HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3021  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 4:03 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
If you programme the lights and LRT runs properly (so basically, this won't be happening in Winnipeg at all), you can get it so that the light is always (or usually) green for the LRT.
It is possible. However it really only works in areas where there are long gaps (15+ minutes) between trains or long stretches between at-grade intersections.

Downtown Calgary has 5 minute gaps between trains on 7th Ave SW and trains are VERY slow when impeded by lights. That stretch is really only 12 blocks long but takes a considerable amount of time to traverse. It also doesn't have to deal with people turning on and off the street at it is a "transit only" street like the east portion of Graham Ave. I can't imagine what it would be like down Portage where there are lights every few hundred meters for several kilometers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3022  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 4:49 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,440
Over longer stretches you close down minor intersections. Drivers can suck it up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3023  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 5:10 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
Over longer stretches you close down minor intersections. Drivers can suck it up.
Its not just drivers but also pedestrians and cyclists.

What about access for emergency vehicles?

Are u-turns going to be allowed everywhere to accommodate people trying to get to a business on the other side of the road?

If the LRT/LRV is along the south side of Portage, how do people go to the businesses on that side of the road?

Are pedestrians going to be allowed to cross the tracks where ever they want?

Will the only access into Wolseley be Arlington? How many of the grid streets do you think should be closed to allow for the LRT ROW?

Saying "drivers can suck it up" is basically saying that Portage should just become a freeway and the businesses along it will just have to "deal with it".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3024  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 6:21 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,440
You have U turns at bigger intersections. It isn't rocket science. As for pedestrians my preference would be for no crossings of the tracks away from intersections - allowing pedestrians on the tracks makes it a streetcar.

As for businesses it doesn't need to be a freeway - outside of rush hour you can still have street parking.

I would say the goal should be to have a street crossing full intersection every 400m or more in conjunction with a station. Some roads might be too hard to close and you can work around them, but it would have to be a limited number to make transit worthwhile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3025  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 6:36 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
You have U turns at bigger intersections. It isn't rocket science. As for pedestrians my preference would be for no crossings of the tracks away from intersections - allowing pedestrians on the tracks makes it a streetcar.

As for businesses it doesn't need to be a freeway - outside of rush hour you can still have street parking.

I would say the goal should be to have a street crossing full intersection every 400m or more in conjunction with a station. Some roads might be too hard to close and you can work around them, but it would have to be a limited number to make transit worthwhile.
How is this a benefit over buses with diamond lanes and priority transit signals?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3026  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 6:42 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,440
Lower operating costs is the only difference between LRT and BRT if you build everything else the same. (and higher potential passenger capacity but that isn't a problem in Winnipeg's case) The temptation with BRT is to leave out a lot of the LRT tough choices like closing down intersections, having a truly exclusive ROW and true signal priority.

I would argue doing diamond lanes unless you have them as protected as LRT ROW would still back up from car turning and parking movements. Not that they can't be well done, just that they rarely are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3027  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 6:53 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
Lower operating costs is the only difference between LRT and BRT if you build everything else the same. (and higher potential passenger capacity but that isn't a problem in Winnipeg's case) The temptation with BRT is to leave out a lot of the LRT tough choices like closing down intersections, having a truly exclusive ROW and true signal priority.

I would argue doing diamond lanes unless you have them as protected as LRT ROW would still back up from car turning and parking movements. Not that they can't be well done, just that they rarely are.
There is NEVER be a rapid transit ROW down Portage unless you do one of the following things.

- Run an LRT down the center of Portage Ave and close most intersections and turn the rest into interchanges or T intersections. Barriers would be placed on each side of the tracks to ensure pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists do not get in the way of the train.

- Run the LRT along the sidewalks and turn the West End and Wolseley streets into cul-de-sacs allowing vehicular access via 1 or 2 streets and building pedestrian overpasses so that you don't have to walk half a kilometer to cross the street. This would also turn Portage Ave into a freeway but probably kill many businesses along the stretch as well. Barriers would also be placed on each side of the tracks to ensure pedestrians and cyclists do not get in the way of the train.

- Run an elevated LRT and cast a permanent shadow on the north side of Portage.

- Run the LRT underground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3028  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 8:21 PM
roccerfeller's Avatar
roccerfeller roccerfeller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: BC
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
There is NEVER be a rapid transit ROW down Portage unless you do one of the following things.

- Run an LRT down the center of Portage Ave and close most intersections and turn the rest into interchanges or T intersections. Barriers would be placed on each side of the tracks to ensure pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists do not get in the way of the train.

