Manitoba Highways

[bomberjet]

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

Link to the PTH 1 Twinning open house boards. Not much yet. But looking at options to re-route the highway to avoid the congested areas.

[bomberjet]

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

Another interesting one is the Symington overpass on PTH 1E. It talks about a 2020 conceptual design study and a re-alignment of the highway. But I haven't seen that.

[drew]

Going north of Barren Lake seems like a no-brainer to me. minimal disruption to the existing highway while construction is underway, and avoids that bottle neck at the south end of Barren Lake.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by drew

Going north of Barren Lake seems like a no-brainer to me. minimal disruption to the existing highway while construction is underway, and avoids that bottle neck at the south end of Barren Lake.

Minimal disruption seems like a nice-to-have though. When MTO twins 17 along the current alignment, some parts will experience some disruption, and MTO’s generally okay with that.
As for the bottleneck, we can replace the current alignment with twin bridges with access to Barren Lake from 301 under the bridges. A ROW of 60 ~ 70 m suffices for divided 4 lanes with 15 m ~ 22.5 m median.
Abandoning the interchange with 301 feels like a waste.

[drew]

^ there is so little space at the south end of Barren lake, it's hard to judge from streetview, but there is not a lot of elbow room there.

I also don't see why any interchange would be abandoned?

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.7051...8192?entry=ttu

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by drew

^ there is so little space at the south end of Barren lake, it's hard to judge from streetview, but there is not a lot of elbow room there.

I also don't see why any interchange would be abandoned?

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.7051...8192?entry=ttu

I usually measure on Google. That’s how I’ve managed to shoehorn TCH freeway in the east end of Sault Sainte Marie. (Link: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...51987&page=134 #2672)
One thing that I’ve learned is that street views are deceiving.
And my bad, indeed no interchange will be abandoned. I’ve always thought that TCH through Falcon Lake was built to freeway geometry.

[bomberjet]

Going the Barren Lake route makes a lot of sense. Bypasses all the complexities. Require 3 interchanges and a fly-over. Freeway.

[Dengler Avenue]

Now you guys have me wondering which engineer thought it was a good idea to put TCH where it is…

[drew]

^ probably the proximity to the existing PR301 making for easy access.

It works fine as a 2-lane road. But has some difficult spots for a twinning project.

[audie]

If this was the 50's still, you can bet they'd solve this problem by just dumping blasted rock into barren lake to make a causeway, environment be damned. Going north seems like the simpler option now

[Biff]

The easiest solution is to fill in a few meters of the south portion of the lake where it abuts the current highway to place the new west bound lanes. Environmental conditions would never allow that of course so I would have to assume it will require a 300m or so bridge over the water. There is definitely no room there to squeeze in 2 more lanes and the appropriate shoulders.

[pspeid]

Recent video about the Highway construction at Portage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nnKNOi5jfQ

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Biff

The easiest solution is to fill in a few meters of the south portion of the lake where it abuts the current highway to place the new west bound lanes. Environmental conditions would never allow that of course so I would have to assume it will require a 300m or so bridge over the water. There is definitely no room there to squeeze in 2 more lanes and the appropriate shoulders.

I don't know why this stretches needs to be overwhelming overdone. Add some rock ( yes it's a bigger deal then just saying that ) to either side of the existing highway. Replace the current overpasses. Close off the access point like we did with the perimeter highway and build a light duty paved service road.

Then stick a 4 foot concrete dividers as we have on sections on the perimeter highway and add a lane on either side.

But nooooo we have to have some huge dividers highways with half a km between west and east bound lanes. Yet it's ok on tbe much much busier perimeter highway

[Biff]

I think it comes down to safety. Having a divided highway by a jersey barrier creates issues with blowing snow, wind and animal crossings.

I am with you and think that definitely could be a solution through some of the tighter parts along the current alignment, but I guess they are evaluating all layouts.

[Dengler Avenue]

I don't know why this stretches needs to be overwhelming overdone. Add some rock ( yes it's a bigger deal then just saying that ) to either side of the existing highway. Replace the current overpasses. Close off the access point like we did with the perimeter highway and build a light duty paved service road.

Then stick a 4 foot concrete dividers as we have on sections on the perimeter highway and add a lane on either side.

