Manitoba Highways

[Biff]

The diameter is approximately 400m

"In geometry, a diameter of a circle is any straight line segment that passes through the centre of the circle and whose endpoints lie on the circle."

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Biff

The diameter is approximately 400m

"In geometry, a diameter of a circle is any straight line segment that passes through the centre of the circle and whose endpoints lie on the circle."

Whoops I misread. That was embarrassing.
Still, that kind of ROW can pretty much be used for interchanges.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Biff

This roundabout is approximately 400m in diameter. The speed going into it is 60 km/h. I just posted this as a talking point.

I don't like the idea of roundabouts on a 110 km/h multi-lane hwy. I really don't understand at all why every interchange in Manitoba has to cost $100m. It doesn't make sense. The ones on the Perimeter (St Mary's, Hwy 3) include a ton of associated roadworks which eat up at least 50% of the price.

I get it, but again we live where we live. Interchanges or similar just aren't happening. We need to move forward with something, and it needs to not be traffic lights.

The speed limit on the #1 in MB reduces from 110 to 100 to 80 for anything resembling an intersection already, so a slowdown for a free-flowing roundabout isn't really going to change anything, other than you don't need to also worry about getting stopped at a traffic light.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Biff

This roundabout is approximately 400m in diameter. The speed going into it is 60 km/h. I just posted this as a talking point.

I don't like the idea of roundabouts on a 110 km/h multi-lane hwy. I really don't understand at all why every interchange in Manitoba has to cost $100m. It doesn't make sense. The ones on the Perimeter (St Mary's, Hwy 3) include a ton of associated roadworks which eat up at least 50% of the price.

For something like 1&5, why can't they build a bare bones, small diamond like the ones on I-29? No fancy road realignments. just build the overpass and some ramps. Way safer, and I would guarantee be under $50m.....build two per year along the Trans-Canada.

PTH 5 is a prime case where they could leave the highway alone and add the bridge/ramps. No need to rebuild the entire highway for many km's. This is my point, they could do this rather cheaply in interchange world. $50 million would be extremly high end of something like that.

[Dengler Avenue]

And they just need to be built in a way that it’s possible to fit a divided 6-lane overpass through the middle of the roundabout in the future.

[bomberjet]

I see we all disagree and agree Drews is trying to be reasonable here. But what kind of precedent does that set? Do we just see roundabouts at every single intersection going forward? That's what we strive for, roundabouts? We push so hard in urbanism for everything to be gold plated. But then just wave our hands and be done with it for stuff like this. Like ya we cant afford much. But there's a value for money exercise to be done here. Hopefully they'll do that as part of their functional design work.

Interchanges are starting to happen here. And maybe if MTI stopped exclusively using WSP as their consultant, we'd be seeing some different things. Like instead of full on rebuilds costs 100's of millions, then can add a simple 2 lane bridge over the highway. That's not really that expensive. $10 million for the bridge.

[Sasquatch]

We should not have highway development being driven by press coverage of accidents. The concern over the Carberry intersection got amped up due one accident in which an unusually large number of people were killed. Serious accidents are much more common at intersections like PTH 16 and the TCH at Portage La Prairie, but they usually involve one or two people and thus get next to no press coverage. Hence, interchange improvements which should be a higher priority slide down the list instead.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

We should not have highway development being driven by press coverage of accidents. The concern over the Carberry intersection got amped up due one accident in which an unusually large number of people were killed. Serious accidents are much more common at intersections like PTH 16 and the TCH at Portage La Prairie, but they usually involve one or two people and thus get next to no press coverage. Hence, interchange improvements which should be a higher priority slide down the list instead.

Totally. I mentioned that earlier. knee jerk reaction.

[Dengler Avenue]

On that note, who’s the consultant for TCH twinning in Falcon Lake then?
Also, I have a feeling that, in Ontario, WSP proposes stuff that’s more in line with what MTO wants. Maybe the issue is with M.I.T.??
Edit: Actually, I have to think who it was that proposed a roundabout at the JCT of 2 freeways south of Sudbury (between 2 branches of TCH). It might have been WSP. People fumed so the design got changed to a proper system interchange.

[drew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I see we all disagree and agree Drews is trying to be reasonable here. But what kind of precedent does that set? Do we just see roundabouts at every single intersection going forward? That's what we strive for, roundabouts? We push so hard in urbanism for everything to be gold plated. But then just wave our hands and be done with it for stuff like this. Like ya we cant afford much. But there's a value for money exercise to be done here. Hopefully they'll do that as part of their functional design work.

