[madsad]

Okay...so....what are you guys going to do about it?

Because with the latest announcement, it looks like if Winnipeg gets any sort of rapid transit at all, it will be BRT.

So if you are so dead-set against BRT...

[newflyer]

Okay, that was 5 minutes of my life I will never get back. What a waste of LCD backlighting.

Classic .. LOL :haha:

:cheers:

[Greco Roman]

Okay...so....what are you guys going to do about it?


What do you mean what are we going to do about it? We all know that BRT is a done deal; some of us don't like it and are just venting is all.

We are allowed to do that, right? Thanks for your concern about us though ;)

[thegreattait]

Well I don't think its a done deal until the money has been spent. I personally tried to contact bombardier to see if I could talk to someone about some price quotes for LRT so that we are working with a real number and not some 800 million to 1.2 billion that someone pulled out of their ass. However to date they have not gotten back to me. I only sent an email, but if someone there wanted to try and call that might show better results.

I'd call but the longdistance rates from Russia aren't exactly cheap.

Also since we do vote in this country we could indicate our displeasure with this plan to our elected representatives at all three levels of government. If enough of support is brought to their attention decisions can be reversed.

I think the most important step to start with is information, we need more solid information so that we are just belting out hot air but that we can back up our statements with some facts and logical reasoning.

Anyone want in on trying to give Winnipeg what it really deserves?

[urbanprince]

Only if you pay for it...

I have seen BRT systems that "look" the same as LRT.... its all perception and marketing. Needs to be done correctly

[MalcolmTucker]

Only if you pay for it...

I have seen BRT systems that "look" the same as LRT.... its all perception and marketing. Needs to be done correctly

And also how it looks. in france their are rubber wheeled trams on no guideway that just follow a magnetic path in the ground. Had some problems with low ground clearance since they were wearing the exact same path in the road, but that was fixed.

But do you really think they will do this? They will just fun the same old New Flyers on this thing as ever.

[thegreattait]

Only if you pay for it...

I have seen BRT systems that "look" the same as LRT.... its all perception and marketing. Needs to be done correctly

Sure I'd love to see my tax dollars go towards this, and I plan on paying for it every time I ride on it.

As for perception and marketing, yes I do think that is a factor, our city will have a much better perception and we will be able to market our city more effectively if we make this investment in our infrastructure. This shows business that we are willing to make an investment in our city and that they too should feel confident about bringing their business and their investment dollars to Winnipeg.

As for the difference between BRT and LRT its more then just marketing, trains are faster more reliable, safer, more economical to operate especially with our low hydro rates compared to increasing gas prices. They require less people to operate, saving wages. Overall an LRT is the better long term investment, and doing BRT now with the future hope for LRT is simply foolish as we end up paying more overall, which is a waste of money.

[feepa]

^ the only advantage of doing BRT first is that if LRT later, most of the BRT equipment can be re-used to develop another corridor

[newflyer]

^ the only advantage of doing BRT first is that if LRT later, most of the BRT equipment can be re-used to develop another corridor

The BRT platforms they plan on building will be built to the specs of LRT requirements. The Park and Ride areas will also be the same. Same as any pedestrian linkage to a transit platform. The any constructed overpass or underpass will also be utilized for BRT and LRT.

The transit corridor will be utilized by either form of rapid transit .. The end investment to convert to LRT will be laying the track lines, buying LRT cars .. and building LRT maintenance facilities.

[newflyer]

Well I don't think its a done deal until the money has been spent. I personally tried to contact bombardier to see if I could talk to someone about some price quotes for LRT so that we are working with a real number and not some 800 million to 1.2 billion that someone pulled out of their ass. However to date they have not gotten back to me. I only sent an email, but if someone there wanted to try and call that might show better results.



Calgary's newest LRT leg is budgeted over 800 Million .. and this is a fairly short line. I expect it to be higher than this projected price.

[thegreattait]

Why do you expect it to cost more then calgary's project, what are the reasons I would like to know?

Thanks

[thegreattait]

According to Beltliner a blog on the C Train extensions costs break down as follows:

http://beltliner.blogspot.com/2008/07/expanding-from-new-model-line-203-phase_16.html


$25 million per KM for surface right of way construction (x3.6km =$90million)
$10 million per Station (x 3 or 4 stations = $30 - $40million)

Total= $130 million

I don't think there is an argument that could convince me that constuction costs are higher in Winnipeg then in Calgary. So we should be able to use $25 mil per km

Now there is still lots missing from this such as the underpass at the fort Rouge rail yards and the bridge closer to downtown. Also there were no train car costs, which are $4mil each compared to approx $1 mil each for regular busses but vehicle costs weren't included in the BRT plan so it's hard to say how many are needed etc.

Also a maintenance yard would need to be constructed. No estimates on that other then $200 million which is what the Aurora yard in Calgary will be but that is suppose to be a huge facility that will service their much larger LRT system for like the next 30 years so I don't know if that's a good comparison to add onto this project.

The point I'm trying to make is that the BRT plan is $138 million and basic costs for LRT are $130 plus bridges vehicles and maintenance yard. So its in the ball park. I understand that those unknows in my equation will put the cost above the BRT but I think it shows that its not some super inflated number that should push LRT out of our consideration set of options for this city.

Any comments or help on trying to pin down a more accurate LRT number would be appreciated. I a simply tired of people putting down LRT because of some unknown mythical super expensive cost. Lets try to get some real numbers and make a decision where we know the costs of both options.

[Pootkao]

They already also have the maintenance and housing infrastructure, plus the staff and organizational system in place.

I wonder what the startup costs are? To buy trains/busses? To implement the system? To build housing and maintenance facilities for them? Staffing?

There's a lot of other costs that Calgary has already paid.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

According to Beltliner a blog on the C Train extensions costs break down as follows:

http://beltliner.blogspot.com/2008/07/expanding-from-new-model-line-203-phase_16.html


$25 million per KM for surface right of way construction (x3.6km =$90million)
$10 million per Station (x 3 or 4 stations = $30 - $40million)

Total= $130 million

I don't think there is an argument that could convince me that constuction costs are higher in Winnipeg then in Calgary. So we should be able to use $25 mil per km

Now there is still lots missing from this such as the underpass at the fort Rouge rail yards and the bridge closer to downtown. Also there were no train car costs, which are $4mil each compared to approx $1 mil each for regular busses but vehicle costs weren't included in the BRT plan so it's hard to say how many are needed etc.

Also a maintenance yard would need to be constructed. No estimates on that other then $200 million which is what the Aurora yard in Calgary will be but that is suppose to be a huge facility that will service their much larger LRT system for like the next 30 years so I don't know if that's a good comparison to add onto this project.

The point I'm trying to make is that the BRT plan is $138 million and basic costs for LRT are $130 plus bridges vehicles and maintenance yard. So its in the ball park. I understand that those unknows in my equation will put the cost above the BRT but I think it shows that its not some super inflated number that should push LRT out of our consideration set of options for this city.

Any comments or help on trying to pin down a more accurate LRT number would be appreciated. I a simply tired of people putting down LRT because of some unknown mythical super expensive cost. Lets try to get some real numbers and make a decision where we know the costs of both options.

I am not an expert but those costs seem low. And the Calgary blog also shows metro right of way construction at $155 M per kilometer and $92 M per metro station so I guess it all depends if you think an LRT line would be just all on the surface or all underground or a combination of both.

If you can just zip along the surface of a road without regard for automobile traffic flows then it may be reasonable...but if you start factoring in putting LRT tunnels under major intersections or underground so that the LRT can be truly rapid then your costs would increase dramatically.

[thegreattait]

I am not an expert but those costs seem low. And the Calgary blog also shows metro right of way construction at $155 M per kilometer and $92 M per metro station so I guess it all depends if you think an LRT line would be just all on the surface or all underground or a combination of both.

If you can just zip along the surface of a road without regard for automobile traffic flows then it may be reasonable...but if you start factoring in putting LRT tunnels under major intersections or underground so that the LRT can be truly rapid then your costs would increase dramatically.

Well the BRT Plan is all at surface, except for one underpass and one overpass. So I don't think the Metro construction rates apply. Although I do think it would be wise to build the downtown portion of anysystem underground. However at this point in time I'll push for LRT on the surface. The sticker shock of an underground system might be too much even though its the better design. Calgary is only now considering to do their downtown portion underground but that's not going to happen for a number of years.

