Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by Spocket

I have to admit that the tramway idea looked good for a minute there. Ultimately though, Andy made his case rather convincingly. Maybe they'd work in certain, small areas as a tourist attraction of sorts but otherwise, nope, not in Winnipeg.

At this rate, I'd settle for a few community bikes as rapid transit in this city anyway. Looks like it'll be the best thing we'll ever get anyway as long as we have the Mr. Magoos down at city hall running this place.

Why would they only work in small areas as a tourist attraction in Winnipeg, when the work efficiently as major transit networks in cities both larger and small than Winnipeg. I have had the oppertunity to use these systems in mutiple cites and they are very efficient, do not cause problems with respect to people and business, and can be near-zero emmisions (esspecially in Winnipeg where we can make use of hydro and wind as the source of electricity).

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by ILYR

Why would they only work in small areas as a tourist attraction in Winnipeg, when the work efficiently as major transit networks in cities both larger and small than Winnipeg. I have had the oppertunity to use these systems in mutiple cites and they are very efficient, do not cause problems with respect to people and business, and can be near-zero emmisions (esspecially in Winnipeg where we can make use of hydro and wind as the source of electricity).

Most of the cities that use them have hills or cliffs that are much easier to traverse using a tramway.

Winnipeg is just looking for a kitschy way of avoiding just building a bridge.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by ILYR

Why would they only work in small areas as a tourist attraction in Winnipeg, when the work efficiently as major transit networks in cities both larger and small than Winnipeg. I have had the oppertunity to use these systems in mutiple cites and they are very efficient, do not cause problems with respect to people and business, and can be near-zero emmisions (esspecially in Winnipeg where we can make use of hydro and wind as the source of electricity).

As I said, Andy made his case so check back to see what he said.

You offer some good rebuttals but overall, if we're going to spend that kind of cash, we should get an actual rapid transit system , not just another form of mass transit. I don't see the advantage of trams over buses in a city like Winnipeg. From a cost effectiveness standpoint , it makes no sense to invest in this. That of course begs the question : what is the advantage to European cities in adopting this system.

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Most of the cities that use them have hills or cliffs that are much easier to traverse using a tramway.

Winnipeg is just looking for a kitschy way of avoiding just building a bridge.

I think that you have misunderstood the argument about using a tram system. First of all a tram is a rail system and has nothing to do with a bridge. I assume you are talking about the proposal across the Red river near the UofM using a cable car. Take another look at the photos I posted.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by ILYR

Why would they only work in small areas as a tourist attraction in Winnipeg, when the work efficiently as major transit networks in cities both larger and small than Winnipeg. I have had the oppertunity to use these systems in mutiple cites and they are very efficient, do not cause problems with respect to people and business, and can be near-zero emmisions (esspecially in Winnipeg where we can make use of hydro and wind as the source of electricity).

Gondolas are most appropriate and most efficient at carrying people from ground level to point on a mountain.

I have to scratch my head at this whole goldola thing for Winnipeg and you especially calling it a form of rapid transit.

What a gondola is, is a very specialized form of transport, meant to carry few people at a time to one specific point... one to one... You cannot have multi-stop stations using gondola technolgy. It just isn't practical.

And yes, I have ridden a gondola before... the one in Vancouver for Grousse mountain, and the one in Banff and/or Jasper Alta. They're cool rides, although a bit scary sometimes as you're climbing several hundred feet above air, with giant rocks below...

And even those cities that do have what are called 'funiculars', they are meant for very hilly terrain, not the kind of flat stuff we have here on the prairies.

[LilZebra]

[QUOTE=ILYR;3268890]Given all the ideas for rapid transit in Winnipeg I think the tram system would work best. A system where the trams would replace the centre medians of the major Winnipeg routes (Pembina, Main, Portage, and Provencher-Regent), plus at least one existing traffic lane. The amount would depend on the location and route. An example is the system in Geneva, Switzerland. Below are some models of the Geneva system and a typical stop. Also I have added a north-south and east-west routes for Winnipeg passing through portage and main. The system would have right of way and restrict traffic crossing these routes to only major crossings. However, I think that it would be a minimal adjustment for Winnipegers. Also if this city is to truely embrace rapid transit there will have to be a general change in people's philosophy on transportation.

