[Greco Roman]

thats uncalled for

No way man. I fight fire with fire when trolls are concerned.

[Only The Lonely..]

i dont really understand why the terminus is the forks....who goes to the forks by transit?...the only justification for rapid transit is to serve commuters...nobody commutes to the forks.....do we not have any planners at all...the termination point has to be the graham avanue transit mall, where people can feed to busses across the city....are the tens of thousands of commuters supposed to go from jubilee to the forks and then walk to graham or wherever in downtown they work?

at 130m for a line from jubilee to the forks, you can see why LRT is a pipe dream....that is a big chunk of change for such a small line....im not sure exactly who will use it for the first stage at least...there isnt exactly a huge population base around jubilee.

anyways...its a start.

Yaa, but how is it that the NDP has a half billion for a needless floodway expansion.

It's a question of priorities, the money is there if the will is.

We should be building for the future.

[newflyer]

This is everything the BRT supporters wanted ... plus. Forget diamond lane BS .. as this BRT will have a designated line all to itself.

The best thing is this will lead into a real light-rail rapid transit in the future.

Once again Katz reaffirms his position as the best myor Winnipeg has had in my lifetime.

[Geebrr]

Wonderful. Now we have another Markus41, Waterlooson, and what's his face from Regina on our hands.

Go away please. Oh wait, you will be going away soon once the "big one" swallows up the entire lower mainland. Sucks to be you ;)

Doubt it even takes that long, these are the kind of people who get killed in ways that are much more amusing and hilarious than normal people.

I'm think the headline goes something like "Man mauled by bear at city zoo after jumping in pen". With the sub heading "Bear given key to the city for doing society a favour, states he wishes it could have been dopey Markus41 as well"

[Greco Roman]

This is everything the BRT supporters wanted ... plus. Forget diamond lane BS .. as this BRT will have a designated line all to itself.

The best thing is this will lead into a real light-rail rapid transit in the future.

Once again Katz reaffirms his position as the best myor Winnipeg has had in my lifetime.

I believe that lines along Portage Avenue will be diamond.

[Only The Lonely..]

I believe that lines along Portage Avenue will be diamond.

How can it be?

Aren't these fancy brt buses automated / self-guided ? I thought they had censors embedded in the road that allowed for the vehicles to be driverless.

If so, some jackass parking his car in the curb lane could shut down the whole system.

[1ajs]

I believe that lines along Portage Avenue will be diamond.
for now they would be but in the future things can be changed around to a elevated lrt set up down portage ave...

[Only The Lonely..]

Doubt it even takes that long, these are the kind of people who get killed in ways that are much more amusing and hilarious than normal people.

I'm think the headline goes something like "Man mauled by bear at city zoo after jumping in pen". With the sub heading "Bear given key to the city for doing society a favour, states he wishes it could have been dopey Markus41 as well"

Interesting observation.

[MichaelM]

Yaa, but how is it that the NDP has a half billion for a needless floodway expansion.

It's a question of priorities, the money is there if the will is.

We should be building for the future.


Yes sir..................

Needless Floodway Expansion.

100% the Truth.

NDP SUCKS!:shrug:

[jimj_wpg]

The best thing is this will lead into a real light-rail rapid transit in the future.

How long into the future will LRT be delayed after Phase I is built? 5, 10, 15, 20...25 years like with the Ottawa Trasitway conversion to an LRT?

I won't have it!

Once again Katz reaffirms his position as the best mayor Winnipeg has had in my lifetime.

I'm not sure I'll vote for Katz in 2010 now.

[Spocket]

I just don't understand what it is that makes LRT seem so great to some folks. Okay, it's nice, it's shiny, it's "big city". It might even actually cost us the same thing in the long run although somehow I doubt that.

Without even thinking about cost, what does Winnipeg need an LRT line for anyway ? I've seen it pointed out that it's the inflexibility of LRT that is one of its selling points and the logic is sound. However, that's only the case if planners refuse to utilize a BRT corridor to greatest effect. While we build up the BRT corridor and make it as self-sustaining as possible (as in, developing high-density near the stations) buses still offer the versatility that Winnipeg requires due to it's low-density nature. By the time that changes (decades away) we'll have the ROW and most of the infrastructure in place already. Better to spend that money when it's needed than to blow it all now and pay to maintain it over the course of decades while we wait for the need to arise.

Then there's this issue of quality. Okay, that one strikes me as a red herring because anybody who has ever taken a ride on BRT knows that it's hardly the same as simply riding the bus on some random route. You're speeding along, there aren't any stop lights, there's no lurching every couple of blocks on average, and unlike with LRT, chances are that you won't have to transfer before you reach your destination. Well, the chances of actually getting to your intended destination without having to transfer are much better on a bus than on a train. In any case, in terms of quality, as long as the corridor is reasonably well maintained, it's not that much different from LRT. It's alot like riding the bus along Bishop Grandin except that you don't have to worry about any other traffic and the roadway itself is smoother as a rule. Just like LRT, you have stations and with any luck, all of ours will be enclosed and heated. Hopefully anyway although somehow I wouldn't bet on that much. That would be no different than if it was LRT though.

I'm not interested in picking a fight here. This isn't some jab at LRT proponents. It's just what I say it is though and I simply don't understand why it is that people consider BRT to be such a poor option. It's not at all. For the cost difference, we're getting a hell of a lot more for our money with BRT than we would be if it was LRT. Frankly, the versatility of buses makes them far more desirable to me because it means I'll probably have less walking to do when it's -35.
At no point have I ever advocated for on-street BRT. To be honest, the thought of calling that BRT strikes me as disingenuous anyway. When I've spoken of BRT I've always assumed we were talking about a system similar to Ottawa's Busway and that system is just as good as LRT in my opinion (or , at least, the difference is negligible in my view)

LRT is great I guess but it's just not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe in twenty or thirty years we'll need something like that but right now, what with the layout of Winnipeg it just makes no sense. A rapid transit corridor along Pembina makes a ton of sense but not an LRT option.

Edit:
Needless floodway expansion ? You're kidding right ? How close do we have to get total disaster before it becomes necessary ?

[thegreattait]

There is a huge issue I don't understand, I thought BRT right of ways needed to be wider then LRT. So infrustructure costs for underpasses and overpasses will cost more then LRT, so in a phased process we end up wasting money.

Also by not creating a complete system ie. one that goes all the way to Bison drive, we don't give rapid transit an adequate chance to succeed. If you don't give the project the right resources you doom it to fail from day 1.

Ex. say we built the flood way in phases we build the gates south of the city and do phase 1 all the way out to Dugald road. Well when the flood hits, an incomplete system is useless. If we were able to find 700 million to expand the floodway, surely we can find the money for LRT.

It's not a question of finding the money, its about putting together a comprehensive plan that shows the benefits of a well designed complete LRT system then making the required sacrifices for investment.

Also to those who talk of a Gold LRT line like its some huge expense, don't use hyperbole to exaggerate the situation. Yes I understand LRT costs more then BRT but it isn't unnecessary frivolous things like gold rails its an investment in solid efficient infrastructure that is meant to serve the citizens of this fine city for years to come.

Also LRT uses electricity which if I'm not mistaken this province has lots of, while not so much of that oil stuff that seems to be going up in price lately. Hmm maybe planning for the future with LRT would be a good way to hedge against full price increases.

Does anyone have some information details about the plan? Such as the lengths of over and underpasses etc etc actual infrastructure costs. I think we should contact Bombardier to see how much more and LRT plan for this plan would cost. I don't know if anyone at the city has done their homework well enough, to really say it is too expensive. If I'm wrong and then do have a report, then please lets see it and then use it as a tool to combat supporters like me. Produce a report on an LRT plan and lets see the cost comparison, because until something like that is done, all we can really do is take a best guess.

[flatlander]

i dont really understand why the terminus is the forks....who goes to the forks by transit?...the only justification for rapid transit is to serve commuters...nobody commutes to the forks.....do we not have any planners at all...the termination point has to be the graham avanue transit mall, where people can feed to busses across the city....are the tens of thousands of commuters supposed to go from jubilee to the forks and then walk to graham or wherever in downtown they work?

The map shows the terminus being the University of Winnipeg I think. First downtown stop is the Forks, then west on Graham, then turning around at the U of W. Maybe it will put that Spence Street mall to good use!

The stop at the Forks is the first step in getting high density housing at the forks. Bring it on!

[Greco Roman]

There is a huge issue I don't understand, I thought BRT right of ways needed to be wider then LRT. So infrustructure costs for underpasses and overpasses will cost more then LRT, so in a phased process we end up wasting money.

