Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The walls at other locations are only 3m tall. This one is 5m. And it's concrete. Like skylar mentioned, the new stretch of CPT is plastic. The City will not be doing that in any other locations from what I hear. They don't like it.

The plastic panels are junk, of course you get what you pay for and with the P3 Chief Peguis extension you got plastic and an asphalt roadway full of dips!

[The Unknown Poster]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Wow that's brutal. Don't know why the homeowners or city would want it that way here.

Im not sure they tore down fences. It looked to me like the transit fence was just adjacent to people's backyard fences. I go by there numerous times per day, Ill take a better look.

[bomberjet]

They're torn down and have temporary metal fences up. Like the crowd control fences at large events.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by buzzg

I had some money on it still that I could use in the meantime, but loaded it around 8 am Monday, and used it 3 times since then. I did it online – but that's the whole point of the system, no?! What the hell was the point of all this if it's so useless – we only have one kiosk. What a joke.

And is it actually NFC or some dumb proprietary technology, which is why tapping is so slow? If it's NFC, there shouldn't be any reason to not be able to use my phone instead of carrying a card. Did we just buy a sorely antiquated system? Can software be upgraded if so?

Ya not sure if it's NFC. Either way, it's a silly system. I load at the library instead of messing about online. You can also load at 7-Elevens. Not sure if it's every location, but at least some of them.

[WildCake]

Had a look at the Transit Trump wall in Waverley Heights on my way to the game. It’s being built right up to the property lines, with about 2-3 feet from the homeowner fences. The few lots I could see still have their fences up but I wonder if they’ll take it down once the behemoth wall becomes their new back fence.

[bomberjet]

Looked through my photos and some of the fences are still up. Other places they have temp fencing. Final layout all the existing fences are to be torn down. Existing side fences will be extended to abut to the 5m wall.

[The Unknown Poster]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Looked through my photos and some of the fences are still up. Other places they have temp fencing. Final layout all the existing fences are to be torn down. Existing side fences will be extended to abut to the 5m wall.

You are correct sir.

I took a look and in many places where the piles are in and they are preparing to add the cement "fence", the backyard fences are gone and there are temp wire fencing up.

It seems strange to me. Wouldnt the backyard fences have been along the property line? The cement fence is a bit further back, extending everyone's yard a bit.

[bomberjet]

There are large concrete piles in the ground and they are placed basically right at the property line. The wall is about 1'-2' back from the property line as it's centred on the piles. The issue was the space in between from my understanding. And for the P3 maintenance crews to get in their for inspection, made it necessary for the fences to go.

All the existing side fences will be lengthened that same amount, I assume using the parts that were already removed. So yes they do get an extra couple feet to their backyards. Some residents complained that they now had to maintain this extra space. And it does sort of mess up everyone's yards. Since they had gardens or sheds that are now a couple feet from the wall.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There are large concrete piles in the ground and they are placed basically right at the property line. The wall is about 1'-2' back from the property line as it's centred on the piles. The issue was the space in between from my understanding. And for the P3 maintenance crews to get in their for inspection, made it necessary for the fences to go.

All the existing side fences will be lengthened that same amount, I assume using the parts that were already removed. So yes they do get an extra couple feet to their backyards. Some residents complained that they now had to maintain this extra space. And it does sort of mess up everyone's yards. Since they had gardens or sheds that are now a couple feet from the wall.

They asked for the wall. No sympathy.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by buzzg

They asked for the wall. No sympathy.

I think what happens is people are scared of change and they get angry with no warrant which forces them to make demands for things they don't necessarily want. They really just want to get something. It's like when you're in a negotiation but you've already lost so the other guy says, "I have this pen, you can have it to close the deal" and you take it because you want to feel like you've won something.

At the end of the day I think I would rather the fence then seeing a bunch of buses going through my back yard. I would just paint/ decorate the fence on my side.

[The Unknown Poster]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There are large concrete piles in the ground and they are placed basically right at the property line. The wall is about 1'-2' back from the property line as it's centred on the piles. The issue was the space in between from my understanding. And for the P3 maintenance crews to get in their for inspection, made it necessary for the fences to go.

All the existing side fences will be lengthened that same amount, I assume using the parts that were already removed. So yes they do get an extra couple feet to their backyards. Some residents complained that they now had to maintain this extra space. And it does sort of mess up everyone's yards. Since they had gardens or sheds that are now a couple feet from the wall.

There are still existing private backyard fences up in areas adjacent to the wall. Specifically, I saw this on the Chancellor side (closer to Bishop than Markham). It almost seems to me, they removed fences where they required the room and where they didnt, they left them.

[bomberjet]

Just went to an eastern corridor open house. What a crock. Sorry to say, but it's just a bunch of dummies telling you what they want you to hear. Provide my input and get the run around.

All those median brt things will be 50 or 60 kmh (they didn't actually know). But "it's all about service." Okay fair enough.

The north st boniface route was dropped due to land issues. "The railway is not playing nice" they said. Piss off they have the land.

Seems like a big waste of time.

[buzzg]

I have to say, I went and have to disagree. I thought it was pretty engaging – more than I expected for my first event of that nature. There was one person from WSP (acted as a lead, even if not) who was pretty defensive, but the City staff, consultants, and some other WSP people were genuinely engaged.

