Manitoba Highways

[optimusREIM]

This province will literally only build an interchange if dragged kicking and screaming to do it, like some weird phobia.

Instead of futzing around with studies for solutions that amount to a dereliction of duty if built, why not just start dedicating a certain amount of funds every year to actually building cookie cutter interchanges, it makes no sense.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by craner

Wpgstvsouth94 said it best earlier in this thread:

“I swear this province will do anything, but build a proper interchange it infuriates me.”

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

This province will literally only build an interchange if dragged kicking and screaming to do it, like some weird phobia.

Yes, we need to start organizing and getting louder. Everyone here has emailed the Minister of Transport? Email: minmti@manitoba.ca

It's not much, but it's an easy first step while coordinating.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Bingo. This is the highest priority TCH needed. My priority ranking of TCH intersections outside of Perimeter needing overpasses:

1 - Hwy 16 (ParClo w/ collector)
2 - Deacon's (Diamond)
3 - Carberry (Clover)
4 - Oakville (Diamond)
5 - Elie (Diamond)
6 - Virden (Diamond)
7 - Dakota Tipi/Simplot Solution so Portage Bypass can go back to 110kph+

Notably comingled:

8 - Headingly Bypass
9 - Brandon Bypass
10 - Austin/MacGregor. A temp R-CUT could MAYBE work here. Cost needs Sub $3m each.

Get this "needs" list done at a bare minimum. In this order. Then start worrying about "wants", like TCH complete grade separation.

Deacon's is fine with the traffic lights for now, but something needs to be prioritised for 206 and 1. Traffic keeps on increasing with the growth of Landmark and Lorette, and morning commuter traffic has huge issues with the left turn merging on to #1 with a high number of left lane drivers. I've done that commute twice due to training, and it ain't pretty with the passing lane full of vehicles doing 120.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

Deacon's is fine with the traffic lights for now, but something needs to be prioritised for 206 and 1. Traffic keeps on increasing with the growth of Landmark and Lorette, and morning commuter traffic has huge issues with the left turn merging on to #1 with a high number of left lane drivers. I've done that commute twice due to training, and it ain't pretty with the passing lane full of vehicles doing 120.

It'll get the Manitoba Made Solution™ soon. Just a few simple steps:

1. Have some sort of high casualty collision
2. Get a study done (6-12 mths)
3. Study gets released with gold standard and intermediate solutions.
4. Study results get thrown in the bureaucratic/political abyss and the public hears nothing about it for 3 years.
5. Have a politician propose an intermediate solution like a god-sent hero here to save us all.
6. Ignore gold standard option, run internal analysis on proposed intermediate solution (1 year)
7. Scrap the intermediate solution because they aren't realistic for the given intersection
8. Hope the public has now forgotten about step 1.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

Deacon's is fine with the traffic lights for now, but something needs to be prioritised for 206 and 1. Traffic keeps on increasing with the growth of Landmark and Lorette, and morning commuter traffic has huge issues with the left turn merging on to #1 with a high number of left lane drivers. I've done that commute twice due to training, and it ain't pretty with the passing lane full of vehicles doing 120.

Deacons was a golden opportunity to get rid of a light on a national highway, embarrassing, especially considering the amount they spent on rehabing the intersection and the length of time it took. (Is taking, can’t believe it’s still going)

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by WildCake

It'll get the Manitoba Made Solution™ soon. Just a few simple steps:

Nailed it WildCake

Originally Posted by Kinguni

something needs to be prioritised for 206 and 1.

Good catch Kinguni, missed this one. Grade separation needed, there's been incidents there.

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Deacons was a golden opportunity to get rid of a light on a national highway, embarrassing

100%. A lightless TCH from Ontario to Sask should be a top MB Priority. Even better, nationalize TCH like rivercity suggested and fully grade separate coast to coast with a 140kph+ speed limit. But until then, we need to bite the bullet and start tackling the biggest fires first.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Bingo. This is the highest priority TCH needed. My priority ranking of TCH intersections outside of Perimeter needing overpasses:

1 - Hwy 16 (ParClo w/ collector)
2 - Deacon's (Diamond)
3 - Carberry (Clover)
4 - Oakville (Diamond)
5 - Elie (Diamond)
6 - Virden (Diamond)
7 - Dakota Tipi/Simplot Solution so Portage Bypass can go back to 110kph+

Notably comingled:

8 - Headingly Bypass
9 - Brandon Bypass
10 - Austin/MacGregor. A temp R-CUT could MAYBE work here. Cost needs Sub $3m each.

Get this "needs" list done at a bare minimum. In this order. Then start worrying about "wants", like TCH complete grade separation.

My priorities:
1. Hwy 16 &1. Trumpet Interchange, and move 305 one mile East or West with a new RCUT intersection on TCH.
2. Hwy 5 & 1. Diamond (future parclo)
3. Brandon. Tight Diamond, SPUI, or Parclo at 1A and 10.
4. Elie. Tight Diamond
5. Hwy 1 and 13. Diamond or Parclo

- Yes, the Headingley bypass needs to happen.
- I agree with RCUT's at minor at-grade intersections.
- Brandon Bypass is not really necessary. They could simply retrofit a tight diamond, SPUI, or parclo with elongated ramps into the existing alignment. Yes, there may be some property impacts, but they could work something out.
- Brandon bypass again, for Hwy 110, an expansion to Kemnay could possibly help, especially with that low bridge.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

Brandon Bypass is not really necessary.

Shoulda clarified on Brandon Bypass. Not extending the 110. Something simple like this to opt-out of the 2 sets of lights. Keep the existing "pit-lane" for those who want to stop for services. Allow thru traffic to bypass using the red route at full highway speed.