[thegreattait]

FYI

Here's an interesting website comparing Subway and LRT construction costs.

http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html

"What is the Cost of Building an LRT Line?
Underground: $130 million to $160 million per kilometre
At grade: $30 million to $50 million per kilometre"

Calgary's costs are usually quoted around $24 or $25 million per km Edmonton's first line was about $20 mil per km. So we seem to do LRT cheap in Canada. Even if you look at Edmonton's underground extention it comes in at 147 mil per km that's less then the $200 to $250 mil per km average for underground LRT.

I wish we could find some info on maintenance facilities costs?

[MalcolmTucker]

maintenance facilities costs are dependent on tonnes of factors.

#1 being, is there available land near the planned line? also:

Does the current maintenance facility need a life extension and could instead be incorporated into the new yard (thus saving costs)

What level of maintenance does the system need (some systems ship their cars off for major repairs and overhauls, Calgary is all in house)

Do you wish to automate all the switches in the yard? (Calgary is all manual)

Do you wish to store all trains at night in a central location?

Does switching some of the fleet to LRT reduce the need to build larger bus barns?

Do you wish the new yard to maintain a facility for direct delivery of new light rail vehicles?

and finally:

Do you build your yard for the exact amount of vehicles you purchased, or do you leave room for more to be purchased?

In Calgary, the new maintenance facility (heavy maintenance, no overhaul) came in at $110 million. That is for storage of 60 LRVs in 20,000 square meters, expandable to 108 LRVs. The west line which is approximately 7 km lines will need 30 or so LRVs for 6 minute frequency.

[MalcolmTucker]

FYI

Here's an interesting website comparing Subway and LRT construction costs.

http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html

"What is the Cost of Building an LRT Line?
Underground: $130 million to $160 million per kilometre
At grade: $30 million to $50 million per kilometre"

Calgary's costs are usually quoted around $24 or $25 million per km Edmonton's first line was about $20 mil per km. So we seem to do LRT cheap in Canada. Even if you look at Edmonton's underground extention it comes in at 147 mil per km that's less then the $200 to $250 mil per km average for underground LRT.

I wish we could find some info on maintenance facilities costs?

Calgary and Edmonton both have had favourable cost levels compared to USA systems.

Calgary's CTrain - Effective Capital Utilization (http://calgarytransit.com/pdf/Calgary_CTrain_Effective_Capital_Utilization.pdf)
(April 19, 2006) (http://calgarytransit.com/pdf/Calgary_CTrain_Effective_Capital_Utilization.pdf)
http://calgarytransit.com/images/pdf_icon.gif (http://calgarytransit.com/pdf/Calgary_CTrain_Effective_Capital_Utilization.pdf)1.4MB


The entire report is useful, but page nie has the numbers for comparison.

[sledhead35]

:previous: pretty informative, thanks

[Tower Crane]

The BRT platforms they plan on building will be built to the specs of LRT requirements. The Park and Ride areas will also be the same. Same as any pedestrian linkage to a transit platform. The any constructed overpass or underpass will also be utilized for BRT and LRT.

The transit corridor will be utilized by either form of rapid transit .. The end investment to convert to LRT will be laying the track lines, buying LRT cars .. and building LRT maintenance facilities.

So are you saying the platforms will be raised to the same elevation you enter an LRT train car at, which is exactly level to the LRT train car floor which is higher than a bus floor?
Are you saying that the platforms will be built as long as a few LRT train cars, typically most platforms are a few cars long?
My firm is involved in working on the Edmonton LRT extension, there is significant electrical and system infrastructure underground and above grade that the LRT trains and platform systems utilize, are you saying that the City of Winnipeg is placing all those systems under the BRT roadway and then only tracks will be required.
I really don't believe for a minute that the construction of BRT Platforms and infrastructure is being built to LRT standards with only the track missing as far as the road/lines go.

[1ajs]

who knows tower crane thats just what the city said at the press confrince anouncing this plan... perhaps they are laying the stations out so they can be retrofited with ease to lrt and seting up the space needed to build them longer in the future? as for the track bit i would asume they are building a base to put tracks on but will be puting a road over top of so basicaly all one would need to do is lay the track over top and bam?

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

The BRT platforms they plan on building will be built to the specs of LRT requirements. The Park and Ride areas will also be the same. Same as any pedestrian linkage to a transit platform. The any constructed overpass or underpass will also be utilized for BRT and LRT.

The transit corridor will be utilized by either form of rapid transit .. The end investment to convert to LRT will be laying the track lines, buying LRT cars .. and building LRT maintenance facilities.

Yes, Newflyer...please provide your proof that the BRT platforms will be built to LRT specifications...and that all they would need is to lay track lines...or are you just making up unsupportable statements as fact...

It makes sense that you only have to acquire the land for the transit corridor and park n ride space once and that over or under passes could be used by both BRT and LRT. However, I doubt that anything else related to LRT would be installed until such time as the decision to convert to LRT is made.

[MalcolmTucker]

Probably the only logical difference that would make sense to have in 'convertible to lrt' is in the road base. It would be designed to support the higher weight. Other than that, you may aswell just designed to an easy standard for curves and grades. For LRT platform height, almost no one builds a high floor lrt anymore, unless it is an extension of an old system. It saves enoguh money to go low floor in the long run that calgarys 5th spoke will be low floor, at the price of loss of interoperability and duplicating alot of stuff. A low floor crt curb should be low enogh for bus curbs, especially since the rail bed would end up lower than the road bed.

There is no point of roughing in space for electrical systems really, if you were you can aswell do it all in the first place. You would have to leave land aside for substations and such.

One way to get around having to re do the track bed during construction is to build a biking trail next to the line and put all the servicing cables down along it.

The 'built to LRT standards' is a misnomer. If you want LRT, build it now.

[thegreattait]

From my understanding the only thing that was being built to LRT standards was the curve radiuses (radii)Sp? and the grade (slope). Big deal that's not a lot of planning and forethought.

Well maybe with this cities elected officials and city planning staff it is.

[flatlander]

I just got back from a quick trip to New York City. The subway is very efficient but sure is grubby. There were a few new trains on the line (air conditioned!) It was very safe and people were pleasant, but it was packed.

At the Minneapolis airport I enjoyed myself for a few minutes on the trolley. I'd love to see something like that zipping up and down Portage, Main and Broadway. I looked for the name of the manufacturer but couldn't find anything. Anyone have any ideas?

[1ajs]

probly bomideer or something... onlything is in the winter those dam things sure get cold... i road it a couple times in febuary when i had to do some runingaround for my bagage and such coming back from nz cause it came ahead of me....

[spiritedenergy]

i took a GPS equipped bus for the first time today... I think the signal panel is in the wrong position, it is at the top but when the bus is packed I imagine people from the back would never be able to see anything. Also the voice calling the stops is not loud enough and again in a crowded bus it would not be heard.

Still nice to see a touch of urbanism in this wildly suburban place.

[Only The Lonely..]

I just got back from a quick trip to New York City. The subway is very efficient but sure is grubby. There were a few new trains on the line (air conditioned!) It was very safe and people were pleasant, but it was packed.

At the Minneapolis airport I enjoyed myself for a few minutes on the trolley. I'd love to see something like that zipping up and down Portage, Main and Broadway. I looked for the name of the manufacturer but couldn't find anything. Anyone have any ideas?

Yes, I too am quite fond of that little tram. I spent a whole day just riding that thing in circles as I waited for 6 hours to make my connecting trip to Chicago (Thank you Northworst).

Personally, I would rather have something like that running in a loop in our downtown (a la the Detroit People Mover) than our wretched Skywalk system.

A small automated tram running between the Concert Hall, Portage Place, Convention Centre and the Forks would provide the convenience of quick sheltered access to various points of interest downtown while bringing pedestrian traffic back down to street level.

It certainly seems ideal for our cold wintery climate.

MSP Airport Tram:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/2251002869_c89c9f5eba.jpg

Detroit People Mover:
http://www.mackinac.org/media/images/2007/cc2007-02-10a.jpg

[1ajs]

in the dead of winter u need a jacket riding on those things....

[Kinguni]

i took a GPS equipped bus for the first time today... I think the signal panel is in the wrong position, it is at the top but when the bus is packed I imagine people from the back would never be able to see anything. Also the voice calling the stops is not loud enough and again in a crowded bus it would not be heard.

