Note: This isn’t a political post per se. I’m choosing to post here, rather than on a social media site so I retain and control the original text.
Landmark Planning & Design held a number of engagement meetings this week on the PTH 1E Twinning Study. I attended the public meeting for residents on Thursday, July 3, 2025 at the Whiteshell Community Club, after attending both of the previous meetings, one online in February, 2025 and the other in person in July 2023. All three have been presented by Donovan Toews from Landmark Planning & Design. Also attending the meeting were representatives from Tetra Tech (an engineering firm) and Manitoba Transport and Infrastructure.
This meeting was very well attended, and for the majority of attendees it was their first such meetings, which meant that there wasn’t much time for discussion. There were other meetings held for specific interest groups such as the South Whiteshell Chamber of Commerce and local businesses and tourism groups, and I have heard these were more discussion-oriented. Donovan made it quite clear in the residents’ meeting that no decisions had been made yet, and because of the size of the meeting, it was difficult to have any kind of detailed debate.
That said, Donovan also said that at the next public engagement, a decision about the recommended corridor would be presented. Thus, the take home message is that now is the time to act.
What’s New?
Not much, but then again, a very great deal.
There was a fair bit of time spent reviewing all the routes that we have seen proposed before, plus a new corridor that was not previously presented, which, to my shock and disbelief, runs between Barren Lake and Falcon Beach Ranch. It was explicitly stated that these routes would require expropriation of the ranch and their trail system. This means the end of horseback riding in the Whiteshell along with the tourism and employment opportunities it brings. It would mean a tragic loss to a family who has been a mainstay in this community for decades.
This “new” route, shown in options 2b and 3b, vaguely mentioned in the 2023 engagement but had clearly been modified to miss the ranch in the options presented in February 2025. This route could be either all four lanes (option 2b) or a one-way couplet (option 3b).
Donovan further reviewed their “heat map” logic model – a spreadsheet of criteria evaluated for each of the route options with a colour coded with green, yellow, or red. The spreadsheet has been updated with more areas of concern and more detailed route options. It is very clear, at a glance, that no single route is an obvious “winner” and that there are downsides to any choice. As Donovan said, in every choice they have to make, somebody (whether human or not) loses.
About Options 2b and 3b
To be fair, the route between Barren Lake and Falcon Beach Ranch has been presented before, in the proposal in the 1990s that was dropped after a change in government. It was certainly a shock to see it presented here, in the third round of engagement. Full disclosure: I help out with the ranch as a trail guide all year round, and my partner keeps two horses there, so I am hardly neutral on the fate of this amazing part of park life.
This is a unique piece of geography – not quite Sandilands and not quite the Canadian Shield. It has sandy trails which are easy on the horses’ feet while being a Boreal forest setting which is beautiful at any time of the year. The pasture, with Falcon Creek running through it, is a great space for the horses to just be horses; they are treated well, are happy, healthy, and live good lives there.
There is no alternative location. This proposal almost certainly means the end of the ranch.
Expropriation of the ranch to build a highway means the loss of employment that has been enjoyed by youth in the area for generations. It means the loss of business, not only for the ranch itself but for the restaurants and resorts that serve customers the ranch brings to the area (I know, because I regularly recommend places at Falcon and West Hawk to our guests). It means the loss of an opportunity, in a digital era, to spend real time outdoors with some amazing animals. It means a great loss to a family that has been a vital part of this community since the 1970s.
About those Other Routes
While Landmark isn’t willing to say what corridor they favour, it is pretty clear that there are some that have been entirely ruled out. These are the routes going north of West Hawk or south of Falcon; they can’t be aligned with the new twinning done by Ontario and so are not at all likely.
I got the sense that a proposed bridge over the middle of Barren is unlikely as well. It is a very expensive option with very little benefit.
They don’t seem to be interested in talking about lowering speed limits and building a closely twinned highway on the existing corridor with dividers. The engineer from Tetra mentioned that current design standards are constructing for 130 km/h speeds and that is what they are working toward. While they have said they could make changes to these standards if required, it seems to me they are going to choose the corridor based on these standards, at which point, there’s no going back to look at lower standards for a different route.
I’m guessing, although they didn’t clearly say it, that building on the existing corridor would need considerable change to build speed-appropriate spacing, corners, interchanges, and flyovers. That would mean some big changes in the Falcon to Barren corridor – loss of the Ranch and/or the Golf Course, loss of cabins on the south end of Barren and/or Falcon north shore.
Inter-Provincial Trade
As I mentioned above, there was a representative from Manitoba Transport and Infrastructure (MTI) present at the meeting.
Conspicuously absent, as has been the case from the start of the project, was representation from Natural Resources & Indigenous Futures (Conservation), Environment & Climate Change, or Sport, Culture, Heritage and Tourism.
That sends a clear message; this is about moving more trucks, faster, through our back yard.
With the recent shenanigans in the US, and our need to improve inter-provincial trade, we can be pretty sure, as the only east-west route across the country, we will see an increase in traffic on this highway. Which means more noise and more particulate pollution, both of which increase with speed. (Don’t get me started on why this should all be on trains.)
Opportunities?