The city staffers seemed to REALLY be taking the suggestions to heart, and genuinely interested – especially to people who were rational and explained why they felt certain ways, as opposed to just complaining about everything.

I mentioned my thoughts that I posted here a while back (refresher below) and they said they had never thought of that (weird) and all except the person mentioned before thought the opportunity for city-building and transformative new connections between neighbourhoods was impressive, and should be considered.

My thoughts:
1) Harkness Station
2) Union Station (INSIDE) – (busses can exit to Provencher or continue on to...
3) Shaw Park
4) Whittier Park (there's space behind FDV's shop/garage that wouldn't interfere)
5) Point Douglas (there's open fields on both side of the river to allow a bridge with little or no expropriation)
6) Elmwood (via new Louise Bridge)


-- They did mention that 3 bridges would be costly, BUT Louise has to be replaced regardless of the RT outcome, and more than likely a bridge near The Forks would need to happen. So max 1-2 RT-specific bridges. They agreed with the idea that a lot of the Provencher/Nairn improvements could be handled (at least initially) with optimized signals for transit, without building dedicated lanes, and money from that part could go toward my proposed (or another) RT line. Dedicated ROW on Prov/Naird can always be added later.

They also mentioned that this is not necessarily an either/or scenario, and this process could determine that both proposed routes to Nairn/Regent are necessary, and it's just about figuring out how the Main Street/Union Station connection works.

The only worrying thing was they seemed to be afraid that actually using Union (busses going through the terminal) would be massively expensive. Definitely favoured building some sort of station complex on Main (seems ridiculous and out of place) or on The Forks property (would be a waste of prime land when Union is right there).

[bomberjet]

They were engaged and I was being respectful. Maybe I was talking to that one person lol

But going into this study, I expected it to be entirely different than "it's too hard and expesnive" to do it properly.

You guys should see the study done by Dillon in the early 2000's. It was pretty sweet and is no way similar to the plan now. It was the complete opposite. Dedicated roadway and corridor with numerous bridges and it was awesome.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Just went to an eastern corridor open house. What a crock. Sorry to say, but it's just a bunch of dummies telling you what they want you to hear. Provide my input and get the run around.

All those median brt things will be 50 or 60 kmh (they didn't actually know). But "it's all about service." Okay fair enough.

The north st boniface route was dropped due to land issues. "The railway is not playing nice" they said. Piss off they have the land.

Seems like a big waste of time.

I can almost get the SW BRT line but the Eastern Corridor never made sense, it would be busy twice a day at the rush hours but other than that crickets, why not just increase the number of seats/buses on the arterial routes which is a problem now already.

Sorry public transportation geeks but Winnipeg has neither the critical mass for extensive dedicated busways nor the economy to support them! The more I think about it this whole BRT deal is a farce and hardly worth the cost.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

I can almost get the SW BRT line but the Eastern Corridor never made sense, it would be busy twice a day at the rush hours but other than that crickets, why not just increase the number of seats/buses on the arterial routes which is a problem now already.

Minus the commentary I agree. Start small and let's see where it goes.

[DancingDuck]

Also attended tonight, most of the people there seemed open to suggestions and having discussions... What encouraged me the most was that all the people talking and writing down thoughts and comments seemed to be giving thoughtful and reasonable suggestions, there were no outrageous ideas that I shook my head at.

Although there was a comment card that just said "Don't open Portage and Main"...

[buzzg]

^Lol. One thing I mentioned too to the city people was that it is ridiculous to look at EBRT, traffic changes at The Forks, P&M reconstruction, possible Graham improvements and all the new AT/cycling infrastructure as separate projects. Some or all of them could have drastic effects on some or all others and they ALL need to be looked at together at once.

I support opening P&M, I support reducing traffic at The Forks and specifically traffic cutting down York to St. B (should be directed to W. Stephenson), York should have a two-way cycle track connecting to The Forks, etc... these decisions and overall downtown transportation plan need to be made together, holistically.

We have the very high-level Transportation Master Plan, but it doesn't really dive into downtown details and flow at all... just general overlays for major routes, no specifics.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

I can almost get the SW BRT line but the Eastern Corridor never made sense, it would be busy twice a day at the rush hours but other than that crickets, why not just increase the number of seats/buses on the arterial routes which is a problem now already.

Sorry public transportation geeks but Winnipeg has neither the critical mass for extensive dedicated busways nor the economy to support them! The more I think about it this whole BRT deal is a farce and hardly worth the cost.

The same could be said for every other leg of BRT or RT or whatever. So we just shut it down and live with diamond lanes forever? That's what's happening.

[roccerfeller]

the other thing with dedicated corridors or at least having some implementation of that, is when the time comes to switch to LRT, it can be done akin to Ottawa's transformation

If it's too integrated into a bus network only, with 50-60km/hr stretches and the proper infrastructure isn't implemented to begin with, then they'll have to build separate LRT corridors eventually, and we'd be back at square 1 of why didn't we put all that $ into LRT and dedicated corridors in the first place (when it was cheaper to do so)