HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3741  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2018, 9:16 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Brokenhead First Nation owns a bunch of that land and has plans to develop. They wanted to put a gas station up at Pritchard Farm and Lag until that access point was closed. Now they don't know what to do.

Same goes for Meadows golf course. Supposed to become housing very soon. Not sure if Brokenhead owns that land or if it's someone else.
Every year that golf course was supposed to close for one development or another, my last not so reliable source ( it turns out) told me Walmart was going on that site!
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3742  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2018, 10:51 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
Gunn road should not have access anyway.
More people have died at Gunn Rd and the Perimeter that the entire stretch from Lag to McGillivray.

The current status of Gunn Rd should never have happened. The problem is someone signed off on it and now it needs to be fixed and closing it isn't an answer. Using the standard that a connection is allowed roughly every 2 KM (1 mile) on a limited access highway like an Interstate that is simply no alternative to Gunn Rd having access. It would be similar to suggesting St Mary and St Annes both be closed at the Perimeter as people could just use Lag instead.


We can't push for standard for the south Perimeter and not follow them around the entire Perimeter HWY. Just because you vision of Winnipeg only includes Lag to McGillivray doesn't change the fact that the city and province are both larger than that.

A good start would be having the province step up and say no new residential developments are to be approved within 5 KM of the Perimeter unless the developer funds a new grade separated access point to the Perimeter, and that applies regardless if it is Amber Trails in northwest Winnipeg or Sage Creek, River Park South or South Point in the south, or Ridgewood West on the western side.

The next step would be to establish a standard that access points are limited to every 2 KM except for existing grade separated crossing. Then anything that is within 2 KM of a grade separated crossing in closed with access roads built to the nearest crossing. Again, regardless of where on the Perimeter that happens. Any crossings that remain that aren't grade separated are then upgraded to lights if they don't already have them until grade separations can be built.

The next step would be to replace the remaining lights. It needs to be cost effective so the only option available is building a diamond with the Perimeter being the free flowing route. Considering could be made to make diamonds upgradeable to full stacked interchanges in the future where in warrants it. Location of diamonds would be considered based on the number of deaths, the number of accidents and extended the length of uninterrupted grade separated access.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Beyond Gunn, where else would they put up traffic lights due to closure of median openings. I can't really think of any since there's so many lights already..
HWY 2, Wenzel St, Mudrock Rd, Selkirk Ave, Le Verendry Rd, Plessis Rd, Symington Rd, St Boniface Rd, King Edward St, and Sturgeon Rd if we are basing access to the Perimeter being every 2 KM. Some of those are low volume roads currently but take Sturgeon Rd as an example, it appears to be a mud road today but in 5-10 years if we don't put barriers in place it could become a major access point similar to how Kenaston/Waverly went from low volume to high access. For all you south Perimeter fan boys, Plessis Rd is going to be your next hot spot with all the development in Sage Creek.

As citizens we need to acknowledge the whole Perimeter is a mess and we need to pressure government to create a set of uniform rules on it and start acting on them and stop looking at small sections in isolation. The work being done on 59N/101 and what was done on the west side between Portage and Roser Rd is starting to move things in the right direction but if Plessis Rd and Sturegon Rd to pick suddenly become new at-grade access points servicing new residential we are failing as a whole and its not about south v north. If the public fails to see that the status quo is going to live on and negatively impact all citizens regardless of where they live.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3743  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2018, 5:40 AM
Bluenote's Avatar
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
More people have died at Gunn Rd and the Perimeter that the entire stretch from Lag to McGillivray.

The current status of Gunn Rd should never have happened. The problem is someone signed off on it and now it needs to be fixed and closing it isn't an answer. Using the standard that a connection is allowed roughly every 2 KM (1 mile) on a limited access highway like an Interstate that is simply no alternative to Gunn Rd having access. It would be similar to suggesting St Mary and St Annes both be closed at the Perimeter as people could just use Lag instead.


We can't push for standard for the south Perimeter and not follow them around the entire Perimeter HWY. Just because you vision of Winnipeg only includes Lag to McGillivray doesn't change the fact that the city and province are both larger than that.