Interchanges are starting to happen here. And maybe if MTI stopped exclusively using WSP as their consultant, we'd be seeing some different things. Like instead of full on rebuilds costs 100's of millions, then can add a simple 2 lane bridge over the highway. That's not really that expensive. $10 million for the bridge.

You would still need to re-route traffic while the bridge is under construction - maybe a roundabout solves that issue by pre-building the re-routed traffic allowance that could then be used in the future when the bridge never gets built....

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by drew

You would still need to re-route traffic while the bridge is under construction - maybe a roundabout solves that issue by pre-building the re-routed traffic allowance that could then be used in the future when the bridge never gets built....

They can get away with the usual detouring traffing to either the WB or EB lanes using the existing roadway, down to 1 lane each way. It's not like Perimeter where 1 lane would cripple traffic at rush hour and they had to put some work in to rejig the 2 travel lanes.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

On that note, who’s the consultant for TCH twinning in Falcon Lake then?
Also, I have a feeling that, in Ontario, WSP proposes stuff that’s more in line with what MTO wants. Maybe the issue is with M.I.T.??
Edit: Actually, I have to think who it was that proposed a roundabout at the JCT of 2 freeways south of Sudbury (between 2 branches of TCH). It might have been WSP. People fumed so the design got changed to a proper system interchange.

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mti/projects_m...ect_boards.pdf

It's Tetra Tech. They're trying to get more into transportation locally. The TT team is good at structures and drainage.

MTI has pre-approved consultants that are able to bid on tis work. They really limited themselves about 5-7 years ago. When they only allowed 3 pre-qual'd consultants. WSP being one of them who bid super cheap on the work. Now they're the sort of default team to win a lot of the work. I'm not up to speed 100% on the MTI RFP's. But a lot of them are based on past experience. So the cost is a wash and teams score points based on their team. WSP wins. Hopefully they're making a point to get away from a single provider. There's numerous pre-qual'd providers now.

[bodaggin]

Stop normalizing RCUT, Roundabout, etc on our only national "Interstate" highway. This is conditioned behavior and must stop, because it allows worse and worse decisions to be made.

We're allowed and should ask for the proper roads (overpasses) to be built, not solidifying and catering to past incompetence. The incompetence is wrong, not our desire for proper road design. Incompetence must be purged.

Single lane roundabouts are excellent features.... For 50kph roads.

Not for 110kph highways (which should actually be 140kph+ if built properly). We're the 2nd largest land mass in the world. Rural highways are meant for covering large distances, quickly. They should function as such.

TCH needs to be grade separated, starting with the most dangerous intersections first. End of story. No compromise.

[drew]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

TCH needs to be grade separated, starting with the most dangerous intersections first. End of story. No compromise.

And how is that working so far?

When you don't have the money, compromise is a necessary evil - like it or not.

[Dengler Avenue]

Yea I messaged an engineer about it too.
He said, “ It’s not WSP, it’s the new government not wanting to spend money on highways.”

[rivercity]

I really think the Feds need to step in and do something to nationalize to TCH or throw some money at these locations.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by drew

And how is that working so far?

When you don't have the money, compromise is a necessary evil - like it or not.

They DO have the money. They allotted $12 million to Carberry! For a roundabout! You can build an interchange for $12m. It's a 2 lane bridge in BFN Manitoba. It's not rocket science. No compromise. Stop perpetuating this settling mentality.

Originally Posted by rivercity

I really think the Feds need to step in and do something to nationalize to TCH or throw some money at these locations.

💯💯💯 Nationalize TCH.

[drew]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

They DO have the money. They allotted $12 million to Carberry! For a roundabout! You can build an interchange for $12m. It's a 2 lane bridge in BFN Manitoba.

OK, then I suggest you start knocking on some doors and sending out some emails to let the powers that be know you can get this done for them for $12M. Obviously you know better than they do.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by drew

OK, then I suggest you start knocking on some doors and sending out some emails to let the powers that be know you can get this done for them for $12M. Obviously you know better than they do.

Adding to this, I suggest running the numbers by the engineers that you (@bodaggin) know to see if $12 M actually suffice for a diamond interchange.
As I’ve always said, flat terrain can be deceptive.

And if the engineers are willing to answer you, we’ll know the true cost of things.

[Biff]

About 10 years ago or so I had this discussion with some of the top people at MIT. They said that in a rural area, without the need for any additional infrastructure (sewer, cable line, gas line) movements which is most of Hwy 1, a basic I29 style diamond interchange would cost between $15-$20m. Any additional road works is on top of that. Someone can do the cost increase due to inflation from 2010 to 2024 but I would imagine that a basic diamond now would be approx $25-30m.

I'll ask around to see if I can get an update.