Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit - Page 46

vid · #**901** Posted **Jun 19, 2008, 1:45 AM**

I don't get how they would be that stupid. You have to consider the light rail train on the road as something like a transport truck. You don't turn into the path of an oncoming transport truck! Those people were just stupid.

1ajs · #**902** Posted **Jun 19, 2008, 1:49 AM**

thats just plane stupid idiots that should not be on the road..........

viperred88 · #**903** Posted **Jun 19, 2008, 5:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

Another reason to put LRT rapid transit trains underground is that if you have them running at grade they can cross paths with vehicles who are oblivious to the train being there.

Houston, we have a problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc

I gotta agree with that its a no brainer.

I was at the Wpg Rapid transit coalition presentation at the gas station theatre tonight, although I was not able to stay at the end for the discussion. I still couldn't fathom having BRT as it is still sharing an intersection with merging lanes. So BRT and lrt on roadways is a no go for me as a form of rapid transit even though trams are somewhat seperated from car lanes.

I say spend the damn money build a skytrain/subway system like vancouver. Heck even buy the used trains from other cities as a starting point. As Russ Wyatt mentioned if we can always seem to find money for under/over passes then why not for rapid for transit even alocate those cloverleafs dollars to rapid transit.

Spocket · #**904** Posted **Jun 19, 2008, 11:03 AM**

^Well I would also like to see the city do this right (lol....as if it will ever get it done at all) but if Wyatt is claiming that city can always find money for roadway grade-seperations or railway bridges then I don't know where he lives because it's clearly not Winnipeg. We're just about the only city in the developed (and most of the developing) world that has no freeway either within the city or even leading to it. We're always complaining about having to wait for trains on major routes (and I'm not just talking about Waverley or what used to be the problem at Kenaston either) Now we can't even build a "high speed" corridor in the north east sector of the city with so much as one simple bridge despite the plans calling for it.

Hey, I'd love to see a dedicated roadway for BRT or a seperated LRT corridor. I'm all for it but if Wyatt is going to make claims about our city's reckless and free-spending ways where overpasses are concerned, he might want to hop on a city bus or take a long drive around town.

MalcolmTucker · #**905** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 4:56 PM**

Until you experience LRT operation for yourself at street level, don't knock it. Both Portland and Denver have rather successful systems with mixed traffic on at least portions of their systems.

If designed properly, you can save enough money to run your LRT for twice or three times the distance. The service problems aren't nearly as bad as you think. Calgary did fine on our downtown line until we reached capacity during rush hour in the last few years. Portland on system expansion decided instead of going underground to relieve congestion, they build a second above ground downtown section to relieve rail congestion off the first.

While it is always nice to build a Cadillac system, it is a recipe for political disaster that usually results in truncated ineffective systems. The first phase will inevitably be short and include the most expensive tunneling elements, and when ridership isn't high opponents will jump and immediately try to cancel future phases. (for the most part they succeed). If you build an extensive cheap system, you really push the area of people that will support the line much wider, and you will be able to keep expanding. After Denver's initial phase, the public supported a ballot initiative for $4 billion dollars worth of expansion, with a similar story in Portland.

Reed Solomon · #**906** Posted **Jun 20, 2008, 10:52 PM**

We should build an electric rail system and cut costs wherever possible. That's what they did in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook. And it worked out there great. It put them on the map, that's for sure.

Pootkao · #**907** Posted **Jun 21, 2008, 4:26 AM**

I've heard of none of those places.

It must be a small map.

1ajs · #**908** Posted **Jun 21, 2008, 4:44 AM**

simpsons anyone?

wpgcityone · #**909** Posted **Jun 21, 2008, 9:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

I thought it was around 33 of the 40 ft. buses, and 20 of the 60 ft. articulated buses (in which that chance of getting those buses now are slim to none).

Anyways, I'm glad to see those new buses on the road. New Flyer (or Winnipeg Transit) is getting nicer looking buses now. It's too bad they stopped marketing/building the Invero buses. They were nice too, but I heard so many problems about them.

We (New Flyer) have been offering the "Low Floor Restyle" bus for a couple of years now, but it's only been on this order that Winnipeg Transit has upgraded to this option (as well as finally springing for the A/C).

Edmonton has a couple of Diesel-Electric 40' hybrids, and Ft McMurray gets a couple of diesels a year, but besides these Winnipeg would be New Flyer's coldest customer. Developing special hybrids that work specifically for Winnipeg winters would be a lot of engineering hours, considering 20 buses would be less than 1% of the company's annual build volume.

Let's not talk about the Invero

The Jabroni · #**910** Posted **Jun 22, 2008, 2:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wpgcityone

We (New Flyer) have been offering the "Low Floor Restyle" bus for a couple of years now, but it's only been on this order that Winnipeg Transit has upgraded to this option (as well as finally springing for the A/C).

