[Bdog]

Arguing for LRT in Winnipeg right now is akin to arguing that Dauphin needs a subway because someday it might actually need it.

Really??? :shrug:

[MalcolmTucker]

I'm up in Ottawa 3 or 4 times a year. And yeah, there would be little cash savings from a bus tunnel. You still just need just as many drivers to move just as many people - in fact you would have escalated costs as you move people that have avoided the transit way back to the bus mode.

Buses inherently cost more operationally than buses for the same number of people above a certain threshold of capacity if your designing a system with a minimum headway.

Does Winnipeg need a burried LRT downtown like Ottawa and Calgary do? No. But not even doing an economic analysis to see if BRT over 30 years will be cheaper than LRT is stupid.

If the corridor has enough demand to justify an exclusive ROW, I would imagine the demand would be close to the tipping point where LRT will be cheaper. If not, the BRT is fine, if so, then build what is right.

[Spocket]

Really??? :shrug:

Well yeah . The same logic being employed by the pro-LRT crowd would be used to justify a subway in Dauphin . Can anybody really argue with a straight face that Winnipeg needs LRT ? Of course not . What they talk about is the future and how we might need it at some point in the future . They like to trot out unrealistic figures that suggest we'd be able to justify LRT in 10 or 20 years but the truth is that until Winnipeg reaches at least a million with a sufficient density along certain corridors it'll probably be closer to 50 or 60 years before we could justify having an LRT line running in this city .

Even at the most optimistic projections , Winnipeg is not expected to hit 1 million people any time in the next couple of decades . At best , we'll be lucky to get there by 2050 . That could change (and it probably will) but "planning" for these things and the amount of cash it's going to cost must rely on solid , realistic numbers rather than somebody's brightly coloured best guess .

It's actually cheaper to build BRT and spend money later to upgrade to LRT as the need arises . This is due to the fact that it costs more to run trains ... whether they're less than expected or not still doesn't make them cheap or cheaper than BRT . Just like plonking down all your cash on a mansion so that one day , when you have a family and a great job , you'll be set . Great ... and you could have saved a fortune in property taxes and maintenance on that mansion in the interim by simply buying something you actually need . There's no need to go bankrupt to get rapid transit in this town .

[1ajs]

look at calgary

[Bdog]

The same logic being employed by the pro-LRT crowd would be used to justify a subway in Dauphin . Can anybody really argue with a straight face that Winnipeg needs LRT ? Of course not . What they talk about is the future and how we might need it at some point in the future . They like to trot out unrealistic figures that suggest we'd be able to justify LRT in 10 or 20 years but the truth is that until Winnipeg reaches at least a million with a sufficient density along certain corridors it'll probably be closer to 50 or 60 years before we could justify having an LRT line running in this city .


If the "same logic being employed by the pro-LRT crowd would be used to justify a subway in Dauphin", then by your logic, there is no need for city planning. City planning is all about preparing/anticipating for the future, and even spurring future development.

What you're saying is: We probably don't need LRT right now, so why build it?

Well then, why build the floodway for a 1-700 year flood? There is no 1-700 year flood this year.

Why build the Kenaston underpass with room for 6 lanes? There are only 4 lanes there right now.

Why Build Centreport Canada Way? There is no development there yet.

Obviously all planning decisions look at the short and long term.

[MalcolmTucker]

look at calgary
Yeah, Calgary was pretty small when the LRT was first planned, and the corridors less dense than what Winnipeg has to offer.

[Spocket]

If the "same logic being employed by the pro-LRT crowd would be used to justify a subway in Dauphin", then by your logic, there is no need for city planning. City planning is all about preparing/anticipating for the future, and even spurring future development.

What you're saying is: We probably don't need LRT right now, so why build it?

Well then, why build the floodway for a 1-700 year flood? There is no 1-700 year flood this year.

Why build the Kenaston underpass with room for 6 lanes? There are only 4 lanes there right now.

Why Build Centreport Canada Way? There is no development there yet.

Obviously all planning decisions look at the short and long term.
Your last line is your own best refutation . It's exactly for that reason that we shouldn't be building LRT in Winnipeg . In the short term we don't need it and in the long term that we can foresee we won't need it either .

Just like you yourself said when you used the Kenaston underpass as an example : It's built to accommodate six lanes but only has four right now . Why is that ? Because we don't need six right now and it's silly to pay for the maintenance of six lanes for an indefinite number of years .

And it's not "probably" don't need LRT , we definitely don't need it right now . If people want to say "Well look at Calgary" then fine ... let's look at Calgary .
Calgary was roughly the same size as Winnipeg is now when it built its first C-Train line . It's now double the size of Winnipeg a short 25 or so years later with an ever growing difference in population to boot . Calgary planners looked at their city , looked at their numbers , and had the money to throw away anyway if it didn't work out . You could just as easily look at Edmonton which is laid out in the same more or less even radius from the center ... like Winnipeg . Has LRT been particularly successful there ? Kinda ... not like Calgary though . In Calgary the passengers were going to be easy to find because of the way Calgary is shaped and the fact that their is only one direct route from the southern suburbs into the core . That and the fact that Calgary has an exceptionally high number of downtown workers made the C-Train far more cost-efficient than any other method of rapid mass transportation . They knew that they were going to grow by leaps and bounds in a pretty short period of time . We know we're not going to .

And the floodway ... well , let's see here : For one thing , the floodway is designed for a once-in-700 year flood now . Funny thing is that that flood could come in the next eight or nine months for all we know . Or it may never happen at all . What we do know is that in the past sixty years , we've come close to seeing the city destroyed twice . Just because the maximum level of flooding for the particular flood the floodway is designed for now isn't always going to be reached doesn't mean that it won't go over the level of the 1997 flood . To put that in different words ; If the original floodway was designed to accommodate 25 feet of a crested Red and the new design can hold back 35 feet , that doesn't mean that we won't get floods over 25 feet anymore . Just like Calgary's planners , we looked at the numbers and realized that it was far more cost-effective to plan for the inevitable than to cross our fingers and hope for the best .

That's exactly what planning is all about . Planners try to find a balance between what a jurisdiction needs and what it can afford to do (and by afford , I'm not just talking about money either) I get the impression that a lot of folks on this board think that planners are supposed to dream big and forget the details even when said details get in the way of common sense .

Lastly , as for CCW , as a matter of fact , I don't really understand why we're building it right now . Actually , no , that's not true . We're building it right now because the feds offered the cash and the people in charge of Centreport knew that if they didn't grab it now , it might not come when they did need it . Remember "shovel-ready projects" ? Yeah , that's why we're building it right now instead of when there's an actual demand for an arterial route through that area . Had the city used even one of their countless studies and directed some capital funding towards detailed planning of a rapid transit corridor , we'd probably be getting that instead . Maybe we'd even be getting the trains that some people so desperately want for no discernible reason other than the "We're a big city !" feeling they think LRT will provide .

In any case , do you realize how many projects this city has on the books that , had they been shovel-ready , would have been funded long before CCW ? Inner ring , Perimeter upgrades , various interchanges , bridge replacement , railway grade-separations , riverbank stabilization , road and sewer repairs , and the list goes on . This city has been talking about rapid transit for sixty years and until ten years ago , not once was any of the money we'd wasted on it put towards actually doing something about it . We could have zoned , bought up land , identified some ROWs ... all kinds of things but instead our leaders dithered . Now we've got the king of flip-flops in charge and he's wasting money on yet another study to determine what we already know and have known for a long , long time : We don't need LRT and we can't afford it anyway .

[RTD]

If the "same logic being employed by the pro-LRT crowd would be used to justify a subway in Dauphin", then by your logic, there is no need for city planning. City planning is all about preparing/anticipating for the future, and even spurring future development.

