Perimeter Highway | Winnipeg

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by bodaggin

Money. I'm arguing money. St Mary's cost $135m. If a properly sized solution could be done for $80m, that leaves $55m left over. Likely enough for likely 2 rural TCH overpasses.

They also burned 110acres of land. 110acres! For perspective, the Portage @ Perimeter cloverleaf occupies only 40 acres. For one of the most important intersections in MB.

4x more land, for a low traffic, slow 60-80kph road whose population base is highly capped. Why? Because all lots are pre-zoned 5 acres and no one is building outside the floodway.

We're building A380 runways for Cessna's. Then complaining we have no money leftover to upgrade the 15 Courchevel's people keep dying on around the province.

All that la south of the perimeter is going to be developed. It is zoned agriculture right now. Takes no time to rezone. I know this as I know a few developers who are into this.

As for traffic on st Mary's and so called no developent past the floodway. You obviously never been to st Adolph or niverville who both use st Mary's

[bomberjet]

St. Mary's is a designated alternate route when PTH 75 is flooded out. I'm not sure how far north that extends. But it is the route to bypass the flood plain north of Morris and is being upgraded to RTAC (?) standards.

Talks about this is MTI's infrastructure priorities plan, I believe it's called.

[Wpgstvsouth94]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

If you want a freeway, then it needs to be separated. The Province wants a freeway.

Exactly! I can’t believe this is even a debate

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

St. Mary's is a designated alternate route when PTH 75 is flooded out. I'm not sure how far north that extends. But it is the route to bypass the flood plain north of Morris and is being upgraded to RTAC (?) standards.

Talks about this is MTI's infrastructure priorities plan, I believe it's called.

The PTH 75 flood bypass starts at PR 205. Parts of PR 200 flood north of there.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by Wpgstvsouth94

Exactly! I can’t believe this is even a debate

It's not a debate, but it's about how so little trains go down those crossings on the North Perimeter Hwy that I'm not sure if it would justify it. Of course the CN reddit subdivision, CP Emerson Subdivision should have Grade Seperations, or Even the CP La Riviere subdivision. But with the CP Arborg Subdivision, CP Winnipeg Beach Subdivision, CN Carman, CN Pine falls, GWWDR, And Prairie Dog Trail, those aren't used too much to justify it really. I'm sure within years, some of those rail lines could possibly dissapear. Well, with CP Winnipeg beach Sub, this may not happen for years, but a grade seperation would be valuable if after the line gets abandoned, it could be replaced with LRT. Maybe so, Prairie Dog Trail would be worth having a bridge, but for short lines, they may be dismantled one day

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Carboy15

It's not a debate, but it's about how so little trains go down those crossings on the North Perimeter Hwy that I'm not sure if it would justify it.

This is exactly why the Perimeter Plan MUST co-ordinate with the Winnipeg Rail Yard move and/or a city rail bypass.

There are currently 8 at grade rail crossings across Perimeter.

That's 6-lane bridges over 8 rail crossings. Total 48 lane bridges.

If a rail bypass is built north and all these Perimeter Rail crossings are shut down, you would only need 18 lane bridges. Hwy 6, 7, 8, 9, 59 over the rail line. That's 60% less bridges, 60% cost savings (in theory).

These two projects cannot occur in a silo. They must be coordinated to maximize efficiency. As soon as you build 1 Perimeter Rail overpass you're committed to the status quo.

[Biff]

Other than the St Anne's grade separation including rail overpass and Hwy 15 grade separation I would hope they would leave all other rail separations till the absolute end. The train interaction at these other crossings are minimal at best and usually not very high in the collision department. Focus on the highest incident intersections first - St Anne's, Hwy 15, Pipeline, Hwy 3, Hwy 330 and Kenaston. Then work your way to the others.

[bomberjet]

They would be the last thing to get done. And to bodaggin point, I provided comments about coordinating the rail relocation planning with the perimeter highway work. There are some opportunities in the short term to limit the amount of rail crossings, while planning for a future rail relocation corridor.

North of the City, CPKC could run the Winnipeg Beach sub (which crosses 101 near Main St) westward to connect with the Arborg Sub (which crosses near #7) to remove the overpass requirement near Main St. This new route would also form the future CPKC main track corridor if rail relocation went ahead.

The CEMR crossing of 101 near Wenzel could also form the future CPKC main track corridor so the overpass there could be warranted at a future date.

The Prairie Dog line near #6 really is just for fun. But if the Province wants a freeway, grade separate it when #6 is done.


In the south it's the same story with some of the lesser used lines. The CEMR crossing near Oak Bluff is probably used more than the low used north routes. CPKC crossing at PR330 and CPKC Emerson Sub near St Anne. Not much you could do with these beyond grade separate. And they're close to the interchange locations so it is what it is.

The busy main track routes are already grade separated.

[Dengler Avenue]

Even if the rail tracks see low usage, it’s still fine to grade-separate them.
In Renfrew (exurban Ottawa), CPR has abandoned its Ottawa Valley Subdivision, but the future twinned TCH will still go over its former ROW (which is now recreational trails), not intersect it at-grade.
If rail tracks are being abandoned around the city, they can be turned into other uses which still warrant grade-separation.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

The PTH 75 flood bypass starts at PR 205. Parts of PR 200 flood north of there.

I know some people in St Adolphe and they've lived through a handful of high water springs but not 1997. There's effectively 4 routes out of town, 200 north and south, 210 east, and 210/75 west.

200 north between the City and St Adolphe is the first road to close. There's a substantial dip just north of the 200 at Richardson Rd that will flood basically the moment the floodway is put into operation.

Next is 200 south between Niverville, and later 210 just east of town near the little river (name?).