Also by not creating a complete system ie. one that goes all the way to Bison drive, we don't give rapid transit an adequate chance to succeed. If you don't give the project the right resources you doom it to fail from day 1.

Ex. say we built the flood way in phases we build the gates south of the city and do phase 1 all the way out to Dugald road. Well when the flood hits, an incomplete system is useless. If we were able to find 700 million to expand the floodway, surely we can find the money for LRT.

It's not a question of finding the money, its about putting together a comprehensive plan that shows the benefits of a well designed complete LRT system then making the required sacrifices for investment.

Also to those who talk of a Gold LRT line like its some huge expense, don't use hyperbole to exaggerate the situation. Yes I understand LRT costs more then BRT but it isn't unnecessary frivolous things like gold rails its an investment in solid efficient infrastructure that is meant to serve the citizens of this fine city for years to come.

Also LRT uses electricity which if I'm not mistaken this province has lots of, while not so much of that oil stuff that seems to be going up in price lately. Hmm maybe planning for the future with LRT would be a good way to hedge against full price increases.

Does anyone have some information details about the plan? Such as the lengths of over and underpasses etc etc actual infrastructure costs. I think we should contact Bombardier to see how much more and LRT plan for this plan would cost. I don't know if anyone at the city has done their homework well enough, to really say it is too expensive. If I'm wrong and then do have a report, then please lets see it and then use it as a tool to combat supporters like me. Produce a report on an LRT plan and lets see the cost comparison, because until something like that is done, all we can really do is take a best guess.

Thank you!

[trueviking]

ah, thanks flatlander, my mistake....i didnt see that there was a map, i had only heard about the forks.....i actually did know that the turn around is to be behind the CBC building....it affects something that i am working on...thats why i thought it was odd.....that is good news.

i still think katz is a putz, but he gets high marks in my book for finally capitulating on this....lets build it.

[1ajs]

how big was calgary when they built their first leg?

[Greco Roman]

how big was calgary when they built their first leg?

I believe that Edmonton was around 500,000 thousand, and my guess is that Calgary was the same.

[jimj_wpg]

My thoughts on this whole mess:

http://www.truwinnipeg.org/2008/09/08/some-questionsand-what-youre-really-getting/

[thegreattait]

Calgary's CTrain was completed May 25th 1981. According to census data Calgary's population in 1981 was 593,000.

However it took 3 years to construct the first leg, so this puts it in 1978, while there is no census data for that year, in 1971 Calgary's population was 403,000.

So in 1978 their population was somewhere between 403,000 and 593,000 with my guess being around 550,000.

To give you an idea Winnipeg's population was 585,000 in 1981.

Sources:
http://www.demographia.com/db-cancma.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Train

[jimj_wpg]

The map shows the terminus being the University of Winnipeg I think. First downtown stop is the Forks, then west on Graham, then turning around at the U of W. Maybe it will put that Spence Street mall to good use!

The stop at the Forks is the first step in getting high density housing at the forks. Bring it on!

And this will clearly be the fastest portion of the "rapid transit" route. ;) Surely you jest.

:haha:

I don't want more development at The Forks. Leave the land alone already. Just get rid of the surface parking and turn the rest into a New York style Central Park.

[jimj_wpg]

This really is a bad plan, and it'll cost us more in the end.

We should just nix BRT and go with rail from the beginning.

I thought Katz was a smart businessman, but I guess I was wrong.

But Murray isn't any better.

They're both just listening to WT too much.

[newflyer]

how big was calgary when they built their first leg?

Calgary was built in 1983 .. and the city was ~600,000. It was a part of the Olympic infrastructure.

[nordique]

i don't know, i'm pretty excited. i just saw the promo video on the freepress website. even though it will take like 10-15-20 years to expand and grow to city wide levels (and what we all imagine in our heads), and i will possibly have moved away to greener pastures by then, i'm still excited for winnipeg.

[newflyer]

This really is a bad plan, and it'll cost us more in the end.

We should just nix BRT and go with rail from the beginning.

I thought Katz was a smart businessman, but I guess I was wrong.

But Murray isn't any better.

They're both just listening to WT too much.

Keep in mind that Calgary just approved a new 8km LRT leg, which is projected to cost 850 Million ....

I am just happy that this BRT system isn't just a glorified diamond lane transit system.

Has anyone heard what the projected time will be to get to the UofM from downtown?

I believe the current express bus is around 20 minutes.

[thegreattait]

You can check out bus times by doing a navigo trip plan.

http://winnipegtransit.com/NavigoPlus/TripPlanner.jsp

based on a trip from the Asper school of business ( which is right across the street from the bus stop at the u of m) to the university of Winnipeg, with a trip departing after 11:45 am, times came in with the following estimate of 32 min - 43 min , depending on the routes that you take.

Pick your own locations and see what you come up with. :notacrook:

[thegreattait]

I'm sure many of you many have seen these websites before, but for those of you who haven't have a look on some difference between LRT and BRT.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt007.htm

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt02.htm

For those that want to know more about Ottawa's BRT check out:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_otw001.htm

[flatlander]

And this will clearly be the fastest portion of the "rapid transit" route. ;) Surely you jest.

:haha:

I don't want more development at The Forks. Leave the land alone already. Just get rid of the surface parking and turn the rest into a New York style Central Park.

Um, Central Park is surrounded by high density housing. Without it Central Park would be a field in the middle of nowhere.

[Only The Lonely..]

Edit:
Needless floodway expansion ? You're kidding right ? How close do we have to get total disaster before it becomes necessary ?

C'mon man, a 1 in 700 year flood!?

If that ever does happen it will be because its the apocalypse.

My point being, is that our province has the money for LRT today, except that we choose to use those dollars to build a depression style mega project that is totally needless.

The current floodway measured up in '97 and it will do so again in the future.

[Only The Lonely..]

Bus corridor plan rolled out
$138-M first section to run from downtown to Jubilee

By: Bartley Kives | Winnipeg Free Press

Updated: September 9 at 12:40 AM CDT

Winnipeg is breaking from recent tradition by borrowing money to pay for a $327-million bus corridor -- and is banking on taxes from new apartment buildings to pay back the loan.

On Monday, Mayor Sam Katz and Premier Gary Doer ended months of speculation by announcing they plan to build a dedicated busway that will eventually connect downtown to the University of Manitoba.

The first leg of the corridor -- which comes with a $138-million price tag -- will begin at Queen Elizabeth Way near The Forks and then snake 3.6 kilometres southwest to Jubilee Avenue near Pembina Highway, crossing over Osborne Street on a new bridge and then tunnelling below CN Rail's Fort Rouge Yards along the way.

The city and province each plan to spend $55 million toward the first leg of the 7corridor, and Ottawa will contribute $28 million.

"I've always said rapid transit is part of the city's future," said Katz, who offered a lukewarm endorsement of bus rapid transit four years after he cancelled a $50-million BRT plan proposed by former mayor Glen Murray.

"I do not believe bus rapid transit will get the majority of people to leave their cars at home," said Katz, who has always maintained Murray's bus rapid transit plan lacked sufficient detail and would have cost taxpayers much more than $50 million if it went ahead.

On Monday, Doer vindicated Katz by praising Winnipeg Transit for scrutinizing every detail of the new busway and declaring its design -- which calls for complete isolation from existing roadways -- will allow for faster bus travel than would have been possible under the former proposal.

"It will be rapid and it will be separate," Doer said.

Katz said he now supports a busway because it will serve as a precursor to a light-rail system, the form of rapid transit he has always preferred.

The new busway has been designed to accommodate a future upgrade to light rail transit by making allowances for clearances, grades and turning angles required for railcars, Winnipeg Transit director Dave Wardrop said.

"Light rail is just around the corner," Katz proclaimed. But he conceded the city has no plans to build light rail in the near or distant future.

In fact, the city does not know how it will finance the $187-million second leg of the bus corridor, beyond the fact the province has agreed to match the city's contribution and Ottawa will be asked to contribute as well.

Katz said the cost of the second phase could be reduced if CN Rail agrees to sell or lease its underused Letellier line, which runs parallel to Pembina Highway.

CN is willing to talk to the city and province about the bus corridor, provided it does not disrupt rail operations, regional spokesman Kevin Franchuk said from Edmonton.

The first leg of the corridor will feature a commuter bike path, some form of park-and-ride facility and at least three busway stations, which Doer and Katz hope will stimulate residential and commercial development.