What you're saying is: We probably don't need LRT right now, so why build it?

Well then, why build the floodway for a 1-700 year flood? There is no 1-700 year flood this year.

Why build the Kenaston underpass with room for 6 lanes? There are only 4 lanes there right now.

Why Build Centreport Canada Way? There is no development there yet.

Obviously all planning decisions look at the short and long term.

Fully agreed!!! And you know what? To all those who say "bah! people only want it cause they think it's sexy and makes us feel like a big city", this is part of the reason why it's a good idea and is not negative whatsoever. LRT will have more appeal for mass transit than buses because it's an alternative TO buses. More people in Winnipeg are talking about wanting LRT and thinking about FUTURE PLANNING, and this is a very good thing.

[Spocket]

Fully agreed!!! And you know what? To all those who say "bah! people only want it cause they think it's sexy and makes us feel like a big city", this is part of the reason why it's a good idea and is not negative whatsoever. LRT will have more appeal for mass transit than buses because it's an alternative TO buses. More people in Winnipeg are talking about wanting LRT and thinking about FUTURE PLANNING, and this is a very good thing.

I'm becoming more and more certain that few of you understand what planning for the future actually means .
Do you buy so much food your fridge has no room and you can't eat it all before it goes bad ?
Have you bought a cemetery plot before you've secured your education ?
Do you rack up your credit card debts before you have a job ?

Just admit it ... you want LRT because it's pretty and shiny . That's it . Don't say that it's about planning for the future because the future you're referring to is neither certain nor is it anywhere close to near .

Prudent and just plain common sense planning dictates that the city build a BRT corridor that is as easy as possible to upgrade when and if the need ever arises . You guys are trying to put the cart before the horse here . Winnipeg is NOT a boom town , it is NOT rich as cities in the developed world go , it is NOT dense , it is NOT congested , and it is NOT particularly polluted . It is also NOT going to be any of these things in the near future either . Not only the near future but in the foreseeable future too for that matter . If the city acts now , maybe it will be dense or even far-flung enough to warrant LRT . That's in FORTY OR FIFTY YEARS ... not next year , or even next decade . And that's also a great big IF . You guys are arguing that the city should spend a fortune on a yearly basis to build an LRT line because you think that some day in the distant future , Winnipeg might need it if all goes well . And this is your idea of good planning ? If so then try planning your life this way . I'd be curious to find out how long you lasted being that wasteful .

[RTD]

I'm becoming more and more certain that few of you understand what planning for the future actually means.

So what if PART of the reason that people want LRT is because it's different and exotic for Winnipeg? Clearly you have some sort of hate-on for that and that is your opinion. And no, I am no city planner (are you?) but I do have some common sense in terms of what planning is (like you are trying to make it out like I don't), and I do feel that as the city grows, it's better to plan ahead while the costs are lower, instead of installing a system now and then ripping it up and installing a new one x amount of years down the road. Yeah, I know you'll try to make me feel stupid for saying that like some of you have a tendency to do, but again this is the direction I feel the city needs to go.


Just admit it ... you want LRT because it's pretty and shiny . That's it . Don't say that it's about planning for the future because the future you're referring to is neither certain nor is it anywhere close to near.

Excuse me, but who the hell are you to tell me what I am thinking or what my opinions are? You do not know me or what I fully stand for, so please do not spout off on here what you "believe" I am thinking, okay? I have stated over again that I feel this is best for the long term future of mass transit in the city, thank you very much.



Prudent and just plain common sense planning dictates that the city build a BRT corridor that is as easy as possible to upgrade when and if the need ever arises . You guys are trying to put the cart before the horse here . Winnipeg is NOT a boom town , it is NOT rich as cities in the developed world go , it is NOT dense , it is NOT congested , and it is NOT particularly polluted . It is also NOT going to be any of these things in the near future either . Not only the near future but in the foreseeable future too for that matter . If the city acts now , maybe it will be dense or even far-flung enough to warrant LRT . That's in FORTY OR FIFTY YEARS ... not next year , or even next decade . And that's also a great big IF . You guys are arguing that the city should spend a fortune on a yearly basis to build an LRT line because you think that some day in the distant future , Winnipeg might need it if all goes well . And this is your idea of good planning ? If so then try planning your life this way . I'd be curious to find out how long you lasted being that wasteful .

Yes, I am well aware that this isn't the richest city in the world, but we sure as hell aren't the poorest, either. And I have confidence that the tide is turning for the future of this city; we are growing, we are developing, we are competing with other larger cities. Sure, we still have a shitload of work to do before we get to a much higher level as a city, but this city is changing for the better, and I am proud of it. You think we don't have enough money for LRT? Then how is it possible we have enough money for BRT? It's nothing but expensive "pretty and shiny" new buses that run throughout a non-dense city (as you have said). Why have anything at all? Well, maybe the city can't afford public transportation at all? Maybe the city can only afford to fill in pot holes for the car enthusiests out there? Perhaps we are too poor of a city that we should give up on transit altogether and focus on road development? Wouldn't that save us a lot of money since we are so dirt poor that we can't afford or deserve anything decent for a change? :rolleyes:

[Reed Solomon]

Winnipeg is NOT a boom town , it is NOT rich as cities in the developed world go , it is NOT dense , it is NOT congested , and it is NOT particularly polluted . It is also NOT going to be any of these things in the near future either . Not only the near future but in the foreseeable future too for that matter . If the city acts now , maybe it will be dense or even far-flung enough to warrant LRT . That's in FORTY OR FIFTY YEARS ... not next year , or even next decade . And that's also a great big IF . You guys are arguing that the city should spend a fortune on a yearly basis to build an LRT line because you think that some day in the distant future , Winnipeg might need it if all goes well . And this is your idea of good planning ? If so then try planning your life this way . I'd be curious to find out how long you lasted being that wasteful .

Wow. If most citizens of winnipeg had that attitude, you'd be right. The cities that do plan for a boom are the ones that get the boom. Las Vegas. There is no reason for Las Vegas to exist. Phoenix. What the hell excuse is there for people to live in Phoenix? None. It's a freaking desert. But sometimes, to quote a baseball movie if you build it they will come.

This isn't a freakin Burj Dubai, either. This is something that will have economic spinoff. So what if its not as cheap as BRT? Why should we always go for the cheapest option? In my opinion a good public transit system should not rely on just one form of rapid transit. Many people hate buses for good reason when they don't hate LRT. The goal of public transit is not to make money, but to provide safe and efficient means for people to get from point A to point B. If people don't want to go on it in the first place (Bus rapid transit) then its not worth the money AT ALL.

Reasons why Winnipeg should go with LRT:

- Historical. Winnipeg would not exist in the first place if it wasn't for the railroad. And you know what? People back then thought it was a foolish waste of money, just like people like you thought the floodway was a waste of money.
- Promotional. Sometimes you spend a little extra on something, in this case rapid transit, to have something sexy that you can sell the city with. Sure the bridge at the forks there was a waste of money, but its on every postcard of the city. Theres NOTHING sexy about buses. LRT, however, you can sell. Look at San Francisco. What do you think of when you think San Francisco? You think of their cable cars. People do not think of that when they think of buses. I can assure you. How many postcards can you buy with Winnipeg transit buses on them? I doubt they're huge sellers if they exist.
- Sociological. Bus Rapid Transit will do nothing to keep people from moving out of Winnipeg. LRT might convince people that this city isn't a slightly bigger Saskatoon or Regina.

If WE don't spend the money on LRT, some other city with more forward thinking politicians WILL. The money is there, thanks to our history with rail we already have most of the land (a huge expense in most cities).

You build the city you want, not the city you can afford. Because if you build the city you can afford, nobody will want to live there, and you won't be able to afford it anyways.

