[Boris2k7]

Oh wait, I forgot, the "University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Economic Development," the "Transportation Research Board - National Research Council," and the "Victoria Transport Policy Institute" must also just be advocacy groups making "vague claims" such as:

"Expenditures on automobiles, fuel and roadway facilities provide relatively little regional economic activity because they are capital intensive and largely imported from other areas. A study using national input-output table data found that each 1% of regional travel shifted from automobile to public transit increases regional income about $2.9 million, resulting in 226 additional regional jobs (Miller, Robison & Lahr, 1999). These impacts are summarized in Table 6. As described earlier, Large Rail city residents spend an average of $448 less annually per capita on transportation than residents of Bus Only cities, despite higher incomes and longer average commute distances, totaling $22.6 billion in savings. If each million dollars in consumer expenditures shifted from automobile expenses to general consumer expenditures provides an average of 8.6 jobs and $219,000 in regional income, as indicated in Table 6, rail transit provides a total of 194,114 additional jobs and $4.9 billion in additional regional income in those cities."

Oh, and I guess Winnipeg also can't possibly complete with the mighty economic powerhouse of... Milwaukee... in 1992...

What alternatives would you have, road widenings? LOL

As of yet, neither you nor newflyer have presented a coherent argument against rapid transit backed by figures. You've merely muttered on about how it can't possibly work in Winnipeg and that the situation is somehow different from other "midwestern" cities.