Newly introduced provincial legislation will allow property and education taxes from new highrise towers and retail stores within the bus-corridor zone to pay back the cash that must be borrowed to build the project.

City property director Phil Sheegl said the city hopes to see 700 new apartment or condo units eventually rise alongside each of 12 new busway stations on the entire corridor. Based on $1,000 of taxes per unit, that could generate $8.4 million a year for the city, he said.

The bus corridor announcement garnered a mixed reaction from opposition politicians and transit lobby groups.

Fort Rouge Coun. Jenny Gerbasi and St. Boniface Coun. Dan Vandal praised the bus corridor plan, although Vandal accused the mayor of flip-flopping on rapid transit.

Manitoba Liberal Leader Jon Gerrard called the policy weak and said Doer should have spent $75 million on a more ambitious rapid-transit system.

Paul Hesse of pro-bus Rapid Transition Coalition called the plan a good start, provided new corridors are built in other areas of Winnipeg. Jim Jaworski of pro-rail group TRU Winnipeg panned the new plan.

More details about financing for the plan will emerge in coming weeks, transit director Wardrop promised.

bartley.kives@freepress.mb.ca


BUSWAY FINALLY ON THE WAY

Confirming months of speculation, Premier Gary Doer and Mayor Sam Katz announced their intention to build a $327-million bus corridor between downtown and the University of Manitoba.

Breaking with recent fiscal policy, the city plans to use debt financing to pay for its share of the first phase of the corridor. It will then backfill the loan with property taxes expected to flow from new residential and commercial developments near new busway stations.

Although it will be possible to convert the busway into a light rail corridor at some point in the future, the city has no actual plans to build a light rail transit system.

The city has already started planning to build phase 1 of the busway, but has no start date for phase 2 until it conducts negotiations with CN Rail and secures more federal financing.


PHASE 1

Cost: $138 million

Length: 3.6 kilometres

Route: From Queen Elizabeth Way (southern end of Main Street) to the intersection of Jubilee Avenue and Pembina Highway

Features: A new bridge over Osborne Street and a new tunnel below CN Rail's Fort Rouge Yards

Stations: Slated for Harkness Avenue, Osborne Street, Morley Avenue and possibly Jubilee

Financing: $55 million from the city, $55 million from the province and $28 million from Ottawa. The federal money is in the form of $17.5 million in transit funds announced last March, plus $10 million already granted to Winnipeg to purchase buses.

Construction: Could begin in spring 2009, pending council approval

Completion: Within three years


PHASE 2

Cost: $189 million

Length: six kilometres

Route: From Jubilee Avenue to Bison Drive

Features: New bridges over Pembina Highway and Bishop Grandin Boulevard.

Stations: Slated for Windermere Avenue, McGillivray Boulevard, Clarence Avenue, Chevrier Boulevard, Plaza Drive, Chancellor Drive, Markham Avenue and Bison Drive

Financing, construction and completion: Dependent on negotiations with CN Rail, which might be persuaded to sell or lease the underused Letellier Line that runs loosely parallel to Pembina Highway

[Only The Lonely..]

Forward for Transit

Updated: September 9 at 08:57 AM CDT | Winnipeg Free Press Editorial

On July 19, 1877, Winnipeg’s first experiment with rapid transit lasted just one day when a horse-drawn omnibus continually got stuck in the mud and failed to attract many passengers, who apparently found it faster and more convenient to ride their own horse. Other transit systems followed in its tracks, however, not because it was the environmentally right thing to do, but because it was necessary if the community was going to thrive and achieve its goal of becoming a first-class city.

Fast-forward to 2008 and Winnipeg has a transit system that also seems like it's stuck in the mud. Surveys show that people would like to take the bus, but for many citizens it takes too long for Transit Tom to get from point A to point B. As a result, the city's arteries are clogged with more and more cars, and there are fewer and fewer bus passengers, increasing the wear and tear on roads, bridges and the environment.

It's been obvious for many years -- the first truly rapid transit system was envisioned 40 years ago -- that the city needed to modernize its transportation infrastructure with inner and outer ring roads and a faster and more effective transit system to reduce the dominion of King Car.

It was starting to seem like the trend would never be reversed, but the city announced the first tentative steps Monday to fix the problem, albeit at a pace that isn't much faster than that first horse-drawn omnibus. The $138-million price tag for the first leg of the project, to be shared by the three levels of government, will create a dedicated busway from downtown to the area of Pembina Highway and Jubilee Avenue.

It's a small start, but the city had to start somewhere. The possible spinoff benefits are particularly exciting. It's believed that new housing and commercial developments will sprout along the route, and park-and-ride stations will allow motorists to leave their cars closer to home. The system apparently doesn't preclude an upgrade to light rail transit -- the Cadillac of rapid transit -- but that's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

The city should also study the feasibility of adding private feeder buses that can pick people up in the suburbs and deliver them to transit stations, an option that might induce even more people to leave their cars in the garage.

Mayor Sam Katz was slow to get on board the rapid transit bandwagon, a delay that has increased the cost, but he deserves full credit for embracing the current initiative. Once the benefits of the system become apparent in three years, citizens in other parts of the city will begin demanding the same service. They, too, will want the new development and the ability to park their cars near a transit station, so they can take the bus to work.

When that trend takes off, there will be no stopping the drive for a full and complete rapid transit system across the city

[thegreattait]

Forward for Transit

Updated: September 9 at 08:57 AM CDT | Winnipeg Free Press Editorial

On July 19, 1877, Winnipeg’s first experiment with rapid transit lasted just one day when a horse-drawn omnibus continually got stuck in the mud and failed to attract many passengers, who apparently found it faster and more convenient to ride their own horse. Other transit systems followed in its tracks, however, not because it was the environmentally right thing to do, but because it was necessary if the community was going to thrive and achieve its goal of becoming a first-class city.

Fast-forward to 2008 and Winnipeg has a transit system that also seems like it's stuck in the mud. Surveys show that people would like to take the bus, but for many citizens it takes too long for Transit Tom to get from point A to point B. As a result, the city's arteries are clogged with more and more cars, and there are fewer and fewer bus passengers, increasing the wear and tear on roads, bridges and the environment.

It's been obvious for many years -- the first truly rapid transit system was envisioned 40 years ago -- that the city needed to modernize its transportation infrastructure with inner and outer ring roads and a faster and more effective transit system to reduce the dominion of King Car.

It was starting to seem like the trend would never be reversed, but the city announced the first tentative steps Monday to fix the problem, albeit at a pace that isn't much faster than that first horse-drawn omnibus. The $138-million price tag for the first leg of the project, to be shared by the three levels of government, will create a dedicated busway from downtown to the area of Pembina Highway and Jubilee Avenue.

It's a small start, but the city had to start somewhere. The possible spinoff benefits are particularly exciting. It's believed that new housing and commercial developments will sprout along the route, and park-and-ride stations will allow motorists to leave their cars closer to home. The system apparently doesn't preclude an upgrade to light rail transit -- the Cadillac of rapid transit -- but that's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

The city should also study the feasibility of adding private feeder buses that can pick people up in the suburbs and deliver them to transit stations, an option that might induce even more people to leave their cars in the garage.

Mayor Sam Katz was slow to get on board the rapid transit bandwagon, a delay that has increased the cost, but he deserves full credit for embracing the current initiative. Once the benefits of the system become apparent in three years, citizens in other parts of the city will begin demanding the same service. They, too, will want the new development and the ability to park their cars near a transit station, so they can take the bus to work.

When that trend takes off, there will be no stopping the drive for a full and complete rapid transit system across the city


Hmm LRT is the Cadillac,,, I'm pretty sure that title goes to Heavy Rail Subway / Metro systems.

.... or is that the Bentley :haha:

[drew]

Winnipeg housing project expands after rapid-transit plans unveiled

Last Updated: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 | 1:03 PM CT
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/09/09/transit-development.html

Andrew Marquess stands with maps of the land he plans to develop around the Fort Rouge rail yards in Winnipeg. Andrew Marquess stands with maps of the land he plans to develop around the Fort Rouge rail yards in Winnipeg.

Winnipeg's Lord Roberts neighbourhood is set to undergo major redevelopment following the city's $138 million rapid-transit announcement on Monday.

Developer Andrew Marquess bought four hectares of scrubland around the Fort Rouge rail yards eight months ago, and planned to build between 1,000 and 1,200 housing units on it.

Now that the city has unveiled plans to run a rapid-transit corridor right past the land, Marquess says he'll expand his plans for the area.

"For the townhouse portion of it, the transit was a nice-to-have, but … it allows us potentially to put some more density on there in the form of doing an extra concrete highrise tower, or maybe two," he said.

