Anyone hear what happened on hwy 10? Heard they had closed the hwy down completely between Rapid City and Rivers. I heard sirens heading out that way around lunch.  
That hwy 10 is horrible. They definately need to look at twinning it or at least adding some passing lanes.

I think they're only avoiding it because of how much worse trouble commuters will have it when they're doing construction. I remember the construction on Highway 16 between Minnedosa and Neepawa... ugh. :p  
 
 
 
Edited by camfarrsuperstar, 2009-11-18 15:18:03

Even with all the awful contruction is was well worth it. The highway between Neepawa and Minnedosa is great now and because Hwy 10 is such a highly commuted highway it would be better in the long run as there is not that many good clear places to pass and it is absolutely impossible during busy times of the day.

Apparently more smoke than fire... so to speak!Just a bender.

isnt the highway between rivers and rapid city 270 not 10?  
 
Edited by dean mca, 2009-11-18 16:09:45

dean mca said "isnt the highway between rivers and rapid city 270 not 10?     Edited by dean mca, 2009-11-18 16:09:45"

Could be refering the section of hwy 10 between the Rivers turnoff and the Rapid City turnoff.

The solution to highway 10 is not passing lanes or other major construction. We need drivers with patience.  
 
I have witnessed idiots passing on the double solid line approaching the rail bridge. I dropped back to let one into the line before he pushed me into the ditch. He bounced into my lane and was back out passing two more vehicles as they were going under the bridge (fewer escape routes if oncoming traffic appeared; almost had a head on collision).  
 
By the time I was ready to turn off to Rapid City, he was less than a mile ahead, still bounding in and out of the traffic. He risked the lives of many people and was not really any further ahead. The speed limit is 100 km/h but too many think it should be 120 or even 130.  
 
What are they going to do with the six minutes that they saved by putting the rest of the drivers and passengers in danger? Does Minnedosa have something that terrific that it is worth risking your life and those around you to get there a few minutes earlier? If you want to get there earlier then LEAVE earlier. Do not endanger my life because of your poor planning skills.

and likely won't happened anytime soon if at all, is just fast track and twin highway 10 from Brandon to atleast Minnedosa if not all the way to the park. In the meantime, have a bit of patience.

if the highway is too congested (which it is) it needs to be dealt with. It's not really about the idiot drivers - it's that there are just too many people sharing the space. This is why some highways are single, some are double, and some even triple or quad - because there is a need for it. There are so many accidents on this stretch of highway. Remember how brutal and nerve-wracking it was to drive the #1 before it was twinned.  
 
Edited by Nik, 2009-11-18 18:42:33

anywhere between the hours of 330 ish too 6 pm looks alot like driving on 18th street during rush hour. I live in Minnedosa and commuted for a year back and forth. it is definately an adventure to say the least. Moronic drivers, bad roads (in winter) and just downright numbers says this road should be twinned.  
 
Drive it daily before saying its not justifiable.

Go back and read it slowly. Sometimes that helps me.  
 
Just an assumption here but I would say they are talking about the stretch of Hwy 10 between the junctions of Hwy 24 & 25. Just speculating though

katwalk1909 said "The solution to highway 10 is not passing lanes or other major construction. We need drivers with patience.     I have witnessed idiots passing on the double solid line approaching the rail bridge. I dropped back to let one into the line before he pushed me into the ditch. He bounced into my lane and was back out passing two more vehicles as they were going under the bridge (fewer escape routes if oncoming traffic appeared; almost had a head on collision).     By the time I was ready to turn off to Rapid City, he was less than a mile ahead, still bounding in and out of the traffic. He risked the lives of many people and was not really any further ahead. The speed limit is 100 km/h but too many think it should be 120 or even 130.     What are they going to do with the six minutes that they saved by putting the rest of the drivers and passengers in danger? Does Minnedosa have something that terrific that it is worth risking your life and those around you to get there a few minutes earlier? If you want to get there earlier then LEAVE earlier. Do not endanger my life because of your poor planning skills. "

The solution is do do nothing but ask for patience?? Maybe but I bet a better one is proper roads. I also note that Highway 10 does not end in Minnedosa. If that rocket racer you talk about saved six minutes going to Minnedosa- well How much would he save heading to Dauphin??  
I do get your point on patience but that road has a ton of summer traffic with trailers and motor homes that tend to do the 8o to 90 speed.  
 