The segment of 210 that crosses the Red River to 75 is at or above the grade of highway 75, so when 75 to the city closes (or is about to close) then the town would have to be evacuated.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Even if the rail tracks see low usage, it’s still fine to grade-separate them.
In Renfrew (exurban Ottawa), CPR has abandoned its Ottawa Valley Subdivision, but the future twinned TCH will still go over its former ROW (which is now recreational trails), not intersect it at-grade.
If rail tracks are being abandoned around the city, they can be turned into other uses which still warrant grade-separation.

This is a good point, but with rail lines, the roadway has to use an over/underpass as trains can't be the ones sent over/under. If the rail line will eventually be abandoned, a 6 lane overpass over a recreational AT path to rural Manitoba would be overkill.

If it's known in advance that a rail line will be ditched and the ROW will be used for transit or AT then sending that over on a single 2 lane bridge would be much cheaper than the Perimeter going over. If it's AT-only then we can even consider a reinforced culvert style underpass which would be even cheaper (see the proposed Seine River AT crossing for the St Annes interchange).

That's why I'm fine with Biff's suggestion of keeping these low-use rail lines as the last thing to do on Perimeter. A lot can change in 40-50 years and we can assess how used each of these lines get used.

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Even if the rail tracks see low usage, it’s still fine to grade-separate them.

It's not OK. It's lunacy. It's lighting money on fire. Money this province doesn't have.

A $100m+ bridge over an abandoned rail line is how governments go broke.

$100m can buy 15-20 MRI machines (double our current).

Manitoba has no money. In fact we're sent $3 Billion a year in transfer payments and still can't make ends meet. We have fewer doctors per capita than Lebanon, with people dying on wait lists.

Build good solutions, swiftly. But get bang for buck and prioritize. Waste must end.

[bodaggin]

Here's another case in point on the rail lines. Norther Perimeter by Hwy 7. CP Line. The ONLY spur/client on this line is a Richardson Elevator 2.5miles outside the Perimeter, and the rail line ends completely just North of them.

So a $100m+ overpass, for a single client and 2.5 miles.

Seem weird? Does to me. Justified? If that elevator was 2.5miles south, the rail line closes and no overpass needed. Is it cheaper to move them? Should they pay for part of the overpass? Is a trans-loading system more affordable? What alternatives exist?

In a 14km stretch from Selkirk to this line there's 4 fringe case interchange proposals: Selkirk (virtually no traffic), Prairie Dog (virtually no traffic), Sturgeon (minimal traffic), CP Richardson (1 client).

That's $300-500m of interchanges to almost nowhere. That's how compounding bad decisions bury a province in debt.

[optimusREIM]

^ I just want to know where the $100m figure is coming from, if that's the money that would be spent just on two overpass structures, that seems ludacris. If that includes a whole pile of other stuff, then I could see it. A big part of these projects seems to be aimed at upgrading the roadway itself as well, so we do have to factor that in.

Just look at St Mary's (although I think they should have aimed slightly higher and also done the red river bridge since they were already there) where they are doing a bunch of new ROW and roadway.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Just look at St Mary's (although I think they should have aimed slightly higher and also done the red river bridge since they were already there) where they are doing a bunch of new ROW and roadway.

The Red River bridges on South Perimeter aren't due for replacement until the Perimeter will be upgraded to 6 lanes, which based on the study results is beyond 2048.

The interim designs show no changes, while the ultimate stage looks like two very close together but separate bridge structures. That'll be a traffic gong show whenever that happens though.

https://www.gov.mb.ca/mti/hpd/pth100...s/segment4.pdf
https://www.gov.mb.ca/mti/hpd/pth100...s/segment4.pdf

[bodaggin]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

^ I just want to know where the $100m figure is coming from

I'm spitballing. They found a way to spend $130m on St Mary's, a 2 lane bridge. St Annes is quoted at $150-200m

Perimeter is going to be upgraded to 6-lane. Perimeter must go over rail lines. So you're talking a 6-lane bridge. More lanes, more cost.

They said Carberry, a 2-lane rural BFN bridge was going to be $100m (which we discussed and highly disagree). But they'll find a way to spend $100m+ on each Perimeter Rail overpass. I agree with your sentiment though. These interchanges should have efficient pre-costed designs to tilt the economics. But still, bridges to nowhere aren't smart at any cost.

EDIT: Pure fluke, MB Gov Design literally just responded from a 2wk old email with this $80-150m number. Posting full message in MB Highway thread.

[Carboy15]

https://imgur.com/a/VKk8Wn1

My Winnipeg rail relocation vision

[Carboy15]

For my vision, I believe that the perimeter should not build grade seperations at railway crossings that are used very little. I believe that a rail bypass would be better to help with the northern Shortlines. The CP Emerson subdivision would still go through the city however, and it's that way on purpose. That's because the Emerson subdivision would link to the CP Rail park as it is a hub from the USA. CN Letellier should replace the CP La Riviere subdivision because it is a shortline, and that subdivision leads to Morris. The current CN Letellier alignment by Pembina Hwy could be replaced with (or be reserved for) LRT.
CP Emerson and CN Reddit warrant a grade seperation, which are long overdue IMO, but if they can do it after McGillvary BLVD and St Mary's interchange are finished, then it's better late than never.

[bomberjet]

There is a thread for rail relocation.

Simple fact is freeways don't have rail crossings. You want a freeway, get rid of the rail crossings.

[Carboy15]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There is a thread for rail relocation.

Simple fact is freeways don't have rail crossings. You want a freeway, get rid of the rail crossings.

IK about that thread. I am talking moire about the need for grade seperations.