[RTD]

:yeahthat :cheers:

[GORDBO]

[QUOTE=Spocket;4951122]Well yeah . The same logic being employed by the pro-LRT crowd would be used to justify a subway in Dauphin . Can anybody really argue with a straight face that Winnipeg needs LRT ? Of course not . What they talk about is the future and how we might need it at some point in the future . They like to trot out unrealistic figures that suggest we'd be able to justify LRT in 10 or 20 years but the truth is that until Winnipeg reaches at least a million with a sufficient density along certain corridors it'll probably be closer to 50 or 60 years before we could justify having an LRT line running in this city .

Even at the most optimistic projections , Winnipeg is not expected to hit 1 million people any time in the next couple of decades . At best , we'll be lucky to get there by 2050 . That could change (and it probably will) but "planning" for these things and the amount of cash it's going to cost must rely on solid , realistic numbers rather than somebody's brightly coloured best guess .

It's actually cheaper to build BRT and spend money later to upgrade to LRT as the need arises . This is due to the fact that it costs more to run trains ... whether they're less than expected or not still doesn't make them cheap or cheaper than BRT . Just like plonking down all your cash on a mansion so that one day , when you have a family and a great job , you'll be set . Great ... and you could have saved a fortune in property taxes and maintenance




please disregard this, originally meant to comment on different quote, but couldn't figure out how to erase whole message!

[Spocket]

So what if PART of the reason that people want LRT is because it's different and exotic for Winnipeg? Clearly you have some sort of hate-on for that and that is your opinion. And no, I am no city planner (are you?) but I do have some common sense in terms of what planning is (like you are trying to make it out like I don't), and I do feel that as the city grows, it's better to plan ahead while the costs are lower, instead of installing a system now and then ripping it up and installing a new one x amount of years down the road. Yeah, I know you'll try to make me feel stupid for saying that like some of you have a tendency to do, but again this is the direction I feel the city needs to go.
So what ? It's not "part" of the reason , it's the greatest part of it . I don't "hate" LRT , I just know how to curb my enthusiasm for things I can't afford . I'd probably like to own a solid-gold toilet too but other than its aesthetic appeal , I can't justify the expense . It would cost us LESS to build BRT and then , years down the road when we need it , convert it to LRT . So much less in fact that we could put the difference in cost towards all kinds of other important things around the city .
Am I city planner ? Nope . I did spend two years studying urban planning though before reasons I won't get into forced me to quit .

Excuse me, but who the hell are you to tell me what I am thinking or what my opinions are? You do not know me or what I fully stand for, so please do not spout off on here what you "believe" I am thinking, okay? I have stated over again that I feel this is best for the long term future of mass transit in the city, thank you very much.
Who the hell do I think I am ? I think I'm the guy telling you to use some common sense before trying to waste everybody else's money because you want something shiny and can't justify the expense using the tools commonly employed to do so (like reliable numbers for example) You "feel" like this is the direction Winnipeg needs to go ? You said that and now you want to argue that I have no right to transpose some motivation onto your nebulous thinking because you won't (and probably can't) do it yourself . Who cares if you "feel" anything in regards to urban planning ... your "feelings" will cost us millions and millions every year for an under-used system that we knew we never needed in the first place . You MUST have never paid a dime in property taxes to base all of this on your feelings . A good chunk of your paycheque gone missing would probably pour some cold water on what you "feel" is best for Winnipeg .

Yes, I am well aware that this isn't the richest city in the world, but we sure as hell aren't the poorest, either. And I have confidence that the tide is turning for the future of this city; we are growing, we are developing, we are competing with other larger cities. Sure, we still have a shitload of work to do before we get to a much higher level as a city, but this city is changing for the better, and I am proud of it. You think we don't have enough money for LRT? Then how is it possible we have enough money for BRT? It's nothing but expensive "pretty and shiny" new buses that run throughout a non-dense city (as you have said). Why have anything at all?
Yeah , funny thing eh ? Isn't that exactly what I said a few posts up ? Why yes ... yes it is .
Well, maybe the city can't afford public transportation at all? Maybe the city can only afford to fill in pot holes for the car enthusiests out there? Perhaps we are too poor of a city that we should give up on transit altogether and focus on road development? Wouldn't that save us a lot of money since we are so dirt poor that we can't afford or deserve anything decent for a change? :rolleyes:
And there you go again proving my point . You can't prove your case with evidence so you try histrionics instead . Thanks .

[Kinguni]

It would cost us LESS to build BRT and then , years down the road when we need it , convert it to LRT .

What would make sense is to built for LRT (flexible streetcars) by getting the rails in the roadbed now so they don't have to break up the concrete later to put the rails in, but do it with BRT until ridership and/or TOD justifies LRT or the funding is in place. Then, to make even more sense, do this BRT with trolleys on the main line (U of M to downtown and perhaps U of M to Osborne Village).

Heck, I find the idea of NFI BRT trolleys somewhat sexy! Expect the first couple of years of this BRT to be running the same old buses though. At that even this short BRT line could shave 10 minutes off a peak hour express trip down Pembina.

Too bad they aren't planning a connection from Pembina to the Fort Rouge station though. Pedestrian bridge across the tracks would be great. Wouldn't be a bad thing to have near Osborne Station either to make the active transportation link.

[RTD]

So what ? It's not "part" of the reason , it's the greatest part of it . I don't "hate" LRT , I just know how to curb my enthusiasm for things I can't afford . I'd probably like to own a solid-gold toilet too but other than its aesthetic appeal , I can't justify the expense . It would cost us LESS to build BRT and then , years down the road when we need it , convert it to LRT . So much less in fact that we could put the difference in cost towards all kinds of other important things around the city .
Am I city planner ? Nope . I did spend two years studying urban planning though before reasons I won't get into forced me to quit.

Again, please don't tell me what I am thinking, or making ASSumptions about myself or others. I have seen and heard both sides of the BRT/LRT argument (so as to get a balanced viewpoint on the subject) made by many to allow myself to make an educated opinion where I believe LRT is a better choice for the city. Not good enough for your "standards"? Too bloody bad.


Who the hell do I think I am ? I think I'm the guy telling you to use some common sense before trying to waste everybody else's money because you want something shiny and can't justify the expense using the tools commonly employed to do so (like reliable numbers for example) You "feel" like this is the direction Winnipeg needs to go ? You said that and now you want to argue that I have no right to transpose some motivation onto your nebulous thinking because you won't (and probably can't) do it yourself . Who cares if you "feel" anything in regards to urban planning ... your "feelings" will cost us millions and millions every year for an under-used system that we knew we never needed in the first place . You MUST have never paid a dime in property taxes to base all of this on your feelings . A good chunk of your paycheque gone missing would probably pour some cold water on what you "feel" is best for Winnipeg .

Heh, wow. Are you ever a pompous ass, telling me that I can't think properly or that my opinion is not valid in "your world". And there you go, making your ASSumptions again, as I am a property owner and DO pay my fair share of taxes, skippy. You might want to try and get off you holier than thou pedastal that you have placed yourself on out there in China; it doesn't suite you. And I don't feel it's a "WASTE OF MONEY" and neither do many others. I feel it is a good investment for the future of mass transportation in the city.


Yeah , funny thing eh ? Isn't that exactly what I said a few posts up ? Why yes ... yes it is .

Uh no, that isn't a funny thing because that isn't exactly what you said a few posts above. I partly agreed with you that Winnipeg isn't the richest city, but I disagreed with you in terms of that the city isn't so poor as to not being able to implementing LRT now for the long term transportation needs of the city.

