Manitoba Highways

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I fixed that for you.
Darn, can someone write it up then? I really don't know where to begin. I will start a separate thread for this.

The fix should have been that "What jurisdiction in the developed world
would allow this".

North America does include places like El Salvador and the Turks and Caicos Islands after all.

In any case, as you'll see above, I already created a petition.

[drew]

You can argue that an interchange is superior to a roundabout. But you can't argue that a roundabout wouldn't be superior than what is currently there.

Freeflowing>slower free flowing (roundabout)>traffic lights.

You know what I find most annoying about MB highways (going from Winnipeg to the SK border)? It's the 110 to 100 to 80 kmph speed limit transition as you get closer to controlled intersections.

Why can't it be just 110 to 80 like everywhere else?

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by drew

You can argue that an interchange is superior to a roundabout. But you can't argue that a roundabout wouldn't be superior than what is currently there.

Freeflowing>slower free flowing (roundabout)>traffic lights.

2 issues -

1. no major cross-continental highway connecting with another important highway has this type of treatment in Canada, and probably the usa as well. No one on ssp has found anything similar.

2. The roundabout at hwys 2/3 cost 3.2 million to build. No way 1/16 is coming in less than 10 million with the extra lanes and traffic management.

Biff has pointed out that a basic diamond costs ~20 million. Throw in the rail overpass and you're looking at 40-50 million.

Why spend half the amount of a diamond on something that is way less than half assed, and will likely be torn up before it's end of service life because a new provincial government will replace it within a decade or two

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

You can argue that an interchange is superior to a roundabout. But you can't argue that a roundabout wouldn't be superior than what is currently there.

True. But there is a certain symbolism attached to our province's pathetic inability to get such a simple infrastructure project built in a high profile location like that.

No one will ever care if PTH 10 @ 16 remains an at-grade intersection for the rest of our lives, but 1 @ 16 is something people notice... it's right on the Trans-Canada Highway, near an urban area. A set of traffic lights there is out of place. People expect a grade separated interchange at a junction like that.

In other provinces it wouldn't even rate much of a second thought, it would get built the same way you buy a loaf of bread at the store... you don't think about it, you just do it. But here it's 20 years of delays only to end up going with a half-baked substitute.

[drew]

I get that it's obviously a inferior cheap alternative. It's also far cheaper to maintain over the long run versus an interchange too.

When it comes to MB infrastructure, I am always wary of the long view. If you can barely afford to build it, you almost certainly can't afford to maintain it or replace it in the future.

But a roundabout is better than what is there - full stop. And it's existence won't impede a future interchange if that ever comes to reality.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

I get that it's obviously a interior cheap alternative. It's also far cheaper to maintain over the long run versus an interchange too.

When it comes to MB infrastructure, I am always wary of the long view. If you can barely afford to build it, you almost certainly can't afford to maintain it or replace it in the future.

But a roundabout is better than what is there - full stop. And it's existence won't impede a future interchange if that ever comes to reality.

It sucks because as you point out, it is an inferior solution, and it's simply going to delay the proper solution even longer. Now we'll be stuck with this roundabout for another 20 years.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

It sucks because as you point out, it is an inferior solution, and it's simply going to delay the proper solution even longer. Now we'll be stuck with this roundabout for another 20 years.

Well exactly, and in the meantime I don't think it will properly address the problem. I predict that the area, being typically a highspeed corridor, will become a total shit show on the first slick day, jackknifed semis will abound. It isn't so much that the design is not more efficient than what already exists - clearly it is - it's that the design as proposed will have some limitations, and at the price we're going to pay for it, it makes more sense to just swallow the loss and do it properly. Since we're already spending a lot and going to need to spend a lot going forward, it just makes sense.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by drew

You can argue that an interchange is superior to a roundabout. But you can't argue that a roundabout wouldn't be superior than what is currently there.

Freeflowing>slower free flowing (roundabout)>traffic lights.

You know what I find most annoying about MB highways (going from Winnipeg to the SK border)? It's the 110 to 100 to 80 kmph speed limit transition as you get closer to controlled intersections.

Why can't it be just 110 to 80 like everywhere else?

I'm curious if a roundabout would even be enough better than free-flowing to even make the money worthwhile.