A good start would be having the province step up and say no new residential developments are to be approved within 5 KM of the Perimeter unless the developer funds a new grade separated access point to the Perimeter, and that applies regardless if it is Amber Trails in northwest Winnipeg or Sage Creek, River Park South or South Point in the south, or Ridgewood West on the western side.

The next step would be to establish a standard that access points are limited to every 2 KM except for existing grade separated crossing. Then anything that is within 2 KM of a grade separated crossing in closed with access roads built to the nearest crossing. Again, regardless of where on the Perimeter that happens. Any crossings that remain that aren't grade separated are then upgraded to lights if they don't already have them until grade separations can be built.

The next step would be to replace the remaining lights. It needs to be cost effective so the only option available is building a diamond with the Perimeter being the free flowing route. Considering could be made to make diamonds upgradeable to full stacked interchanges in the future where in warrants it. Location of diamonds would be considered based on the number of deaths, the number of accidents and extended the length of uninterrupted grade separated access.



HWY 2, Wenzel St, Mudrock Rd, Selkirk Ave, Le Verendry Rd, Plessis Rd, Symington Rd, St Boniface Rd, King Edward St, and Sturgeon Rd if we are basing access to the Perimeter being every 2 KM. Some of those are low volume roads currently but take Sturgeon Rd as an example, it appears to be a mud road today but in 5-10 years if we don't put barriers in place it could become a major access point similar to how Kenaston/Waverly went from low volume to high access. For all you south Perimeter fan boys, Plessis Rd is going to be your next hot spot with all the development in Sage Creek.

As citizens we need to acknowledge the whole Perimeter is a mess and we need to pressure government to create a set of uniform rules on it and start acting on them and stop looking at small sections in isolation. The work being done on 59N/101 and what was done on the west side between Portage and Roser Rd is starting to move things in the right direction but if Plessis Rd and Sturegon Rd to pick suddenly become new at-grade access points servicing new residential we are failing as a whole and its not about south v north. If the public fails to see that the status quo is going to live on and negatively impact all citizens regardless of where they live.


Cory. I’ll just highlight on one part here.

St Mary’s and St Anne’s were there before the perimeter was even constructed. They are major roads and provincial roads.
Gunn road wasn’t attached to the perimeter until all that industrial crap started in the area. Oh amd it’s dead ends at the perimeter.

Now let’s see what the south has got in the perimeters history.

59 half baked cloverleaf
Pembina half baked clover leaf


Now the north has what.
Oh right a brand new multi million dollar freeway styl over pass at 59
Oh and another half clover at Henderson
Oh and another clover at Main
Oh and and another clover at Mcphilips
Oh and another clover at HWY 7


So you tell me how the south has been so one sided.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3744  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2018, 11:40 AM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
Cory. I’ll just highlight on one part here.

St Mary’s and St Anne’s were there before the perimeter was even constructed. They are major roads and provincial roads.
Gunn road wasn’t attached to the perimeter until all that industrial crap started in the area. Oh amd it’s dead ends at the perimeter.

Now let’s see what the south has got in the perimeters history.

59 half baked cloverleaf
Pembina half baked clover leaf


Now the north has what.
Oh right a brand new multi million dollar freeway styl over pass at 59
Oh and another half clover at Henderson
Oh and another clover at Main
Oh and and another clover at Mcphilips
Oh and another clover at HWY 7


So you tell me how the south has been so one sided.
The south is one giant mess from fermor to roblin. Any road that does not currently have lights should be immediately closed from accessing the perimeter. I'd settle for no left turns
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3745  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2018, 4:37 PM
buzzg buzzg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,710
The north perimeter and intersecting highways lead to many more Manitobans and towns than that of the south perimeter. The south leads to the US border, and services mainly Winnipeggers and other immediate small towns. It's not hard to see, with limited dollars, why the province has long focused on the north more – it serves a much broader base of Manitobans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3746  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2018, 9:53 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
The north perimeter and intersecting highways lead to many more Manitobans and towns than that of the south perimeter. The south leads to the US border, and services mainly Winnipeggers and other immediate small towns. It's not hard to see, with limited dollars, why the province has long focused on the north more – it serves a much broader base of Manitobans.
Population dispertion is roughly equal between north and south. Looking at a map of the regional health authorities gives a rough idea

https://goo.gl/images/c62M5S

The differences in caliber of north vs south is related to when each portion was built. South was built first before the area was as populated. I think pembina and perimeter was the first interchange in the province.