Jenny Gerbasi, city councillor for the area, said the person who previously owned the land decided to sell after the former mayor Glen Murray's rapid-transit plan was shelved nearly three years ago.

"It's very good news for urban infill development," she said.
Unaware of transit plans

Marquess said he is not receiving any grants from the city for the project, and he did not know the rapid-transit plan was going ahead when he purchased the land.

"It's an interesting piece of land in that, you know, it's in a great neighbourhood and it's really close to a lot of amenities. So for us, we were just fortunate to get that large of chunk of land just in its location," he said.

"The transit corridor is just something that's a really unique opportunity, to build something there that you could incorporate the transit in with your development."

He still has to consult with the neighbours and work his way through the city's planning process before construction can begin. He hopes to see shovels in the ground as early as next summer, starting at a dead-end on Morley Avenue.

"I would see us moving from north to south," he said. "I would see us doing the townhouses first, and then I would see us doing the concrete towers, which would probably be located on the south end of the site."

The city and the province announced Monday the agreement to build a $138-million rapid transit corridor connecting the city's downtown with the Fort Rouge neighbourhood.

The three-year project will build a dedicated bus lane from The Forks in downtown Winnipeg to Jubilee Avenue; maps on display at Monday's announcement showed potential stops on the bus line near Morley Avenue, Confusion Corner, Harkness Avenue and Union Station.

A second stage of the project would run from Jubilee Avenue to Bison Drive, near the University of Manitoba, officials said, although they offered no details about when that might happen or how it would be financed.

[Biff]

People will most likely have some criticisms towards Andrew Marquess and his style of projects, but you can't question his recent track record of getting things done - Hargrave Tower conversion, Apartments off McPhillips and Troy and now the old Sheraton conversion. He has come through with what he has said he would do.

[Dado]

How long into the future will LRT be delayed after Phase I is built? 5, 10, 15, 20...25 years like with the Ottawa Trasitway conversion to an LRT?

You don't know the half of it... it will probably be about 35 years after the Transitway was first built before it gets converted to LRT since we're planning to spend the next 10 years dicking around figuring out how to build a tunnel.

Unfortunately, conversion gets put off by statements like this from the various consultants:

"A busway can be designed to LRT geometric criteria, - and even LRT load requirements - but the in-place investment in the busway guideway is not something easily disposed of - and the BRT argument for equivalent capacity is hard to refute."
This was from our 2003 Rapid Transit Expansion Study (aka RTES). That tidbit was written the year before our transit authority started to curtail the number of routes operating because it was causing platform congestion. So much for equivalent capacity.

In other words, the BRT engineers will see to it that once you have BRT you can't easily get rid of it, even if it is sold to you on the basis of being a step towards LRT. They will fight you to the bitter end, even once the system is clogged up buses. It's a nice idea to build BRT and then upgrade to LRT, but the political reality is that it will only happen under extraordinary circumstances.

[Only The Lonely..]

People will most likely have some criticisms towards Andrew Marquess and his style of projects, but you can't question his recent track record of getting things done - Hargrave Tower conversion, Apartments off McPhillips and Troy and now the old Sheraton conversion. He has come through with what he has said he would do.

Hopefully, it isn't another Bergenisk commie-block.

It does sound promising so far..

[Dado]

Then there's this issue of quality. Okay, that one strikes me as a red herring because anybody who has ever taken a ride on BRT knows that it's hardly the same as simply riding the bus on some random route. You're speeding along, there aren't any stop lights, there's no lurching every couple of blocks on average,
Ever been in an articulated bus going at 80 km/h or faster on a bumpy road? That's uncomfortable. And let there be no doubt - buses degrade the quality of the asphalt very quickly in a freeze-thaw climate, so after a few years the ride is miserable.

When I've spoken of BRT I've always assumed we were talking about a system similar to Ottawa's Busway and that system is just as good as LRT in my opinion (or , at least, the difference is negligible in my view)

If
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2113/2312819837_252d33ec10.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2312819837/

you
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2042/2244012157_716f9e24b5.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2244012157/

say
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2539619824_09dec2742c.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2539619824/

so.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/2538802663_345a76e49d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2538802663/


On a side note, I see absolutely no point whatsover in building BRT in rail corridors, which is what I read the second phase will be using. The last time we did that around here we've had to spend money twice: to relocate the railway (i.e. rebuild it) and then build the busway, whereas with light rail we could have just added tracks to the corridor. La Ville de Gatineau (across the Ottawa River in Quebec) will be building BRT in a rail corridor and sure enough they're going to rebuild the railway as well. It's just the height of stupidity to build BRT in a rail corridor because you end up doing half of what you need to do to build LRT anyway. It's also easy to build LRT in a rail corridor because you can deliver the supplies by railway construction train rather than trucking it all in.

[Only The Lonely..]

:previous:

Crap! That's a lot of congestion.

[MalcolmTucker]

:previous:

Crap! That's a lot of congestion.

Yeah, and one of the chief reasons Ottawa's use of busways to move people around will slowly but surely be replaced by rail in the coming years. (they are still going to use busways or diamond lanes for suburb to suburb travel)

The difficulty of busways is once they get congested, there isn't an easy way to relieve it. For LRT, you can always buy rolling stock with less seats, more floor area, have a continuous floor instead of individual cars etc. to increase capacity. For the busways once you hit the limit, your pretty much hooped.

[Pegger5]

Come on guys. give the designers/engineers credit. They will look at the mistakes Ottawa made and try to avoid them. Ottawa has a lot of experience in "what to do and not to do"
Winnipeg can thank Ottawa for "pardon the pun" paving the way... It will be designed for LRT period! Most of Ottawa's BRT were not thus the constant debate there...

[Kinguni]

say
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2539619824_09dec2742c.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2539619824/

so.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/2538802663_345a76e49d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2538802663/



That set: was there a specific reason for the buses backing up that day, or a regular occurrence?

Love your photo sets BTW.

[Biff]

What i don't understand about phase 2 of the proposal is this - they say it is to be a totally dedicated right of way for buses and that there will be bridges at Jubilee and Bishop Grandin. If you follow the route on google there are no less than 12 cross street to where the line would go. Hopefully i need to give the designers the benefit of the doubt but i can't believe they would just dead end these streets and i would think that it would be cost prohibitive to make the whole thing elevated so...what gives?

[Dado]

Come on guys. give the designers/engineers credit. They will look at the mistakes Ottawa made and try to avoid them. Ottawa has a lot of experience in "what to do and not to do"
Winnipeg can thank Ottawa for "pardon the pun" paving the way... It will be designed for LRT period! Most of Ottawa's BRT were not thus the constant debate there...
The Transitway was designed to LRT criteria w.r.t. radii, clearances, gradients and structural loadings. Theoretically, a last minute decision at the time of construction could have seen rail laid rather than asphalt and it wouldn't have caused any grief to make that change. A 'transitway' is literally a technology-neutral transit corridor designed to accommodate a wide range of transit technologies. We could even put in heavy rail metro.

The constant debate is really between the entire transit-using population (and then some) who are sick of the poor transit experience and want rail and the small cadre of BRT engineers who came up with it not wanting to see their busways converted. The lessons to learn from Ottawa are not so much technical as political. Does Winnipeg have a schedule for conversion to LRT or criteria to be met for conversion to take place? If not there'll be never-ending arguments about it. Get those criteria or schedules on the public record now, before it is built. Will the cost of conversion appear in the long term capital budget along with everything else? Were the politicians told how much extra it costs to build a busway and then convert it later? Nobody thought about those things in Ottawa 30 years ago but we ought to have.

[Dado]

That set: was there a specific reason for the buses backing up that day, or a regular occurrence?

Love your photo sets BTW.

Actually, they're not mine. I have no idea who the guy is who is taking them but I'm sure glad he does because he's a veritable gold mine of embarrassing pictures. As for the particulars of that day, that extent of backing up is not a regular occurrence. I believe there had been an accident involving one of the articulated buses. An all-to-common problem is bus engine failure, which results in other buses having to overtake the disabled bus rather than just pushing it into a siding like with LRT. I suspect that is what happened, or rather was the aggravating circumstances leading to an accident.