Roundabouts work best when there's reasonably equal volumes of traffic from each part of the junction. In the case of 1/16, the predominant flow will be on 1 east-west. I guess it does slow traffic enough so that people won't plow full-tilt into traffic coming from 16.

It's just real kludgey.

[zen-kz]

I would vote to keep traffic lights at 1@16 till we can afford to build and maintain the interchange there. Also I believe there is plenty of land to the south of the intersection so they can just build the interchange there and reroute traffic once they are done. This will also allow to keep at grade rail crossing on 16 in place and handle it later

[bomberjet]

I feel like the province has been doing a better job of maintaining the current structures than they have in the past. Back into the NDP days, they prioritized rehabs over new. That can be seen in the numerous rehabs and reconstructions on the perimeter, for example.

If it's properly planned out, in a sequential fashion so one structure is due for rehab every X years, it is manageable. When everything is left dilapidated, it becomes unmanageable.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by drew

I get that it's obviously a inferior cheap alternative. It's also far cheaper to maintain over the long run versus an interchange too.

When it comes to MB infrastructure, I am always wary of the long view. If you can barely afford to build it, you almost certainly can't afford to maintain it or replace it in the future.

But a roundabout is better than what is there - full stop. And it's existence won't impede a future interchange if that ever comes to reality.

I disagree respectfully. I've lived in the area of the 1 and 16 intersection. The issue is with semis not following speed limits and traffic signals. I don't see how forcing them to navigate a roundabout mitigates this. Either way it is going to need design features that slow people down so they can navigate an intersection. As I said earlier it will probably just result in more single-vehicle accidents, jack-knifes, that block the highway. So if the concern is economic as well as safety this is a loser solution.

I value roundabouts generally and think we can make use of them widely in towns/cities but this one just does not make sense.

[prairiedog007]

Bridge piers work continues
New bridge about 4 or 5 feet higher than old bridge

[bomberjet]

Thanks for the update.

IIRC, this is one of the bridges that would need to be deconstructed in the event of a 1 in 700 year flood. Some of the bridges that were not reconstructed during the floodway project actually needed to have the spans removed during major flood event. The raising remedies that issue here.

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.tbne...bypass-3515668
Blasting on Kenora Bypass has gone horribly wrong...
Edit: it’s fully reopened now.

[craner]

^That’s really cool actually - I hope no one was injured.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by craner

^That’s really cool actually - I hope no one was injured.

Granites (Canadian Shield)* and sedimentary rocks (Rockies) are hard to work with in their own ways, but they're also easy to work with in their own ways. It seems that one gets the best of both worlds working with Appalachian rocks.

* Technically, Canadian Shield doesn't just comprise of granites, but basically they're all hard rocks.

Ps: Okay, I actually need geologists here to correct me if I'm wrong.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by craner

^That’s really cool actually - I hope no one was injured.

No injuries but they had to blast that enormous boulder apart to clear the highway.

https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/how-crew...nora-1.5335936

[WildCake]

Sigh… the RM of Taché is proposing a commercial/industrial/tourist hub around the centre of Canada. This will wrap on both sides of the TCH near hwy 206.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/th...573926191.html

Embarrassingly, it says they will work with Manitoba Infrastructure to figure out if any upgrades “including lights” are needed.

Hope this doesn’t go ahead unless MI demands some contribution to an interchange. Previous track record in this province says otherwise.

[esquire]

^ Sounds like the typical hare-brained rural "economic development" plan with no real substance behind it.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Sigh… the RM of Taché is proposing a commercial/industrial/tourist hub around the centre of Canada. This will wrap on both sides of the TCH near hwy 206.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/th...573926191.html

Embarrassingly, it says they will work with Manitoba Infrastructure to figure out if any upgrades “including lights” are needed.

Hope this doesn’t go ahead unless MI demands some contribution to an interchange. Previous track record in this province says otherwise.

The piece mentions realigning 206 3/4 of a mile west. Maybe if they realign the bit on the north side as well they could create a simple diamond. It would make sense anyway and wouldn't be terribly expensive to do either. I don't oppose this as long as the infrastructure is adapted to allow for it. Sorta surprised that they wouldn't try and get it closer to Lorette to allow for connection to the water system though, I guess the draw is the centre of Canada thing.