Edmonton has a couple of Diesel-Electric 40' hybrids, and Ft McMurray gets a couple of diesels a year, but besides these Winnipeg would be New Flyer's coldest customer. Developing special hybrids that work specifically for Winnipeg winters would be a lot of engineering hours, considering 20 buses would be less than 1% of the company's annual build volume.

Let's not talk about the Invero

Good call.

Also, welcome to the forums!! It seems to me you're an insider at New Flyer.

vid · #**911** Posted **Jun 22, 2008, 2:59 AM**

Thunder Bay Transit is getting rid of its Newflyers. They abhor them.

They bought 15 of them, too. Poor suckers.

Kinguni · #**912** Posted **Jun 22, 2008, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wpgcityone

We (New Flyer) have been offering the "Low Floor Restyle" bus for a couple of years now, but it's only been on this order that Winnipeg Transit has upgraded to this option (as well as finally springing for the A/C)......

......Let's not talk about the Invero

The buses are still cheaped out compared to what other cities order, especially the bottom end driver's seats. I haven't driven the new buses yet, but understand they ride good, a little less power off the line than the last batch, AC perhaps set a bit too cool, transmission retarders set to strong, and the brakes a bit weird with the retarder off. But that's second hand information. They never consult us on bus equipment.

Not talking about the Inviro is probably a good thing. Few drivers care for driving them, almost feel they are being punished when they get one to drive.

wpgcityone · #**913** Posted **Jun 23, 2008, 10:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Thunder Bay Transit is getting rid of its Newflyers. They abhor them.

They bought 15 of them, too. Poor suckers.

The 15 for Thunder Bay were built in 1994, so these buses could be at the end of their life cycle anyway. 5 have already been retired. They were one of the first Low Floor buses that New Flyer delivered, so I can't vouch for the quality, but hopefully the buses we build today are much better (after 14 years of continuous improvements).

So far New Flyer has delivered 60' BRT coaches (with 4 exit doors) to Cleveland and Eugene OR (Lane Transit). Here is a promotional video...would this work in Winnipeg?

http://newflyer.com/docs/investor_re..._FlyerBRT.html

Kinguni · #**914** Posted **Jun 23, 2008, 11:54 PM**

The original batch of low floor buses were terrible. Poor heat and engine problems. The 3 Winnipeg Transit has are actually OK now that they've been rebuilt, but are still terrible in winter due to an inadequate heating system.

vid · #**915** Posted **Jun 24, 2008, 5:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wpgcityone

The 15 for Thunder Bay were built in 1994, so these buses could be at the end of their life cycle anyway. 5 have already been retired. They were one of the first Low Floor buses that New Flyer delivered, so I can't vouch for the quality, but hopefully the buses we build today are much better (after 14 years of continuous improvements).

Obviously they'll have gotten better but first impressions mean a lot. Thunder Bay Transit's mistake was probably just getting such a large order at first. (Imagine if Winnipeg had gotten 115 Inviros...) They aren't our worst buses though, the Orion VIs aren't even 10 years old and they're pretty much dead. I was on one today and I swear to god it was rolling backwards down a hill at one stop, about 10cm a minute maybe. It was somewhat alarming. I absolutely hate those buses. Especially when they're crowded. They're basically as efficient as a 30 foot bus. I don't know if you have them in Winnipeg but the whole thing is just a disaster. The VII is an improvement but only just.

The seat layout our Newflyers have is bad too, the drivers side wheelchair section requires five seats to be lifted instead of 3, but it's always those five that people lift and not the 3 on the other side. Which is funny, because except for the Orion VIs where you're forced to take the drivers side, wheelchair passengers always pick the passenger side of the vehicle.

It's absurd. I think that was a decision by transit, though?

1ajs · #**916** Posted **Jun 24, 2008, 4:00 PM**

same layout on the bus's here

Kinguni · #**917** Posted **Jun 24, 2008, 9:21 PM**

The Inviro has the best passenger seat layout. Only 4 flip up seats on each side and no stupid bumper pad which no one in a wheelchair ever uses, plus no pole in the middle of the aisle. I can't see why we can't get a seat layout like that in the regular low floor buses.

vid · #**918** Posted **Jun 25, 2008, 1:28 AM**

4 flip up seats? I thought the norm was 3. Those bumper pad things are hilarious. I can't believe someone thought they would be necessary!

LilZebra · #**919** Posted **Jun 25, 2008, 2:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

4 flip up seats? I thought the norm was 3. Those bumper pad things are hilarious. I can't believe someone thought they would be necessary!

I call those bumper pad thingies ironing boards, but bumper pads are a good name too..

They block the view out the front window for the passengers sitting there.

Transit really doesn't want anyone to ride their buses, do they?

Greco Roman · #**920** Posted **Jun 25, 2008, 2:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

I call those bumper pad thingies ironing boards, but bumper pads are a good name too..

They block the view out the front window for the passengers sitting there.

Transit really doesn't want anyone to ride their buses, do they?

It's not just in Winnipeg; those annoying pad things are spewed all over Edmonton Transit buses too. It's all about making a buck on advertisements and to hell with catering to the comfort of riders