Passing lanes are certainly needed.  
 

Absolutely we need passing lanes! it would make everything a lot smoother and a lot less stress on the road. but until then the people that are passing people need to make sure they're passing at the right time: People on that road that are driving 80 - 90 need to be passed: you cant drive that all the way home its ridiculous. Slow people or people uncomfortable driving get the hell off the road. what are you doing? its a highway! They are the ones endangering peoples lives. They shouldn't have licenses. (im talking normal cars and truck etc, not people pulling things) although i think when there is no passing lanes and a camper is driving 80 they should pull over and let the 20 people pass them every once in a while.

Back when I took an urban planning course in University we learned (and that has been repeated in my graduate work) that when you expand a highway you are going to have an parallel expansion of the AMOUNT of traffic on that highway.  
 
I have been driving that highway for eight years ... twinning it will NOT alleviate the problems - the drive from Brandon to Minnedosa is about 35 minutes - from Minnedosa to the Park is about 45 ... doing 80 or 120 really doesn't make that much of a difference. When you have a steady stream of traffic pulling out and passing achieves NOTHING - yet people do it ALL the time ... I learned quickly that the best thing to do on Hwy 10 is to chill and just take your time - you'll still get there at 80 or 90.  
 
Passing just puts too many lives at risk.

Until my father shared his wisdom, driving #10 to Minnedosa was a frustrating experience. I would try to drive at 105-110kph, but the traffic in both directions doesn't allow it. Here's his wisdom, drive at 100, as the posted speed limit indicates. You'll get there a few minutes later than if driving at 110, but you'll arrive when you were supposed to. And safely.

anknmn said "Back when I took an urban planning course in University we learned (and that has been repeated in my graduate work) that when you expand a highway you are going to have an parallel expansion of the AMOUNT of traffic on that highway.     I have been driving that highway for eight years ... twinning it will NOT alleviate the problems - the drive from Brandon to Minnedosa is about 35 minutes - from Minnedosa to the Park is about 45 ... doing 80 or 120 really doesn't make that much of a difference. When you have a steady stream of traffic pulling out and passing achieves NOTHING - yet people do it ALL the time ... I learned quickly that the best thing to do on Hwy 10 is to chill and just take your time - you'll still get there at 80 or 90.     Passing just puts too many lives at risk. "

Twinning the highway might not make the trip to Minnedosa or the park much shorter in time, but it WILL make it a lot safer.  
 
People pass or attempt to pass because slower traffic is holding them up (at the very least, in their minds) Out of frustration people often pull out and pass without a good safety margin. That makes it extremely unsafe for everybody on the road. If the highway were twinned, nobody would be pulling out into oncoming traffic to pass slower traffic. That in itself would make things safer and reduce accidents.  
 
Even those drivers who "chill" and drive with the flow of traffic are not safe from the foolish actions of those behind them or from oncoming traffic.  
 
Again, I'm not saying that twinning the road will make the trip faster (necessarily) but it sure will make it safer.  
 
Edit: The addition of passing lanes in the right spots would also help for the time being, but I think twinning is a far better idea. I think the traffic on that road esp. in summer, warrants an upgrade.  
 
Edited by fargobob, 2009-11-19 12:40:54

That's fine if you want to go the same speed as everyone else. But make sure to leave enough space in between yourself and the car in front of you so that those people who do drive a bit faster don't have to pass multiple vehicles all at once.  
 
If you line up with the rest of the chain not leaving enough room for someone to get in between you and the vehicle in front of you, you are just as dangerous as the person passing at inappropriate times.

I agree with you fargobob! My thoughts exactly.  
 
We need to be investing this infrastructure money in exactly that our deteriorating and stressed existing roads. But yet we are blowing millions and millions of dollars on paving gravel shoulders so we can drive 110. What a stupid idea and a waste of money!!! Smarten up already...

