New Interchanges and Bypasses in MB / SK

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by esquire

How many interchanges did Filmon build?

In terms of major highway improvements, the PCs focused on twinning 1 and 75, and the NDP has focused on northern highways and (inexplicably) Centreport Canada Way. Neither party has prioritized interchanges at dangerous intersections.

For Manitoba to have such primitive infrastructure on major highways required the dedicated efforts of both major parties.

Twinning would seem to me to be a much bigger priority than interchanges, both economically and in terms of safety. How many miles (sorry, kilometres) of twinned highway do you get for the cost of a Hwy 1-16 or Hwy 1-12 interchange?

In southern Manitoba, if you look at the TCH, where would you really ever need an interchange that doesn't already have one?

100-St. Anne's
100-St. Mary's
100-Kenaston Extension
100-2/3
1-16
1-110
1-10

Other than that, where else in the province? 75-14 maybe? 75 at Morris eventually? 101-15 and 101-6 eventually as well. Maybe 110-10 or 1-83 if Brandon grows and/or fracking really takes off in the SW, but I don't know how the truck traffic moves in relation to that.

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few, but anything much beyond this would really be scraping the bottom of the necessity barrel.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Twinning would seem to me to be a much bigger priority than interchanges, both economically and in terms of safety. How many miles (sorry, kilometres) of twinned highway do you get for the cost of a Hwy 1-16 or Hwy 1-12 interchange?

In southern Manitoba, if you look at the TCH, where would you really ever need an interchange that doesn't already have one?

100-St. Anne's
100-St. Mary's
100-Kenaston Extension
100-2/3
1-16
1-110
1-10

Other than that, where else in the province? 75-14 maybe? 75 at Morris eventually? 101-15 and 101-6 eventually as well. Maybe 110-10 or 1-83 if Brandon grows and/or fracking really takes off in the SW, but I don't know how the truck traffic moves in relation to that.

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few, but anything much beyond this would really be scraping the bottom of the necessity barrel.

Manitoba is actually in pretty good shape as far as twinning goes, if you look at this traffic flow map:

http://umtig.eng.umanitoba.ca/mhtis/flowmap2012.pdf

As I understand it, it's around average daily traffic volumes 6,500 where twinning is regarded as necessary. By that standard, there are only a few relatively short stretches of road here and there throughout southern Manitoba where twinning is needed, including:

• Highways 59 and 52 in the Kleefeld area
• Highway 32 south of Winkler
• Highway 15 to Dugald
• Highway 7 to Teulon

That's about 75 km of highways that really should be twinned.

Then you have the ones that aren't normally that busy, but can get quite clogged at times, mainly in the summer. Twinning might be a good idea but is by no means an absolute necessity:

• Highway 10 from Brandon to Minnedosa
• Highway 59 from Brokenhead to Highway 11
• Highway 8 to Gimli
• Highway 3 to Winkler

Those last two highways could probably get by with just a few passing lanes here and there as opposed to full-length twinning. That's about another 80 km of twinning.

So with about 155 km of twinning, Manitoba's roads would be in good shape from that standpoint.

Contrast that with the number of highly deficient crash-prone intersections on major highways. By my count, these ones are brutally inadequate for the traffic volumes and speeds they handle:

• Highways 100 and 2/3
• Highways 100 and 330
• Highway 100 and Waverley (to be replaced by Kenaston)
• Highway 100 and St. Mary's Road
• Highway 100 and St. Anne's Road
• Highways 101 and 15
• Highways 101 and 59
• Highways 1 and 207
• Highways 59 and 202
• Highways 59 and 213
• Highways 1 and 10 (x2)
• Highways 1 and 16
• Highways 1 and 13
• Highways 1 and 248

Those are the ones that involve very busy intersections and badly-designed traffic lights on high speed routes. In other words, the dangerous intersections as opposed to merely inconvenient ones.

The fact that zero progress is being made on either of those lists (well, I suppose there are plans to twin 59 so at least that's going to move ahead) tells me that the situation is going to get worse before it gets better.

