e. twinning the existing route. Forging completely new ground resolves some issues, but often introduces others, especially in the type of Canadian Shield along that route. And a northerly route presents issues with access to Kenora proper. Taking the bypass through to Veterans as the main route into town might work, but not for residents of Keewatin and Norman, and that would leave a very circuitous path to link back up to the existing road into town from the west. It would also necessitate twinning the existing bypass all the way to Veterans Drive, which involves two major crossings of the Winnipeg River.

As for your suggestion re Royal Lake, it's already a really tight squeeze (think Hwy 1 past Barren Lake in MB). The optimal solution would be to work with the First Nations, but I'm not sure the current Provincial government has that in them. I suppose that time will tell, but in the meantime, nothing is happening.

[bomberjet]

At the connection point to the Kenora bypass, they could make adjustments and update the highway configuration to have a more direct connection to 17 east of the bypass. They already have a WB left turn for vehicles on the bypass to get to 17 east. It's not really a back track at all.

I may have sked this before, but are there any functional plans on how to twin the existing bypass? Those rock cuts aren't small.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

I've never seen that link before. It just seems to me, like the case with Hwy 1 in MB through the Whiteshell, that it's always easier to build on existing infrastructure, i.e. twinning the existing route. Forging completely new ground resolves some issues, but often introduces others, especially in the type of Canadian Shield along that route.

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

As for your suggestion re Royal Lake, it's already a really tight squeeze (think Hwy 1 past Barren Lake in MB). The optimal solution would be to work with the First Nations, but I'm not sure the current Provincial government has that in them. I suppose that time will tell, but in the meantime, nothing is happening.

There are some subtle but major differences between MB-1 and ON-17 in that vicinity, though.
It seems to me that MB-1 is designed for 120 kph but ON-17 for 110 kph. This means difference in geometric designs, such as side slopes (4H:1V or flatter for 120 kph, but only 3H:1V for 110 kph), horizontal curves (550 m to 700 m for 110 kph, 750 m or higher for 120 kph), and vertical curves (for which I can't recall on the spot the parameter values, which account for sight distance and what not).
Consequently, M.T.I. can technically just twin MB-1. On the other hand, MTO will need to construct the new lanes according to 120-kph standard, shift traffic to the new lanes, then reconstruct the existing roadways. In some cases, it may simply be cleaner to build the divided 4 lanes on new alignments.
Now, here's a funny tidbit:
Somewhere between T Bay and Nipigon, to protect a fish habitat, MTO will use 75-m ROW instead of the usual 110 m: The future divided highway will probably feature a 30-m median, 3.75 m per lane x 4 lanes, then 15 m clear zone on both sides. In the case of a northerly alignment around Royal Lake, if FN really is concerned, a case may be made to use a 90-m (or 100-m) ROW instead of 110 m. (I doubt that 75 m or 80 m will suffice given the potential rock cuts and fills.)

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

And a northerly route presents issues with access to Kenora proper. Taking the bypass through to Veterans as the main route into town might work, but not for residents of Keewatin and Norman, and that would leave a very circuitous path to link back up to the existing road into town from the west. It would also necessitate twinning the existing bypass all the way to Veterans Drive, which involves two major crossings of the Winnipeg River.

Originally Posted by bomberjet

At the connection point to the Kenora bypass, they could make adjustments and update the highway configuration to have a more direct connection to 17 east of the bypass. They already have a WB left turn for vehicles on the bypass to get to 17 east. It's not really a back track at all.

I may have sked this before, but are there any functional plans on how to twin the existing bypass? Those rock cuts aren't small.

I doubt that there is, but sufficient ROW may have been preserved right from the start to facilitate future twinning.
Now, Kenora Bypass has its own issues too. A lot of the horizontal curves on the west side are designed with the old minimum value of R-650 (i.e. turning radius of 650 m). If MTO actually gets to twinning that stretch of Kenora Bypass, realignment (to bring the radius to 750 m or higher) may be needed. There may in turn be substantial property impacts.
As for rock cuts? Yea MTO has been expanding the clear zone here and there.

[drew]

They just need to twin 17 from MB to Kenora. Beyond that maybe a 3-lane system or increasing passing lanes are adequate for the amount of traffic IMO.