There are regular backups on a smaller scale, especially in the afternoon. Downtown Ottawa is generally one long line of buses in the evening - you can watch it any day from the City's own live webcams. Winter snowfall backups are now routine - even in the mornings, which hadn't historically been a problem. The articulated buses frequently wrap themselves around poles in the snow and can't make proper turns because the powerplant is in the tail section in order to keep most of the bus as low floor. The BRT model requires buses to leave the Transitway to maintain "transfer-free rides", so there's always the potential for the artics to get stuck in the snow at the turn-offs as well as at stations when passing other buses. In order to avoid this, the Transitway is cleared, salted and sanded within an inch of its life, so consequently our buses are generally filthy in the winter and stops can't be seen from inside.

[drew]

so...what gives?

Probably phase 2 of the project...;)

[Ruckus]

The proposal sounds promising Winnipeg, although, comments from Dado and the complete Ottawa experience do raise valid concerns for the current BRT application, as well as future transitioning to LRT.

Hope everything works out alright.

[Andy6]

The constant debate is really between the entire transit-using population (and then some) who are sick of the poor transit experience and want rail and the small cadre of BRT engineers who came up with it not wanting to see their busways converted. The lessons to learn from Ottawa are not so much technical as political. Does Winnipeg have a schedule for conversion to LRT or criteria to be met for conversion to take place? If not there'll be never-ending arguments about it.

I would doubt it because Winnipeg's layout as a city is much different than Ottawa's and it is unlikely that the BRT, which basically replaces a single bus route with minimal opportunity for feeder lines into the stations, would become congested enough to warrant the huge expense of conversion. Were more funds to become available in the future, it would make much more sense to extend similar BRT transitways into other parts of the city.

[Tower Crane]

Can someone please post a photo of what exactly the BRT roadway and buses will look like for the Winnipeg proposal.
I have not seen BRT and by reading the posts I'm not sure if there is some sort of guideway on the road for BRT, is there???
What happens at crossroads, does BRT have the right of way???

[Andy6]

Repasting the map (http://www.winnipeg.ca/cao/media/news/nr_2008/080908_SouthwestTransitCorridor.pdf)

I don't know if there would be any crossroads in Phase I (between Harkness and Jubilee) -- it would be mostly an unimpeded flow, I think.

I would assume that the vehicles themselves would just be ordinary buses, since Phase I would make little sense unless the Pembina buses coming from the south could proceed straight onto the transitway at Jubilee. Of course, I'd expect that some sort of high-end bus would be bought for this route. But maybe someone else knows more about it.

[Only The Lonely..]

Rapid money waste: Iffy transit plan makes little sense

By Tom Brodbeck | Winnipeg Sun - Tuesday, Aug. 9 , 2008

Here we go again.

Another expensive bus rapid-transit announcement with no details, no business plan, incomplete funding and at best a sketchy timeline.

That is, if the city can find the money to do it. If they can, the first half of the route -- from downtown to Jubilee Avenue -- could be built in three years, says Mayor Sam Katz.

And if the feds are on board for the second half of the route, then maybe they can build that part in six years -- but only if the city can obtain the land currently owned by CN.

It's a lot of ifs.

Oh, and by the way, Katz doesn't think BRT will get most people out of their cars and into transit.

He thinks only light-rail transit can do that. In fact, he promised Winnipeggers during yesterday's announcement that they "will" have LRT and that LRT is "just around the corner." Then why did he and Premier Gary Doer announce BRT?

Well, because if we don't get LRT, we'll do BRT along the same route -- even though it won't do much to increase ridership.

Follow?

How can they put a price tag on rapid transit when they don't even know if they're building a bus corridor or a light-rail line?

Considering the city wants to spend $323 million on a rapid transit, you'd think they would have their act together.

They also had no details whatsoever on the proposed BRT line.

All they released yesterday was a one-page news release with vague language about "rapid transit." There was no business plan, no funding details and no concrete timeline.

And there are still no estimates on how much faster BRT could transport people compared with regular, on-road buses -- a key piece of information required to do any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

The only way you're going to get people out of their cars and into transit is if you shorten travel times. But it has to be a substantial improvement over the status quo.

Right now it, it takes about 20 to 25 minutes to get from downtown to the U of M on a regular, on-road express bus. How much faster would it take with bus rapid transit?

They have no estimates. If it only shaves five or six minutes off the trip, for example, does anyone really think people are going to leave their cars at home and flock to BRT?

Think about it.

Are we going to spend $323 million on a BRT corridor that sounds nice and flashy and forward-thinking but in reality does very little to increase ridership?

Even Katz doesn't believe BRT will substantially increase ridership. He says we need LRT to do that.

So why is he announcing a BRT system?

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'd rather see $323 million go towards something concrete, like fixing Winnipeg's combined sewer system to end the practice of dumping raw sewage into our rivers.

How about using $323 million for more hybrid government vehicles or to retrofit public buildings with geothermal energy?

Those would result in substantial, guaranteed cuts to carbon emissions.

At best, BRT may attract a few more riders and result in very modest emission reductions, but there's no guarantee.

Sounds like a colossal waste of money to me.

[Only The Lonely..]

Winnipeg Sun Poll of the Day:

Do you support the rapid transit plan unveiled by the province and city?

yes 46%
no 54%


Total Votes for this Question: 1358

[Only The Lonely..]

Winnipeg Free Press Online Poll:

Do you think the first phase of the rapid transit plan is the right path?
Yes 55%
No 45%

Total Votes: 1496

[Only The Lonely..]

Free Press Rapid Transit Video:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/multimedia/index.html?bcpid1494875036?bclid=1578011875&bctid=1781124612

Why does it show a train running down Portage Ave? I got my hopes up.

[thegreattait]

People will most likely have some criticisms towards Andrew Marquess and his style of projects, but you can't question his recent track record of getting things done - Hargrave Tower conversion, Apartments off McPhillips and Troy and now the old Sheraton conversion. He has come through with what he has said he would do.

I've been in one of the B&M Land "Andrew Marquess" properties downtown and those were some of the nicest apartments I have seen in that price range. Also from hearing first hand from the tenants, the company is very responsive to their needs. I think Andrew Marquess is a great addition to this city, his business principles ensure things get done and he believes in spending money to do a project right.

That's a rare thing in Winnipeg. So this announcement is great news, I just hopes he wants to pressure the city a little and say build LRT and you get two concrete towers. That would be nice.

[Greco Roman]

Free Press Rapid Transit Video:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/multimedia/index.html?bcpid1494875036?bclid=1578011875&bctid=1781124612

Why does it show a train running down Portage Ave? I got my hopes up.


I know, eh? Talk about false advertisement :rolleyes:

What a joke of a video.

[Dado]

I would doubt it because Winnipeg's layout as a city is much different than Ottawa's and it is unlikely that the BRT, which basically replaces a single bus route with minimal opportunity for feeder lines into the stations, would become congested enough to warrant the huge expense of conversion.
If that's the case, why bother doing rapid transit at all?

I don't know about the route part, but this study says that this will be the most intensively-used corridor in Winnipeg, with something on the order of 23,000 riders per day:
http://winnipeg.ca/cao/pdfs/news_releases/RTTFFinalReport.pdf

That's enough for LRT, but yes, once you've got BRT in a corridor with that level of ridership there's unlikely to be sufficient grounds to ever convert it. This is a commitment for BRT for the long term, unless there is a very strong political will to change it over. Once built, the BRT consultants will then argue that it doesn't make sense to build LRT in any other corridor because it won't be part of a complete LRT network.

I have to say I found that report very disconcerting because of the claims made in it about BRT and especially LRT in Ottawa. Seems that Ottawa's favourite BRT consultants have been busy again.

[Greco Roman]

If that's the case, why bother doing rapid transit at all?
This is a commitment for BRT for the long term, unless there is a very strong political will to change it over. Once built, the BRT consultants will then argue that it doesn't make sense to build LRT in any other corridor because it won't be part of a complete LRT network.

This is my biggest reason why I am against BRT. Once it's in, we will never be able to convert it. And I don't care what any politician tells me, because we all know that BRT is here to stay in Winnipeg. LRT never had a chance in hell as far as I'm concerned. So I wish that shammy would stop lying to the public and just say that Winnipeg will never get anything better than poor-mans rapid transit. This is the reality we face. Sam Katz is a liar.

[Tower Crane]

I have watched the video a few times now. Those 2 ( Katz and Doer ) should be be ashamed of that presentation. Alot of fluffy nothingness and a LRT style train used in the video while announcing BRT. I guess they figure that the public aren't smart enough to see the difference. I believe that they are just being themselves some time.....the Smoke and Mirrors Magic Act by Katz and Doer.

[Spocket]

Ever been in an articulated bus going at 80 km/h or faster on a bumpy road? That's uncomfortable. And let there be no doubt - buses degrade the quality of the asphalt very quickly in a freeze-thaw climate, so after a few years the ride is miserable.