Your thoughts.



A smaller version for the secondary streets and the longer one for the regional streets...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M-lDMTUg5U

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by Spocket

As I said, Andy made his case so check back to see what he said.

You offer some good rebuttals but overall, if we're going to spend that kind of cash, we should get an actual rapid transit system , not just another form of mass transit. I don't see the advantage of trams over buses in a city like Winnipeg. From a cost effectiveness standpoint , it makes no sense to invest in this. That of course begs the question : what is the advantage to European cities in adopting this system.

And as I said these tram systems are rapid systems in existing cities. They are rapid becaus they have right of way, and have dedicated lines. The difference with a LRT is that the tram systems run along existing streets. These streets are redesigned to have 2 lanes dedicated to the tram system. Without traffic a tram can traverse a city quickly, thus a rapid transit system.

Now it is true you can do a similar thing with buses as they have done in Ottawa. In Ottawa a number of street have become bus only, or parts of streets bus only. Once again a dedicated system for transit to avoid traffic. This was the BRT system that has been proposed for Winnipeg in the past. Suprisingly it has recived much negative response as it is not a true rapid transit system. This is false. If you build a true BRT it is rapid transit.

As I noted in one of my other responses a tram system that uses electricity derived from hydro and wind power makes it more or less polution free. Reduced emmisions in cities across europe is important, it should also be a concern here. Secondly if the system is powered by electricty using the wind (which by the way the C-train in Calgary is technically powered by wind) and hydro fuel costs can be reduced. Also because trams are rail systems having 3 tram cars joined together they can carry significantly more people than a bus, even a articulated bus (which I might also point out have their own problems in snow and ice compared to a regular non-articulating bus). Lastly as a whole europe is ahead of Winnipeg on effective transportation systems, and as someone who has used bus, tram, subway, LRT, BRT, and skytrain systems I can honestly say that if we consider cost, a tram system is a good compromise between a 100% subway system and the existing non-lane dedicated bus system we have now in Winnipeg.

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

Gondolas are most appropriate and most efficient at carrying people from ground level to point on a mountain.

I have to scratch my head at this whole goldola thing for Winnipeg and you especially calling it a form of rapid transit.

What a gondola is, is a very specialized form of transport, meant to carry few people at a time to one specific point... one to one... You cannot have multi-stop stations using gondola technolgy. It just isn't practical.

And yes, I have ridden a gondola before... the one in Vancouver for Grousse mountain, and the one in Banff and/or Jasper Alta. They're cool rides, although a bit scary sometimes as you're climbing several hundred feet above air, with giant rocks below...

And even those cities that do have what are called 'funiculars', they are meant for very hilly terrain, not the kind of flat stuff we have here on the prairies.

No to sound negative but I suggest people on this forum actually read peoples posts. A tram (noted by jimj_wpg in the thread about the gondola above the Red by the UofM, but a completely different transit system) system is a rail system similar to LRT, but located on existing streets with dedicated lanes. I never said anything about a cable car or gondala being rapid transit. I am not talking about the proposal across the Red River near the university, that is an entirely different topic.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Spocket

I have to admit that the tramway idea looked good for a minute there. Ultimately though, Andy made his case rather convincingly. Maybe they'd work in certain, small areas as a tourist attraction of sorts but otherwise, nope, not in Winnipeg.

At this rate, I'd settle for a few community bikes as rapid transit in this city anyway. Looks like it'll be the best thing we'll ever get anyway as long as we have the Mr. Magoos down at city hall running this place.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Quincy Magoo is a wealthy, short-statured retiree who gets into a series of sticky situations as a result of his farsightedness, or latent hyperopia, compounded by his stubborn refusal to admit the problem. Affected people (or animals) consequently tend to think that he is a lunatic, rather than just being far-sighted.

