Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit - Page 11

Alva360 · #**201** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flatlander

Funny how the province and feds pull $66M out of their ass to twin Inkster (where?) but can't come up with rapid transit funding ...

Hey..... I've been saying that for I don't know how long now. Don't kid yourself, this Province/City has the money or at least can get the money!

1ajs · #**202** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:16 PM**

Swerikon, Switzerland / 1970 ~ 1974
Serving as a people mover on an ecological reserve, this first Aerobus installation tested long spans and the feasibility of a portable pylon floating on a lake. After a series of successes, the entire system was sold and moved to a ski resort in Canada.

lol

Ste. Anne, Quebec, Canada / 1975 ~ 1992
Expanded to a suspended guideway length of 820 meters, about one-half mile, the system carried patrons of a ski area from their lodges to the lifts in all weather conditions. In May 1981, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, inspected the operation and produced a most favorable report on the system.

LilZebra · #**203** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs

Swerikon, Switzerland / 1970 ~ 1974
Serving as a people mover on an ecological reserve, this first Aerobus installation tested long spans and the feasibility of a portable pylon floating on a lake. After a series of successes, the entire system was sold and moved to a ski resort in Canada.

lol

Ste. Anne, Quebec, Canada / 1975 ~ 1992
Expanded to a suspended guideway length of 820 meters, about one-half mile, the system carried patrons of a ski area from their lodges to the lifts in all weather conditions. In May 1981, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, inspected the operation and produced a most favorable report on the system.

Monorails suck because they don't go for long distances. The one in Seattle is also less than 2 kms. And in all the 43 years since that system has been in operation, has it ever expanded beyond this? No. Monorail is for wusses.

And you can't put a suspended monorail underground, it just wouldn't work very well.

1ajs · #**204** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

Monorails suck because they don't go for long distances. The one in Seattle is also less than 2 kms. And in all the 43 years since that system has been in operation, has it ever expanded beyond this? No. Monorail is for wusses.

And you can't put a suspended monorail underground, it just wouldn't work very well.

have you looked at there site? www.aerobus.com

aww detroit has a mono rail and is in the proces of expanding it aparently

LilZebra · #**205** Posted **May 25, 2007, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ajs

have you looked at there site? www.aerobus.com

aww detroit has a mono rail and is in the proces of expanding it aparently

Monorail cat:

1ajs · #**206** Posted **May 25, 2007, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

Monorail cat:

not funny http://www.thepeoplemover.com/

newflyer · #**207** Posted **May 25, 2007, 10:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flatlander

Funny how the province and feds pull $66M out of their ass to twin Inkster (where?) but can't come up with rapid transit funding ...

I am actually support the enhancement of Inkster Blvd. The transportation industry has been demanding this for decades.. and its about time Manitoba supported this, being one of its biggest industries and really a core to Winnipeg's future. This will enhance Winnipeg's position as a major hub. This will also take Winnipeg one step closer to realizing the development of Winport at the westside of the airport. Overall this will bring significant real return to Winnipeg.

Can't believe I'm going to say this... but Doer has made a wise investment.

Marc B. · #**208** Posted **May 25, 2007, 11:00 PM**

Quote:

Those are screen stills from Logan's Run, right?

Spocket · #**209** Posted **May 27, 2007, 9:50 AM**

I'm a little confused here about these upgrades. Are they saying that they're going to put an interchange at Inkster and Sturgeon ? What the hell for ? Upgrade the intersection certainly but I can think of a lot more places where an interchange would be more useful (pick anywhere on the Perimeter, 75, or the TCH)

On the positive side, at least they're going to finish what they started at the Perimeter and Lag. Why they couldn't have left it as a fully functional grade seperation for eastbound traffic I'll never understand but meh...water under the bridge.

newflyer · #**210** Posted **May 27, 2007, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket

I'm a little confused here about these upgrades. Are they saying that they're going to put an interchange at Inkster and Sturgeon ? What the hell for ? Upgrade the intersection certainly but I can think of a lot more places where an interchange would be more useful (pick anywhere on the Perimeter, 75, or the TCH)

On the positive side, at least they're going to finish what they started at the Perimeter and Lag. Why they couldn't have left it as a fully functional grade seperation for eastbound traffic I'll never understand but meh...water under the bridge.