Still nice to see a touch of urbanism in this wildly suburban place.

The voice volume is adjustable, perhaps let the driver know. I've found that with the antiquated PA systems used in the buses the voice is sometime distorted. Hard to tell at the front of the bus though.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Personally, I would rather have something like that running in a loop in our downtown (a la the Detroit People Mover) than our wretched Skywalk system.

A small automated tram running between the Concert Hall, Portage Place, Convention Centre and the Forks would provide the convenience of quick sheltered access to various points of interest downtown while bringing pedestrian traffic back down to street level.

It certainly seems ideal for our cold wintery climate.

An elevated system like you are suggesting would be nice except I am not fond of all the concrete towers that would be needed to elevate the system. If you keep it to the secondary streets then maybe but I think it would look ugly in the Exchange district and take away from the architecture.

(Please note this post has been written without the pre-approval of Newflyer...read at your own risk...;) )

[Only The Lonely..]

(Please note this post has been written without the pre-approval of Newflyer...read at your own risk...;) )


Duely noted..:)

[newflyer]

Yes, Newflyer...please provide your proof that the BRT platforms will be built to LRT specifications...and that all they would need is to lay track lines...or are you just making up unsupportable statements as fact...

It makes sense that you only have to acquire the land for the transit corridor and park n ride space once and that over or under passes could be used by both BRT and LRT. However, I doubt that anything else related to LRT would be installed until such time as the decision to convert to LRT is made.

First of all I didn't say all they would need to do is just lay track ... but since you have proven yourself to be of a very low reading level I will just leave it at that. I also stated they would have to buy rail cars and build LRT maintenance facilities.

A far as "proof" goes ... (are you in elementary school??.... ) ... I am going on the TV converage in which the mayor stated that the new rapid transit lines will be complient to LRT standards as much as possible. I follow Winnipeg news fairly closely over the internet.. and have taken my point of view partialy from them. Of course previous transit reports have also suggested in building BRT to LRT standards.. including platform formats. In my mind that would suggest the BRT platforms will be long enough to handle LRT in the future, of course the LRT lines would be layed at a lower grade than would be needed for BRT, but thats within my stated point, of having to lay the rail lines , including the proper grade levels.


Of course that is assuming that there are no new rapid transit announcements in the future which would significantly change the whole proposal in a very real way.

(of course my comments only reflect Winnipeg's transit system .. and not Edmonton's ....my appologies go out to Edmonton Dave)

[thegreattait]

[QUOTE=DAVEinEDMONTON;3830484]An elevated system like you are suggesting would be nice except I am not fond of all the concrete towers that would be needed to elevate the system. If you keep it to the secondary streets then maybe but I think it would look ugly in the Exchange district and take away from the architecture.


As for the architecture side of this on an elevated system, most monorails are thin enough and their support structures can be decorated to match surrounding environments. An example would be concrete structure covered in red brick with limestone accents or grow Ivy up trellis to add vegetation. If you really had money you could wrap the concrete with some ornate terracotta designs that are featured on some of Winnipeg's most beautiful builds. That's assuming money is no object...lol

That's not the point an elevated monorail is even more expensive then a low budget LRT especially if we are talking about decorating it. Since a low budget LRT seems already to much of a stretch for the political will in this city I think a high class top of the line monorail system is kind of out of the question.

Although I will give monorail its dues I think modern systems have many advantages. One of them being construction time. Monorails are probably the fastest and least destructive form of mass transit, since much of the construction is done off site and then is assembled on site. Also because of this set up you can put Monorail in places that LRT could only dream of, or that LRT would have to suffer through combined ROW which reduces efficiency.

I could just imagine it Lafarge in Winnipeg constructing the components of a Winnipeg Monorail, maybe even using the new fabric molding technology to create some unique pillar designs, now that would be pretty sweet.


:rolleyes: sorry I'm just day dreaming over hear .... sigh :jester:

[Only The Lonely..]

:previous:

After watching a Youtube clip on the founding of Epcot center, and reading through some old Steve Juba stuff, i've certainly come to appreciate the beauty of a monorail system.

That said, my proposed system would basically be a low grade knock off of the elevated tram they use in the Minneapolis airport.

It would have maybe 4 stops, and probably have a round trip distance of 2 kms and use two cars.

I figure it would come once every 7-10 mins and be a useful alternative for transporting people around downtown in a climate controlled environment.

In the process, it would allow us to junk the skywalk system and get those people back on the sidewalks below for shorter distances.

Of course it would be free to ride, and would probably come to replace the downtown flyer route.

This technology is already widely deployed in most major airports, why not in cities as functional transportation?

If various hub airports can afford it, how expensive could such a system really be?

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

So are you saying the platforms will be raised to the same elevation you enter an LRT train car at, which is exactly level to the LRT train car floor which is higher than a bus floor?
Are you saying that the platforms will be built as long as a few LRT train cars, typically most platforms are a few cars long?
My firm is involved in working on the Edmonton LRT extension, there is significant electrical and system infrastructure underground and above grade that the LRT trains and platform systems utilize, are you saying that the City of Winnipeg is placing all those systems under the BRT roadway and then only tracks will be required.
I really don't believe for a minute that the construction of BRT Platforms and infrastructure is being built to LRT standards with only the track missing as far as the road/lines go.

Interesting points Tower Crane.

[Only The Lonely..]

Again, take a look at the inside of the MSP airport tram. It's pretty basic and doesn't even have seats.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/2251002869_c89c9f5eba.jpg

Surely, this technology is attainable for even frugal Winnipeg.

[thegreattait]

:previous:

After watching a Youtube clip on the founding of Epcot center, and reading through some old Steve Juba stuff, i've certainly come to appreciate the beauty of a monorail system.

That said, my proposed system would basically be a low grade knock off of the elevated tram they use in the Minneapolis airport.

It would have maybe 4 stops, and probably have a round trip distance of 2 kms and use two cars.

I figure it would come once every 7-10 mins and be a useful alternative for transporting people around downtown in a climate controlled environment.

In the process, it would allow us to junk the skywalk system and get those people back on the sidewalks below for shorter distances.

Of course it would be free to ride, and would probably come to replace the downtown flyer route.

This technology is already widely deployed in most major airports, why not in cities as functional transportation?

If various hub airports can afford it, how expensive could such a system really be?

Well in that case then yes I think its a great idea everything expect for the part about getting rid of the walkway system. I'm not sure if you realize this but there are many little business in there, such as coffee and gift shops etc etc. Also when its minus 40 i'm not waiting 10 min to catch a monorail, I'd like to exercise and walk in a heated environment. I think both could operate simultaneously. just as the downtown spirit 1-2-3 buses do now, except a monorail would have a huge positive image boost compared to some buses. There was actually a WFP contest back in the day and the winning idea was a imitation streetcar service on similar lines to New Orleans or San Fransisco, as a tribute to the historic past of Winnipeg in its Chicago style boom times era.

This was scrapped due to cost and the city put together the downtown spirit buses. Which are free by the way in case anyone didn't know.

Back on topic
I'd rather see some solid investments into an actual rapid transit system that served the downtown properly, not some bovine fecal matter BRT cop-out.
A monorail would be a nice idea but I think we should focus on getting LRT to spur downtown development, then worry about moving people around downtown once we have them there.

As for how LRT would spur downtown development. My logic is as follows, with an efficient LRT system, people would be willing to leave their cars and take the system to the downtown for their jobs. This decreases the needs for vast parking lots in the downtown area, which would allow for some new buildings if the need arrises. As LRT brings in greater TOD and the LRT is focused on the downtown, businesses would be willing to focus their building efforts along the line and at its end point (hopefully middle point, at some point).

Also as people are taking the LRT to work instead of their cars they are more conditioned to walking around the downtown, this new vibrancy of seeing people walk around downtown, helps the businesses and shops which rely on human traffic, to grow and expand and see the addition of more new business.

This process begins a catalyst chain reaction that sees a few key new buildings going up, by this point LRT gets expanded to other parts of the city and the rejuvenation finally has traction to have sustained growth. Now with more jobs downtown and an efficient LRT network more people move downtown because it becomes accessible and there are more services as there are more business that grew with the increase in human traffic.

