HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3541  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2023, 7:44 PM
Carboy15 Carboy15 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
The next projects cannot start soon enough. I'd love to see Ste Anne's and 331 fast tracked. That would only leave the mess at Kenaston/Waverley that would still have lights when you factor in that MacGillivray is next up.
But you're right. Do 2 at once and we'll have less time to wait for it to be done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3542  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2023, 10:32 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
The next projects cannot start soon enough. I'd love to see Ste Anne's and 331 fast tracked. That would only leave the mess at Kenaston/Waverley that would still have lights when you factor in that MacGillivray is next up.
And then on the North Perimeter where they spent $150M on the cloverleaf at #59 and #101 they went and added lights at both Wenzel and Gunn Road in a case of one step forward and two steps back!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3543  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2023, 10:52 PM
Carboy15 Carboy15 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
And then on the North Perimeter where they spent $150M on the cloverleaf at #59 and #101 they went and added lights at both Wenzel and Gunn Road in a case of one step forward and two steps back!
Well, money isn't unlimited, but you're right. It would have made sense pejoratively. But the budget and safety comes first. Just like 330 and St Annes would make sense, but cost doesn't allow it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3544  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2023, 10:57 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carboy15 View Post
I agree with you. But wanna know what is stupid? When they extended Kenaston to the Perimeter, they closed Waverley going northbound, and left it open Southbound. Why didn't they close the whole intersection and open one big one at Kenaston to go south to Waverley? Or even build an interchange at first? How dumb. Even a simple Diamond interchange should've been put there. That wouldn't be what I want, but better than nothing.
The ultimate buildout requires a fairly lengthy section of highway south to join up with 75. It's a bypass around St. Norbert and as such requires a lot more money than even just an already expensive interchange. Not that I wish they couldn't have done it, too, it's just that Manitoba isn't swimming in cash and this stuff ain't free.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3545  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2023, 5:04 AM
Carboy15 Carboy15 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
The ultimate buildout requires a fairly lengthy section of highway south to join up with 75. It's a bypass around St. Norbert and as such requires a lot more money than even just an already expensive interchange. Not that I wish they couldn't have done it, too, it's just that Manitoba isn't swimming in cash and this stuff ain't free.
I could sooner see Centreport Canada Way Happen first. Hwy 75 in total is behind Trans Canada in Manitoba because Hwy 75 still goes through Morris without a Bypass. Headingley is on a national highway too, but I could see it come sooner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3546  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2023, 12:12 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,276
I wonder if Manitoba needs a provincial government that can get along with the federal one to tap into federal money for these things.
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3547  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2023, 8:53 PM
Kinguni's Avatar
Kinguni Kinguni is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I wonder if Manitoba needs a provincial government that can get along with the federal one to tap into federal money for these things.
Much of it would have been done or underway if the NDP had stayed in power.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3548  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2023, 4:48 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,955
Something else to keep in mind is the planned Headingly bypass is through mostly agricultural land while the St Norbert bypass needs to navigate through a more developed area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3549  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2023, 5:59 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 9,019
Route using Waverley St.

__________________
"But a city can be smothered by too much reverence for its past. The skyline must keep acquiring new peaks, because the day we consider it complete and untouchable is the day the city begins to die." - Justin Davidson - May 2010 Issue of New York
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3550  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2023, 6:04 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Something else to keep in mind is the planned Headingly bypass is through mostly agricultural land while the St Norbert bypass needs to navigate through a more developed area.
St Norbert Bypass is equally greenfield and doesn't look like it'll need structure expropriation at the interchange with 75. Headingley will likely need to around St Francis Xavier depending on the interchange location with the current Hwy 1

See slide 26 for the proposed alignment:

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/hpd/pth100...nal_report.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3551  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2023, 2:23 AM
cammy85 cammy85 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carboy15 View Post
I agree with you. But wanna know what is stupid? When they extended Kenaston to the Perimeter, they closed Waverley going northbound, and left it open Southbound. Why didn't they close the whole intersection and open one big one at Kenaston to go south to Waverley? Or even build an interchange at first? How dumb. Even a simple Diamond interchange should've been put there. That wouldn't be what I want, but better than nothing.
The plan there is to have 75 or even 75A start after the Kenaston extension and then bypass St. Norbert before linking back up with the main 75 highway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3552  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2023, 1:31 AM
Carboy15 Carboy15 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
St Norbert Bypass is equally greenfield and doesn't look like it'll need structure expropriation at the interchange with 75. Headingley will likely need to around St Francis Xavier depending on the interchange location with the current Hwy 1

