HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6261  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2015, 4:02 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by rypinion View Post
In contrast to Main or Portage, the northeastern route should be quite cheap to build. Think that one could be prioritized because of it?
That is my thinking as I understand the City already owns the necessary right of way from Narin to the Perimeter. Once you have the downtown to Transcona line run adding a spur to the northeast should be fairly straight forward and quick. While a Portage Ave run is going to be the most complex in the entire network. If the political will is to get the entire system as close to completed as possible by 2030 northeast will definitely move up list of priorities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6262  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2015, 12:00 AM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
That is my thinking as I understand the City already owns the necessary right of way from Narin to the Perimeter. Once you have the downtown to Transcona line run adding a spur to the northeast should be fairly straight forward and quick. While a Portage Ave run is going to be the most complex in the entire network. If the political will is to get the entire system as close to completed as possible by 2030 northeast will definitely move up list of priorities.
Yeah, I agree. Once a line runs out to the Nairn, Archibald area anyway, it'll be incredibly cheap to finish the NE line. A few months back we talked about simply closing Raleigh to vehicle traffic to make a dirt cheap busway. I still think we should do that--in fact, whenever they get around to building the first part of the eastern line, they should simply make the connection to Raleigh. They can worry about building nicer stations later if it means they can get a third transit line operating for under 100 million.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6263  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2015, 12:38 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ontario's feel good town
Posts: 4,019
Raleigh has to remain in some form of a street as many homes have their garage access off there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6264  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2015, 2:49 PM
northern_hoser northern_hoser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
I think after they finish the line out to Transcona the Portage and Main line is supposed to be next. I think those routes have the highest bus rider volume of any in the city and it actually makes a lot of sense to improve the service along them. They'll probably look at making a shitty lrt line down the centre of the roads, similar to the Spadina tramway or what they recently opened in Minneapolis. Or what Winnipeg had before it tore out all its street car lines.

For what it's worth, though, centre-of-road rapid transit is not rapid. It's slow and has to stop at intersections. It may as well be a bus, which suggests a made in Winnipeg solution so terrible I don't even want to think about it. I'd kind of prefer to see the city just bite the bullet and splurge on a skytrain, at that point, even if it is just a stubby line from Polo Park to Inkster or somewhere. Driverless, elevated light rail systems are super efficient and comparably cheap to operate. Plus we could have doors along the tracks like Copenhagen's similar system so the platforms would stay warm.
The two light rail lines in Minneapolis-St. Paul are like night and day. The blue line running from MOA to Target Field is the quick moving train that only stops at the stations and gets the right of way when it crosses surface streets. The green line running from Target Field to downtown St. Paul is incredibly slow where it stops at the stations and at traffic lights. They also have a BRT that runs from Apple Valley into downtown along 35W that has some well set up stations between the n/b and s/b lanes once you get into Minneapolis. I'd hope in the end that our rapid transit could be similar to theirs but it's not off to a great start. One of the better ideas they do have are event passes and 24hr "all you can ride" passes for $4-6 iirc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6265  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 12:23 AM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,677
That's what I mean, the Green Line. The line out to the mall is pretty nice. I don't know why it pokes around the office complex out there, but the rest of it works perfectly. The Green Line, beyond going to the university, is a slow-ass piece of shit. Definitely not something we should try to emulate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
Raleigh has to remain in some form of a street as many homes have their garage access off there.
Yeah, that's true. But it would be simple and cheap enough to throw up some to cul-de-sac alleys or jersey barriers to separate a vehicle access lane and widen Raleigh in a couple spots.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6266  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 1:46 AM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
Raleigh has to remain in some form of a street as many homes have their garage access off there.
Unless plans have changed the North East line was planned to go on the Abandoned CPR Marconi rail line between Raleigh and Gateway.

The Northeast Pioneers Greenway that's there now, was to be moved to one side from its existing location in the middle of the old rail bed.