Ohh yes then some nice guy says hey we need a downtown monorail to move all these people living here around and it gets built and connects wonderfully to transfer points on the LRT, is designed with aesthetic to match the exchange, and comes in ahead of schedule and under budget.

.... sorry folks dreaming again... :) awww but what a nice dream

[thegreattait]

Again, take a look at the inside of the MSP airport tram. It's pretty basic and doesn't even have seats.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/2251002869_c89c9f5eba.jpg

Surely, this technology is attainable for even frugal Winnipeg.

So apparently this DAVEinEDMONTON guy doesn't read but then i guess that's ok if this Only The Lonely can't see two seats in a picture he posted twice.

Look at the back of the car on either side. ....... two seats, and I bet if you turned the camera around you'd see two more seats at the opposite end, behind you.

But I know what you mean it has limited seating.

lol its all in good fun... I think you're right this is something Winnipeg could do at some point, but as in my previous post I think there are some other things that need to happen first

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

So apparently this DAVEinEDMONTON guy doesn't read but then i guess that's ok if this Only The Lonely can't see two seats in a picture he posted twice.

Look at the back of the car on either side. ....... two seats, and I bet if you turned the camera around you'd see two more seats at the opposite end, behind you.

But I know what you mean it has limited seating.

lol its all in good fun... I think you're right this is something Winnipeg could do at some point, but as in my previous post I think there are some other things that need to happen first

but at least I can spell gud...

Monorails are not very rapid and seem very limited for what you get. I can only think of three that exist in downtown or near downtown cores. Las Vegas which winds through the casinos on the strip...more of a touristy thing than really a serious means of transit but fun nonetheless. Seattle which takes tourists to the Space Needle which I believe is a leftover from their expo and Miami downtown. I cannot remember how extensive Miami's system was but I do remember being happy being elevated on certain parts of their system and not being on the ground because it travels through some real sketchy parts of town.

When I think of a monorail I am always reminded of the Simpsons episode where Springfield gets suckered into a new system with no brakes and Homer saves the day by anchoring to a big "O" on top of the donut shop. So...any plans for a monorail should definitely include the appropriate donut shops near by as a safety factor...:D

[thegreattait]

but at least I can spell gud...



Did I miss a spelling mistake in my last post... ? or I don't get it, what's gud?

As for the Simpson's... lol... great episode, I think the lesson from that is don't buy things from singing sales people. I'm pretty sure monorails have good safety records, due to exclusive ROW, but an emergency anchor should be written into the proposal.

[thegreattait]

Here are some great pictures on how to hide Monorail pillars.

http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/enviro.html

Also on this site, if you go to the other pages it lists other cities mainly in Japan that use Monorail as Mass Rapid transit and not just novelty systems.

Just for anyone who wants to read up some more on monorails...

[h0twired]

Again, take a look at the inside of the MSP airport tram. It's pretty basic and doesn't even have seats.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/2251002869_c89c9f5eba.jpg

Surely, this technology is attainable for even frugal Winnipeg.

The airport tram doesn't have seats to allow for people to bring their baggage on board.

If there were seats no one would be able to get on and off the tram.

[1ajs]

but at least I can spell gud...

Monorails are not very rapid and seem very limited for what you get. I can only think of three that exist in downtown or near downtown cores. Las Vegas which winds through the casinos on the strip...more of a touristy thing than really a serious means of transit but fun nonetheless. Seattle which takes tourists to the Space Needle which I believe is a leftover from their expo and Miami downtown. I cannot remember how extensive Miami's system was but I do remember being happy being elevated on certain parts of their system and not being on the ground because it travels through some real sketchy parts of town.

When I think of a monorail I am always reminded of the Simpsons episode where Springfield gets suckered into a new system with no brakes and Homer saves the day by anchoring to a big "O" on top of the donut shop. So...any plans for a monorail should definitely include the appropriate donut shops near by as a safety factor...:D

seatle has been expanding its mono rail...

apon quick check maybe not woops but they have been building elivated rail and such


but this looks neeat a sation in the side of a building...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/SeattleMonorailChokePoint.jpg/794px-SeattleMonorailChokePoint.jpg

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Center_Monorail

[h0twired]

seatle has been expanding its mono rail...

apon quick check maybe not woops but they have been building elivated rail and such


but this looks neeat a sation in the side of a building...

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Center_Monorail

Are they really expanding it? It has been the same single short line for over 40 years now.

The last expansion plans I heard about it were around 2001 and that plan was killed about 2 years ago.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Did I miss a spelling mistake in my last post... ? or I don't get it, what's gud?

As for the Simpson's... lol... great episode, I think the lesson from that is don't buy things from singing sales people. I'm pretty sure monorails have good safety records, due to exclusive ROW, but an emergency anchor should be written into the proposal.

It is a comment on my spelling not yours...

Lots of good pics on that website...monorails can be sleek if they are really integrated into downtown developments

[Only The Lonely..]

I'm sure the cost of purchasing an actual monorail train is expensive, but surely there must be some savings when it comes to the ROW.

We could basically put the elevated line along the median of Pembina Hwy, and voila! No costly expropriation or haggling with changes to zoning.

[thegreattait]

I'm sure the cost of purchasing an actual monorail train is expensive, but surely there must be some savings when it comes to the ROW.

We could basically put the elevated line along the median of Pembina Hwy, and voila! No costly expropriation or haggling with changes to zoning.

The only problem is that the best estimates I've found put Monorail construction at over 80mil per km, which is more then LRT.

Also land acquisition in Winnipeg by comparison to other cities is cheap so it would take a lot of land acquisition costs to make up for the price difference. Also monorail has slightly lower capacity then LRT, not that I think its top rated capacity is going to be a problem in the next 10 years but you never know. I definitely think we will top out BRT top capacity on the south corridor in that time, because of the U of M and up and coming Waverly west. There are some pretty decent densities along pembina. While I agree a Monorail would put the transportation route where the people are much like a subway would as well. I think LRT is a stretch at the moment, going for monorail might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back and gets the topic dropped off the radar all together.

Also we could do Elevated LRT in Sections (such as the one bridge we'll have to build over jubilee, nothings to stop us from constructing elevated LRT (sky train anyone), that way we can take advantage of cheap land that is close to major routes, and put the line where it needs to be in other parts. I think LRT will allow us to be more cost conscious when looking at a city wide plan for the future. Monorail might be good in our downtown and nearby surrounding districts but when you look at long term city planning it doesn't offer the same flexibility to take advantage of lower costs where possible outside of our central districts.

[Andy6]

All I can think about is the monorail car getting stuck 40 feet above the ground on some blustery -30C January morning and all the passengers freezing to death. It would seem like a very tall order to adapt a monorail to Winnipeg's climate.

[thegreattait]

Moscow has a monorail and last time I checked Moscow gets winter....although not quite to the Winnipeg level we are so proud of.

Check it out
http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Moscow01.html

I don't think weather is an issue as long as we would make the same modifications they did:

"Here's an elegant curve leading to another station in the distance. Note the small strip on top of the track. Russian engineers modified the Intamin monorail motor and braking to linear motors, making the Moscow Monorail the first linear motor-driven urban monorail in the world. Conventional motors are said to not be capable of handling the harsh winter weather."

[vid]

All I can think about is the monorail car getting stuck 40 feet above the ground on some blustery -30C January morning and all the passengers freezing to death. It would seem like a very tall order to adapt a monorail to Winnipeg's climate.

You have a pretty extreme imagination. The chance that something like this might happen is why you have emergency measures.

Thunder Bay has a protocol to follow should the city ever be the location of a nuclear waste spill. Useless? Probably. But it's there. Because you never know! Certainly, a monorail stopping and people being stranded would be one of the first scenarios to which they would plan a solution.

Winnipeg's winters are almost a bazillion degrees colder than Moscow's winters. What works for them won't work for Winnipeg, therefore we should do nothing.

[drew]

Moscow has a monorail and last time I checked Moscow gets winter....although not quite to the Winnipeg level we are so proud of.


I don't have the stats, but I know a guy who grew up in Winnipeg and spent a couple years in Moscow. According to him, the winters in Moscow weren't much different at all from Winnipeg.

Certainly not noticeably "warmer".

[thegreattait]

Moscow weather

check out the weather section in Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow

Winnipeg weather

check out the same section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_and_climate_of_Winnipeg

They on average have warmer winters but they do have the extremes that we have , which means a system has to be designed for the weather it can potentially see not just what it gets 80% of the time. If you go to the monorail link I posted before you can see a video of the monorail pushing snow off the track on its first run in the morning. Sure look s like Winnipeg weather to me.