[Riverman]

Wow, what an informative post. You must do this for a living.

[brithgob]

Great post, Treesplease. This info reaffirms my impression that prospective GTH tenants are basically demanding an Interstate-grade freeway for the length of metro Regina, from Balgonie to Grand Coulee.

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/majorprojects/

Some interesting new updates on the Ministry of Highways "Major Projects" page. Of note is the Aug 15 open house on the SE Regina Bypass and the selection of alternative routes process. Not surprised that RM of Sherwood is not on the same page as everyone else (but if they are protecting the rights and best interests of their constituents (there is a first for everything) Sherwood probably made the best choices - but all for nothing because the city and Ministry of Highways are on the same page and that is the final recommendation that will be going to the Minister. The overpasses where two roads will be intersecting above and very close to the rail tracks that go past brandt will make for one of the highest overpasses/interchanges in Sask.

What I found interesting was the weighting given to each of the selection criteria for the alternate routes:
Transcanada functionality 25 / Safety and Traffic Operations 25 / Cost 5 (plus others such as access, property impacts, noise, phasing, economic devlopment potential etc.)
To me the functionality of the TC and safety and traffic operations seem to have a large amount of overlap - if the TC is functional it will improve safety and traffic operations so really the functionality of the TC highway has a weight of 50 vs. a cost weighting of 5. I don't disagree but the message seems to be build it right and it costs what it costs.

Also new (to me anyway) is the proposed route for the service road network that will serve between tower road and balgonie when the stretch of No.1 from Regina to Balgonie gets full grade seperation interchanges and restricted access - looking forward to that and the lives that will be saved. (the interchanges will save lives, not necessarily the service road).

All in all, it seems a lot of money will be spent on the stretch of No.1 from Balgonie to Pinkie Road considering bypasses, interchanges and service roads - and it needs it.

On a side note, I took a drive out to balgonie on 1 east for the first time since spring and the pace of development out there is amazing. A large new building south of No.1 just this side of buffalo lookout (Redhead equip I believe) and a brand new hotel that sprang out of nowhere close to where the auction mart is at white city. Also, the line up of traffic waiting to cross No.1 at white city was spooky - waaaay too many impatient people and this was around 6pm - I shudder to think what it is like at 7:30am.

Since I'm around these parts only once/month, the changes around here, to me, are pretty amazing! I totally agree with you with reference to Hwy 1/Hwy 48 --- I drove through there last week at 3:30 p.m. (It was scary.) There's a massive accident just waiting to happen there.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by esquire

How many interchanges did Filmon build?

In terms of major highway improvements, the PCs focused on twinning 1 and 75, and the NDP has focused on northern highways and (inexplicably) Centreport Canada Way. Neither party has prioritized interchanges at dangerous intersections.

For Manitoba to have such primitive infrastructure on major highways required the dedicated efforts of both major parties.

Fair enough, but with the condition of the northbound lanes on 75 I wouldn't be too quick to credit anyone for that. Your right about prioritizing intersections for renewal, the junction of the TCH and Yellowhead must be near the top of the list, truly hard to believe that an interchange wasn't put in place there 30 years ago.

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Dear Mininari,

You will be pleased to learn that plans are in the works for that very intersection, studies will take place in 2021, followed by design in 2024, tendering in 2027 with construction to commence in 2031.

Yours Truly,

Todays NDP

LOL!
Heh, I've been offline for awhile. Good one.

Great summary analysis Esquire!

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Fair enough, but with the condition of the northbound lanes on 75 I wouldn't be too quick to credit anyone for that. Your right about prioritizing intersections for renewal, the junction of the TCH and Yellowhead must be near the top of the list, truly hard to believe that an interchange wasn't put in place there 30 years ago.

I remember a few years back the Province had selected a preferred interchange design for that intersection. It was similar to the Birds Hill Park interchange on 59. Wonder what ever happened to that project...