- Run the LRT along the sidewalks and turn the West End and Wolseley streets into cul-de-sacs allowing vehicular access via 1 or 2 streets and building pedestrian overpasses so that you don't have to walk half a kilometer to cross the street. This would also turn Portage Ave into a freeway but probably kill many businesses along the stretch as well. Barriers would also be placed on each side of the tracks to ensure pedestrians and cyclists do not get in the way of the train.

- Run an elevated LRT and cast a permanent shadow on the north side of Portage.

- Run the LRT underground.
I'm also trying to think of how portage could have an LRT, and an elevated system/ underground is all I could feasibly think of, negating how much $$ that would cost. Maybe one day down the line, but we also have to think about if we're going to be moving towards a million people, then Portage being the way it is, is very important.

Portage is basically 4 lanes either way (8), minus turning lanes and parking lanes, rush hour times...essentially making it 3 proper lanes (6) of continuously flowing traffic either way...and if even one of those lanes is axed, then traffic gets backed up so much.

Its no Toronto, but take out two lanes when there is sewage maintenance, or MTS working some telephone pole or construction or whatever, and its bad enough to make bumper to bumper rush hour in any city not named Toronto or Montreal look much more desirable (its taken me an hour and a half to get home once coming from downtown out west that normally takes 25-30 mins - 2 lanes gone plus traffic lights does that).

Putting in LRT...is there enough space to keep everything as it is? I'm not sure. Then, if LRT had to obey the current traffic set up and lights etc...then what's the point of rapid transit?

The other option would be to take some other route in the city...but again as h0twired said, Winnipeg isnt entirely a sprawling suburban freeway city a la Edmonton or Calgary. The core of the city, as in the "old parts" of the city don't have much breathing room.

I could easily see LRT somewhere down Bishop or the newer sprawling areas, for sure, but that's because they have so much room to play with that you could add 2 L/BRT lines (dedicated RT corridors) PLUS expand the lanes for future traffic...and still function.

We're moving towards more people, and Portage is already more busy than it used to be even 5 years ago during peak traffic hours. What used to take 20 mins now takes 25...doesn't sound like much of a change, but that's only with a few hundred more cars etc...with the population adding several thousand people in the area. What about when headingly has thousands and thousands more car drivers when we have a million people? Sure sprawl might not happen in the west part of the city as much as the north and the south, where there is more area to play with...

but thats why it makes a) more sense to have RT elsewhere first, and b) perhaps leave portage for buses. Express buses are pretty decent - U of W to Unicity for instance is only 30 mins tops on an express bus.

Making portage smaller while we have more cars on the road...just doesnt make sense.

And I would rather put all the money it would cost to build a western RT line above ground or underground (which would be best for the Peg's winter weather...but way more expensive) and invest it in building RT lines NE, E, SE and S of the city.

People living in the west have much more options to head downtown than people living NE or E do.



The other possibility is to have RT entirely separated from Portage and use another parallel street or something. If that was done over time, people could get used to it eventually. But suddenly introducing something is another story.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3029  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 12:58 AM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,678
I'm not sure why an lrt line down the center of Portage couldn't just switch the lights over with an electrical signal when the train is a certain distance away, kind of like how train signal arms lower on heavy rail tracks.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3030  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 1:22 AM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,440
They can but too many intersections and that timing gets very complicated. If you want to travel above road speed you also need longer stopping distances. You also limit headway or else the cross roads will never get a chance to go and you may as well of closed the intersection.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3031  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 1:23 AM
SKYSTHELIMIT's Avatar
SKYSTHELIMIT SKYSTHELIMIT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
I'm not sure why an lrt line down the center of Portage couldn't just switch the lights over with an electrical signal when the train is a certain distance away, kind of like how train signal arms lower on heavy rail tracks.
Works that way with the C-Train in Calgary.
__________________
West Coastin'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3032  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 3:18 AM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby View Post
They can but too many intersections and that timing gets very complicated. If you want to travel above road speed you also need longer stopping distances. You also limit headway or else the cross roads will never get a chance to go and you may as well of closed the intersection.
Exactly. You also need time for the other light to turn yellow and have to have a reasonable time where the crossing traffic is green as well. You can't just force every light to turn green just because a train is approaching

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYSTHELIMIT View Post
Works that way with the C-Train in Calgary.
That's why LRT crossing that are shared with 4-way stops are very rare outside of the downtown core in Calgary. Also the ones that exist are TERRIBLE. Especially the one at Macleod Trail and 25th Ave SW.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3033  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 3:23 AM
Pegger5 Pegger5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Proud to be from "The Peg"
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
Exactly. You also need time for the other light to turn yellow and have to have a reasonable time where the crossing traffic is green as well. You can't just force every light to turn green just because a train is approaching