And there you go again proving my point . You can't prove your case with evidence so you try histrionics instead . Thanks

Proving what point? That you think your so much more intelligent than myself or others that would like to see LRT in this city? Again, maybe you should bring down the condescending tone. This is only an internet forum, where people express their OPINIONS. I don't have time to research every single little fact for every single topic that comes up around her, as I have a job, a family, friends and a life. So feel free to continue to childeshly insults others who disagree with you which makes you feel so much superior. As long as you can sleep better at night, I would say it's worth if for you.

[roccerfeller]

RTD man, you take things way too personally...while you may disagree with Spocket, no need to diss the guy. Its an internet forum man...


Reed Solomon, that was a solid post.

Spocket, I myself am Pro LRT, but I do enjoy your posts too. They represent a great counter argument, and you are correct to a substantial degree, especially the essence of your point of "affordability". However, I feel (perhaps by nature of the arguments) you might be a little too extreme on the "LRT-no-no for now" train of thought. But if the difference of having LRT to BRT is not Solid Gold Toilet to American Standard toilet, but rather American Standard's Toilet with a Seat Warmer to American Standard, then streetcars are all fine by me.

Ultimately though, while my personal opinion is pro LRT, I just want to see some RT in Winnipeg period. Its a hassle for many of my U of M friends, especially those out of town, to get downtown from bus alone. Its takes them up to an hour, myself to up to an hour, if we leave by bus. By Car, no more than 20-25 mins. I would imagine RT from a UofM to Downtown leg would be much faster than that...perhaps 15-20mins. That is much more preferable to an hour. If it ends up being BRT, so be it.

However, if we have the capacity to incorporate LRT, why not go for the "shirt that will last us longer anyway"

Lets just get this RT thing chugging along! For a city our size, we dont really need all the legs Calgary or Edmonton have, but we certainly can have one or two.

[RTD]

RTD man, you take things way too personally...while you may disagree with Spocket, no need to diss the guy. Its an internet forum man...

No worries, I'm done discussing this with him, telling me my opinion doesn't matter in a condescending tone, simply because I don't spend hours upon hours researching topics on an internet forum as he likely does. I know where I stand on the issue, as does he, so it's all good.

[Bdog]

Its takes them up to an hour, myself to up to an hour, if we leave by bus. By Car, no more than 20-25 mins.

It most definitely does not take an hour to get from U of M to downtown, even in the busiest traffic. Maybe you should try the 62 Super Express or the 61 Express (but even the 60 doesn't take an hour 9 times out of 10)...

[roccerfeller]

It most definitely does not take an hour to get from U of M to downtown, even in the busiest traffic. Maybe you should try the 62 Super Express or the 61 Express (but even the 60 doesn't take an hour 9 times out of 10)...

"up to" an hour, when all is said and done, has been my experience

nice avatar btw

[Winnipegger]

I can easily see it taking an hour to get from downtown to the U of M. It honestly takes ten minutes to get from Silverstone off of Dalhousie to the Terminal at the University when the 62 needs to stop every fifty feet to pick up the massive loads of students in the middle of February. To say that it takes an hour from downtown is a very probable situation.

[jimj_wpg]

Well yeah . The same logic being employed by the pro-LRT crowd would be used to justify a subway in Dauphin.

Spocket (Bill Menzies?), there are two types of souls. Those who are in Service to Self, and those that are in Service to Others.

You're in Service to Self (meaning selfish), and Service to Others always trumps Service to Self.

Love wins everytime.

We are not saying to build a "subway in Dauphin". We are saying that Winnipeg is currently building an LRT with several underground (south of Jubilee this is a MUST, and north of Union Station), above-ground (Stradbrook area), and at-grade sections (CN Fort Rouge Yards) - where it is most beneficial to do such at various stretches of the route.

[jimj_wpg]

It most definitely does not take an hour to get from U of M to downtown, even in the busiest traffic. Maybe you should try the 62 Super Express or the 61 Express (but even the 60 doesn't take an hour 9 times out of 10)...

A few weeks back I was visiting a friend, who lives near the Mint. It was a Saturday night, and I had to catch the DART bus and transfer at Southdale Centre to catch a 16.

It took me 1 hour to get back Downtown.

[jimj_wpg]

Yes but how will Winnipegers be able to fit 15 baby strollers on that before the doors close?

And 10 cycling bikes....

On one rail car.

[jimj_wpg]

.............

[RTD]

Over the next few months, Katz will be meeting with Bombardier for the tender for the rolling stock and tenders with them or other subcontracters for the electrical infrastucture for LRT.

An announcement will be made by December 2010, latest by Feburary 2011, with a press conference to sign on the dotted line.

Again, the BRT/cycling crowd will not interfere, nor will they block in any way the advancement of the LRT project in Winnipeg. They will have their cycling path, but it will not interfere with LRT R-O-W.

And yes, there will be sufficient funds headed our way to pay for underground LRT between Jubilee and Bison/Pembina.

It seems as though you have some inside knowledge on the goings on with rapid transit. Do you know if they intend to continue on building Phase 1 currently under construction as BRT, or are they building it to cater to LRT? Does this also mean that our socialist provincial government has now accepted LRT as the preferred method of mass transit in Winnipeg?

[jimj_wpg]

^^^

No, just using Law of Attraction to create reality.

A few weeks ago, both the Provincial & Federal levels of gov't have said that Winnipeg can do whatever it wants with transit funding. They are no longer dictating to us BRT or LRT. That is because I did some meditating that that would change. And so it did.

I don't have the newspaper article to cite, but it must be in this thread somewhere.

[jimj_wpg]

Just re-posting my reply. I accidentally deleted it, when editing.

Over the next few months, Katz will be meeting with Bombardier for the tender for the rolling stock and tenders with them or other subcontracters for the electrical infrastucture for LRT.

An announcement will be made by December 2010, latest by Feburary 2011, with a press conference to sign on the dotted line.

Again, the BRT/cycling crowd will not interfere, nor will they block in any way the advancement of the LRT project in Winnipeg. They will have their cycling path, but it will not interfere with LRT R-O-W.

And yes, there will be sufficient funds headed our way to pay for underground LRT between Jubilee and Bison/Pembina.

[jimj_wpg]

Re: meditating to create reality.

Back in 2004 after Marion Motors had closed I had this thought that, hey, wouldn't it be nice if there was a new bar, and it was to be called Confusion Corner Bar. And it would have red neon outside.

I now know that was not my idea, but I somehow received, through the ether, the owner's thought to set that same bar that is there now.

Also, last week I had this thought while walking past streetcar 596 that LRT project should continue and project 356 should be secondary. On the weekend I read in the Freep that funding to fix 356 is still "years away". So I was probably picking up on someone's thought about that particular issue.

Our thoughts do travel past our body/mind - group consciousness.

RTD wrote:

Do you know if they intend to continue on building Phase 1 currently under construction as BRT, or are they building it to cater to LRT?

Instead of asking whether they have or not, set the intention, wish it to be true (see all that relates to it as happening) that the City is currently building LRT now, not 30 or 40 years from now, but NOW.

By 2014/15 we should have something useful to ride -the LRT will be opened and the construction of it will be reasonably within budget.
See yourself waiting for your LRT on the platform along with others, see the LRT approach the platform with its bright headlights. Hear the people around the platform talking, texting, maybe the PA with an announcement for passengers. See you and others board the train and the doors closing after everyone's on, and the train accelerating and moving to out of the station, with advertisements on the walls as you pass thru.

Visualization is a VERY powerful tool.

I suggest listening to Sylvia Browne, Barbara Marciniak, Ramtha (via JZ Knight), David Icke, and Cyndi Dale for more on creating your reality in your life. We are all co-creators.

[jmt18325]

Uh huh....so you have no idea then.

[Archiseek]

ahem David Icke? Former UK snooker commentator - and then self declared son of god? who would only were turquoise for a time. I'd rather read Sam Katz's Diary.