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I remember a few years back the Province had selected a preferred interchange design for that intersection. It was similar to the Birds Hill Park interchange on 59. Wonder what ever happened to that project...

http://www.1and16interchange.ca/

I think we've all seen this page at one time or another. Completion slated for 2014 lol It also says open house #2 slated for October 7. Not sure if that is current or just really old. Haven't been to that page in a long time. From what I've heard the flooding is to blame for the delay. Seems like a typical excuse for anything that doesn't get built.

Recommended interchange design

Source: http://www.1and16interchange.ca/project-details.htm

Typical trumpet design, exact same as Birds Hill. With the diamond interchange 2 miles away for PR 305.

[esquire]

^ I think it was Biff who pointed out that the 1 and 16 interchange project fell victim to the flooding of a couple years ago... in a nutshell, the money for that project ended up going toward the Lake Manitoba outlet project and other urgent flood-related projects.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I think it was Biff who pointed out that the 1 and 16 interchange project fell victim to the flooding of a couple years ago... in a nutshell, the money for that project ended up going toward the Lake Manitoba outlet project and other urgent flood-related projects.

Yes, that is true. The budget ballooned and then the flood hit. This one is pushed off indefinitely. The one that is struggling now is the 59 north and the Perimeter. Huge budget and expanding scope. I kind of wish they would just build the interchange and deal with all the other add-on's after.

[bomberjet]

Yeah, exactly.

So with the PTH 101/PTH59N interchange, do we know exactly what the expanding scope is?

I know the AT bridge over the perimeter is one of them. $10M-$16M depending on which option they go with. Is the diamond interchange at PR 202 that was to be future now going to be built? Or is there other stuff, such as a diamond at Headmaster, in the mix? Even though Headmaster is within City limits, that intersection only going to get busier with the residential and retail developments just south of the Perimeter.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

http://www.1and16interchange.ca/

I think we've all seen this page at one time or another. Completion slated for 2014 lol It also says open house #2 slated for October 7. Not sure if that is current or just really old. Haven't been to that page in a long time. From what I've heard the flooding is to blame for the delay. Seems like a typical excuse for anything that doesn't get built.

Recommended interchange design

Typical trumpet design, exact same as Birds Hill. With the diamond interchange 2 miles away for PR 305.

What I find odd about this interchange is that MIT plans to reroute 305 to the east in order to build a diamond interchange 2 miles east of 1 and 16. I don't get how building two separate interchanges, including one for a minor Provincial Road, makes more sense than building just one cloverleaf. The only reason I can make sense of is perhaps the diamond is intended to divert trucks headed to the Simplot plant nearby?

In a province where interchanges are rarely built anymore it strikes me as odd that 1/305 would take priority over so many other intersections in need of grade separations.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by esquire

What I find odd about this interchange is that MIT plans to reroute 305 to the east in order to build a diamond interchange 2 miles east of 1 and 16. I don't get how building two separate interchanges, including one for a minor Provincial Road, makes more sense than building just one cloverleaf. The only reason I can make sense of is perhaps the diamond is intended to divert trucks headed to the Simplot plant nearby?

In a province where interchanges are rarely built anymore it strikes me as odd that 1/305 would take priority over so many other intersections in need of grade separations.

I think it had to do with a proposed industrial park to the southeast, located at the very bottom righthand corner of the drawing. And if I remember correctly the main interchange at 1 and 16 was to be built first, with the diamond to come later.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I think it had to do with a proposed industrial park to the southeast, located at the very bottom righthand corner of the drawing. And if I remember correctly the main interchange at 1 and 16 was to be built first, with the diamond to come later.

Really, a proposed industrial park? I guess it meshes well with the interchange being built to serve a proposed industrial park in Northwest Winnipeg.

I have to wonder why these things aren't being built to serve actual existing demand as opposed to hypothetical future needs.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by esquire

Really, a proposed industrial park? I guess it meshes well with the interchange being built to serve a proposed industrial park in Northwest Winnipeg.