That's why LRT crossing that are shared with 4-way stops are very rare outside of the downtown core in Calgary. Also the ones that exist are TERRIBLE. Especially the one at Macleod Trail and 25th Ave SW.
Macleod Trail and 25th Ave SW is the worst F-up in the history of rapid transit...
__________________
http://www.financialpost.com/magazine/fp500/list.html
TOP 800 -Winnipeg: 32 + 3 subsidiaries = 35
----------Edmonton: 25 + 1 subsidiary = 26
----------Quebec City: 16 + 2 subsidiaries = 18
----------Ottawa: 15 + 1 subsidiary = 16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3034  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 3:45 AM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,440
25th Ave SW is a low capacity road - the only time it really has problems is during events when it would be awful anyways from the huge parking lot there letting out.

I think you're a bit too fixated on Calgary's system which is designed at a scale to eventually have as much capacity as any of the busiest subways in the world (with slow continuous improvements).

Winnipeg doesn't need to design for a train barreling down the median of a street at 80 km/h nor would you want to. Portage Ave & Colony St to Portage and Buchanan (right before the perimeter highway) is around 12 km and by my guesses would be the longest route. Even a mild LRT like is being built on Sheppard Avenue East in Toronto as projected can average 22 km/h giving almost all people a less than 30 min ride. That is without intersection control like Calgary has (gates, preemption), but with signal priority and removal of some cross street traffic. Not bad at all really.

Sheppard East LRT
Budget: $944.5 million (includes maintenance facility, rolling stock, and control centre)
Length: 13.6 km
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3035  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 6:56 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 h0twired View Post
There is NEVER be a rapid transit ROW down Portage unless you do one of the following things.

- Run an LRT down the center of Portage Ave and close most intersections and turn the rest into interchanges or T intersections. Barriers would be placed on each side of the tracks to ensure pedestrians, vehicles and cyclists do not get in the way of the train.

- Run the LRT along the sidewalks and turn the West End and Wolseley streets into cul-de-sacs allowing vehicular access via 1 or 2 streets and building pedestrian overpasses so that you don't have to walk half a kilometer to cross the street. This would also turn Portage Ave into a freeway but probably kill many businesses along the stretch as well. Barriers would also be placed on each side of the tracks to ensure pedestrians and cyclists do not get in the way of the train.

- Run an elevated LRT and cast a permanent shadow on the north side of Portage.

- Run the LRT underground.
How about St. Matthews Short walk, dead street, Portage wont face traffic nightmares...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3036  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 6:57 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 armorand93 View Post
How about St. Matthews Short walk, dead street, Portage wont face traffic nightmares...
St. Matthews?* whoopsies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3037  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 6:29 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,678
St. Matthews would be great for a line that runs underground through downtown. Otherwise its dead-end at Maryland fouls everything up.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3038  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 6:39 PM
h0twired's Avatar
h0twired h0twired is offline
Dynamic Positivity!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
St. Matthews would be great for a line that runs underground through downtown. Otherwise its dead-end at Maryland fouls everything up.
Not sure how residents would feel having a set of noisy crossing arms at every intersection along St. Matthews though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3039  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2010, 2:48 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is online now
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,461
graham is a fine transit line....doesnt have to be portage....very similar to calgary where one street trhough downtown is a train street only.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3040  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2010, 1:51 PM
Kitty Surprise's Avatar
Kitty Surprise Kitty Surprise is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0twired View Post
Not sure how residents would feel having a set of noisy crossing arms at every intersection along St. Matthews though.
Thinking about the most realistic solution... consider:

1. Money - Anything elevated or underground raises project costs considerably; any elevated/underground systems would have to be used sparingly, and where it made most economic sense. A skytrain or tunnel down portage would not make economic sense (break my heart to say it)

2. Climate - Winnipeg has a long winter and people want to be comfortable. Bus stops should be integrated into indoor stations with retail/residential/commercial mix (yes TOD development but with a Winnipeg spin; buses/trains come indoors so passengers are comfortable.

3. Reduce number of stops. A true rapid transit solution of any kind (subway, skytrain, LRT, BRT will only be successful if it limits the number of stops - otherwise it will be stop and go just like the 11 today.

4. Using Portage as an example - there only needs to be 5 stops between Polo Park and Downtown. The BRT/LRT can ride in the median, and 'veer into' each TOD enclosed station with use of timed lights to allow bus/train to cross traffic and come into the station. On larger stations (Polo Park, the station could be elevated meaning no interruption to traffic at all.

This solution would overall hinder traffic somewhat but savings realized by NOT elevating or burying system combined with benefits gained from new TOD 'pearls on a string' development & tax revenues will more than make up for a few irritated drivers.

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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:00 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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