If
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2113/2312819837_252d33ec10.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2312819837/

you
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2042/2244012157_716f9e24b5.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2244012157/

say
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2539619824_09dec2742c.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2539619824/

so.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/2538802663_345a76e49d.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/2538802663/


On a side note, I see absolutely no point whatsover in building BRT in rail corridors, which is what I read the second phase will be using. The last time we did that around here we've had to spend money twice: to relocate the railway (i.e. rebuild it) and then build the busway, whereas with light rail we could have just added tracks to the corridor. La Ville de Gatineau (across the Ottawa River in Quebec) will be building BRT in a rail corridor and sure enough they're going to rebuild the railway as well. It's just the height of stupidity to build BRT in a rail corridor because you end up doing half of what you need to do to build LRT anyway. It's also easy to build LRT in a rail corridor because you can deliver the supplies by railway construction train rather than trucking it all in.

Okay, to answer your question, yes, in fact I've ridden articulated buses many times on a dedicated bus corridor. That's why I keep saying I've ridden articulated buses many times on a dedicated bus corridor.

What you didn't mention right there was that those aren't pictures of the busway itself but pictures of the downtown portion or near it where the buses enter the regular street system. It's no different than taking a picture of the Queensway around five o'clock looking, say, westbound towards Kanata. And why does everybody get on the Queensway ? Because it's one of only two practical routes that will take you past the Greenbelt to reach Kanata or Stittsville. You could take Carling I suppose but the vast majority of people who live in Kanata don't live in Morgan's Grant and Carling won't take you to Stittsville anyway.

Let's not try and compare Winnipeg to Ottawa though. For one thing, Ottawa is considerably denser inside the greenbelt (and outside of it too for that matter where there is urbanization)

Secondly, Ottawa and Winnipeg are spread out in completely different ways. Ottawa ends up having to funnel traffic onto what basically boils down to three or four major routes to reach the core whereas in Winnipeg you have at least seven that I can think of off the top of my head. So here, those routes are handling less traffic and on top of that, our traffic capacity along those routes is much higher than equivalent arteries in Ottawa. We have, through sheer luck really, some major advantages where capacity and volumes are concerned. We can re-route onto other streets to serve the same people. For example, if Graham finds itself too packed with buses one day, Portage Avenue makes a very handy re-routing option.

Thirdly, Ottawa has much higher transit usage per-capita , has a higher population even before taking the Quebec side into account, and has a considerably greater need to serve the downtown employment hub along Slater and Albert. There is no real comparison between these two cities that can be made thanks to their layout, density, and ridership differences. This is truly apples and oranges.

Lastly, Ottawa's problem is a function of its success with BRT. You also have healthier funding levels thanks to the NCC and the federal commitment to making Ottawa a showpiece whenever possible. As well, the only real solution to Ottawa's current issue with buses downtown is a tunnel. Whether it had been trains or buses Ottawa originally went with, sooner or later this would have come up.

[thegreattait]

The topic has fallen off the radar recently, but the bad decision to run a transmission line down the West side of Lake Winnipeg remains. The projected cost difference is an estimate $400 million more then running the line down the east side of Lake Winnipeg.

What does this have to do with Transit in Winnipeg? Well surely the if province of Manitoba has the budget to waste $400 million, then they will have $400 million to redirect to LRT funding in Winnipeg, once they smarten up and make a better decision.

If canceling their previous decision and instead decide to run the line down the east side, additional funds could be redirected to build both phases of the rapid transit route at one time and make that route Light Rail, instead of a bus corridor.

Smart thinking, two good ideas for the price of one.

Just a thought. Any comments?

[madsad]

:previous:
Rapid money waste: Iffy transit plan makes little sense

By Tom Brodbeck | Winnipeg Sun - Tuesday, Aug. 9 , 2008



I agree with Brodbeck on one point. There was too little information presented with this song-and-dance release. Now is the time to generate the business and communications plan for this BRT system. Will it be a dedicated line? Or will existing routes (61, 62, 63) just tie into it? If it is a dedicated line, will it be branded with a unique identity? Can Winnipegers suggest the name of the system (like the City slogan)? Will special vehicles be used? WiFi? Off-board fare collection? Frequency? Running times? Span of service? A million questions are unanswered and need to be addressed now, not later. This is the wrong way to plan a BRT system.

However, of course there will unquestionably be travel time savings with a dedicated running way. :koko: That's the whole purpose of having a dedicated ROW.

The travel times between the U of M and downtown by bus are under-represented here, in the interest of making a pro-light rail (or, in Mr Brodbeck's case, anti-transit-investment) arguments. The express buses, running in mixed traffic and subject to all the delays associated with mixed traffic operations take far more time than 20 minutes to travel between the U and Downtown. The 61's travel time is currently 31 minutes, not 20 or 25, and I hazard a guess that it rarely makes it within that time, particularly during Winter weather.

A dedicated right of way will mean, barring the odd incident on the busway (which can happen with light rail as well), that the travel time is 25 minutes (an estimate, it could end up being more or less) rain or shine, car accidents and congestion on Pembina, or no congestion, it does not matter, it will always be 25 minutes. That is a service guarantee and that will attract choice riders.

And thank-you, Sprocket, for some level-headed analysis of the congested (because it's well used) BRT system in Ottawa.

[OttawaSteve]

That set: was there a specific reason for the buses backing up that day, or a regular occurrence?

In the specific photos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/sets/72157605355583092/) you're referring to (from May 30th, 2008), the cause was a broken-down truck on one of the main roads leading over to Quebec ...nowhere near the Transitway itself. The ensuing gridlock on cross-streets ended up blocking the Transitway.

That was a particularly bad day, but this sort of thing happens all the time here (although usually on a smaller scale). In fact, during this morning's rush hour, westbound Transitway service had to detour due to a fire (pics here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/sets/72157605354974439/))

Because the Transitway is operating so close to capacity, even the slightest delay (say, an intersection being blocked for one or two light cycles) creates a major ripple effect.

The most common culprits are:

- gridlock on streets that intersect with the Transitway. Even construction/accidents across the river in Gatineau will cause traffic to back up into downtown Ottawa, affecting the north/south streets which intersect with the east-west Transitway.
- broken down buses
- accidents
- security incidents, emergencies, etc. on board buses
- buses loading/unloading wheelchairs
- virtually any amount of snow (as mentioned already)


What you didn't mention right there was that those aren't pictures of the busway itself but pictures of the downtown portion or near it where the buses enter the regular street system.

Yes, but the delays experienced downtown will inevitably affect the entire system (often for hours afterward)... the point being that the system is only as strong as its weakest link.

Cheers,
Steve (Ottawa)

[Reed Solomon]

The topic has fallen off the radar recently, but the bad decision to run a transmission line down the West side of Lake Winnipeg remains. The projected cost difference is an estimate $400 million more then running the line down the east side of Lake Winnipeg.

What does this have to do with Transit in Winnipeg? Well surely the if province of Manitoba has the budget to waste $400 million, then they will have $400 million to redirect to LRT funding in Winnipeg, once they smarten up and make a better decision.

If canceling their previous decision and instead decide to run the line down the east side, additional funds could be redirected to build both phases of the rapid transit route at one time and make that route Light Rail, instead of a bus corridor.

Smart thinking, two good ideas for the price of one.

Just a thought. Any comments?


You do know where that money comes from right? Don't go giving the NDP any ideas. Granted I wouldn't care personally about the cost as long as we got LRT.

[thegreattait]

You do know where that money comes from right? Don't go giving the NDP any ideas. Granted I wouldn't care personally about the cost as long as we got LRT.

Its tax payers money, its money signed from power agreements with the US. All I'm saying is instead of wasting money frivolously for no reason on going down the west side, they should smarten up go down the east and re-invest that money into LRT.

Its kind of like stealing for Hydro,which I normally hate when the NDP does it. However, you could say its securing a long term hydro client since LRT uses electricity.

[thegreattait]

Some interesting question raised in the Winnipeg Free Press

Transit plan questioned

Re: $138 M for busway's first phase (winnipegfreepress.com), Sept. 8.

"The corridor is intended to stimulate the construction of high-rise apartments or condos around the busway stations and use property taxes from these new developments to help pay back the cost of the project."

Is there evidence elsewhere that bus-rail transit has stimulated significant growth for payback in property taxes?

Secondly, where has conversion from BRT to light-rail transit occurred without enormous double disruption to the community, unless track is initially laid in the busway?