[bomberjet]

Based on the property map here, there is intermittent right of way allocated for widening on the south side. Some areas would still need land acquisition.

https://kenora.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=d62a0193379c4bd7ba56ce708a595d54

[BorealLynx]

Originally Posted by drew

They just need to twin 17 from MB to Kenora. Beyond that maybe a 3-lane system or increasing passing lanes are adequate for the amount of traffic IMO.

This is exactly the thinking that I'm railing against. Designing highways based on traffic volumes alone might make sense for generic infrastructure, but not for the one highway that connects Canada from East to West. If we can't classify the TCH as a national highway at the level of a "Nation-Building" initiative, then we will never have a national highway - it will forever remain a national path.

By this line of thinking, there will never be a highway to Churchill or even a dirt road for that matter, and it wouldn't even justify any upgrade to the rail line to Churchill. Traffic volume makes sense for determining interchanges along the TCH or the Perimeter Hwy, and for twinning Hwys 59 and 52 to Steinbach, but not for the only artery that connects Canada as a nation, from the perspectives of both personal travel and commercial transportation.

My point - you can't assess "nation-building" projects on the same merits as regular infrastructure; otherwise, they would have already been done. The whole point here is to make a difference where conventional justifications might fall short.

[bomberjet]

I'm fully on board for a national highway system funded and operated by the Feds. This would include the trans-Canada and it's offshoots being at least 4 lane freeway. Then include things like the highway to Churchill, McKenzie highway, etc. Which I suppose could be 2 lanes. But paved highways designed to a certain standard, used for 'nation building' military or other strategic needs, paid for and operated by the Feds.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I'm fully on board for a national highway system funded and operated by the Feds. This would include the trans-Canada and it's offshoots being at least 4 lane freeway. Then include things like the highway to Churchill, McKenzie highway, etc. Which I suppose could be 2 lanes. But paved highways designed to a certain standard, used for 'nation building' military or other strategic needs, paid for and operated by the Feds.

Been beating this drum for a while. We need our own Eisenhower to get er done.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I'm fully on board for a national highway system funded and operated by the Feds. This would include the trans-Canada and it's offshoots being at least 4 lane freeway. Then include things like the highway to Churchill, McKenzie highway, etc. Which I suppose could be 2 lanes. But paved highways designed to a certain standard, used for 'nation building' military or other strategic needs, paid for and operated by the Feds.

I'm fine with the idea of the feds taking over the TCH, but not that we have an immediate and desperate need to get a freeway across NWO.

4 lane freeway, 2+1s, or the status quo, it doesn't change the travel time from Western Canada to the GTA. Trucks and most other vehicles traveling through will still cut through the USA even if we pave a freeway through NWO. It's just much shorter stateside.

Even if this goes ahead, it just adds a whole bunch of infrastructure to maintain without a Nation Building impact. Traffic will be about the same.

I see Nation Building Projects as having a longstanding impact, not just enriching construction companies and employing staff during the build, which is all I can see with this idea. Unless someone can enlighten me on some of my blind spots, I don't see how there would be a valuable spinoff to the local/national economy that would be worth the billions this would cost.

To call it necessary for military/safety reasons is a stretch. If it ever came to a conflict with the USA, they would absolutely cut off that route in a matter of minutes, regardless if it's 2 lane or 4 lane. There's no redundancy in that area and it would be impossible to defend the whole stretch.

I rather use traffic count to be more strategic with improvements and use the difference on more impactful projects.

[bomberjet]

Funding problem kind of goes away when it's a federal thing. There's not unlimited funding. But you can do A LOT more than pick away at interchanges.

If there was a freeway with 110km/h speed limit from Winnipeg to Toronto, I'd take that as opposed to going through US.

[drew]

Originally Posted by BorealLynx

This is exactly the thinking that I'm railing against. Designing highways based on traffic volumes alone might make sense for generic infrastructure, but not for the one highway that connects Canada from East to West. If we can't classify the TCH as a national highway at the level of a "Nation-Building" initiative, then we will never have a national highway - it will forever remain a national path.

As long as it's provincial gov'ts paying for it, twinning to Kenora is what we should be expecting, and the reality that my comment is based on. If the Feds want to back up the money truck - great - have at a coast to coast to coast divided freeway.

On a selfish note, twinning this section to Kenora would be great for me personally - as I go out to NWO regularly for cottaging/camping/canoeing. I have turned around on several occasions (usually Sunday's of long weekends, or if there is an accident) when the traffic starts backing up from the MB border - sometimes as far back as Clearwater Bay.