[Spocket]

I've seen Moscow temperatures listed at less than -30 plenty of times. That's kind of a red herring anyway because Moscow has an extensive subway system and they're not in any hurry to scrap it and go for monorail instead. It's as much a novelty item there as it would be here.

Anyway, monorail is definitely not going to be cheaper than LRT in Winnipeg. Even if you assume that the thing can be built along the median of say Pembina you still have to factor in the cost of the stations. These wouldn't be simple platforms. They'd have to elevated and extended over Pembina which is pretty wide to begin with. Sure, there are other solutions to that but you wind up pretty much back where you started. Everything said, monorail really isn't a particularly cost-effective form of rapid mass transit. Certainly not for Winnipeg anyway.

[1ajs]

moscow has a street cars and lrt also no?

[thegreattait]

Moscow has Subway, Streetcars, LRT, busses, Monorail and minibusses. In large cities you need multiple forms of transit that are suited to the different areas.

As for Winnipeg and monorail ^^^ I agree we can do LRT cheaper then Monorail, primarily due to the low cost of available land compared to other major cities.

I've also beenunder then impression that BRT serves to increase sprawl whereas LRT is meant to densify the areas it services. Don't get me wrong LRT does contribute to sprawl just look at Calgary and its south side but I think it also has a great densifying effect then BRT.

Has the city of Winnipeg or the Province ever given any consideration to capping the limit of expansion in terms of geographical area such as Ottawa or Vancouver these also have diversifying effects on the cities. This pushes development up in stead of out.

Although I guess if you look at Waverly West that's not in the city or the provinces mindset. Long term I would like to see something like that and then maybe commuter rail up to Selkirk, with densification policies there as well. Anyone who has driven up Main or Henderson will know what I'm talking about, there are fast farmers fields that have been turned into new neighborhoods. They should be looking at planning that better before we have congestion issues on North Main and North Henderson.

[sledhead35]

I've also beenunder then impression that BRT serves to increase sprawl whereas LRT is meant to densify the areas it services. Don't get me wrong LRT does contribute to sprawl just look at Calgary and its south side but I think it also has a great densifying effect then BRT.


i wish planners had put forth a concept that involved rapid transit circling our downtown in some way. hell, there is enough decay that we could find space for infrasctrusture.

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

I've also beenunder then impression that BRT serves to increase sprawl whereas LRT is meant to densify the areas it services. Don't get me wrong LRT does contribute to sprawl just look at Calgary and its south side but I think it also has a great densifying effect then BRT.

LRT arrives so much later after the fact that I believe it has no contribution to urban sprawl. Calgary has sprawl in the south side for other reasons. The availablity of the Deerfoot i.e. major freeway going north south giving easy access to downtown would be the most defining factor. Also, the fact that Calgary's southside is relatively flat and spread out encourages more development in that direction.

[newflyer]

seatle has been expanding its mono rail...

apon quick check maybe not woops but they have been building elivated rail and such


but this looks neeat a sation in the side of a building...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/SeattleMonorailChokePoint.jpg/794px-SeattleMonorailChokePoint.jpg

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Center_Monorail

If I had my choice this is the direction Winniopeg would be heading.


Its much cheaper than LRT ... and it doesn't interfere with roadways.

[furiousmcd]

Hey there, folks. I am back again.

For a long while now, I have just been checking back on this message board but I have not quite felt the inspiration to write anything worthwhile. That was until today...

[furiousmcd]

In definite contrast to many of the posts on this forum, I would like to ask a question to all of you out there on Skyscraperpage who happen to visit these pages fairly often. Why does Winnipeg need rapid transit?

Already, I am sure, you have become slightly annoyed with my raising of such a question. I must assure you that I am not at all anti-transit. I have, however, noticed that opinions citing the option of improving transit frequency as an alternative to a single rapid transit corridor are very promptly dismissed. The people that present such opinions often come across as very uninspired and, frankly, boring. Their opponents claim they lack vision or a concept of reality. However, this does not mean that the question they ask is not one requiring an answer.

Personally, I have never had a problem getting anywhere quickly in Winnipeg by car. Traffic seems to run smoothly and delays are never frequent under normal circumstances. This has made it very difficult for the bus system to be considered effective in the eyes of many Winnipeggers.

I take the bus to and from school at the U of M. It just so happens to save me quite a bit of money on parking and gas each day, but the experience is rarely pleasant.

The bus sometimes comes very early and I just barely miss it. That means that I have to wait another 15 minutes before it comes again. In that time, I could walk home, get in my car, and be halfway to school before I even get on the next bus. Instead, I am doomed to wait in our notorious Winnipeg weather. Then, once the bus comes, I have to get out at Bishop Grandin and transfer to a different bus.

Here, dozens of people are wedged onto a "pedestrian island" masquerading as a bus stop; it is a space that was made to accomodate about five people comfortably. Cars fly past in front of you and even behind you. Everybody seems to be going somewhere except for you. Finally, the bus arrives except it is already full and only a few people at the stop can actually get on the bus. Oh well, I guess we can just wait for the next bus.

Albeit, this little story was a grave exaggeration as all of these things rarely happen at once, but they all happen often enough to prevent average Winnipeggers from taking the bus.

My main question is: how will one rapid transit line go to help any of these problems that actually prevent Winnipeggers from using our current transit system? From what I have noticed, speed is rarely a problem.

Also, why have no alternatives been explored? Why is it merely a debate of BRT or LRT when there are so many other options (like the monorail mentioned above, for example)? Surely, our civic government cannot be entirely vacant of imagination...

Why have they chosen the Pembina highway corridor as the first leg when ridership is only assured during university sessions?

Where is all of the ACTUAL INFORMATION involved? You would be led to think they have some type of basis if they are prepared to spend over a hundred million dollars. However, the "official" map of the line on the City of Winnipeg website looks to have been made using a combination of MS Paint and images from Google Maps. I actually laughed when I saw it. It was a laugh of frustration, mind you.

It is really sad that this project can seem so rushed after nearly five decades of putting it off...

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

In definite contrast to many of the posts on this forum, I would like to ask a question to all of you out there on Skyscraperpage who happen to visit these pages fairly often. Why does Winnipeg need rapid transit?

Winnipeg needs rapid transit just like any other city...to provide for current transporation needs and, more important, to provide for future needs as well. One would hope that any decision to provide BRT or LRT is based on the current and future needs of the city and is based on some master urban plan that takes future growth areas of the city into consideration. A BRT line to the University makes sense if that captures the highest number of current riders for the biggest pay off but also I hope it provides for where the urban planners think the city will grow.

[Wigglez]

Personally, I have never had a problem getting anywhere quickly in Winnipeg by car. Traffic seems to run smoothly and delays are never frequent under normal circumstances. This has made it very difficult for the bus system to be considered effective in the eyes of many Winnipeggers.


Not all people can afford cars, and with rising gas prices and environmental concerns more people will be taking public transportation in the future.

[Andy6]

Not all people can afford cars, and with rising gas prices and environmental concerns more people will be taking public transportation in the future.

Maybe, but we don't really know that. And, supposing that it's true, why can't those people just use the existing transit system? If fewer people are driving then ordinary transit buses will be able travel a lot faster on the suddenly uncongested streets.

[Andy6]

Winnipeg needs rapid transit just like any other city...to provide for current transporation needs and, more important, to provide for future needs as well.

I've seen remarkably little evidence that there really are any such needs. We're talking about a massive investment of public funds here, on the basis of nothing more than a vague feeling that the city has to have some sort of train thing running around somewhere in order to look modern.

[furiousmcd]

Not all people can afford cars, and with rising gas prices and environmental concerns more people will be taking public transportation in the future.

I would argue that we should be making transit more useful for all Winnipeggers instead of just something to be used by those who can't afford a car. I know that I am not the only person who would like to take the bus for the reasons you have mentioned but also finds it way too annoying and inconvenient.

[furiousmcd]

Just so I am not coming across as a total naysayer, I would like to make a suggestion for what could be done instead of the currently proposed bus rapid transit line to the University.