Thirdly, at what extra cost and time will it take to convert to LRT and will real estate or other taxes cover that conversion cost?

George Barsky

Gaithersburg, Maryland

[1ajs]

aww look at dynamic calgary..... lol

[Greco Roman]

aww look at dynamic calgary..... lol

What are you referring to?

[thegreattait]

:previous: I think he is referring to my post about the comment in the WFP about TIFF development supporting LRT costs. Calgary has a lot of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) that was built around their LRT.

Did they implement TIFF around their LRT? I never heard about it, but I could be wrong

I think it can help, but I don't know if it could ever fund it 100%. Nor do I think it should, but I do think TIFF developments with LRT would be greater then BRT.

[wags_in_the_peg]

gas hit $1.47 today, bye bye suburbs?

[sledhead35]

id hate to see a suburban gost town, but i could see those house prices going down because they are obviously becoming less desirable. hopefully they are filled up as fast as people move into the core.

[sledhead35]

:sly: wait a minute;$1.47? OUCH!

[Only The Lonely..]

gas hit $1.47 today, bye bye suburbs?

No, the surburbs will live on.

Living in the 'burbs is really about picking your neighbours and getting to live with like minded people usually of a similiar ethnic background and social standing.

Gas could cost $3.00 / Litre and people would still want to live out in the middle of nowhere.

Besides, even as far back as Ancient Rome the well to do had country villas, and later in Industrial Britain you had Garden Cities where people could get away from the dirt and crime of London, Birmingham or Glasgow.


The idea of escaping the city is as old as western civilization itself.

It's a desire that is unlikely to change, even in light of rising fuel costs.

[The Jabroni]

More of the reason why you should take public transit instead.

Bike as well!! It's more fun that way knowing that you put so much effort into getting to your destination.

[Kinguni]

I live in the suburbs and I like it, although I do wish we were closer in at times, but I don't need a cottage, I have my backyard. I use public transit to go to work and back. Two of my kids walk to school, my eldest uses transit to go the U of M. Would be nice if she could get from Westdale to the University faster with better connections though. More expensive fuel might convince my wife to use the bus as well, but it could add an hour or more to her travel time every day.

They say that with a BRT in place one could get from Westdale to downtown in under half an hour. I'm working an evening shift right now and have to leave over an hour before I start. Due to the nature of my work I'd probably have to leave that early if I drove to work since I'd have to take a bus downtown from the barn on Osborne anyways.

Let's get this BRT done, but faster. In 6 years we might have a BRT line to Bison Drive. Big deal. Let's get it done to Charleswood, Transcona, St. Vital and North Kildonan in that time.

[spiritedenergy]

wow six years to build a road and put buses on it... in six years time the dollar may have already collapsed and with it the whole north american economy...

[Greco Roman]

wow six years to build a road and put buses on it... in six years time the dollar may have already collapsed and with it the whole north american economy...

And you'll have probably moved back to your homeland by then ;)

[Greco Roman]

It's a real shame Winnipeg can't support an LRT system right from the start like Hamilton does.


Public Consultation: Overwhelming Support for LRT

Public Works staff just published a public consultation update (PDF link) on phase two of the Rapid Transit Feasibility Study that reports back to the public works committee on the public outreach program the rapid transit team undertook during the summer.

In the update just published, staff report that they heard from more than 1,600 people, of whom 94% support rapid transit. That support breaks down as follows:

66% support Light Rail Transit;
8% support Bus Rapid Transit; and
20% support either mode.

In addition, 91% are in favour of implementing additional rapid transit routes once the recommended routes are established.

Respondents cited several reasons for supporting light rail. 71% mentioned the environmental impact, 67% mentioned potential to attract new ridership, 58% mentioned potential economic benefit, and 51% mentioned sustainability.

Other reasons mentioned include operating cost, life cycle analysis, vehicle cost, and construction cost.

Support was tied to funding from higher levels of government. 90% of respondents would support rapid transit if Metrolinx funded 75% of the capital costs; 81% would support it if Metrolinx funded 66%; and 65% sould support it even if Metrolinx funded only 50%.

The report also included letters of endorsement from several community and business organizations, including:

Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington: LRT endorsement
Clean Air Hamilton: LRT endorsement
Downtown BIA: LRT endorsement
International Village BIA: LRT endorsement
Durand Neighbourhood Association: LRT endorsement
Ainslie Wood/Westdale Community Association: LRT endorsement
Hamilton Chamber of Commerce: LRT endorsement
McMaster Students Union: LRT endorsement
Hamilton Partners for Healthy Weights: LRT endorsement
McMaster University: general Rapid Transit endorsement

The report.............
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyre...15PW08043b.pdf

[Greco Roman]

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5691/lightrailrenderka1.jpg

This is a rendering for an LRT system in Hamilton. I love this pic. This kind of system would be a great addtion for Winnipeg.

[Andy6]

I think a busway system makes a lot more sense. Trying to get rapid transit to move around the CBD on a dedicated route is going to be very difficult and hugely expensive. A BRT system works much better by building dedicated busways free of cross-streets where it is economical to do so (in the areas outside the core, as in the current proposal) and then allowing the buses to come off the busway and use the existing downtown streets in whatever way is most efficient at a given moment.

LRT would service a single inflexible route with a requirement for many people to transfer onto or off of buses at each end. It would require throwing every cent the city ever had for transportation into what is essentially a replacement for the Pembina bus route, and even then I doubt it would be affordable.

[Greco Roman]

I think a busway system makes a lot more sense. Trying to get rapid transit to move around the CBD on a dedicated route is going to be very difficult and hugely expensive. A BRT system works much better by building dedicated busways free of cross-streets where it is economical to do so (in the areas outside the core, as in the current proposal) and then allowing the buses to come off the busway and use the existing downtown streets in whatever way is most efficient at a given moment.

LRT would service a single inflexible route with a requirement for many people to transfer onto or off of buses at each end. It would require throwing every cent the city ever had for transportation into what is essentially a replacement for the Pembina bus route, and even then I doubt it would be affordable.

Well then, tell me something. If BRT is so great and desirable, why didn't other cities in Canada (Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, etc.) implement BRT as their main mode of rapid transit instead of any rail-based system, and why are cities like Hamilton and Saskatoon planning for LRT instead of a BRT system?

[Reed Solomon]

I think a busway system makes a lot more sense. Trying to get rapid transit to move around the CBD on a dedicated route is going to be very difficult and hugely expensive. A BRT system works much better by building dedicated busways free of cross-streets where it is economical to do so (in the areas outside the core, as in the current proposal) and then allowing the buses to come off the busway and use the existing downtown streets in whatever way is most efficient at a given moment.

Well whoop-de-doo. The same sort of efficiencies can be had by having LRT, which doesn't require $1.50 a litre gasoline and uses electricity which is abundant here in Manitoba. If the LRT corridor stops at a major transit intersection point for downtown, then whats the difference? Rapid Transit is bottlenecked by downtown, therefore having the buses go downtown will cause gridlock anyways. Dedicated Busways, Dedicated LRT.. it works out to the same thing, except of course Winnipeg wasn't built by the Bus industry..

LRT would service a single inflexible route with a requirement for many people to transfer onto or off of buses at each end. It would require throwing every cent the city ever had for transportation into what is essentially a replacement for the Pembina bus route, and even then I doubt it would be affordable.

people need to transfer downtown anyways. If the dedicated LRT line went to the forks and didn't have anything blocking it, then it intersects just fine with the current transit system.

I don't believe the prices thrown around for LRT in Winnipeg. We have Railyards and Rail lines criss crossing the city already. They're certainly profitable enough. The topography of the city implies that it would LRT prices would lean towards the lower end of the price spectrum. It might be more expensive to start up than BRT but it's more efficient in the end, better for the image of the city than a boring old bus, uses as fuel one of the primary exports of manitoba.

Your argument for BRT instead of LRT makes no sense to me.

[g35]

Well then, tell me something. If BRT is so great and desirable, why didn't other cities in Canada (Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, etc.) implement BRT as their main mode of rapid transit instead of any rail-based system, and why are cities like Hamilton and Saskatoon planning for LRT instead of a BRT system?

The transit system in Vancouver is ALRT (fully grade separated) not LRT like Calgary and Edmonton. LRT and BRT are both on the ground level...ALRT is much more expensive and doesn't intersect with any streets.

[Greco Roman]

The transit system in Vancouver is ALRT (fully grade separated) not LRT like Calgary and Edmonton. LRT and BRT are both on the ground level...ALRT is much more expensive and doesn't intersect with any streets.