The north perimeter (minus the northeast segment) was built later during the highway boom era where some form of standard was being implemented for when to place interchanges. I don't have dates for all these but north perimeter was around the era of when hwy 59 and 44 were twinned and you can see that interchanges were also considered for those highways (59 and birds hill, 59/44). The northeast segment was then added in the 90s and built cheaply as a 'screw-it lets complete the perimeter' with zero consideration for proper traffic controls that led to the lights at 59/101, 15/101 and the mess at gunn, with only one of the three being remedied at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3747  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2018, 11:04 PM
YWG-RO YWG-RO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 112
1960s for 101 and 59N along with Floodway. Highway 44 was twinned in 1980s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3748  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 12:05 AM
The Jabroni's Avatar
The Jabroni The Jabroni is online now
Go kicky fast, okay!
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Kingdom of Skeletor
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWG-RO View Post
1960s for 101 and 59N along with Floodway. Highway 44 was twinned in 1980s
I assume the reason why 44 (and 59) is twinned to begin with is because of cottage and beach traffic in the summer months, yeah? I've always wondered why 44 from 59 to Beausejour, and 59 from Birds Hill Rd to just outside Brokenhead FN have been twinned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3749  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 12:23 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Richmond, BC/Richmond Hill, ON (for now)
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jabroni View Post
I assume the reason why 44 (and 59) is twinned to begin with is because of cottage and beach traffic in the summer months, yeah? I've always wondered why 44 from 59 to Beausejour, and 59 from Birds Hill Rd to just outside Brokenhead FN have been twinned.
Then there's HWY 1 from Falcon Lake to Ontario border... There are a lot of cottages there and at Whiteshell too.

Lol this is probably what's been going on, since construction was halted in 2010:
Manitoba: I'm gonna wait for money from the feds and for Ontario to finish dealing with the first nations. (Let's be real here: This is probably the kind of attitude governments have towards first nations.)
Ontario (and FN's at Shoal Lake): I'm gonna wait for the feds to come in and deal with both.
Feds: I'm gonna wait for both Manitoba and Ontario to step up their game.
You see where I'm going with this?

So far, even after Freedom Road to Shoal Lake 40 is completed, Ontario government will still need to talk to Shoal Lake 39, and yet the province seems to have 0 interest in doing so.
__________________
Highway expansion (especially going from undivided 2 lanes to divided 4 lanes), practically speaking, is all about political will, not AADT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3750  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 1:10 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
Then there's HWY 1 from Falcon Lake to Ontario border... There are a lot of cottages there and at Whiteshell too.

Lol this is probably what's been going on, since construction was halted in 2010:
Manitoba: I'm gonna wait for money from the feds and for Ontario to finish dealing with the first nations. (Let's be real here: This is probably the kind of attitude governments have towards first nations.)
Ontario (and FN's at Shoal Lake): I'm gonna wait for the feds to come in and deal with both.
Feds: I'm gonna wait for both Manitoba and Ontario to step up their game.
You see where I'm going with this?

So far, even after Freedom Road to Shoal Lake 40 is completed, Ontario government will still need to talk to Shoal Lake 39, and yet the province seems to have 0 interest in doing so.
Yea good point, seems like inter-provincial collaboration is always a pain and a long waiting game. Lol at least it's not like BC and alberta right now. Manitoba should step up and twin its portion tp say the entire tch in manitoba is twinned
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3751  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 1:18 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Richmond, BC/Richmond Hill, ON (for now)
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
Yea good point, seems like inter-provincial collaboration is always a pain and a long waiting game. Lol at least it's not like BC and alberta right now. Manitoba should step up and twin its portion tp say the entire tch in manitoba is twinned
It might be better to twin it just up to the weight scale where a short 4-lane segment already exists, instead of the whole length, because we don't know what Ontario wanna do with the existing 17.

There was a time when I searched hard for the design paper/map for TCH twinning from Ontario/Manitoba border to Kenora, but couldn't find anything.
__________________
Highway expansion (especially going from undivided 2 lanes to divided 4 lanes), practically speaking, is all about political will, not AADT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3752  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 2:55 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
It might be better to twin it just up to the weight scale where a short 4-lane segment already exists, instead of the whole length, because we don't know what Ontario wanna do with the existing 17.