Hwy 6 runs north from Burlington/Hamilton to the 401 ... I have driven that road when it was predominantly a two lane highway with passing lanes here and there ... it has since been twinned with a suicide strip/middle turn lane in places ...  
 
I would not say the highway is any safer ... it has sped up the traffic, and has created NEW problems ... yes slow drivers are aggravating - but if they are doing 90 which if i'm NOT mistaken is the posted speed limit - passing them achieves NOTHING except putting yourself and others at risk.  
 
Hwy 10 is not a highway you can easily nor safely twin - given the number of roads that feed into it, the farm equipment that uses it, the heavy (and its increasing) semi traffic on it, and the usage by holiday vehicles ... twinning it will offer ONLY a carte blanche for the careless drivers among us who will pull out and pass regardless.  
 
I'm admit twinning the highway will improve the safety of passing - but with THAT comes an incremental increase in the speed being travelled on the road, which will offset ANY improvement in safety ... i've watched cars careen into the ditch in bad weather because the drivers don't drive to the road conditions - isn't that rule #1 in driver's ed??? ...  
 
The key in this is a simple concept - PATIENCE - it is lacking in many areas of our world most especially on our roads.

I'm not really talking about the stretch from Virden to Sask. There is a lot more traffic there than on #10. I'm willing to bet though, not too many people who use it now, would say it's no safer since it's fully twinned.  
 
The part of the highway I'm using as an example is the piece between Brandon and Portage (about 20 miles east of Portage actually). In the mid 60's that was 2 lane highway. On a Sunday night, or a Holiday evening that stretch was a hard dangerous drive. Thankfully it was finally twinned to Brandon and of course since then all the way through.  
 
Today, even with much increased traffic from the old days, it's still a much safer drive than before. Yes, there are still accidents, and some people drive way too fast, but the twinned highway is much safer.  
 
IMO, suggesting that the safety achieved by twinning #10 highway would be offset by the increased speed by motorists is just ignoring the result of twinning highways in other parts of this province as well as most other parts of Canada.  
 

anknmn said "Back when I took an urban planning course in University we learned (and that has been repeated in my graduate work) that when you expand a highway you are going to have an parallel expansion of the AMOUNT of traffic on that highway.     I have been driving that highway for eight years ... twinning it will NOT alleviate the problems - the drive from Brandon to Minnedosa is about 35 minutes - from Minnedosa to the Park is about 45 ... doing 80 or 120 really doesn't make that much of a difference. When you have a steady stream of traffic pulling out and passing achieves NOTHING - yet people do it ALL the time ... I learned quickly that the best thing to do on Hwy 10 is to chill and just take your time - you'll still get there at 80 or 90.     Passing just puts too many lives at risk. "

I think that situation/ highway comparrison is irrelevant except for one observation. The parallel expansion of the AMOUNT of traffic.  
 
Did the extra traffic come because of the expansion?? Did people decide to start driving because of the new fangled road ??? I doubt it.  
 
Yes the capacity to move more cars per hour increases when roads are twinned but that is to make up for  
 
A) growing populations and traffic - With Mohawk ethanol truck traffic and the much increasing summer traffic more capacity is needed so the demand was/is there first- not just the fact this new twinned road builds a higher traffic count by its lonesome!  
 
B) taking pressure off other dangerous roads. Highway 270 would be used less often for one! Maybe Highway 5 would be ignored more often?? It just wrong to assume that leaving the road as is perfectly fine. As far has how difficult it is too twin?? Highway one had those problems long before they twinned it and they found answers. It may cost some bucks to buy land- close right aways but it is doable.  

To say that twinning highway 10 would not improve driving conditions is rediculous. I guess in your mind we should have left the tiny old #1 the way it was too huh?  
As for it causing the traffic volume to go up... where, exactly do you expect this extra traffic to come from? Maybe a few cars that were previously travelling smaller roads.  
 
Oh! I just of something maybe the nicer highway would urge more people to commute from minnedosa. Which would increase the traffic, yes, but you would have double the highway and definately not double the traffic. The only thing I see that causing is a boost in economy for Minnedosa and maybe a slight relief on the housing crunch in brandon.  

I have to agree with you ethelH.