I've travelled on the skytrain many times and am quite familiar with the system.

And once again, it isn't BRT.

[g35]

I've travelled on the skytrain many times and am quite familiar with the system.

And once again, it isn't BRT.

So are you saying Winnipeg should build the kind of system Vancouver has or the kind that Edmonton has?

[Greco Roman]

So are you saying Winnipeg should build the kind of system Vancouver has or the kind that Edmonton has?

I am of the opinion that BRT is a cheap fix to rapid transit, and once it is implemented, Winnipeg loses all hope of seeing any kinds of upgrades to a rail-based rapid transit system, because we all know how things progress in Winnipeg.

[spiritedenergy]

And you'll have probably moved back to your homeland by then ;)

can't wait, Euro is getting stronger and stronger and Europe is ready to take over:)

T4rXx-xXeG8&feature=related

[Greco Roman]

can't wait, Euro is getting stronger and stronger and Europe is ready to take over:)

T4rXx-xXeG8&feature=related

Meh, I'll be the judge on how great Europe is when I get a chance to visit there one day.

I'm betting it's one of those places that is great to visit, but I would never want to live there.

[Greco Roman]

Anyways, enough Eurotalk.

Let's just stick to our transit talk.

[spiritedenergy]

Meh, I'll be the judge on how great Europe is when I get a chance to visit there one day.

I'm betting it's one of those places that is great to visit, but I would never want to live there.

Europe is light years ahead of here in terms quality of living. The only real problem is the (relative) lack of jobs as compared to North America. Tides are turning though as the dollar is collapsing and unemployement rates are skyrocketing. It will bring down US and Canada with it. After that, i bet it will be easier to find jobs in Europe than here.

[Pootkao]

I just got back on Wednesday from 3 weeks in Spain & Morocco.

I can tell you firsthand that both Madrid and Barcelona are light years beyond anything in North America for public transportation. New York's subway system is the only thing close, and thats in a city 4 or 5 times Madrid's size.

They have an incredible combination of density, useable urban spaces (green space + public squares), bike lanes everywhere, and great connections between transportation modes. And very very few freeways.

Walkable, liveable and excrutiatingly enjoyable.

Toronto looks and functions like a sh*t-hole compared to either of those two cities.

Did I mention the Madrid subway only costs 1 euro ($1.50 Cdn)?

[nordique]

i dont know it becomes a whole 'nother ball game when you start comparing canadian cities to european cities. spain and morocco -- both of those places have like 500 years each on us in terms of city planning and the mobile mentality of walking/biking engrained into their DNA. i'm sure we'll get decent rapid transit/bike friendly streets comparable in about 250 years.

[Greco Roman]

i dont know it becomes a whole 'nother ball game when you start comparing canadian cities to european cities.

Exactly, so let's stick to Canada, even North America :)

[Spocket]

Actually, Pootkao brings up a valid subject.
The reason public transportation works in Europe is simple : density.
We simply don't have it.

[Greco Roman]

Actually, Pootkao brings up a valid subject.
The reason public transportation works in Europe is simple : density.
We simply don't have it.

I think there is density in the core areas, such as west Broadway and parts of the north end, but its not even close to being satisfactory. Let's get more dense housing projects going to try and curb urban sprawl. It's time we started to pull on the reins a little around there.

[spiritedenergy]

i dont know it becomes a whole 'nother ball game when you start comparing canadian cities to european cities. spain and morocco -- both of those places have like 500 years each on us in terms of city planning and the mobile mentality of walking/biking engrained into their DNA. i'm sure we'll get decent rapid transit/bike friendly streets comparable in about 250 years.

500 years? 2000 years maybe. And I don't think it has nothing to do with that.
Winnipeg was (re)built for cars and the Unicity decision was the final blow to urbanism here. If the oil price wasn't going up like it's doing, i wouldn't expect any significant change in the usage of cars and public transport like forever. Suburbs could keep growing outward and people would be encouraged to drive cars. Thanks God the cheap oil era is over.

P.s.: sorry for my poor English my brain is in a loop right now i'm not sure the wording i'm using is right:shrug:

[Only The Lonely..]

Well whoop-de-doo. The same sort of efficiencies can be had by having LRT, which doesn't require $1.50 a litre gasoline and uses electricity which is abundant here in Manitoba. If the LRT corridor stops at a major transit intersection point for downtown, then whats the difference? Rapid Transit is bottlenecked by downtown, therefore having the buses go downtown will cause gridlock anyways. Dedicated Busways, Dedicated LRT.. it works out to the same thing, except of course Winnipeg wasn't built by the Bus industry..


people need to transfer downtown anyways. If the dedicated LRT line went to the forks and didn't have anything blocking it, then it intersects just fine with the current transit system.

I don't believe the prices thrown around for LRT in Winnipeg. We have Railyards and Rail lines criss crossing the city already. They're certainly profitable enough. The topography of the city implies that it would LRT prices would lean towards the lower end of the price spectrum. It might be more expensive to start up than BRT but it's more efficient in the end, better for the image of the city than a boring old bus, uses as fuel one of the primary exports of manitoba.

Your argument for BRT instead of LRT makes no sense to me.

I guess the real issue is what's the point of building a rapid transit line twice?

We build BRT, and then in 6 to 20, maybe 50 years later we cover it with rail. Personally, I would like to ask the government how is it that a light rail system will become so much cheaper to buy in the decades to come?

I just can't see where the savings will come from.

Especially when we will have to essentially close down the Pembina line for a year or two to do the conversion. One can only imagine the opposition that will come from the public once they have come to depend on the BRT line for getting to the University.

If we're going to build an LRT then lets do it NOW! And if we're not, then our politicians should come clean with it and confess that BRT is as good as it will get.

But, it makes no sense at all to build a BRT line when what everybody really wants is LRT.

As a voter I find this issue very confusing.

Our politicians haven't been very forth coming about their true intentions.

[Only The Lonely..]

I am of the opinion that BRT is a cheap fix to rapid transit, and once it is implemented, Winnipeg loses all hope of seeing any kinds of upgrades to a rail-based rapid transit system, because we all know how things progress in Winnipeg.


Sad, but truer words have never been spoken.

In Winnipeg temporary means never.

[Greco Roman]

I guess the real issue is what's the point of building a rapid transit line twice?

We build BRT, and then in 6 to 20, maybe 50 years later we cover it with rail. Personally, I would like to ask the government how is it that a light rail system will become so much cheaper to buy in the decades to come?

I just can't see where the savings will come from.

Especially when we will have to essentially close down the Pembina line for a year or two to do the conversion. One can only imagine the opposition that will come from the public once they have come to depend on the BRT line for getting to the University.

If we're going to build an LRT then lets do it NOW! And if we're not, then our politicians should come clean with it and confess that BRT is as good as it will get.

But, it makes no sense at all to build a BRT line when what everybody really wants is LRT.

As a voter I find this issue very confusing.

Our politicians haven't been very forth coming about their true intentions.

This is my opinion to a tea! Why build it two times when it will be cheaper and economically efficient in the LONG RUN to just build the damn LRT now and expand on it as the demand increases, but once again, our politicians are so narrowminded they don't grasp this concept.

And as far as the whole "oh, well do LRT later" plan, I still believe that this is one big lie, where the politicians have no intentions of implementing LRT and lying to all their constituents.

[newflyer]

Actually, Pootkao brings up a valid subject.
The reason public transportation works in Europe is simple : density.
We simply don't have it.

Also keep in mind that almost all european cities were designed before the evolution of the automobile and truck. They weren't designed with the same infrastructural needs of the newer cities found in North America. The downside of course is newer NA cities have seen sprawl much as a result of post war idealist lifestyle of owning a house in the suburbs with a picket fence.

I don't think many europeans who where looking towards rebuilding there coutries were thinking .. gee lets enjoy the good life out in the edge of our ruinous cities and be close to "nature" (which is nearly non existant in much of europe).. with visions of tank batalions running roughshot over the plains, running through the minds of terriorized masses.

Nope... North America and Europe have significantly different histories (even recent .. last 100 years) which is reflected in the desision making of its citizens.

[Pootkao]

Greco: The only neighbourhood in Winnipeg which even comes close to European density is Osborne Village and South Broadway. And even then, there's still a world of difference.

[newflyer]

Greco: The only neighbourhood in Winnipeg which even comes close to European density is Osborne Village and South Broadway. And even then, there's still a world of difference.

Yet you can't drive through much of rural europe without noticing significant amounts of housing checkered over the land. I'd call it a lower level of undefined suburbia over a vast amounts of land. :sly: