HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2014, 9:13 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cold Garden
Posts: 20,244
For what it's worth, Calgary city council is seriously considering the construction of a Gondola to connect the University of Calgary, Alberta Children's Hospital, University C-Train Station, and Foothills Medical Centre. So that could set a precedent, in Canada, for an urban format gondola that Winnipeg could base a potential future system on.
__________________
Strong & free

'My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.' — Jack Layton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 12:42 PM
njaohnt njaohnt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro View Post
Without looking at costs, it very well could be close in feasibility to LRT/km.

But if your talking about removing the cables for a fixed system, we wouldn't be talking about the Aerobus PRT system anymore. The concept was designed to use cables, remove them and the whole concept is kind of a moot point?

We're back at alternative methods of LRT.
1. It is not a PRT system
2. Removing the cables entirely was not what I was thinking, it's just that it doesn't matter how many turns there are that require a fixed guideway, it is still a good option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 4:20 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by njaohnt View Post
1. It is not a PRT system
2. Removing the cables entirely was not what I was thinking, it's just that it doesn't matter how many turns there are that require a fixed guideway, it is still a good option.
A clarification is needed.

You posted this:

Originally Posted by njaohnt
"Even if it had no cables, and was completely a fixed guideway"

You were discussing a fixed rail guideway system, PRT came to mind as a concept which has many examples of hanging/suspended people movers on a smaller scale.


http://openprtspecs.blogspot.ca/2013_06_01_archive.html
www.pinterest.com

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 4:24 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,171
In a city where politicians get hammered by the Sun/CJOB crew for endorsing something as mundane as bus rapid transit, I'd wager that there is not a fricking chance that an aerobus will see the light of day in Winnipeg during our lifetimes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 4:31 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
In a city where politicians get hammered by the Sun/CJOB crew for endorsing something as mundane as bus rapid transit, I'd wager that there is not a fricking chance that an aerobus will see the light of day in Winnipeg during our lifetimes.
100% Bang on.

Although the Gondola concept for the UM/ St Vital spanning the Red was interesting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 5:37 PM
Arts Arts is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
In a city where politicians get hammered by the Sun/CJOB crew for endorsing something as mundane as bus rapid transit, I'd wager that there is not a fricking chance that an aerobus will see the light of day in Winnipeg during our lifetimes.
This is the part that makes me roll my eyes (in agreement) - it is so mundane it should just be done, it is not something that is expensive or difficult to do, just dedicate a transit route, put buses on it, and in time make further improvements/enhancements as the need/ridership dictates. Transit takes priority over private vehicles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 7:34 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ontario's feel good town
Posts: 3,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arts View Post
it is not something that is expensive or difficult to do, just dedicate a transit route, put buses on it, and in time make further improvements/enhancements as the need/ridership dictates.
This already exists, it's called a bus route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2014, 8:37 PM
Arts Arts is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
This already exists, it's called a bus route.
Yes except the difference is that "bus routes" aren't dedicated at all to buses. They are shared corridors.

At the very minimal, atleast give the buses traffic signal priority so you can call it "rapid".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2014, 12:01 AM
njaohnt njaohnt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arts View Post
Yes except the difference is that "bus routes" aren't dedicated at all to buses. They are shared corridors.

At the very minimal, atleast give the buses traffic signal priority so you can call it "rapid".
Then you can't say it isn't expensive, because it is very expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2014, 12:03 AM
njaohnt njaohnt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro View Post
A clarification is needed.

You posted this:

Originally Posted by njaohnt
"Even if it had no cables, and was completely a fixed guideway"

You were discussing a fixed rail guideway system, PRT came to mind as a concept which has many examples of hanging/suspended people movers on a smaller scale.
I was just stating that no matter how many turns it needs, it is still a good option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2014, 12:21 AM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 10,478
The point I'm taking away from the Aerobus that makes it cheaper than other forms of transit is that you can place the pylons really far apart, thus making a right of way that can simply go over things. Putting in fixed guideways to make curves defeats the purpose (by being expensive) and ignores the major advantage Aerobus offers. For the cost of air rights over houses, for example, it's conceivable that the city could draw one straight aerobus line across the whole city.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2014, 6:31 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
The point I'm taking away from the Aerobus that makes it cheaper than other forms of transit is that you can place the pylons really far apart, thus making a right of way that can simply go over things. Putting in fixed guideways to make curves defeats the purpose (by being expensive) and ignores the major advantage Aerobus offers. For the cost of air rights over houses, for example, it's conceivable that the city could draw one straight aerobus line across the whole city.
This pretty much sums up one of the major drawbacks of employing this system in a practical and economical sense.

I posted an earlier link explaining the problems with this cable system transit option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2014, 8:09 PM
Arts Arts is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by njaohnt View Post
Then you can't say it isn't expensive, because it is very expensive.
Well, to attract ridership it needs to be both rapid, and above all reliable, so depending how badly the city wants its populace utilizing transit, how "expensive" it is, is a function of the quality of life for people trying to get around the city. But building better platforms and timing signals to give priority to buses is cheap compared to rigging a massive cable and necessary guideways and installing aerial platforms. dedicating existing lanes solely to buses is not much more expensive financially, though has a huge cost in terms of detriment to private and commercial vehicles that could use the lane. And building dedicated busways is obviously much more expensive, and usually requires decades to acquire the land.

The argument in Winnipeg for RT seems to centre around "yes or no" but it should be "to what extent for now".
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 2:09 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.