But nooooo we have to have some huge dividers highways with half a km between west and east bound lanes. Yet it's ok on tbe much much busier perimeter highway

Originally Posted by Biff

I think it comes down to safety. Having a divided highway by a jersey barrier creates issues with blowing snow, wind and animal crossings.

I am with you and think that definitely could be a solution through some of the tighter parts along the current alignment, but I guess they are evaluating all layouts.

This is Canadian Shield, not Rocky Mountains in B.C., or Gatineau Hills or Laurentian Mountains in Quebec. Using a 30-m (not 500-m) median is fine.
The reason that engineers use wide median is that it allows for profiling the WB and EB lanes independently, which can make things cheaper. (For example, the natural ground in the median can be left as is in most cases.) That’s why ON-17 will be twinned with a 30-m median and 110-m ROW.

Also, sticking a median barrier in isn’t as easy as it’s made out to be. Jersey barrier can prevent head-on collisions but maintaining it can be costly. Concrete barrier requires a lot more space than just 4 ft (more like 30 ft, in Ontario at least). At that point, you also need to start thinking about median drainage and what not.
Don’t get me wrong: I used to think this way too, until some engineers taught me a bit about highway design.

As for animals, yea we’ll need animal fencing and crossing for them.

[bomberjet]

The concrete barrier with no room for error on the perimeter is a function of the problem, not the solution.

The Perimeter median is being widened throughout. They will go with the same here. Doesn't need to be as widely separated like some stretches of the TCH. But having a highway designed and built to today's standards is preferable.

I'm guessing this project will come in at half a billion dollars.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The concrete barrier with no room for error on the perimeter is a function of the problem, not the solution.

The Perimeter median is being widened throughout. They will go with the same here. Doesn't need to be as widely separated like some stretches of the TCH. But having a highway designed and built to today's standards is preferable.

I'm guessing this project will come in at half a billion dollars.

26 KM at $500 million? That’s $19 million/KM. Sheesh, even the Ontario side is only ~$8 million/KM.*

As for the median on PTH-100… I watched @sonysnob’s video and saw that even the grassy median is curbed. That’s like no room for error either.

* Now that I think of it, that number is for TCH between Thunder Bay and Nipigon. West of Kenora, for some reason the number is double that.
Yea, with the interchanges thrown in, I can see $19 million/KM.

[drew]

^ the Ontario side has no interchanges tho...

[bomberjet]

My half a billion estimate is based on the terrain. They said that the interchanges will be replaced. There is an overpass. There will likely be either bridges or large box culverts for some of the drainage. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it came in more expensive. But that's just me spit balling.

I quite like the re-location idea to go north of Barren Lake. There would be zero access points required as nothing is out there. You'd need an interchange at the west end connection to existing, interchange at east end connection to existing, interchange at West Hawk. The fly-over that exists today. And everything else can remain as is with maybe some minor local access modifications.

I do have a sketch drawn up but am having trouble getting it to the hosted site..

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by drew

^ the Ontario side has no interchanges tho...

Yea it’s indeed baffling why it costs that much. Transportation of rock fill? Specific designs to be compatible with the values of the local indigenous communities? The list of possibilities goes on and on…

Originally Posted by bomberjet

My half a billion estimate is based on the terrain. They said that the interchanges will be replaced. There is an overpass. There will likely be either bridges or large box culverts for some of the drainage. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it came in more expensive. But that's just me spit balling.

I quite like the re-location idea to go north of Barren Lake. There would be zero access points required as nothing is out there. You'd need an interchange at the west end connection to existing, interchange at east end connection to existing, interchange at West Hawk. The fly-over that exists today. And everything else can remain as is with maybe some minor local access modifications.

I do have a sketch drawn up but am having trouble getting it to the hosted site..

Just post the link. Here’s hoping that M.I.T. will actually designate this stretch as a freeway for once.
I’m still not convinced about the cost though:
https://www.northernontariobusiness....-hwy-69-372122
Here it was $61.3 million for 11 KM including 1 interchange and drainage. The average cost is $5.6 million/KM. Even if construction cost has doubled since, that’ll still put us at $11.1 million/KM, which is still quite far from $19 million/KM.