Source

[vid]

And as we all know, Winnipeg City Council is anything but far sighted. They're lucky if they can plan ahead to next year, even in December!

[ILYR]

Below are some details on the Geneva tram system, specifically cost. The details are older, so one would likely have to add 25% (conservative) to the costs. Note also the cost is in Swiss francs, which have ranged from 0.9 to 1.1 to the Canadian dollar, or in EUROs, which are about 1.4-1.5 Canadian right now. Note the size of the trams, number of passengers, and that they have regenerative braking, making them energy efficient. Lastly another advantage about a tram system is that they are all low floor, usually near grade (similar to kneeling or low floor buses). They work on a system that uses multiple entry and exit points. This allows for quick stops and less congestion in and out of the tram (note each tram holds up to 250 passengers).
"The tram network in Geneva is operated by the Geneva Transport Authority (Transports Publics Genevois - TPG). Its 2002-2003 Master Plan includes several major tram line extensions. These extensions also call for a substantial increase of vehicle stock, which amounts to doubling the number of passenger space provided. In some cases, it was deemed most cost-effective to acquire new vehicles rather than simply adding further carriages onto existing vehicles. In June 2003, Bombardier won the contract to supply 21 trams over an 18-month period beginning the end of 2003/beginning 2004. There is also a further option for 18 more, depending on the progress of works, potentially between 2006 and 2008. The cost for 21 trams is €60 million. Each new, two-directional tram will be 42m long with seven compartments and will be fitted with seven sliding doors on each side and a low floor. The trams will each hold 250 passengers, 75 seated. They will be air conditioned, equipped with energy regenerative braking and will have an electric boarding ramp for wheelchairs and prams. In view of this growing transport network, the TPG will need to adapt some existing equipment and also construct a third maintenance and operations centre."
"Work is currently being undertaken on this line. The existing tram route to Cornavin will be extended by 2.2km to Nations. The connection between Cornavin and place des Nations will be in operation at the end of 2003. This CHF86 million project has been very complex. Streets have had to be rebuilt to make room for the tram reservation and an entirely new tram bridge was built over the Geneva to Lausanne mail railway line after it was discovered that the existing bridge could not withstand the weight of the trams. A new station will be built near this bridge to allow for easy transfer from train to tram."
"The Cornavin - CERN extension, with a first stage of completion at Bouchet and subsequently at Meyrin, should be completed at the earliest in 2006 or 2007. Known as the "tram rapide", most of this 8.6km extension will be used by future tram Line 15. CERN (Conseil Europeen pour le Recherche Nucleaire) is a leading institute in which the UIK and many other countries co-operate in efforts to unravel the secrets of atoms. It employs hundreds of scientists and is most famous for being the birthplace of the Internet.
The 1m-wide gauge, double-track tramline will include 16 stops and construction costs are estimated to be CHF300 million. This project includes a 535m traffic tunnel underneath the centre of Meyrin. To be built by cut-and-cover methods, the Meyrin tunnel will segregate the trams from the car traffic at a crossroads used by 21,000 cars per day. A new depot for stabling at least 40 trams will be built at Blandonnet, near Meyrin."

[Spocket]

Well I appreciate that information and it does indeed strengthen your case. Actually, seeing that, I wonder what precisely is the difference between it and LRT or BRT. It has some at-grade stops (just like both LRT and BRT) , it has high speed (again^), and high capacity (and yet again^)

As somebody who used to live in Ottawa and used their BRT on a regular basis, I've never really understood why people here are so negative about it here. It's definitely rapid and it's far more versatile than LRT. Plus it's cheaper which makes it more suitable for Winnipeg.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by ILYR