"Dear Diary, Today I kicked a kid in the face playing football"
http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/27651/winnipeg-mayor-sam-katz-soccer-game-face-kick-video/

[jimj_wpg]

Years ago (1991) when Icke said that, he was laughed at for making the claim he was a "son of (a) god".

Now, with a refined message, his talks sell out 6 months in advance.

Who is laughing now?

I wasn't aware of him until late 2008, after Obama got elected somehow.

[RTD]

I'm sorry, are we talking about rapid/mass transit or telepathy?

[jimj_wpg]

Somewhere about 18 months ago I realized you need to do both - take initiative in the physical realm (pamphlet, website), and also at the spiritual level thru meditation.

So far we are moving towards LRT and so it my dual efforts having its desired of moving towards the goal.

[vid]

Now I know what everyone was talking about when they said Jimj was weird. I feel like I have enhanced my reality through learning. Thank you.

[jimj_wpg]

What do you mean weird?

I am just more perceptive and read more of my surrounding environment than most others.

But that just means that I _allow_ myself to use my inborn psychic tools. We all have the tools/gifts, but some choose not to use them and block them with drugs and alcohol.

That's

[jimj_wpg]

What do you mean weird? I am just practicing Buddhist meditation. Are you then calling all Buddhists "weird"?

I am just more perceptive and read more of my surrounding environment than most others.

But that just means that I _allow_ myself to use my inborn psychic tools. We all have the tools/gifts, but some choose not to use them and block them with drugs and alcohol.

That's one reason our world is in such a mess. We think that we are bodies with souls, but we are really souls in a body.

[WpG_GuY]

Can you meditate and visualize that i win the lotto max, seriously could use 30 mil!

[Biff]

Am i the only one that is wondering WTF is going on here. Is jimj speaking english and i am just not understanding, or do i have to be smoking something?

I am reading all of your posts jimj with a puzzled look on my face and i usually think i am a pretty intelligent guy. I though AJ was the difficult one to understand around these parts.

[The Jabroni]

I think jimj is one of the more "spiritual" beings posting here on SSP.

Just reading his posts makes me feel... relaxed... in a good way.

:)

[jimj_wpg]

Thanks Jabroni. :)

[roccerfeller]

Can you meditate and visualize that i win the lotto max, seriously could use 30 mil!

lol

meditation doesnt work like that


anyway, this is really really really really really really off topic.


Once there is concrete info regarding LRT being fixed into the current BRT corridor, I suppose there will be news.


One thing, I have seen the current construction there, and I gotta admit, they have the concrete coming in and stuff..I do not see any rails being inserted unless they're gonna rip up the brand new concrete.

[Archiseek]

roccer - where i've seen lrt being installed before - they put down a concrete bed, installed the tracks on top and then filled in between rails with cobblelock, or earth and grass.. so they wouldn't have to cut the current work being done.

[RTD]

Another tell-tale sign of LRT is the installation of poles in between rail lines that will provide the electricity for the vehicles.

[WpG_GuY]

roccer - where i've seen lrt being installed before - they put down a concrete bed, installed the tracks on top and then filled in between rails with cobblelock, or earth and grass.. so they wouldn't have to cut the current work being done.

Yes like Edmonton's new LRT line
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4548814943_3f51ac1593_b.jpg

[Bdog]

A few weeks back I was visiting a friend, who lives near the Mint. It was a Saturday night, and I had to catch the DART bus and transfer at Southdale Centre to catch a 16.

It took me 1 hour to get back Downtown.

What does that have to do with getting from U of M to downtown on a weekday?

[1ajs]

are the stones even needed anymore if theres a concreat base?

[Reed Solomon]

And 10 cycling bikes....

On one rail car.

I know, I was just being silly.

[jimj_wpg]

What does that have to do with getting from U of M to downtown on a weekday?

Our slow as molasses transit system on weekends.

[Riverman]

are the stones even needed anymore if there's a concrete base?No. The stones you of speak are called ballast (usually crushed and cleaned granite) and are used to hold the ties in place. If the rails are fastened in place no ballast is needed.

[roccerfeller]

roccer - where i've seen lrt being installed before - they put down a concrete bed, installed the tracks on top and then filled in between rails with cobblelock, or earth and grass.. so they wouldn't have to cut the current work being done.

Another tell-tale sign of LRT is the installation of poles in between rail lines that will provide the electricity for the vehicles.

Yes like Edmonton's new LRT line




This is good to know, cause I was a little worried personally the concrete meant they were going to go ahead with BRT for this part. I personally am pro LRT, and would like to see LRT implanted, saw the construction again and now they have the concrete "dividers" up.

Hopefully they move forward with LRT now. I know, at least, Katz has made it a priority.

[Spocket]

Hopefully they move forward with LRT now. I know, at least, Katz has made it a priority.

Ha ha ha .... I'm going to say this with absolutely no shame as I wallow in the glory of being proven right : I told you so .

Now Katz (AGAIN) wants to take money from rapid transit and put it toward roads .

YOU WILL NEVER GET RAPID TRANSIT IN WINNIPEG WITH KATZ AT THE HELM . No BRT , no LRT , no anything . When he says he's "studying" rapid transit , he's just using it as a ploy to get the other levels of government to commit cash to city coffers . Then he can do what he always does which is to turn around a few months later and demand to be allowed to use the cash as he sees fit . That and stall for time .

Katz is no more serious about BRT than he is about LRT . He simply will not commit a dime to it until he has no choice but to follow through . Why does anybody at all believe a thing he says ? What's-her-face-Leis may be a loon but at least she'll probably try a little harder to hide her lies .

It doesn't matter what form of rapid transit we're talking about ... Katz is about as definite as a cloud . The guy just can't make a solid decision or , if he can , he's a bald-faced liar . One way or the other , I'm sure most of us have pets that could make a more solid decision than our "Golden Boy" . The guy is hot air and that's it .

[JayM]

Half assed BRT/LRT to a half assed stadium! Things are looking to be on track no pun intended.

[vid]

And to save money they'll have half assed seats--twice the capacity, half the cost!

[The Jabroni]

...made out of hard plastic, and are bench seats! No comfort at no cost!!

[vid]

It's not just hard plastic. It is upholstered with.. a cheap polyester rug!

[JayM]

Yeah, next thing ya know people well start a protest saying larger people have to pay for two(2) fares as they take up two(2) seats. The fact we all share the same size buttocks.

This city cannot seem to start and finish something that involves progress. Interesting to note that the Rapid Transit will resume on regular traffic screams traffic congestion. This being at Jubilee/Pembina Junction.

[The Jabroni]

Yeah, next thing ya know people well start a protest saying larger people have to pay for two(2) fares as they take up two(2) seats. The fact we all share the same size buttocks.

...for the people who ARE buttocks. :whip:

[bigcheeba]

Right behind the Club Regent has had some heavy machinery moving around along the rail road tracks. The earth has been plowed parallell the tracks from atleast Ravelstone to Regent forming a road like atmosphere. Is this not the same area proposed for the Transcona rapid transit line? I was shocked to see activity....

[Spocket]

Right behind the Club Regent has had some heavy machinery moving around along the rail road tracks. The earth has been plowed parallell the tracks from atleast Ravelstone to Regent forming a road like atmosphere. Is this not the same area proposed for the Transcona rapid transit line? I was shocked to see activity....

All things considered , I would wager it's more likely the city is building a UFO runway rather than anything to do with phase 3 or 4 or 5 of a rapid transit system the mayor can't even pretend he cares to make up his mind about .

[Biff]

Right behind the Club Regent has had some heavy machinery moving around along the rail road tracks. The earth has been plowed parallell the tracks from atleast Ravelstone to Regent forming a road like atmosphere. Is this not the same area proposed for the Transcona rapid transit line? I was shocked to see activity....