That location was the original CPR rail line in Winnipeg and was a two track roadbed plus room for ditches etc so everything should fit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6267  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 1:50 AM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,968
Not sure if I heard fight but the mayor was saying something about a rapid transit surcharge to cover the costs. I did not catch if it was to be on the property tax or if it was to be added to the transit fare.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6268  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 6:53 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,679
The Raleigh thing is a good idea. But I think there's too many access points along the way. Be it garage access, side streets, parks, etc. There are some short stretches you could eliminate it, but it couldn't be for the whole length, so might be a bit useless. Can't just start cutting access to side streets, it's a safety issue. Dead end streets can only be so long until they need a second exit point in case of emergencies.

I think we'll be stuck with the transitway down the centre, like cllew mentioned, where the old track was. Which isn't a bad thing. It will have limited crossings. Pathway will be moved over a bit, which isn't a huge deal. But I don't think Raleigh could be eliminated that easily. I don't think it be beneficial to put the transitway right up against it either, with some type of barrier.

Is there a downside people are seeing with having it run right down the centre? Or just to get some type of cost saving by trying to utilize Raleigh? Projects tend to be more expensive when working with existing infrastructure. It's cheaper and easier a lot of times to just start from scratch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6269  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 7:26 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
North End Troublemaker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
The Raleigh thing is a good idea. But I think there's too many access points along the way. Be it garage access, side streets, parks, etc. There are some short stretches you could eliminate it, but it couldn't be for the whole length, so might be a bit useless. Can't just start cutting access to side streets, it's a safety issue. Dead end streets can only be so long until they need a second exit point in case of emergencies.

I think we'll be stuck with the transitway down the centre, like cllew mentioned, where the old track was. Which isn't a bad thing. It will have limited crossings. Pathway will be moved over a bit, which isn't a huge deal. But I don't think Raleigh could be eliminated that easily. I don't think it be beneficial to put the transitway right up against it either, with some type of barrier.

Is there a downside people are seeing with having it run right down the centre? Or just to get some type of cost saving by trying to utilize Raleigh? Projects tend to be more expensive when working with existing infrastructure. It's cheaper and easier a lot of times to just start from scratch.
The only problem I see with this route is the City won't be able to waste the prime land around the stations on parking. How ever will we get people to take the bus if we don't allow them to park at a bus stop?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6270  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 7:39 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,679
Don't you worry Steveo, they'll find a way! haha
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6271  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 10:28 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,968
I thought that this route did not need parking as it was going to be fed from the 90, 45 and 75 routes that cross it and they would be transferring on to it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6272  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 10:41 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,679
He's referring to his position that people shouldn't drive to the rapid transit station.

That NE seems like a cake walk the more I think about it. Always just kind of brushed it off as there aren't many issues. Get that one built right after the E route! Minimal crossings. You could even put the station structures in conjunction with the overpasses every mile. Would be pretty sweet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6273  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2015, 10:57 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
The Raleigh thing is a good idea. But I think there's too many access points along the way. Be it garage access, side streets, parks, etc. There are some short stretches you could eliminate it, but it couldn't be for the whole length, so might be a bit useless. Can't just start cutting access to side streets, it's a safety issue. Dead end streets can only be so long until they need a second exit point in case of emergencies.

I think we'll be stuck with the transitway down the centre, like cllew mentioned, where the old track was. Which isn't a bad thing. It will have limited crossings. Pathway will be moved over a bit, which isn't a huge deal. But I don't think Raleigh could be eliminated that easily. I don't think it be beneficial to put the transitway right up against it either, with some type of barrier.

Is there a downside people are seeing with having it run right down the centre? Or just to get some type of cost saving by trying to utilize Raleigh? Projects tend to be more expensive when working with existing infrastructure. It's cheaper and easier a lot of times to just start from scratch.
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with building it between Raleigh and Gateway, besides having to tear out the stupid wavy bike path. But if they wanted a cheapo instant line, a few modifications to Raleigh could get it going. Even if they only ran it up to Kimberley/Concordia initially, it wouldn't interfere with any residential access.