The governments are laying the fondation for expanded cargo distribution at the west side of the airport. This will lead towards the development of Winport.

Road infrastructure for cargo transportation is greatly below standards. If Winnipeg wants to expand this very profitable business and expands the city's status as a major hub, these enhancements should be made.

spiritedenergy · #**211** Posted **May 28, 2007, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alva360

Ok so I'm starting to see some "new" progress regarding the Transit stop upgrades. Henderson and Kimberly's old bus shelter got removed today and there seems to be line outs sprayed on the side walks not sure what there for........perhaps it's for the new real time scheduling displays........ Not sure if they implenmented any of these yet in the city but I can see this going up on Henerdson Hwy as it's one of the major bus routes in the city.

We are in such a need for a city transit upgrade. It's taken them forever to finally get to this point, at least it's now getting done.

if they really implement a GPS system, that alone would be a good improvement.
Real time scheduling display is great, but how many bus stops will have it? Hopefully it will be inside the buses too.

something similar to what we have in Florence would be great:
http://www.busbusnet.com/public/memb...12CNGn3694.jpg

inside each bus there is a voice indicating the bus stops, A/C and a computer/TV screen hanging from the roof, showing the route as it pregresses, news, advertising, city events, and more.

Kitty Surprise · #**212** Posted **May 28, 2007, 3:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by furiousmcd

Yup. It's supported by metal beams that can be spaced extremely far apart. Up to 600 meters, they claim. This makes it much cheaper to construct and much easier to travel over rivers and ground obstacles. No bridges or intrusive concrete beams like a monorail would require!

It's actually comparable in price to a Bus Rapid Transit system too. They quoted it on the Aerobus site to be between 15 and 20 million per mile which would equate to roughly the same amount Canadian per kilometer if not less.

If you want to see more, the site is www.aerobus.com

I could definitely see that thing floating over gridlock in Winnipeg.

I keep reading that LRT would be using old railway alignments, such as the Letellier & Marconi Lines, etc. So If we "picked" LRT as the technology of choice, we really wouldn't be able to provide LRT to many important areas of the city, such as high volume arterials like Portage, Main, St. Mary's Rd., as they're not wide enough to allow proper clearance for both vehicles and an at-grade LRT alignment. Am I wrong? Or would the city elevate the LRT "SkyTrain" style along these high volume routes? Or... (Or!) would the city just pull a Winnipeg and make some more pointless diamond lanes for our busses on those routes INSTEAD of building out a real rapid transit option for these routes?

It'd be so great to have one technology "blanket" the entire region in rapid transit, along all our major arterial routes and converging at Union Station. Are there any good reasons why an Aerobus technology couldn't work here?

Maybe in your WUI meetings you guys can 1.) agree to a tangible option 2.) agree to a logical and (NIMBY-friendly) alignment, and 3.) Determine how to be heard by the city on this matter. Grassroots!

LilZebra · #**213** Posted **May 28, 2007, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiritedenergy

if they really implement a GPS system, that alone would be a good improvement.
Real time scheduling display is great, but how many bus stops will have it? Hopefully it will be inside the buses too.

I really don't see the benefit of this... We already have:

Printed schedules
Tele*bus
WT website w/ Navigo and elecronic scheds.

This really is a waste of Taxpayers money. If the buses were rail vehicles instead you wouldn't have to do the GPS thing at all because the trains would run often enough if you missed one.

Quote:

something similar to what we have in Florence would be great:
http://www.busbusnet.com/public/memb...12CNGn3694.jpg

inside each bus there is a voice indicating the bus stops, A/C and a computer/TV screen hanging from the roof, showing the route as it pregresses, news, advertising, city events, and more.

I want "pro"gression, not the "pre" variety.

But seriously, there is nothing special about those two buses in that photo. Nothing at all. Icky paint scheme too.

Marc B. · #**214** Posted **May 28, 2007, 4:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitty Surprise

Are there any good reasons why an Aerobus technology couldn't work here?

Judging from its website, it doesn't look like it's worked anywhere in nearly 30 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitty Surprise

Maybe in your WUI meetings you guys can 1.) agree to a tangible option 2.) agree to a logical and (NIMBY-friendly) alignment, and 3.) Determine how to be heard by the city on this matter. Grassroots!