They are most likely building a retaining dike for the snow dump retention pond located just behind Club Regent.

[bigcheeba]

you could be right, but they even made the effort to take out part of the fence by Club Regents overflow parking to make a nice continuation. I'll keep my eye on it.

[vid]

a road like atmosphere

That's an amazing description!

[bigcheeba]

That's an amazing description!

Thanks. Long story short. It is aparantly going to be a bike path. I don't get why they'd spend the money if they plan RT there. Yet another wise move by the city.

[vid]

Rapid transit will probably run along the bike path, possibly on those rail tracks. Besides, by the time rapid transit makes it out there, the bike path will need replacement anyway. ;)

[Kinguni]

Noticed today that they were moving a lot of the equipment from the Pembina side of the new RT tunnel to the Osborne side which means they are half done. I imagine the nearby residents will be complaining again soon as they start driving steel into the ground.

Work has also begun for Osborne Station, although there's only a couple of pieces of machinery in place. Nothing to see really.

In other news, Judy has pledged to have the first phase of BRT built out to the University of Manitoba by 2014.

[roccerfeller]

Rapid transit will probably run along the bike path, possibly on those rail tracks. Besides, by the time rapid transit makes it out there, the bike path will need replacement anyway. ;)

As long as there is a fence between the two, I'm all up for it. I know what he means...that intersection there is a strange one. I should take a pic next time I'm there to show you what it looks like. From what I remember, those rail tracks have been replaced recently by cement. Edit: nvm, he was talking about a different area than I had in mind. That part of the city is almost foreign to me.

Noticed today that they were moving a lot of the equipment from the Pembina side of the new RT tunnel to the Osborne side which means they are half done. I imagine the nearby residents will be complaining again soon as they start driving steel into the ground.

Work has also begun for Osborne Station, although there's only a couple of pieces of machinery in place. Nothing to see really.

In other news, Judy has pledged to have the first phase of BRT built out to the University of Manitoba by 2014.

by 2014?? Wow. That would imply before 2014 starts. As Darth Vader once said; "impressive"

The whole line to U of M? I can dig it. Not down with the BRT route though. But hey, whatever makes it easier. It will be great for students at night.

[vid]

Not that impressive. Rob Ford is going to build 2 new subway lines and extend an existing one in Toronto all by 2014, AND he will lower taxes while doing it!

http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/pig.jpg (http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/archives/006293.html)
Rob Ford, the next mayor of Toronto

She probably thinks that adding a lane onto a street for it will be BRT, and thus achieving that distance that soon would be possible. Or maybe union employees work harder under union mayors?

[roccerfeller]

Not that impressive. Rob Ford is going to build 2 new subway lines and extend an existing one in Toronto all by 2014, AND he will lower taxes while doing it!

http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/pig.jpg (http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/archives/006293.html)
Rob Ford, the next mayor of Toronto

She probably thinks that adding a lane onto a street for it will be BRT, and thus achieving that distance that soon would be possible. Or maybe union employees work harder under union mayors?

:haha: that post absolutely killed me vid.

In this case, Darth would say "Most Impressive" (as the mayor of Toronto dodges a second lightsabre swipe.)

[vid]

If you want to be really entertained, Youtube "Rob Ford's Maturity".

[roccerfeller]

If you want to be really entertained, Youtube "Rob Ford's Maturity".

WOW

I had no idea he was that off the leash :koko:

That certainly made for a good laugh. :haha:

[Riverman]

Not that impressive. Rob Ford is going to build 2 new subway lines and extend an existing one in Toronto all by 2014, AND he will lower taxes while doing it!

http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/pig.jpg (http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/archives/006293.html)
Rob Ford, the next mayor of Toronto

She probably thinks that adding a lane onto a street for it will be BRT, and thus achieving that distance that soon would be possible. Or maybe union employees work harder under union mayors?Pretty sure Ford's chances are decreasing as one of the other candidates, Sarah Thomson has stepped down and is now endorsing Smitherman.

[khabibulin]

Pretty sure Ford's chances are decreasing as one of the other candidates, Sarah Thomson has stepped down and is now endorsing Smitherman.

My 2 cents is that Rob Ford is going to be Toronto's next Mayor. He is not cut from the eletist mould that most politicians carry around with them. I think the voters find that very endearing, that he is more like "one of them".

[vid]

Actually, I have noticed that even some of his staunch supporters on message boards are, if not realizing how devastating he will be and jumping off of his bandwagon, at least acting less enthusiastic about him. It is looking like Smitherman will win, especially if Dalton McGuinty supports his vision for a subway under Eglinton, which according to an apparently "trusted source" (mentioned by a former Ford supporter, no less) is imminent.

Voters are finding that Rob Ford is not endearing, nor does he have a good plan for the future of Toronto.

[RTD]

Hey guys:

I'm sure there is a Toronto Mayoral candidacy thread somewhere, so can you please take all related talk there?

Please and thanks! Now back to rapid transit in Winnipeg.

[1ajs]

go to new winnipeg and start a transit fight with comercial_D

[roccerfeller]

So...Katz will be back in office tomorrow...

LRT will be in Winnipeg...never? possibly? for certain? within a year? WITHIN A DAY???!!!

On a serious note, what will become of the corridor..its looking great, but I raise my eyebrow at LRT. Would Winnipeg Transit still be in charge of it regardless if its a Bus or Train corridor?

[Biff]

.....please don't pin me as a Sam Katz lover here, but i truly believe that Sam has something up his sleeve and we will end up hearing an announcement within a year that the line (BRT) from Downtown to the UofM will become LRT. I have this feeling for some reason, don't ask why. This seems to be the only thing Sam has been consistently passionate about during his entire term as Mayor. On the flip side i wouldn't be surprised if the stadium project fails.

[roccerfeller]

.....please don't pin me as a Sam Katz lover here, but i truly believe that Sam has something up his sleeve and we will end up hearing an announcement within a year that the line (BRT) from Downtown to the UofM will become LRT. I have this feeling for some reason, don't ask why. This seems to be the only thing Sam has been consistently passionate about during his entire term as Mayor. On the flip side i wouldn't be surprised if the stadium project fails.

Personally, my own opinion is that LRT is superior and would be my preference, but ultimately I just want to see the RT done whether its bus or LR.

But I agree with you about his passion about LRT, here's to hoping it goes through :cheers:

[Mininari]

Something up his sleeve? Really? Lets see... both the Province and the Feds want to start tightening their belts, and Katz wants to take the Building Canada Phase 2 BRT money and put it into roads -- and apply for "new" money for LRT. This doesn't sound logical; what "new" money? Where is this money going to come from? Theres nothing wrong with building a busway, i.e. developing a grade-seperated right-of-way NOW as BRT, and then upgrading to LRT later. Its no different because both options hedge on future money being available...

I have to say, I would prefer to see LRT in the sense that it would be higher capacity, and more "sexy" to a middle-class user than a bus. A lot of great things could come out of a single LRT line from the UoM to Downtown. For one, you create zones of high pedestrian traffic (immediately around the stations), creating highly desirable locations for retail that would do well on "walk-in" clients. People are more likely to walk in to a store / cafe if they are on foot, than in the car. Tie in an LRT station downtown with the existing Skywalk system, and suddenly you've hooked up two major pedestrian arteries.

Don't stop there... encourage higher density residential development around stations, including a mixture of market and residential housing. Retail at ground level in these areas would flourish... and continue having customers into the evening. This is concert with increased residential housing downtown (the expansion of the UoW and RRC campuses, and student housing will do tremendous things on this front), and maybe we'll start to see life downtown on evenings and weekends -- and not just partygoers going to clubs.