See slide 26 for the proposed alignment:

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/hpd/pth100...nal_report.pdf
On that proposed alignment, why don't they build an interchange at Rue de Trappistes instead of a stoplight after a Diamond interchange?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3553  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2023, 1:53 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carboy15 View Post
On that proposed alignment, why don't they build an interchange at Rue de Trappistes instead of a stoplight after a Diamond interchange?
The image shows both inital and ultimate stage designs. The lights will be there first and when growth and traffic warrant it they will build an interchange with new road alignment to the south.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3554  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2023, 3:51 AM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carboy15 View Post
Well, money isn't unlimited, but you're right. It would have made sense pejoratively. But the budget and safety comes first. Just like 330 and St Annes would make sense, but cost doesn't allow it
Could have built two diamonds interchanges for what they spent on the stadium

could have built another diamond interchange for what they wasted in the white elephant called the CMHR

Could have built 10 diamond interchanges for what they squandered needlessly running bipole 3 on a tour of Manitoba…
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3555  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2023, 1:01 AM
pegcityboy's Avatar
pegcityboy pegcityboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 563
Well Stadium was completely needed as Canad Inns Stadium was falling apart . CMHR is debatable and Bipole 3 probably you are correct and there is probably another 10 items you could pick apart but what’s done is done and the government needs a solid highway infrastructure plan going forward and STICK to it , no cost cutting cancelling of projects anymore. I was just by Yellowhead and No 1 again last night and it makes me furious cause that intersection could have been done with an interchange for 40 plus years now !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3556  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2023, 1:42 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ 16 @ 1 is an embarrassment at this point, probably more so than any other highway intersection in the province, especially now that plans are afoot for new interchanges on the south Perimeter. The good news is that with these recent Perimeter interchange announcements, 16 @ 1 has to be moving up in the queue for an interchange.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3557  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2023, 2:38 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by pegcityboy View Post
Well Stadium was completely needed as Canad Inns Stadium was falling apart . CMHR is debatable and Bipole 3 probably you are correct and there is probably another 10 items you could pick apart but what’s done is done and the government needs a solid highway infrastructure plan going forward and STICK to it , no cost cutting cancelling of projects anymore. I was just by Yellowhead and No 1 again last night and it makes me furious cause that intersection could have been done with an interchange for 40 plus years now !
Agreed with the yellowhead thing, but I again lament that there is no standard for the TCH and it’s tributaries. At the very least, minimum design standards should apply, ideally it should be under a federal system, similar to the interstate. That doesn’t mean that provinces don’t chip in, it just means we should do more on the national level to come up with a plan and - as you say - stick with it.

I would think that having a functional and efficient national highway system would be an issue that would affect interprovincial trade or be of pressing importance and rise to the level of a national issue if you want to justify it using constitutional heads of power. The fact is that it is an indispensable trade corridor that should resemble its “peers” (as in major national highways in any other country) around the world.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3558  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2023, 2:56 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
The TCH is so long and sparsely populated it's hard to imagine it ever being upgraded to full freeway standard. But it is a joke that busy at-grade intersections still exist on it. 10 more interchanges on the TCH through Manitoba would make the highway dramatically safer and is not an unreasonable number for a province of this population IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3559  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2023, 4:31 PM
harls's Avatar
harls harls is offline
Mooderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aylmer, Québec
Posts: 20,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
The TCH is so long and sparsely populated it's hard to imagine it ever being upgraded to full freeway standard. But it is a joke that busy at-grade intersections still exist on it. 10 more interchanges on the TCH through Manitoba would make the highway dramatically safer and is not an unreasonable number for a province of this population IMO.
Especially when you look at I-29 from the border to Fargo. Same climate, same population density, same terrain.
__________________
Can I help you?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3560  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2023, 4:32 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is offline
Road Engineer Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Côté Ouest de la Rivière des Outaouais
Posts: 8,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by harls View Post
Especially when you look at I-29 from the border to Fargo. Same climate, same population density, same terrain.
Or I-94 from North Dakota westward until the Rockies, for that matter
__________________
My Proposal of TCH Twinning in Northern Ontario
Disclaimer: Most of it is pure pie in the sky, so there's no need to be up in the arm about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:05 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.