Anyway, I hear the city is going to have to claw back some of Marquess's ill gotten gains in the Parker lands. This is exactly representative of the kind of shady dealings that landed this city in trouble and exactly why the city is supposed to follow a transparent process in its development and land dealings.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6274  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2015, 2:29 PM
Wpg transit 163-1 Wpg transit 163-1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 160
another 600 series bus broke down. This time it happened at the u of manitoba the driver had to use the knife switch to fix the bus. On another note jublee station is coming along well can't wait till it's open and in serivce same with phase 2 of the southwest transitway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6275  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2015, 6:30 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,968
The high numbers of the 600's are only used for rush hour service due to there old age if I am not mistaken.

If its a low number 600 they are about 4 or 5 years old and should be reliable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6276  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2015, 1:34 AM
Wpg transit 163-1 Wpg transit 163-1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by cllew View Post
The high numbers of the 600's are only used for rush hour service due to there old age if I am not mistaken.

If its a low number 600 they are about 4 or 5 years old and should be reliable.
it was something like bus 636. but they have problems as there computer based bus so a lot of systems are tied in to the computer to operate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6277  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2015, 10:22 AM
armorand93's Avatar
armorand93 armorand93 is offline
Transit Nerd
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Calgary (former Winnipegger)
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by cllew View Post
The high numbers of the 600's are only used for rush hour service due to there old age if I am not mistaken.

If its a low number 600 they are about 4 or 5 years old and should be reliable.
I was just about to say that the D901's are long gone...

601-630 aren't even three years old yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6278  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2015, 2:29 AM
mcpish mcpish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 89
Here's an idea I came up for a North-West Winnipeg BRT transitway.

The transitway would start just north of the Main Street underpass and head westbound, following the CP rail yard adjacent to Sutherland/Jarvis. Then it would tunnel under or go over McPhillips Street and would loop around the backside of McPhillips Station Casino. Then it would follow the Hydro Corridor that runs parallel to McPhillips about 300-400 meters to the west. This would run all the way out to Leila Ave near the Seven Oaks Hospital. By following the CP Rail then Hydro Corridor it shouldn't require too much appropriation of property.


In my first image, here is a rough idea of the transitway and possible stations:




In my second image, this is a rough idea of the kind of new BRT routes this could allow.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6279  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2015, 3:36 AM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ Pretty intriguing concept. The only downside of this route is that the potential for TOD is very limited, due in part to the fact that there is little developable land along the right of way. However, it would be quite a transit game-changer for the surrounding areas... the underpass bottlenecks that slow down traffic (Keewatin and McPhillips) would be circumvented entirely by bus passengers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6280  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2015, 2:03 PM
armorand93's Avatar
armorand93 armorand93 is offline
Transit Nerd
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Calgary (former Winnipegger)
Posts: 2,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ Pretty intriguing concept. The only downside of this route is that the potential for TOD is very limited, due in part to the fact that there is little developable land along the right of way. However, it would be quite a transit game-changer for the surrounding areas... the underpass bottlenecks that slow down traffic (Keewatin and McPhillips) would be circumvented entirely by bus passengers.
I was at a thing with trueviking about three years ago, and brought up the use of that land as a BRT corridor. The increase in service and capacity would be insane, especially once you bring in the residential areas, the Casino, Red River College, CentrePort Canada... I'm tempted to create my own map, right now, actually! Forgot where I put I had with me, that day.

Edit: just started on mine, with a few slight changes (TOD, re-route through Sheppard and Dufferin, local street operation around the casino). Would save hundreds of millions on the tunnel, although the bridge over to King and Princess Street would need the most of the funding. Also not extended up through to Seven Oaks, but up to Inkster.

Also added a Crosstown Northwest. 30-45 minute service along Inkster, will help bring Tyndall Park, the Industrial Park, the North Transitway and Main Street closer together, and also acts as a transfer route between Routes 15-18, 33, 38, 71, 77 and the feeders.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...4.kIHLHHQTK9os

Last edited by armorand93; Feb 21, 2015 at 3:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.