I was originally concerned about a new swath of forest being carved out north of Barren, and would much rather have seen us treat the existing route as a “parkway” at lower speeds. Seeing the writing on the wall about the construction standards, I am seeing option 2a – which takes bulk of highway traffic away from Falcon and Barren Lakes – as the preferred solution.
While I have heard concerns about it being a “by-pass” of the Falcon townsite that might reduce drop-in traffic to local businesses, I suspect there are opportunities to make a big deal for eastbound traffic to be “At the Lake!”, inviting visitors to the first stop in the cottage country and the boreal forest.
And if, indeed, the future brings more trucks and more noise at all hours of the day, moving the whole works north will preserve, and actually improve, the experience in cottages, resorts, campgrounds, and activities, from the constant highway noise.
Turning the existing PTH1 into a local road and seeking opportunities to connect Barren and the Ranch to the rest of the Falcon Lake townsite will improve the experience for human traffic – hikers, cyclists, skiers, snowmobilers, and horseback riders. That will be very difficult with four lanes of highway running through it.
What About West Hawk, Hunt, & Lyons?
There was no discussion about the “other” pinch point at West Hawk, Hunt and Lyons. There is nowhere for the highway to go here either and there will, inevitably, be a new two-lane stretch, at 130km/h standards north or south of the existing two lanes. Which means more noise for all the folks – cottagers, residents, resorts, and campgrounds on the south shore of West Hawk Lake and at Hunt Lake.
I spoke briefly to Donovan about this, wanting to keep it on the radar, and he wondered if I had any ideas on noise suppression. I’m not an expert, but I’d love to know if anyone does have ideas. Please write to Donovan and let him know! Berms or walls or rock cuts; maybe doing double duty as part of a wildlife corridor design?
About those Ideas:
As mentioned above, the next public engagement will likely present the chosen corridor. Now is the time to speak because once that corridor is chosen it will be far more difficult to change.
Here are some email addresses:
- Carolina Herrera, Landmark Planning & Design
- Lisa Naylor, Minister, Manitoba Transport and Infrastructure
- Ian Bushie, Minister, Natural Resources and Indigenous Futures (Conservation)
- Nellie Kennedy, Minister, Sport, Culture, Heritage, and Tourism
(Blair with his partner’s horse Cinnamon at Falcon Beach Ranch. Photo credit: Kerri Zacharias)
cross-posted to GreenPartylacdubonnet.ca
Hi Alex,
Thank you for your comment. Not a radical idea at all and many of us here have written letters to the design team stating as such. I figure dropping the speed from 100 km/h to 80 km/h would add less than four minutes. And imagine what we could do if we put the money into improving the existing interchanges to make them human-and-animal friendly? Make it a Parkway.
It would reduce accidents, reduce wildlife strikes, reduce engine emissions, and reduce brake and tire wear particulates. Apart from the safety aspect, however, not much of this appears to be of high priority for the planners.
What we keep getting told is that they are selecting the corridor based on the 130 km/h standards. Which suggests to me that the idea of keeping the existing corridor and lowering the speeds is pie-in-the-sky. So at this point, while it irks me no end to support a destructive process, I’m looking at how to preserve the Park experience while the world trucks on by.
The smartest idea is to lower the speed limit.
Here’s another option: a radical idea I know, but just say no and leave it as is. It’s about 15 or 16 miles and the difference between traveling 20 miles at 70 mph and 65 mph (yes that’s miles) is about 90 seconds.
Hi Don, thanks for your comment. Twinning the existing route is one of their possible corridors. If you build to that 130km/h standard, however, it means a lot of land and expropriation of chunks of the golf course and/or the ranch and the Falcon Creek Trail. What worries me, in all that, is there has been zero commitment to look at how to improve tourism and access in the area should they go that way – does that mean anyone wanting to walk across the highway to go from Falcon to Barren will now have to content with a double highway?
Thanks for your comment, Doug. I have to agree about the environmental damage. I cringe at the thought of a new swath of wilderness ripped apart and wish they would put the Park and environment first. But all of that, including tourism, seems to be taking a back seat. I’m worried that once the corridor is approved we lose any voice on where it goes and who loses.
Thanks for posting this. Sad that the WCA hasn’t done a similar post. Many, like myself, were unable to attend the original meeting. Truly sad that the sensible, safer, most economical option of simply lowering the speed limit on the short stretch of Hwy 1 is being ignored. Twinning will cause great environmental damage, cost a fortune and disrupt South Whiteshell park for years. And result in increased speeds with the resultant accidents and further deaths. Car/truck culture wins, people and nature lose, as always.
I think the 2A (in yellow) makes the most sense. By going this route, you will create a opportunity to increase the economics of Falcon Lake. Possible expanded camping, resorts, back lot cottages, restaurants and retail.
The highway at the pinch point Barren/Falcon is dangerous, as was the tragic accident a handful of years ago. I still don’t know the full details of that, but that curve with no dividing barrier is not good.
Throwing the road house north would simply move an annoyance away from the townsite, which again is beneficial.
Im surprised they won’t consider twins g what is there. They’ve already parted Barren and they could fill in more of the lake straightening the road with a cottage or two being expropreated.