I have to wonder why these things aren't being built to serve actual existing demand as opposed to hypothetical future needs.

Whatever it says on the website is the extent of my knowledge about that project. I guess that's why the diamond is future, if it ever goes ahead. But yeah, planning for something that maybe happen at some point in the future isn't the best approach.

For the CCW, spending $250M for a roadway that will serve as the backbone for a major development is a bit of a risk. I guess we'll see in twenty years how it all plays out. The new water plant is slated for construction in the spring I heard?

I thought a good example was the "trail" system in Calgary that was discussed somewhere on SSP yesterday. If they were never built, the City of Calagry would not be what it is today. But at the time, they were freeways to nowhere when constructed.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

• Highways 100 and 2/3
• Highways 100 and 330
• Highway 100 and Waverley (to be replaced by Kenaston)
• Highway 100 and St. Mary's Road
• Highway 100 and St. Anne's Road
• Highways 101 and 15
• Highways 101 and 59
• Highways 1 and 207
• Highways 59 and 202
• Highways 59 and 213

(I didn't feel justified to comment on the out of town intersections because I don't travel much by car, so I left them out)

I think we've had this discussion on Western Expresso, but the ones in bold I think could be closed and diverge traffic to a different (safer) junction. No reason to build at St. Anne's Road when traffic could just go 3 km west or east and get on 59 or St. Mary's (provided St. Mary's gets an interchange). 100 @ 330 is a bit on the edge too when it comes to volume vs. cost.

1 @ 207 is a bit of a gong show... On the one hand it is really REALLY unsafe, but on the other the traffic doesn't justify an interchange. It's just really bad planning all around.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I thought a good example was the "trail" system in Calgary that was discussed somewhere on SSP yesterday. If they were never built, the City of Calagry would not be what it is today. But at the time, they were freeways to nowhere when constructed.

We were talking about it in Western Expresso yesterday -- and it is a good example of building based on projections, but projections are notorious for being wrong. I actually wrote a piece (that got edited down badly) in the Manitoban about building based on projections. My main idea is that we don't need better methods to create projections, we instead need a system that is robust to change. It was coined based on Nassim Taleb's ideas from Antifragile

The main idea is that building based on projections is subject to catastrophic failure if an improbable event happens.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

(I didn't feel justified to comment on the out of town intersections because I don't travel much by car, so I left them out)

I think we've had this discussion on Western Expresso, but the ones in bold I think could be closed and diverge traffic to a different (safer) junction. No reason to build at St. Anne's Road when traffic could just go 3 km west or east and get on 59 or St. Mary's (provided St. Mary's gets an interchange). 100 @ 330 is a bit on the edge too when it comes to volume vs. cost.

1 @ 207 is a bit of a gong show... On the one hand it is really REALLY unsafe, but on the other the traffic doesn't justify an interchange. It's just really bad planning all around.

I agreed that some of the dangerous at-grade intersections along the Perimeter could simply be closed off. Unfortunately, MIT seems extremely reluctant to close off road access at some marginal intersections along the Perimeter... Gateway Road/Raleigh St. at 101 is one of the only cases where that has happened.

Unfortunately, it looks like the stage is being set to create a new access point at Dakota St. and 100 judging by what I see on Google Maps. This tells you that, if anything, there may be even more intersections added to the Perimeter in the near future.

[steveosnyder]

Originally Posted by esquire

I agreed that some of the dangerous at-grade intersections along the Perimeter could simply be closed off. Unfortunately, MIT seems extremely reluctant to close off road access at some marginal intersections along the Perimeter... Gateway Road/Raleigh St. at 101 is one of the only cases where that has happened.

Unfortunately, it looks like the stage is being set to create a new access point at Dakota St. and 100 judging by what I see on Google Maps. This tells you that, if anything, there may be even more intersections added to the Perimeter in the near future.

Who works for MIT? This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It actually makes me angry to read some of these things.