Manitoba | Highways - Page 21

Spocket · #**401** Posted **Jul 17, 2020, 6:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Interchange cost estimates in MB seem grossly inflated? The province thought those two interchanges would cost $125 million? No way in hell should it cost anywhere near that especially in the middle of nowhere.

In this case, it actually might. There's the rail line overpass to consider, a service road, creeks in proximity that would affect the approaches and I seem to recall something about hydro lines although that last one might be just my imagination. I'm assuming you're referring to the TCH/16, yes? Also, the new highway would more or less actually be completely new as it doesn't use the former right of way. Looks like about a kilometer or so. Two interchanges as well as a diversion.

bomberjet · #**402** Posted **Jul 17, 2020, 9:48 AM**

Wtf

Biff · #**403** Posted **Jul 17, 2020, 1:08 PM**

A simple diamond in a rural setting with little to no sub-surface service relocations should run in the $15-20 million range. This is from multiple MIT engineers a couple of years ago.

I'm betting this roundabout will have to be quite large to accommodate a 4 lane divided, high speed highway and will likely cost $10+ million.

Dengler Avenue · #**404** Posted **Jul 17, 2020, 1:11 PM**

Anyway, when the time comes, make your noise so M.I.T. upholds the original design. The feds are chipping in too so it makes no sense that they have no money to build a proper interchange.

esquire · #**405** Posted **Jul 17, 2020, 1:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

A simple diamond in a rural setting with little to no sub-surface service relocations should run in the $15-20 million range. This is from multiple MIT engineers a couple of years ago.

I'm betting this roundabout will have to be quite large to accommodate a 4 lane divided, high speed highway and will likely cost $10+ million.

This is nuts.

If MI can't build the ideal trumpet interchange with another one a mile east as planned because it costs too much, then why not just build the single diamond at 1/16 and eliminate the conflict point? That would probably fix 90% of the problems with that stretch of road.

Spending $10 million to build a roundabout when a diamond would cost probably less than double that seems koo koo bananas.

Biff · #**406** Posted **Jul 17, 2020, 1:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket

In this case, it actually might. There's the rail line overpass to consider, a service road, creeks in proximity that would affect the approaches and I seem to recall something about hydro lines although that last one might be just my imagination. I'm assuming you're referring to the TCH/16, yes? Also, the new highway would more or less actually be completely new as it doesn't use the former right of way. Looks like about a kilometer or so. Two interchanges as well as a diversion.

A lot of the added cost in the original design was due to the rail line. That really extended the size of the embankment and civil work required to carry the elevated portion of 16 south over the rail line all the way to Hwy#1.

Dengler Avenue · #**407** Posted **Jul 17, 2020, 1:18 PM**

So, make your noise.
We already lost the battle with B.C.-1 near Chase, and I sure don’t wanna lose again.

Here are some encouragement for y’all though.
Outside of Sudbury, ON, ON-400 was initially slated to end at a roundabout at ON-17 too. The area residents complained, so M.T.O. changed it to a system interchange instead.
Granted, M.I.T. is no M.T.O., but it’s worth a try. Lol, let me know if I should write the email too. We will need to discuss what to tell them if they wanna schedule a meeting with us though.

The Jabroni · #**408** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 12:53 AM**

This is all around a bad idea. If they're going to invest in this junction, they might as well go full blown interchange in the most basic form possible. Even a simple diamond would suffice.

If the rail line just north of Highway 1 is an issue, then make Highway 1 a flyover. Most of the cost will be spent doing a grade separated diamond interchange on Highway 1, but it will keep the whole area as tight as possible, with obviously safer exits.

I want this done right, not half-assed like we've been suffering with over the past 6 decades.

Spocket · #**409** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 11:04 AM**

I don't understand why they can't just build the interchange like they promised. Why are they going backwards? Oh, we know it's about money but if they're not going to put the money into this intersection then where IS it going? St. Mary's and 100?

cllew · #**410** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff

I've been tooling around on Google Earth over in England looking for a roundabout on a major highway and have yet to find one. They have them as overpasses on grade separated interchanges but I haven't found one yet on a 4 lane divided major hwy.

Just build a simple diamond interchange and be done...sometimes this province makes things so hard. 16 doesn't need to be free flowing.

There was some "expert" on one of the radio talk shows and he said that New Zealand has some properly working roundabout's that would be compatible in lane size and traffic volume to what is proposed here in Manitoba.

rrskylar · #**411** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

There was some "expert" on one of the radio talk shows and he said that New Zealand has some properly working roundabout's that would be compatible in lane size and traffic volume to what is proposed here in Manitoba.

I've seen roundabouts on highways in Europe and the UK and ROI albeit not on a major highway like the TCH, bad move by MB infrastructure when a proper cloverleaf is needed at the #1 and #16 intersection!

roccerfeller · #**412** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 10:00 PM**

Major roundabouts are commonplace in other parts of the world for intersections, many of which have much larger movements than any traffic that exists in Manitoba, and they are safe

However, this is also in countries and regions where these types of infrastructure are normal, people learn about them in driving school on highways, and many of the larger ones still use lights as well

For This junction, a diamond or clover makes the most sense. Why are they overthinking this? Where did the traffic circle idea come into play? Are the cost savings really that much? This is an otherwise Intersection of two straight roads in an area where there is ample space to build a diamond as least from what I’ve seen. Most of the people driving on these roads are used to North American highway standards. What’s the deal or rationale behind favouring this option?

Also is this entirely on the province to fund or can the feds not contribute to help given it is the trans Canada highway and it’s a pretty nasty intersection

Dengler Avenue · #**413** Posted **Jul 18, 2020, 10:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrskylar

I've seen roundabouts on highways in Europe and the UK and ROI albeit not on a major highway like the TCH, bad move by MB infrastructure when a proper cloverleaf is needed at the #1 and #16 intersection!

No cloverleaf please. That’s an outdated design. Flyover ramp from 16E to 1E at least.

optimusREIM · #**414** Posted **Jul 19, 2020, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

This is nuts.

If MI can't build the ideal trumpet interchange with another one a mile east as planned because it costs too much, then why not just build the single diamond at 1/16 and eliminate the conflict point? That would probably fix 90% of the problems with that stretch of road.

Spending $10 million to build a roundabout when a diamond would cost probably less than double that seems koo koo bananas.

Wait what other one a mile east?

Dengler Avenue · #**415** Posted **Jul 19, 2020, 2:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Wait what other one a mile east?

See #399.

YWG-RO · #**416** Posted **Jul 19, 2020, 5:39 PM**

I think the perfect is the enemy of the good regarding controlled access interchanges in MB.

Make it a diamond with a partial cloverleaf, even just one for 16 EB to 1 EB. WB 1 to 16 is easy, just an extended merge. All other directions see minimal traffic movements. Keep a level crossing at the RR tracks on 16. Maybe not ideal, but better than a roundabout or traffic signals on the TCH.