"The Cornavin - CERN extension, with a first stage of completion at Bouchet and subsequently at Meyrin, should be completed at the earliest in 2006 or 2007. Known as the "tram rapide", most of this 8.6km extension will be used by future tram Line 15. CERN (Conseil Europeen pour le Recherche Nucleaire) is a leading institute in which the UIK and many other countries co-operate in efforts to unravel the secrets of atoms. It employs hundreds of scientists and is most famous for being the birthplace of the Internet.
The 1m-wide gauge, double-track tramline will include 16 stops and construction costs are estimated to be CHF300 million. This project includes a 535m traffic tunnel underneath the centre of Meyrin. To be built by cut-and-cover methods, the Meyrin tunnel will segregate the trams from the car traffic at a crossroads used by 21,000 cars per day. A new depot for stabling at least 40 trams will be built at Blandonnet, near Meyrin."

So construction costs alone would be hundreds of millions for one line of about 5 miles in length. Land acquisition, equipment and operating costs would be on top of that. It seems unaffordable in a city with so many more pressing priorities, but who knows.

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Well I appreciate that information and it does indeed strengthen your case. Actually, seeing that, I wonder what precisely is the difference between it and LRT or BRT. It has some at-grade stops (just like both LRT and BRT) , it has high speed (again^), and high capacity (and yet again^).

LRT light rail transit. They are usually built entirely separate from existing route networks (e.g. edmonton), but may also cross onto existing routes (e.g. calgary). They are heavier (wider rails, larger rails cars) than trams systems.

Tram systems are usually on dedicated lanes on existing major roads, but in places may be separate. Commonly coexist with buses, meaning they will both uses the same lane. The rails are within the street and do not stick up. thus vehicles can cross the tracks. LRT tracks are like this when they cross roads, or briefly use the same route. Trams are generally lighter and thiner than LRT cars.

BRT bus rapid transit is similar to trams, but do not make use of rails. The difference is that buses will carry fewer passengers, even for articulating buses. Also to be pollution free buses would have to be trolley buses. Thus these buses would also be restricted to specific routes and lanes as with a tram system.

There are definitely similarities between the systems. However, I like trams because they are cheaper to build than an LRT system. They are placed along existing routes. Carry more passengers than buses. and can be pollution free.

[ILYR]

Originally Posted by Andy6

So construction costs alone would be hundreds of millions for one line of about 5 miles in length. Land acquisition, equipment and operating costs would be on top of that. It seems unaffordable in a city with so many more pressing priorities, but who knows.

Land acquisition is not an issue, as I said before they are built on existing routes (e.g. main and portage) taking out the median and 1 lane.

Any new system would require initial payout regardless (LRT, BRT, subway, even just basic upgrades to the existing system). These systems would take a number of years to build, likely in stages. Thus the cost is spread out over a number of years. We also must look to the future. Winnipeg will grow and it would be more cost effective to put in place a system that will benefit Winnipeg in the long run. Putting in the infrastructure now for a more advanced efficient system now, will be far cheaper than in the future.
Also any transit system has operating costs. In fact for our existing bus system the single biggest cost is fuel (gas, diesel). A system using electricity generated from Manitoba hydro should result in significant savings (also my earlier note about trams with regenerative systems).

Also the cost noted above 300CHF (~300CAD) for 8.6km, which included a 535m traffic tunnel. That likely sucks up a good chunk of the cost. Therefore you would have to plan a network to avoid tunnels or new bridges.

Lastly an effective transportation network (both transit and commercial) is a major priority in this city. A poor transportation system costs the city millions each year. An inefficient system also requires more fuel and thus more pollution. I believe that pollution is also a major priority in this city. Efficient cities can save money, therefore their tax dollars go farther. Granted to make Winnipeg more efficient we must spend money now, but we will save in the future.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by ILYR

Granted to make Winnipeg more efficient we must spend money now, but we will save in the future.

I hope you're right but it sounds very dubious to me. I can't see any reason at all that Winnipeg needs to worry about a rapid transit system now, given the enormous cost.