We could place a streetcar service on Portage Avenue from Downtown to Assiniboine Park. This would likely be much cheaper to implement than bus rapid transit, first of all, and it would allow us to replace all the current bus routes on that area of Portage with the streetcar service. This would make the route much less complicated and much more user friendly while greatly improving service frequency along the corridor. This would also allow us to move the buses that used to run up and down Portage (as they would have been replaced by the streetcar service) to other areas of the city and increase frequency of service there. The whole city would therefore see a noticeable improvement instead of one isolated area feeling a small improvement. Anyways, that's one idea I would suggest.

Just because bus rapid transit is viewed as "better than nothing," this does not necessarily mean that it is the best option or it is even worthwhile doing.

[Spocket]

^To be honest I don't see any need to spend money on a streetcar service. I'm not sure what advantages streetcars offer over regular transit service but they can't be so cheap as to justify the expense. You still have to spend the cash to lay down the rails and modify the stops. You're not going to be getting anywhere any quicker with a streetcar instead of a bus and frankly, I don't see any advantage to the inflexibility in this case.

[drew]

^ streetcars look way cooler. Case closed.

[sledhead35]

Maybe, but we don't really know that. And, supposing that it's true, why can't those people just use the existing transit system? If fewer people are driving then ordinary transit buses will be able travel a lot faster on the suddenly uncongested streets.

its more the idea that the city needs to make the option available to people that want to do their part. its a bit naive to say that fuel prices are not all that bad and therefore we dont need an improved rapid transit system. times are a changin and winnipeg needs to cater to the growing population that wants a convenient way to save money and the environment. just common sense if you ask me.

[thegreattait]

As for Monorail being cheeper then LRT, lets see some websites or something to back that up, because even the pro monorail website pegs their costs higher then LRT. I think with the pembina corridor LRT costs would be on the lower side of the scale similar to Calgary's 25million per Km. I can't see Monorail comming in cheaper then that. As from the sights I posted back a couple pages on monorail etc. they have it more like 35-45 for entry level monorail.

But I mean if a study gets done and the costs are cheaper, do it. I think Monorail has slightly less capacity per hour but I don't think Winnipeg is going to be using the higher ranges of either capacity number. I think Monorail can have similar capacities to an LRT 3 car set up, at minimum headways.

As for why we need rapid transit as oppose to better implementation of existing transit. The focus is on creating a system with a backbone. The full buses that were mentioned become less of a problem due to the higher capacities of LRT. (So you don't have to wait for the next train since it'll have more space). Also you know when that train is comming as the schedule is constant and predictable without the need to call in or look it up or carry a timetable. The permanency of the LRT creates a consistent level of service that is highly lacking from our bus system, ( and a pure bus system on mixed ROW by design can never be as consistent as a single ROW for LRT or BRT).

Rapid transit is more then just a PR tool for the City, its about creating an effective service that serves the citizens. Rapid transit, can be a cost effective way to move the greattest number of people in the shorttest amount of time. Simply improving regular bus service is nice and is definately needed but it fails to take into account the overall structural need for the system to be improved. By creating an efficient backbone structure, Winnipeg Transit can relieve pressure on the overall system allowing for the regular bus service to be improved. Transfers become less of an issue when passengers wait in heated and large facilities with services, such as retail etc.Putting these kinds of facilities in place without a backbone structure would mean 100s of stations, the rapid transit idea is about concentrating traffic flows and using that concentration to support better facilities and better forms of transportation.

As for why the Pembina Corridor? Yes the majority of the traffic will be U of M students... but that is an excellent reason not a negative point. Regular session is on from September to May, then rest of that time the U of M doesn't shut down, in fact it is quite active and courses continue (it's not like highschool). Also there are large number of densely populated areas near the proposed line, and there are a large number of work commuters that live in South Winnipeg that could take advantage of the line.

Another major factor as to why this line will be the first one to be constructed is because of the relative ease of obtaining the necessary land.

So one of the greattest traffic volumes out of any existing corridor in the city coupled with the ability to put the necessary land together is the reason why this route will be built first.

I do however see the need for a much larger and expanded version of a rapid transit system that covers other major routes such as Portage, main and henderson, along with many others.

[madsad]

I would argue that we should be making transit more useful for all Winnipeggers instead of just something to be used by those who can't afford a car. I know that I am not the only person who would like to take the bus for the reasons you have mentioned but also finds it way too annoying and inconvenient.

What you are saying is that transit needs to attract choice riders, rather than just captive riders. Choice riders are those who may own a car/cars, and afford to drive it/them, but nevertheless see transit as a realistic travel alternative that is cheap, convenient and as attractive as driving, if not, more so.

You can't do that by running regular transit buses in mixed traffic, even if you run more buses in mixed traffic. In mixed traffic, regular buses are at the mercy of traffic disruptions, delays, congestion due to accidents, etc, that make transit highly unreliable and VERY slow in comparison to driving.

This is not good enough to attract choice riders, and has, in fact, made transit highly unattractive to the very people you stated you think transit should attract. The elimination of light rail streetcar service in the 50s and 60s in North America and the conversion of these lines to mixed traffic bus routes operated by stinky and slow GM New Look diesels is a large cause of the exodus from the transit mode share and the current unpopularity of transit. You can even pile more buses on to routes, and run them every 3 minutes. Heck, every 30 seconds if you like, but it is a waste. It will merely result in bus bunching and make service highly inefficient.

What you need to attract choice riders is regular, frequent, reliable, and comfortable services. This means we need to get transit vehicles in segregated rights of way (out of traffic), running at frequent, regular intervals, and going where people need to go. We also need to get fare collection off transit vehicles and into the "stations", as fare collection is a big source of delays for transit, off-board collection allows for all-door boarding/alighting. Extras like park and ride, comfortable seats and on-board wi-fi also make transit more attractive, but they are extras.

Winnipeg is most definitely large enough to support rapid transit of most types, and was large enough decades ago. The presence of streetcars in Winnipeg's distant past proves this (granted, they weren't "rapid" as such, but they were a "higher-order" transit mode than the lowly omni-bus). Whether bus rapid transit or light rail, rapid transit has its place and will 1) service captive riders better, and 2) attract more choice riders to transit.

[Kitty Surprise]

I suppose one can argue the merits of Rapid Transit,

But isn't the whole point to create "Pearls on a string"; be it along Pembina or along Portage or along Main, the point is to create an area of permanent human traffic; a "catalyst" as it were, for Transit-Oriented-Development (TOD); an incentive for both business and residents to locate in and to take advantage of the benefits such an area affords (built-in customer base, walkable and healthy neighbourhoods, convenient transportation options, etc)

I've always maintained that cities that nurture and incubate this kind of built environment will not only retain but also attract the "Creative Class"

So when we ask "why do we need Rapid Transit" - It's not always about an actual "transportation need". It's a form of economic development; of talent retention and recruitment; of lowering health care costs and therefore tax burdens on us all. There are so meany benefits to rapid transit. We need to consider the larger picture, and above all else, do it right.

[madsad]

Yes, and you can take it a step further and argue for "transit supportive development", which western cities severely lack. Medium to high-density, pedestrian-oriented streets which inconvenience driving should be there first, then the rapid transit can be added later. Building a rapid transit megaproject with a sprinkling of rezoning and hoping the private sector will step up to the plate is a bit of a gamble.

I also argue that you can't "build" the creative class into a city. The things that attract the "creative class" largely rely on what marketers call "authenticity", and that (un)fortunately cannot be constructed. The Exchange District is popular with a certain type of person because of it's inherent characteristics (location, architecture, "vibe", nearby services and nightlife, walkability, edginess, non-vanilla-suburban-ness) . I don't think "things" like the RRC "add" anything to attract this target market.

[Smron]

"I" agree"."

[The Jabroni]

I think madsad hit every nail on the head around here. I totally agree that we need to attract more choice riders. I for one fall under that category. :D

[Smron]

When the BRT plan was announced, I was initially pro-BRT... in the sense that I didn't really care exactly what we did for rapid transit, the fact that we were doing something was good enough for me. But I think I have now changed my mind on this one.

First of all, the plan is going to take too long. At this rate, I am going to be dead before the first LRT car hits Winnipeg streets. Why wait? Construction prices aren't going to be coming down... ever again. It's not like waiting for a new TV to come down in price before you splurge and buy it.