St. Norbert Bypass should be high up there too.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Shoulda clarified on Brandon Bypass. Not extending the 110. Something simple like this to opt-out of the 2 sets of lights. Keep the existing "pit-lane" for those who want to stop for services. Allow thru traffic to bypass using the red route at full highway speed.

The challenges with your design is that now you need at least three interchanges (2 on each end, and at PTH 10 where it stands or rerouted westward) with the construction of a whole new roadway. I also believe the lands between the businesses on the north side of the TCH and brandon airport are owned by a first nation and would need more extensive negotiations to acquire.

The north brandon area has a secondary plan with illustrations of the proposed solution:

PDF download linkhttp://https://www.google.com/url?sa...WL9NNiusM90Uie

See the diagrams on the last pages.

The plan is to shift PTH 10 eastward and 1st westward to parclo interchanges, take all the land for the current TCH lanes and service roads and use it for the TCH only (not sure what the plan is - 6 lanes? Wider median?). Then they'll run the service roads for the businesses north of the TCH on the north side of the existing properties, and vice versa for the south businesses.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by WildCake

The challenges with your design is that now you need at least three interchanges

The north brandon area has a secondary plan with illustrations of the proposed solution

Hmmmm. Interesting. Ya it's a bit of a tricky one any way you look at it. Existing lanes are tight. To widen and jack them to 110kph? Hmmmm.

That pic here btw (link had issues).

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by WildCake

The challenges with your design is that now you need at least three interchanges (2 on each end, and at PTH 10 where it stands or rerouted westward) with the construction of a whole new roadway. I also believe the lands between the businesses on the north side of the TCH and brandon airport are owned by a first nation and would need more extensive negotiations to acquire.

The north brandon area has a secondary plan with illustrations of the proposed solution:

PDF download linkhttp://https://www.google.com/url?sa...WL9NNiusM90Uie

See the diagrams on the last pages.

The plan is to shift PTH 10 eastward and 1st westward to parclo interchanges, take all the land for the current TCH lanes and service roads and use it for the TCH only (not sure what the plan is - 6 lanes? Wider median?). Then they'll run the service roads for the businesses north of the TCH on the north side of the existing properties, and vice versa for the south businesses.

I actually stormed up some ideas for the Brandon HWY 1 design, and the designers and I seem to be like minded

https://imgur.com/a/CF9Pyzu

[Carboy15]

Also note that building a bypass North of the services would cause part of the city to lose business of traffic.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

I actually stormed up some ideas for the Brandon HWY 1 design, and the designers and I seem to be like minded

https://imgur.com/a/CF9Pyzu

Sweet options

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

Also note that building a bypass North of the services would cause part of the city to lose business of traffic.

What about extending 110 northwest to join 10? Is that a good idea? If yes, what kind of interchange can be had for TCH & 110?

And please, guys, no cloverleaf on new builds…

[bodaggin]

Good drawings there. I like your aesthetics.

Originally Posted by Carboy15

Also note that building a bypass North of the services would cause part of the city to lose business of traffic.

This is fine. A national expressway takes priority over a small city's wants. Making this exception for every city along TCH is how we get stops at every city on TCH. haha

Brandon is strategically located, so many will still stop. Especially with EV's, they'll have no choice.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

What about extending 110 northwest to join 10? Is that a good idea? If yes, what kind of interchange can be had for TCH & 110?

And please, guys, no cloverleaf on new builds…

Way more road than needed. Also, cloverleafs work out here in BFN Manitoba. Especially for light highway traffic like these locations. Use when appropriate.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

What about extending 110 northwest to join 10? Is that a good idea? If yes, what kind of interchange can be had for TCH & 110?

And please, guys, no cloverleaf on new builds…

For interim, I would like to see a trumpet interchange or a parclo for a starter. If 110 gets extended, then maybe a combination interchange. Maybe a partial cloverleaf, and a partial turbine combo.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

Also note that building a bypass North of the services would cause part of the city to lose business of traffic.

If a proper bypass was the better solution then the businesses should have no sway in the design and final choice. Safety, capacity, and cost should be the deciding factors. If all those are equal then a more business friendly option can be selected.

That whole strip that might lose traffic from a bypass is effectively all national/international chain restaurants that can take a hit anyways.

[Dengler Avenue]

In a hypothetical situation where a TCH Brandon Bypass is needed, though, will it help the business if M.I.T. signs the bypass as PTH-101 and keeps the TCH numbering and signage along the current roadway?

Ps: The Headingley Bypass, if ever built, will serve as a Guinea pig, I suppose.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Brandon is strategically located, so many will still stop. Especially with EV's, they'll have no choice.

Exactly. I would want the roadside services, such as Hotels and Gas Stations to be seen on the TCH. So that people can easily get off and get back onto the highway. A North Bypass realignment wouldn't work for that.

This is off topic, but do you think that Brandon should get a Costco? Hopefully located along the TCH.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Deacons was a golden opportunity to get rid of a light on a national highway, embarrassing, especially considering the amount they spent on rehabing the intersection and the length of time it took. (Is taking, can’t believe it’s still going)

I agree 100%, but they didn't. They have some work to do in the spring, but it's fully functional and working better than it was. The traffic lights seem malfunction prone however leading to some larger delays on Hwy 1.

Stopgap solution at 206 South is to add an acceleration lane to the median on Hwy 1. Left turns from 206 North SB to Hwy 1 EB don't seem to be nearly as big an issue. There was one accident recently at Hwy 1 and 206 North that Stars attended. Amazing there aren't more serious accidents there.