That is a good idea.

Lee_Haber8 · #**215** Posted **May 28, 2007, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitty Surprise

I keep reading that LRT would be using old railway alignments, such as the Letellier & Marconi Lines, etc. So If we "picked" LRT as the technology of choice, we really wouldn't be able to provide LRT to many important areas of the city, such as high volume arterials like Portage, Main, St. Mary's Rd., as they're not wide enough to allow proper clearance for both vehicles and an at-grade LRT alignment. Am I wrong? Or would the city elevate the LRT "SkyTrain" style along these high volume routes? Or... (Or!) would the city just pull a Winnipeg and make some more pointless diamond lanes for our busses on those routes INSTEAD of building out a real rapid transit option for these routes?

It'd be so great to have one technology "blanket" the entire region in rapid transit, along all our major arterial routes and converging at Union Station. Are there any good reasons why an Aerobus technology couldn't work here?

Maybe in your WUI meetings you guys can 1.) agree to a tangible option 2.) agree to a logical and (NIMBY-friendly) alignment, and 3.) Determine how to be heard by the city on this matter. Grassroots!

Portage and Main are wide enough to accomodate rapid transit if you take out two lanes of traffic. A total LRT right-of-way is little more than 6 metres which is less wide than two traffic lanes.

flatlander · #**216** Posted **May 28, 2007, 5:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

Portage and Main are wide enough to accomodate rapid transit if you take out two lanes of traffic. A total LRT right-of-way is little more than 6 metres which is less wide than two traffic lanes.

^^That's my preference - an at-grade LRT on our major thoroughfares.

Spocket · #**217** Posted **May 28, 2007, 7:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flatlander

^^That's my preference - an at-grade LRT on our major thoroughfares.

Couldn't agree more but since there are so many intersections with minor streets, it seems reasonable to conclude the cost would be prohibitive (which is to say that for safety concerns, I imagine it might be cheaper to simply expropriate a corridor somewhere rather than run it along Portage or Main or any major thoroughfare for any great length) Not that I actually know what it would cost to do it either way of course but I'm not sure it's as good an idea as it seems at first glance.

spiritedenergy · #**218** Posted **Jun 3, 2007, 10:57 PM**

the shelters at the Shapes/Futurshop/Petland etc. on Pembina have been wrecked. It is written that new shelters should come soon... Not sure about the usefulness of this though; those shelters are pathetic, benches are metallic or made of granite and are cold as hell in winter, not usable at all. Shelters provide some protection against the wind, but not much more.

Andy6 · #**219** Posted **Jun 3, 2007, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket

Couldn't agree more but since there are so many intersections with minor streets, it seems reasonable to conclude the cost would be prohibitive (which is to say that for safety concerns, I imagine it might be cheaper to simply expropriate a corridor somewhere rather than run it along Portage or Main or any major thoroughfare for any great length) Not that I actually know what it would cost to do it either way of course but I'm not sure it's as good an idea as it seems at first glance.

It seems impractical to me. There are so many cross streets that the thing would be as slow as a bus. Alternatively you can try to reduce cross-traffic and end up putting the local businesses out of business by destroying their access (and cutting out lanes means reducing on-street parking and delivery truck access -- this is the debate we go through in Toronto whenever City Council tries to ram through new streetcar routes). Also Portage Avenue is a pretty heavy-duty traffic street to have people standing in the middle waiting for or getting off streetcars -- I find it especially hard to picture in icy -20 conditions in January or February.

furiousmcd · #**220** Posted **Jun 4, 2007, 1:31 AM**

It would be a huge disappointment to have waited out the last fifty years of studies and blunders to get something that flows with the rest of traffic like a streetcar. There are reasons that our old streetcar was dismantled that would still pose a problem. Perhaps the most major problem is it would slow down the rest of traffic and eliminate parking spots. The streetcar they have in Toronto has this problem.

If Winnipeg is going to invest in rapid transit, it needs to be on its own separate right of way.

It should either be on a different thoroughfare or above/below the ground. This way it can have a strictly positive impact on traffic and surrounding business instead of a cause of constant problems and headaches.