I agree with the truwinnipeg.com article posted on here a while ago. A lot of the proposed stops along the Pembina corridor are in the middle of nowhere... Who is going to walk (or bus) all the way to one of these stops, to get on board some goofy bus to get to their destination maybe only a couple minutes faster than otherwise? It's ridiculous. Where is Tom Brodbeck on this one... is he pushing for the usual cost-benefit analysis?

How can we possibly spend this much money for something that's going to be such a minor improvement over what we have now? Other cities are looking at billions of dollars towards superior forms of rapid transit... and green is the new black, and we are looking at 150 million to spend on a few gas powered buses to run down ONE STREET??? There will be the old excuse 'Winnipeg can't afford it'... I don't understand. Winnipeg can't afford NOT to. Let's just do it right the first time.

I have been a user of transit for years... until I bought my first car a year ago. As big of an advocate of transit I was, I have got on a bus maybe 3 times since buying my car. I see no reason to do it. I can get anywhere faster in my car than on the bus, I can WALK some places faster than I can get to on the bus, or in the summer, take my bike... but usually I choose the car over excercising.

My girlfriend decided not to register her car this year and use the bus to get to work and university. To get from her place near Portage & Moray to my place near Provencher & Taché at PEAK service times... takes no less than 45 minutes. That doesn't include walking to her bus stop and from my bus stop to my place. If she comes here, and then takes the bus back afterwards, that's almost TWO HOURS on the bus. You can't increase ridership like that... how can someone spend two hours of their day sitting on a shitty bus? I could make the trip there and back TWICE in my car in an hour.

There are so many cities out there that are doing it RIGHT. Why are we doing so little? I went on a trip to Montreal earlier this year. My first trip to a big city other than Winnipeg. I was absolutely amazed by their transit system. Amazed is an understatement.. I was blown away. Somewhere downtown I went down a flight of stairs and got on a train. MOMENTS later I walked up a flight of stairs and was standing in Olympic Park... Quite a ways from downtown. I have more amazing subway stories. It was just so fast, and so consistent. And it seemed like everybody was using it. To top it all off.... the monthly pass was almost 20 dollars cheaper than Winnipeg's monthly pass... where we obvioulsy have far shittier service.

Who are these people that say Winnipeg doesn't need rapid transit because we don't have any real traffic problems? I have seen this argument several times... once in a Toronto newspaper article. At any given moment in Winnipeg, there are hundreds and hundreds of drivers sitting at red lights, idling their cars and burning up the fossil fuels (keeping prices nice and high...). So what if the traffic problems aren't comparable to Toronto? Is that justification for all these exhaust fumes going up into the air? And we call ourselves a green province...

In closing, after seeing how a real transit system works, and then coming back here to Shittypeg, I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time I hear/read something about our rapid transit soap opera and how we have such ambitious plans to do nothing. Spend the money and do it right the first time. Sorry for my incoherent rant.

[urbanprince]

so are you willing to increase your property taxes and significantly? Keep in mind only 30 per cent of peggers actually use transit.

So you wonder why LRT is not in the cards.

[thegreattait]

If your 30% of peggers using transit stat is true. I'd like to make this point that's 30% of Winnipeggers that use a shitty system, So just imagine the ridership numbers we could get if we had an effective rapid transit system linked to a well run regular transit system. That offered shorter commute times, consistent and reliable service, exciting transportation options like LRT and a plethora of TOD and Transit oriented services in walkable pearl communities around each of the major rapid transit stations.

I somehow predict that 30% would be a thing of the past if we could make all of the above come true. Give people a realistic alternative and they will jump at the chance.

Put together something half assed that is marginally better and you'll be lucky to even see marginally better then 30% ridership.

It's not "build it and they will come", its design it well so lots of people can use it effectively and efficiently.

As for higher taxes I have no problem leveling another tax on gas, the province could collect it for all gas sold in the province and redistribute it to the cities and RM's as infrastructure money. Gas fluctuates so widely now anyways that you aren't going to notice it being implemented, the next time prices start to fall (after some dramatic rise like we had this summer). School boards should be paid out of provincial funds (i.e. income tax portion from the province) and this will allow the cities more room to increase property taxes as they've had to freeze them for so many years now.

Just like any freeze (property, tuition etc.) The plan only works if you find alternate sources of revenue. Yes you have to start operating more efficiently but that can only go so far before you start taking away service, and I as a citizen in this country have no objection to paying taxes for services that are effectively and efficiently operated.

[Andy6]

If your 30% of peggers using transit stat is true. I'd like to make this point that's 30% of Winnipeggers that use a shitty system, So just imagine the ridership numbers we could get if we had an effective rapid transit system linked to a well run regular transit system. That offered shorter commute times, consistent and reliable service, exciting transportation options like LRT and a plethora of TOD and Transit oriented services in walkable pearl communities around each of the major rapid transit stations.

I don't understand what problem this is supposed to be solving. Getting around Winnipeg is pretty easy as it is and the transit system is sufficiently okay to already have a fairly high ridership level by North American standards. There are nowhere near the sort of traffic pressures and parking shortages that force some relatively well-off people with cars to use the subway system in Toronto (and in my experience, this number is not large -- the majority of people will pay almost any price to avoid public transit, even when it's a subway). The sort of LRT system that would increase overall ridership significantly on a city-wide basis would cost hundreds of millions, if not a billion or more dollars. Even supposing that that money existed, which it doesn't (and certainly doesn't now that we're heading into a likely recession), why should it be the city's priority to spend it this way rather than on schools, libraries, police, fire, road improvements, recreation, or on basic upkeep of the city's aging infrastructure (or, unthinkably, lowering taxes)?

[thegreattait]

Good public transit infrastructure can improve many aspects of a city.

Not all people can afford a vehicle, providing them with a good service makes their lives easier, as now they can get to work in, or go to school in a more efficient manner.

Good public transit decreases crime. The investment into a high quality system shows people that our city has something to offer them and they can take pride in this. Also when children and adolescents can take a rapid transit and a good bus system around the city they can access the libraries, schools, community centers and many other great activities that this city has to offer.
There are some 14 years olds stealing cars in the winter time because its easier to steal a car then it is to take a bus. I still think the police and the justice system have the major role in preventing crime and enforcing laws but I think that a livable city helps to reduce crime on its own, and rapid transit and a good public transit infrastructure makes for a more livable city.

You mention there is no pressure on parking spaces or roads, maybe that's because we tear down buildings that are still good, but that have more value as parking lots, maybe its because of the layout and design of our city our road infrastructure is inefficient because we have to accommodate so many cars and this increases maintenance and building costs. I still think all of the services you mentioned deserved to be funded but I think that they are made better off by having a rapid transit system and good quality transit system.

As for lower taxes, yes we can always paylower taxes, but then we also loose services. I believe most people don't mind paying taxes as long as they see that their tax dollars are being used effectively and efficiently. If people get a good service out of the tax dollars they pay then I think people are generally happy with this arrangement.

If you want a no tax, no service or even a low tax, low service system, I quite frankly think you are in the wrong country. The majority of Canadians don't want this kind of system, if we did we wouldn't have the services we have today. While you did not say you wanted no tax or even low tax, just lower taxes, I understand the difference, but do you not believe that a transportation network that helps to make the city more livable and vibrant is worth the investment and thus the tax that supports it?

Look at our governments, even our "right wing" conservatives are far left on issue compared to Democrats in the US or left wing parties in Australia.

Would you prefer a system of cars, roads and parking lots along with a substandard public transportation system. A system that is inefficient, highly costly to maintain. A system that separates communities and isolates individuals.

I have no problems with cars and roads, but I think that we are skewed to heavily towards that form of transportation and that a shift needs to take place in this city and more balanced approach one that offers a viable alternative to the "only cars" environment is necessary.

Look at your picture, it is the Scott Bathgate Nuty club buildings. This excellent representation of Winnipeg heritage could be torn down to make a parking lot of MTS employees and a manufacturing building could be built out in an industrial park separated from neighborhoods and the rest of the city. Instead it operates effectively in an urban setting and adds to the character of this great city.

While I don't think this location will last forever in it current form, due to its age and antiquated design, it is a representation that this kind of mixed development with tight packed buildings can work in a city and adds to its character. Having tight packed buildings is only possible with an effective and efficient rapid transit and public transit infrastructure.