So the weather sucks here in Winter? Big deal. LRT stations can easily be enclosed, and maybe even heated! The distances to the local businesses / residental nearby the stations wouldn't be far, and aside from someone with severe mobility issues, I can't imagine one would be adverse to a 5 or 6 minute walk on a cold day. Come on, we all do it anyway when we park at Wal-Mart in the nether regions of the massive sprawling parking lot.

Maybe Winnipeg doesn't have the demand, or maybe property values don't necessitate higher-density development yet, but just one rapid transit system could really shape the future of development in this city. As I've aluded to earlier with the student housing, these forms of development would be most attractive to young people, and young couples. Its still very easy to buy a decent house in this Market, so I wouldn't expect a huge rush from the established 40-year olds to these developments, but it could happen over time.

I've only been living here for 4 years, but maybe thats not a bad thing because I see great potential for this city to capitalize more on its heritage, history. There are great possibilities coming down the pipe with CentrePort, the duty free manufacturing zone, future transportation options via Hudson Bay, and development of the North. Aside from the obvious funding issue, why not take initiative now and build the infrastructure that will be needed for the future, and shape the growth of the city and create more liveable communities within?

[roccerfeller]

Something up his sleeve? Really? Lets see... both the Province and the Feds want to start tightening their belts, and Katz wants to take the Building Canada Phase 2 BRT money and put it into roads -- and apply for "new" money for LRT. This doesn't sound logical; what "new" money? Where is this money going to come from? Theres nothing wrong with building a busway, i.e. developing a grade-seperated right-of-way NOW as BRT, and then upgrading to LRT later. Its no different because both options hedge on future money being available...

I have to say, I would prefer to see LRT in the sense that it would be higher capacity, and more "sexy" to a middle-class user than a bus. A lot of great things could come out of a single LRT line from the UoM to Downtown. For one, you create zones of high pedestrian traffic (immediately around the stations), creating highly desirable locations for retail that would do well on "walk-in" clients. People are more likely to walk in to a store / cafe if they are on foot, than in the car. Tie in an LRT station downtown with the existing Skywalk system, and suddenly you've hooked up two major pedestrian arteries.

Don't stop there... encourage higher density residential development around stations, including a mixture of market and residential housing. Retail at ground level in these areas would flourish... and continue having customers into the evening. This is concert with increased residential housing downtown (the expansion of the UoW and RRC campuses, and student housing will do tremendous things on this front), and maybe we'll start to see life downtown on evenings and weekends -- and not just partygoers going to clubs.

So the weather sucks here in Winter? Big deal. LRT stations can easily be enclosed, and maybe even heated! The distances to the local businesses / residental nearby the stations wouldn't be far, and aside from someone with severe mobility issues, I can't imagine one would be adverse to a 5 or 6 minute walk on a cold day. Come on, we all do it anyway when we park at Wal-Mart in the nether regions of the massive sprawling parking lot.

Maybe Winnipeg doesn't have the demand, or maybe property values don't necessitate higher-density development yet, but just one rapid transit system could really shape the future of development in this city. As I've aluded to earlier with the student housing, these forms of development would be most attractive to young people, and young couples. Its still very easy to buy a decent house in this Market, so I wouldn't expect a huge rush from the established 40-year olds to these developments, but it could happen over time.

I've only been living here for 4 years, but maybe thats not a bad thing because I see great potential for this city to capitalize more on its heritage, history. There are great possibilities coming down the pipe with CentrePort, the duty free manufacturing zone, future transportation options via Hudson Bay, and development of the North. Aside from the obvious funding issue, why not take initiative now and build the infrastructure that will be needed for the future, and shape the growth of the city and create more liveable communities within?


This is a great post. I think you're right on point with how something as simple as a rapid transit route can add a specific type of momentum to a city, especially one like Winnipeg. The question about $$ has always been the issue, and that is what remains to be seen. City council has approved LRT, but all it is, is an approval. Where will the funds come from? Very good points there.

LRT is much more desirable to citizens as a whole, especially the younger crowd. That said, BRT is certainly sexier than "no rapid transit".

Alas, when I was in Vancouver I realized every city council is stupid in their own ways. Winnipeg's is not different - and sometimes stupid decisions are made. I think we would love to have infrastructure for such a development available and already started...new road routes, inner ring road completed, less traffic lights where expressways exist, expand lanes, more office towers downtown, hotels on parkades a la Radisson, density developments, less surface lots, more residential units downtown + osbourne, but the issues at the end of the day ultimately boil down to money. I think Winnipeg is moving in the right direction for sure, regardless of peoples discontent with Katz (including mine from time to time) there is an overall "uplifting" wave in Winnipeg right now.

CMHR, convention center expansion, Fort Rouge development planning, some new hi rises here and there, some preliminary road expansions, and CentrePort + RT corridors starting at the very least bode a positive direction.

On a side note, I stumbled across a thread started over the summer about Edmonton vs Winnipeg, and it was a very interesting conversation to hear from people from Edmonton and their opinions on things - they were very positive about the Peg, and noted how even though their city is larger, more people, more high rise towers, freeways, LRT, richer etc...there were still a lot of props to Winnipeg being thrown around, minus one of two posters out of over what seemed like a dozen.

[Mininari]

Thanks! Thats based mainly on my experience watching Vancouver change as I grew up there (I lived in suburban Vancouver for 25 years before moving here).

An addendum to that post: I forgot to mention the potential to *maybe* tie in the LRT with Union Station. As it stands now as a Via station, it is terribly underutilized. There is great potential behind the station (closer to the Forks) to create a major transit hub (bus loop) that would connect the Forks to the system. The perpetually EMPTY waiting area in the train station could again be thriving with people as they pass through from the LRT station on Main to their waiting bus connections on the other side (or the Forks, CHMR, pedestrian bridge to St. Bonfiface... etc). Via could suffice with a much smaller "waiting" area... although I should probably see some Via train passenger stats before going too far on this point.

I'm not sure what the preferred routing for extending LRT north of the train station would be, but it really needs to connect to the Exchange District, and RRC as soon as possible... another area desperately needing much more regular pedestrian life. A second line along Portage (in some fashion) would be required to properly connect the UoW to the system; I would propose such a line should follow Portage to Polo Park, and eventually continue out along Portage, where many large apartment buildings already exist. Imagine the potential for redevelopment along "grand" Portage Avenue.

But thats way off... back to line #1:
I suppose LRT along main could terminate at Main and Broadway, and then eventually run along Main Street North, but that would be at grade... or maybe elevated? This is way off in the future anyways, so I'm just dreaming here.

[Riverman]

I did not think of the train station like that, it could become a transit terminal. And because there is access to both sides, a damn efficient one!

[bicycles]

this is somewhat transit related... good to hear either way.

Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION
Google to map Winnipeg bike routes

You may not be able to tell given the weather outside, but Winnipeg is about to become a little easier to navigate on a bicycle.

At the Sustainable Mobility Conference in Ottawa, Google announced it has added Winnipeg to its list of Canadian cities that will have bike routes available on Google Maps for those looking for the best path to take on two wheels.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/breakingnews/Google-to-map-Winnipeg-bike-routes-109956799.html

[bicycles]

Winnipeg LRT

My idea for Winnipeg LRT in the next 15-20 years.
Map: http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=104398890892563446099.000495a9d560b4f79d4db

Overview: The city would use low floor LRV's. That means you load/unload at street level instead of having to build massive platforms/stairs/ramps for people to get on and off of. The whole system would be at grade on it's on ROW. It would only stop at designated stops, with traffic lights being coordinated to never have them have to stop for one. Obviously, traffic lanes along roads that the LRT runs down would have to be refigured, but I think streets like Portage/Main/St. James can easily handle it. Ideally, they would be using a side running arrangement (where the tracks and stations are all located on on side of the street). Union Station would be configured to handle the two lines coming through it and would become the city's transportation hub. A new bus exchange would be built on the parking lot immediately north of Union Station. The price of the system, I haven't worked out yet. ;)

Phase 1: University of Manitoba to University of Winnipeg (half of the blue line)
The corridor for this line is already being built. All that would be needed is to add tracks over the busway from UMan to where the busway ends around Norwood Bridge. From here, either the current Via Rail bridge is used/reconfigured for it, or a new bridge is built next to it. The rest of the route is fairly straight forward, though their is a few tricky street crossing. Graham Ave transit mall would continued to be used and would become LRV only.