There was a time when I searched hard for the design paper/map for TCH twinning from Ontario/Manitoba border to Kenora, but couldn't find anything.
The Manitoba border is basically right after the weight scales, maybe 50 meters of 2 lanes exists between the border and the 4 lanes.

I haven't found anything showing those plans either, I don't know if they exist even. Looking up anything relating to twinning hwy 17 brings up local politicians in the Kenora area pushing for twinning but rarely if anything at all at the provincial or federal level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3753  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 4:34 AM
Bluenote's Avatar
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
It might be better to twin it just up to the weight scale where a short 4-lane segment already exists, instead of the whole length, because we don't know what Ontario wanna do with the existing 17.

There was a time when I searched hard for the design paper/map for TCH twinning from Ontario/Manitoba border to Kenora, but couldn't find anything.
And they don’t even need to get all fancy. Just put a concrete divider in like some sections of the perimeter highway and add a land on either side. That would save on blasting more granite and expropriation by falcon lake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3754  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 5:46 AM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Richmond, BC/Richmond Hill, ON (for now)
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
And they don’t even need to get all fancy. Just put a concrete divider in like some sections of the perimeter highway and add a land on either side. That would save on blasting more granite and expropriation by falcon lake.
BC style?

The way you're going about it, it sounds like some segments of TCH by Falcon Lake will have undivided 4 lanes. Am I understanding it correctly?
__________________
Highway expansion (especially going from undivided 2 lanes to divided 4 lanes), practically speaking, is all about political will, not AADT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3755  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 1:58 PM
Biff's Avatar
Biff Biff is offline
What could go wrong?
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 5,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
BC style?

The way you're going about it, it sounds like some segments of TCH by Falcon Lake will have undivided 4 lanes. Am I understanding it correctly?
I think he means rather that separating the E & W lanes with a grassed median - which takes up a lot of space, especially when having to blast through Canadian Shield...slightly widen the existing 2 lane road base to 4 lanes and put a Jersey Barrier down the middle. Probably a reasonable compromise considering there really aren't that many access points between Falcon and the border of Ontario.

There is 1 right in/right out between West Hawk and the Border, 1 R-in/R-out at Barren Lake and 1 R-in/R-out right as the TCH1 reduces from 4 lane divided to 2 lane (this one looks like it could just be closed).
__________________
"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
     
     
  #3756  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 2:02 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
More people have died at Gunn Rd and the Perimeter that the entire stretch from Lag to McGillivray.

The current status of Gunn Rd should never have happened. The problem is someone signed off on it and now it needs to be fixed and closing it isn't an answer. Using the standard that a connection is allowed roughly every 2 KM (1 mile) on a limited access highway like an Interstate that is simply no alternative to Gunn Rd having access. It would be similar to suggesting St Mary and St Annes both be closed at the Perimeter as people could just use Lag instead.


We can't push for standard for the south Perimeter and not follow them around the entire Perimeter HWY. Just because you vision of Winnipeg only includes Lag to McGillivray doesn't change the fact that the city and province are both larger than that.

A good start would be having the province step up and say no new residential developments are to be approved within 5 KM of the Perimeter unless the developer funds a new grade separated access point to the Perimeter, and that applies regardless if it is Amber Trails in northwest Winnipeg or Sage Creek, River Park South or South Point in the south, or Ridgewood West on the western side.

The next step would be to establish a standard that access points are limited to every 2 KM except for existing grade separated crossing. Then anything that is within 2 KM of a grade separated crossing in closed with access roads built to the nearest crossing. Again, regardless of where on the Perimeter that happens. Any crossings that remain that aren't grade separated are then upgraded to lights if they don't already have them until grade separations can be built.

The next step would be to replace the remaining lights. It needs to be cost effective so the only option available is building a diamond with the Perimeter being the free flowing route. Considering could be made to make diamonds upgradeable to full stacked interchanges in the future where in warrants it. Location of diamonds would be considered based on the number of deaths, the number of accidents and extended the length of uninterrupted grade separated access.