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I hope you're right but it sounds very dubious to me. I can't see any reason at all that Winnipeg needs to worry about a rapid transit system now, given the enormous cost.

Of course, everything comes down to costs, but the attitude that most people around this city thinks about is always negative, especially systems like BRTs, LRTs, or to a lesser extent, subways. "Oh it's too much!" or "Oh we can't afford that!" or "I'd rather see that money spent somewhere else!" or "It's a waste of money. Spend it on something more better!" I mean what's left to spend it on something better? We can't just dodge these options forever, and we can't just focus only on fixing our roads forever either. More cars will be on the road if you just focus on road infrastructure, let alone the climates we get here. I know there are more factors involved here (such as suburbanism and such). Yes, it's nice to fix the roads, but you can't just think of just only roads. You gotta see the big picture, and (no pun intended) look down the road in things.

Unfortunately, everything in this city is looked down upon for the short term. Yes, I might be just whining about this whole thing, but we need ACTUAL progress in this city. Term limits in city hall would be an excellent start.

Also note, I'm a bit drunk right now just typing this. It may be early, but hey.

[j.online]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I hope you're right but it sounds very dubious to me. I can't see any reason at all that Winnipeg needs to worry about a rapid transit system now, given the enormous cost.

But somehow city council found reason enough to budget 2.1 billion on infrastructure (for cars) that we already know now that we won't be able to afford.

My point: Money will not be the decisive factor in getting a proper transportation system in Winnipeg. Any system, be it highways for cars, LRT, BRT, tram, whatever, will cost billions of dollars. There is not a single large scale public transportation project in the country where the fed's aren't the major funder (sorry, don't have stats handy).

Anyway, for those of you interested in turning our big talk into action, I was forwarded this info the other day:

The Rapid Transit Coalition meeting is being initiated by the Sierra Club of Winnipeg and the Facebook site, Winnipeggers for Better Public Transit.

WHEN: Monday, January 14th at 5:15pm

WHERE: Manitoba Eco-Network, 3-303 Portage Ave. (above the Mountain Equipment Co-Op store at Portage and Donald)

Recent council decisions to hike transit fares and to make expanding car infrastructure the top priority, show that we have a long way to go in convincing this City Council to take a leadership role in supporting public transit.

One bit of advice I would give advocates in this cause is that the focus be on the benefits of and public support for rapid transit rather than debating amongst ourselves about which form of rapid transit is best: whether it be LRT, BRT or a subway.

[LilZebra]

Sorry to dismiss something from the environmental community like Sierra and eco-net... but they are for Bus Rapid Transit, and are stubborn in their beliefs... Their idea of rapid transit is a bicycle with bicycle paths built along former rail lines.

I wouldn't waste my time with them...

However, our group (TRUWinnipeg) is steadfastly in support of rail rapid transit.... and so if some of you would like to meet us, then we can arrange a meeting time.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by j.online

My point: Money will not be the decisive factor in getting a proper transportation system in Winnipeg. Any system, be it highways for cars, LRT, BRT, tram, whatever, will cost billions of dollars. There is not a single large scale public transportation project in the country where the fed's aren't the major funder (sorry, don't have stats handy).

In Alberta I can think of some large scale transportation projects in which the Fed's are barely involved. The bypass freeway (201) in Calgary has only seen the Fed's make one crappy little contribution of $75 million and that was only dealing with one section of the road. The cost of that portion of the road is now around $450 million. Another section is being done as a P3 for $930 million. The last two sections will also more than likely be done as P3s and the province is paying for everything. Similar situation in Edmonton with 216. The province is also spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the highway to Fort McMurray (it'll easily be over $1 billion by the time they are done) and a similar amount on the highway to Grande Prairie. The LRT systems in Calgary and Edmonton also have received basically nothing from the feds. Maybe Alberta is the exception but I doubt it since the BC government has being paying the bulk of the costs for upgrading the Trans Canada thru various parts of the mountains. If you guys are waiting for the feds to help you good luck.