Phase 2: University of Winnipeg to the airport
The line would continue down Portage until St. James St, where it forks north through Polo Park, then West towards a stop at the airport.

Phase 3: The red line
Services the rest of Portage Ave, the legislature, and the Exchange. Hopefully helps to revitalize the North End.

possible LRV: http://railforthevalley.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/1-brussels-metro.jpg
source: railforthevalley.wordpress.com

I'd like to hear other people ideas and suggestions!

[bigcheeba]

it doesn't go east?

[Jeff]

there are four completely viable, empty tracks/spaces available at the via rail station as VIA only uses tracks 5 and 6 ever (barring the railway museum wouldn't move out to free up two tracks). the way the new brt road ends at main street, i can definitely see it eventually bridging over main and heading right on into the station at some point... it seems very plausible one day! makes me wonder that maybe the planners had some foresight, as i'm sure i'm not the only one wondering why it just didn't go alligned with the midtown bridge and head straight on into downtown.

[bicycles]

it doesn't go east?

I think these two lines are the most important ones, lines to the E, NW, NE, and SE would come later. I don't think they would be viable for several years though.

[h0twired]

Phase 1: University of Manitoba to University of Winnipeg (half of the blue line)
The corridor for this line is already being built. All that would be needed is to add tracks over the busway from UMan to where the busway ends around Norwood Bridge. From here, either the current Via Rail bridge is used/reconfigured for it, or a new bridge is built next to it. The rest of the route is fairly straight forward, though their is a few tricky street crossing. Graham Ave transit mall would continued to be used and would become LRV only.

Phase 2: University of Winnipeg to the airport
The line would continue down Portage until St. James St, where it forks north through Polo Park, then West towards a stop at the airport.

Phase 3: The red line
Services the rest of Portage Ave, the legislature, and the Exchange. Hopefully helps to revitalize the North End.

possible LRV: http://railforthevalley.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/1-brussels-metro.jpg
source: railforthevalley.wordpress.com

I'd like to hear other people ideas and suggestions!

What's the point of having an LRT if it is just going to go down city streets most of the time and be stopped by traffic lights anyways?

Might as well just keep the current bus system.

If anything an LRT should be built from residential areas to downtown.

Following the route from downtown to the U of M the next run should be from North Kildonan to downtown.

Remove Raleigh altogether and run an LRT the full length of the Marconi line, then through north St. B across the river to The Forks and head down Graham or Broadway to end at the Leg or The Bay.

Unless Winnipeg is willing to remove two-lanes from Portage and a handful of 4 way intersections, I just can't see any LRT development happening down Portage unless it is underground.

[Biff]

Elevate the majority of it on dense streets, like Skytrain in Vancouver. Elevating it seems much cheaper that burying it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Just take the cars off the street - what is so hard with the concept...

[h0twired]

Just take the cars off the street - what is so hard with the concept...

Or do what Vancouver does. Make traffic so unbearably slow and inefficient that people take transit to avoid 2 hour commutes.

[khabibulin]

Just take the cars off the street - what is so hard with the concept...

Easy to say.....difficult to do - depending on what street(s) you are talking about. Our society has been private automobile focussed for the last 60 years. It is not easy to change people's normal modes of transport quickly. Plus, depending on the proposed change, it would be political suicide for any Mayor or council to greatly inconveince drivers.

I agree that all cities must become more environmentally friendly and that public transportation must be improved and increased. However, an orderly graduated plan is required, not a ...."starting tomorrow, we are not allowing personal automobiles into downtown Winnipeg".

[JayM]

Seriously I haven't been anywhere like Winnipeg where I only see 1 person in the vehicle. Just doing a look during a rush hour in the evening 1 out of 10 every vehicle had 2 people or more. That's pretty low.

[Riverman]

Seriously I haven't been anywhere like Winnipeg where I only see 1 person in the vehicle. Just doing a look during a rush hour in the evening 1 out of 10 every vehicle had 2 people or more. That's pretty low.Every city is like that. Try Los Angeles where you will never see two people in a car.

[h0twired]

Seriously I haven't been anywhere like Winnipeg where I only see 1 person in the vehicle. Just doing a look during a rush hour in the evening 1 out of 10 every vehicle had 2 people or more. That's pretty low.

Huh? Have you ever left Manitoba?

You see 1 person/car EVERYWHERE. This isn't a Winnipeg phenomenon.

[bicycles]

What's the point of having an LRT if it is just going to go down city streets most of the time and be stopped by traffic lights anyways?

Might as well just keep the current bus system.

If anything an LRT should be built from residential areas to downtown.

Following the route from downtown to the U of M the next run should be from North Kildonan to downtown.

Remove Raleigh altogether and run an LRT the full length of the Marconi line, then through north St. B across the river to The Forks and head down Graham or Broadway to end at the Leg or The Bay.

Unless Winnipeg is willing to remove two-lanes from Portage and a handful of 4 way intersections, I just can't see any LRT development happening down Portage unless it is underground.

It would be on it's own right of way on the streets and the lights would be timed/triggered so the LRV's would never have to stop at them. this is common practice in Caglary, Edmonton, etc. The benefits of LRT down Portage would far exceed the disadvantages of losing two lanes. You could probably remove 3 lanes from Portage and still have 3 going each direction for vehicular traffic just by adjusting the width of the lanes. Victoria did this on their second busiest commuter road to add bike lanes and all it did was encourage people to slow down a bit and watch where they were driving. your NK route makes a lot of sense too, though.

[h0twired]

It would be on it's own right of way on the streets and the lights would be timed/triggered so the LRV's would never have to stop at them. this is common practice in Caglary, Edmonton, etc. The benefits of LRT down Portage would far exceed the disadvantages of losing two lanes. You could probably remove 3 lanes from Portage and still have 3 going each direction for vehicular traffic just by adjusting the width of the lanes. Victoria did this on their second busiest commuter road to add bike lanes and all it did was encourage people to slow down a bit and watch where they were driving. your NK route makes a lot of sense too, though.

You do realize how crappy it is to drive down 36th Ave NE in Calgary right? The other LRT ROWs in Calgary are generally separated from traffic completely and only cross at the occasional street.

Beside Portage is a whole different ballgame. There are at-grade crossings at almost every block and the idea of having an LRT right down the middle of Portage would mean that getting having to make a right turn into Wolseley (or any other community) would only be allowed at one or two streets.

Another issue would be that you would lose AT LEAST 2 lanes of Portage (if not 3) to cover left turn lanes and barriers and there just isn't that amount of available width. Then there is also the issue as to where you put the stations along the route.

[good_dude]

Fort Rouge Yards- Winnipeg's first Transit Oriented Neighbourhood - got the green light by the City Centre Community Committee last night at the public hearing. Kudos to Councillor Gerbasi for taking a stand. She listed out the positives of this project and moved for approval, which was done. This is big news for Winnipeg.

[JayM]

Huh? Have you ever left Manitoba?

You see 1 person/car EVERYWHERE. This isn't a Winnipeg phenomenon.

That has be rhetorical. right.