HWY 2, Wenzel St, Mudrock Rd, Selkirk Ave, Le Verendry Rd, Plessis Rd, Symington Rd, St Boniface Rd, King Edward St, and Sturgeon Rd if we are basing access to the Perimeter being every 2 KM. Some of those are low volume roads currently but take Sturgeon Rd as an example, it appears to be a mud road today but in 5-10 years if we don't put barriers in place it could become a major access point similar to how Kenaston/Waverly went from low volume to high access. For all you south Perimeter fan boys, Plessis Rd is going to be your next hot spot with all the development in Sage Creek.

As citizens we need to acknowledge the whole Perimeter is a mess and we need to pressure government to create a set of uniform rules on it and start acting on them and stop looking at small sections in isolation. The work being done on 59N/101 and what was done on the west side between Portage and Roser Rd is starting to move things in the right direction but if Plessis Rd and Sturegon Rd to pick suddenly become new at-grade access points servicing new residential we are failing as a whole and its not about south v north. If the public fails to see that the status quo is going to live on and negatively impact all citizens regardless of where they live.
Come on Cory. Those median openings should be closed. Not put up traffic lights..

This conversation is tiresome. Keep saying the same things over and over. Close median opening, build interchanges. We all know this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3757  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 3:52 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Richmond, BC/Richmond Hill, ON (for now)
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
I think he means rather that separating the E & W lanes with a grassed median - which takes up a lot of space, especially when having to blast through Canadian Shield...slightly widen the existing 2 lane road base to 4 lanes and put a Jersey Barrier down the middle. Probably a reasonable compromise considering there really aren't that many access points between Falcon and the border of Ontario.

There is 1 right in/right out between West Hawk and the Border, 1 R-in/R-out at Barren Lake and 1 R-in/R-out right as the TCH1 reduces from 4 lane divided to 2 lane (this one looks like it could just be closed).
Oh, in that case, I'm definitely on board with that. All at-grade intersections should also be closed. I just wonder how thin the NJ Barrier can go and remain functional though. 20 cm?

Ps: For the record, I didn't mean to be sarcastic at all.
__________________
Highway expansion (especially going from undivided 2 lanes to divided 4 lanes), practically speaking, is all about political will, not AADT.

Last edited by Dengler Avenue; Mar 26, 2018 at 7:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3758  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 3:55 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
The northeast segment was then added in the 90s and built cheaply as a 'screw-it lets complete the perimeter' with zero consideration for proper traffic controls that led to the lights at 59/101, 15/101 and the mess at gunn, with only one of the three being remedied at this point.
The northeast Perimeter design originally included plans for interchanges at both 59/101 and 15/101. The lights were put it as "temporary" construction detours. The SB 59 to WB 101 ramp and overpass was closed at that time and instead traffic was rerouted to the left hand turn at the traffic light. Similar the alignment of 101/15 was shifted to the west.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YWG-RO View Post
1960s for 101 and 59N along with Floodway. Highway 44 was twinned in 1980s
The 59/44 interchange was build with 4 lanes of 44 from the start. I also believe that 44 was 4 lanes from 59 to HWY 9 (Main St in Winnipeg) around the time the interchange was built.

Best guess here as it predates my time but perhaps the twining of 59 north of Winnipeg and 44 between 59 and 9 was related to the construction of the floodway and the need to move equipment around.

It is was likely worth mentioning that significant stretches of what is now HWY 59 were moved significantly away from the old route and sections of that old route still exist as roads today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3759  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 3:57 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,549
^ FYI the MIT website has PDFs of the Manitoba highway map from every year online, so if those details are keeping any of you up at night you can look it up and quickly deduce when things were built.

I glanced at the 1968 map and 59 was already twinned up past the 44 interchange. 44 was still just a 2-lane at that point, though.

Going back even further to 1966 shows that the stretch of 59 north of Birds Hill was being moved a little way east... that must be what CoryB was talking about.

It's staggering how little has changed on the highways in that area in the last 50 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3760  
Old Posted Mar 26, 2018, 4:53 PM
wardlow's Avatar
wardlow wardlow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 263
^ Thank you for sharing this bit of info! These maps are great.

So hard to believe that as recently as 1961 the most direct highway access from Winnipeg to the east beaches (Grand, Victoria, etc.) was still through Beausejour then north on Highway 12. And it wasn't until 1964 that the extension of Highway 59 north of Libau was paved (which was about the same time that CN discontinued train service to Victoria Beach).
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:51 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.