Anyone who has driven recently in Northern Ontario can attest to the fact that a twinned highway is far safer then a sinlge-lane highway. I had the pleasure of driving to Saulte St Marie 1 1/2 years ago and was absolutley taken back at how dangerous TCH is there, even with passing lanes in random places. They are now twinning it in some strategic locations (I believe) to reduce the risks inherent in single-lane highway traffic. Now, I am not saying the landscape between here and Clear Lake is the same, but at some points, the danger level is.  
 
Personally, I recall driving to Calgary when it was mostly single lane from here to Saskatchewan, then we hit the twinned highway... what a relief.  
 
And for the record, I tend to do the speed limit or just slightly over.  
 
So on a nutshell, yes, twinning #10 north from Brandon to Minnedosa should be done eventually to decrease the danger from the increasing traffic. Ideally, it should be done to Clear Lake.  
 
And for those who are saying it won't work because of the farm equipment, I guess you have never seen any out on the TCH??? Or a RTM House on there, either???  
 
Edited by ChrisV, 2009-11-21 23:26:32

The speed limit is 100. Not 120 +  
 
So if you want to get all pissy at me for going the limit or SLIGHTY over, then thats your own problem. I would rather get to my house a few minutes later and safe, then in a body bag.  
 
Besides, you have to slow down when you get to Forrest anyway, so half the time, the people that rush past me and speed, meet up with me in Forrest anyway.

I admit, I'm one of those people who are guilty of doing 120 on Hwy 10 (when I can and when road conditions are good), but I also believe it's those who are doing 80-90km/h (non-tow) that are putting more at risk than me. What about the 'flow of traffic' rule. Yes, the posted 'maximum' is 100, but that doesn't mean do any speed you wish. There's been enough people seriously hurt on that highway from stupid passing and imo a passing lane here or there would fix this issue to some degree.

Unfortunately, anknmn, a large amount of people do not follow those rules. When the death toll begins to rise (as it did on the TCH) #10 will be twinned. I am not arguing with you, just saying that this is not an ideal world and there will always be fools and risk takers who kill other people.

ChrisV said "Unfortunately, anknmn, a large amount of people do not follow those rules. When the death toll begins to rise (as it did on the TCH) #10 will be twinned. I am not arguing with you, just saying that this is not an ideal world and there will always be fools and risk takers who kill other people. "

ChrisV, I don't disagree entirely with the twinning - I've driven the road enough to know it's NOT a safe road when the traffic is heavy - there are TOO MANY idiots out there taking too many chances.  
 
The first step HAS TO BE ENFORCEMENT of the speed limit and cracking down on unsafe drivers who pass when it is NOT safe to do so.  
 
My example up stream of Hwy 6 in Ontario is apt - it was a winding two lane nightmare ... now it is a five lane - twin lane night mare ... BUT - there is ALWAYS a heavy police presence on the highway and speeding and unsafe driving is curbed. It still happens - but not as much.  
 
I KNOW the problem in rural manitoba is staffing - the RCMP don't have people or time to enforce traffic rules - they are busy doing other things. I have no quibble with them.  
 
The IMPATIENCE of drivers is scary. We witness it here where people say - "I pass dammit, and you better make room ..." or denounce slow drivers as unsafe.  
 
I've seen enough cars and trucks careen out of control because drivers are foolishly NOT driving to the road conditions and they pay for it ... I still can visualize the green AMC Hornet going airborne on a snow cover highway in southern ontario when he pulled out to pass me - I was doing 80km/hr at the time ... he ended up upside down in the middle of a farm field, and was fortunately NOT hurt - his car was toast - ALL because he wasn't willing to drive to the road conditions at the time ...  
 
It's ALL about slowing down ... and yes, in an ideal world that would happen - in this world let's remember that the we have A LOT of retired folks who need to drive our highways for appointments and shopping and socializing, and they may no longer be comfortable doing the MAXIMUM - until they post a MINIMUM, doing 70, 80, or 90 is permissible BY LAW. Doing 110, 120 or MORE is NOT.  
 
It boils down to common sense whether the road is twinned or not.  
 
Edited by anknmn, 2009-11-21 23:56:32