[hexrae]

CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/10/07/bus-fares.html)

City committee approves bus fare hike
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 | 11:59 AM CT

A Winnipeg city committee has accepted a recommendation to increase transit fares by between two and three per cent on Jan. 1, 2009.

A report filed with the city's standing policy committee on infrastructure renewal and public works recommended the fares be increased to allow Winnipeg Transit to deal with increased salaries, wages and benefits, rising fuel costs and transfers to the bus replacement reserve fund.

The cost of diesel fuel, for example, has increased 54 per cent since 2006, the report notes. Transit director Dave Wardrop says every time the cost of diesel increases by a dime, the service's annual fuel cost goes up $1.5 million.

Full city council must also approve the increase before it goes ahead; councillors will consider the matter at a meeting later this month. If approved, the move would see:

* Full and handi-transit cash fares increase five cents to $2.30.
* Reduced and senior cash fares increase five cents to $1.80.
* Full and handi-transit tickets increase a nickel each, while reduced and senior tickets increase three cents each.
* All forms of full, reduced and handi-transit weekday, weekly and monthly passes increase the proportionate equivalent of a five cent full cash fare increase.
* Seniors tickets and passes are increase such that those fares remain at half the equivalent full fare.

The fare increase is estimated to produce $1.4 million in additional passenger revenue for 2009.

[Only The Lonely..]

Fire erupts on transit bus

Updated: October 7 at 04:57 PM CDT | Winnipeg Free Press

A City of Winnipeg bus caught fire this afternoon with as many as 40 people on board, witnesses say.


No one was injured.


A witness saw the bus catch on fire while driving by a Robins Donuts on Salter Street and Selkirk Avenue.


The witness ran after the bus and flagged it down to tell the driver the bus was on fire. By the time the bus stopped at Salter Avenue and Burrows Avenue, smoke was billowing out of the back. One person yelled “get down” as smoke continued to pour out of the bus.


Police shut down Salter Street while fire crews put out the fire through a window at the back of the bus.


The back of the bus was destroyed by the fire, which was put out by around 4:15 p.m.


The cause of the fire is not known.

[vid]

I bet it was an Invero.

[JayM]

I bet it was an Invero.

Either that or the New Air Conditioning ones... The Invero ones just rumble at a stand still when idling..

[vid]

I've never actually been on an Invero, but I've heard a lot of bad things about them.

I was on a bus the other night and thought I smelled electrical smoke but it disappeared so who knows what it was. It was Novabus though and I think Montreal has a problem with them catching on fire.

[JayM]

I've never actually been on an Invero, but I've heard a lot of bad things about them.

I was on a bus the other night and thought I smelled electrical smoke but it disappeared so who knows what it was. It was Novabus though and I think Montreal has a problem with them catching on fire.

I don't know about NovaBus they look like pretty simple buses. I suspect this was lack of maintenance all them union workers who voted YES to strike. lol

[Kinguni]

I bet it was an Invero.

I wish. ;)

It was a 400 series low floor, 1998 or 99 vintage. It's not the first one that burned.

Speaking of Inviros, Inviro II (http://www.newflyer.com/index/08-10-06-xcelsior-launch)? I wonder if they can actually do it right this time.

[vid]

I saw that at CPTDB and thought the same thing. They sure picked a shitty name for it.

Older Novas have some issues, like the older Newflyers, but the newer ones are prety reliable and very modern looking. I like them, but Toronto absolutely hates them. The worst bus of all time though is the Orion VII. Who ever invented them should burn in hell for unleashing such terror on the public. It's a 40 foot bus that seats as many people as a 30 foot bus. What's the point in that?! 40% of the floor space is taken up by large grey things that hold mechanical stuff and wheels.

[The Jabroni]

I bet it was an Invero.

Watching CTV News last night, it was a 1998/1999 D40 Low Floor model.

[JayM]

I saw that at CPTDB and thought the same thing. They sure picked a shitty name for it.

Older Novas have some issues, like the older Newflyers, but the newer ones are prety reliable and very modern looking. I like them, but Toronto absolutely hates them. The worst bus of all time though is the Orion VII. Who ever invented them should burn in hell for unleashing such terror on the public. It's a 40 foot bus that seats as many people as a 30 foot bus. What's the point in that?! 40% of the floor space is taken up by large grey things that hold mechanical stuff and wheels.

I Agree!!! lol

[JayM]

I wish. ;)

It was a 400 series low floor, 1998 or 99 vintage. It's not the first one that burned.

Speaking of Inviros, Inviro II (http://www.newflyer.com/index/08-10-06-xcelsior-launch)? I wonder if they can actually do it right this time.

Just looked at website and seen a new model...

http://newflyer.com/index/xcelsior-highlights
http://newflyer.com/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=7304_nfi_primo_brochure%20final.pdf

[Kinguni]

Just looked at website and seen a new model...

http://newflyer.com/index/xcelsior-highlights
http://newflyer.com/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=7304_nfi_primo_brochure%20final.pdf

Like I said, Inviro II, hopefully not doomed like the Inviro was. The ones Winnipeg Transit has spent well over a year after their manufacture date in the shop before they were road worthy. We only have 9 of them and many drivers were hoping for one less. Used to be 10 but one got T-boned and written off a couple of years back.

[thegreattait]

From the Winnipeg Free Press

BIG PROJECTS: Still on track

Infrastructure projects in Manitoba are unlikely to be rocked by the gyrations hitting the world's financial markets.

"I don't think this will have any effect on the capital projects currently underway or slated to be done in the near future," said Gary Gibson, assistant deputy minister for the treasury division of Manitoba Finance.

"I'm not concerned about our access to capital," Gibson added. ""We're ahead in our borrowing program. we keep adequate liquid reserves. I'm not anticipating any of those will be needed."

The provincial government budgeted $579 million in capital investment for 2008-09, an amount that would largely cover road and highway repairs, sewage work, park infrastructure, as well as the expansion of the Red River Floodway.

At city hall, worsening economic conditions could affect the city's borrowing costs for projects such as the proposed rapid-transit corridor.

But administrators aren't in a position yet where they have to borrow the $89.75 million needed for the corridor through southwest Winnipeg, said the city's manager of financial services.

"As far as cost, the credit crisis means the city will likely pay more for the debt that it issues," said Garry Steski. "It's going to cost more for that money than it would have six or eight months ago."

In June, the city borrowed $100 million for work on the new water treatment plant. It paid 5.4 per cent interest on the loan, Steski said. If it had to borrow the money for the rapid transit project, it might have to pay about 5.75 per cent in interest. But he was quick to say the planned borrowing to help pay for rapid transit would not take place until 2009 or 2010, giving world financial markets a long time to settle down.


So does this mean Rapid transit won't be starting until possibly 2010. Lots of time for them to switch to LRT, when is the next mayoral election, maybe we'll get another one before this thing gets built. A new set of Counselors and a mayor with some vision for this city.

[Greco Roman]

So does this mean Rapid transit won't be starting until possibly 2010. Lots of time for them to switch to LRT, when is the next mayoral election, maybe we'll get another one before this thing gets built. A new set of Counselors and a mayor with some vision for this city.

We all know Winnipeg is well known for delays in anything being done, but if this does get delayed, it might just be a blessing in disguise and a better and more efficient mode of rapid transit can be selected and implemented.

[1ajs]

neat photo i found tonight in one of the books i bought tonight
http://pointdouglas.com/plugins/p17_image_gallery/images/1401.jpg

[thegreattait]

Awesome photo of a monorail down portage, that must have been from Mayor Juba's plan. Too bad he couldn't convince council on the idea or we could be riding it now instead of talking about hopefully better plans to arise by 2010

[JayM]

neat photo i found tonight in one of the books i bought tonight
http://pointdouglas.com/plugins/p17_image_gallery/images/1401.jpg

Sweet Photo!

[JayM]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1519681409?bctid=1842751533

A little video from WFP showing the smoke from the bus...

[thegreattait]

I wonder how they "photoshopped" this thing together back then?

Look at the placement of the support structure, mysteriously showing up half on the boulevard and in the lane, with concrete that juts out into the lane, and the mysterious lack of a shadow for the structure on portage ave.

Also in today's designs the stations would need elevators to accomodate the physically challenged instead of just a set of concrete stairs, I'd also hate to think what it would be like standing on top of that concrete platform in -40c with a strong with, it could blow you right off.

I'd vote for an enclosed structure, maybe that's why it got turned down...lol