Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[dmacc]

I do support LRT on all the lines, I just imagine if they have a change of heart to go with LRT it will happen on subsequent corridors and they will loop back to SWRT. As we know the other corridors are decades from completion.

[bomberjet]

The southwest route is designed to accommodate LRT. if that ever happens who knows. The next phases are non existent because the city has abandoned brt/lrt for future routes. No dedicated corridors. Using exisitng roads. Theres nothing.

In regards to bus routes, the southwest area is already determined, with spine and feeder routing. The rest of the city is part of the current transit master plan study.

[mcpish]

Direct Embed of Winnipeg Transit's recent Southwest Transitway Phase 2 drive:
• Video Link

Originally Posted by bomberjet

It's one of those things where people who don't like it complain. People who like it don't say anything. Typically NIMBY kind of thing. we need more YIMBY's.

I like that term, "YES IN MY BACK YARD"

When the BRT line is done I'm thinking of doing an ALL STATION CHALLENGE video on my Youtube channel http://youtube.com/mcpish similar to Youtuber Geoff Marshall's ALL THE STATIONS challenges he does for London and other cities in Europe.

See how fast you can get to visit every station (you have to get out at each one).

• Video Link• Video Link
• Video Link

There's also a Youtuber who did one for Edmonton's LRT a few years back
• Video Link

[Wpg_Guy]

That drive along the new BRT is so depressing, serves zero urban areas.

[Andy6]

It’s pretty common for these things to be built in rights of way like that rather than shoehorned into builtup areas.

[Spocket]

LilZebra:

That was kind of my point: There's never been any serious talk of converting any brand new BRT corridors into LRT. The furthest we've gotten is that the city would consider designing them for easy conversion but that's it. My friend, I think you're pulling this stuff out of your nether regions.

[3de14eec6a]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

designed to accommodate LRT

Are there any documents on exactly what this means? I've definitely heard it since the first phase started, but never really questioned. The stations don't seem very friendly to a change, and past Harkness station, it's just on the roadways. Is it mostly down to turning radius and the surfacing?

[dmacc]

Perhaps they should just move to trackless trams, the savings on infrastructure spending to convert to rail would fund the trams themselves.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Perhaps they should just move to trackless trams, the savings on infrastructure spending to convert to rail would fund the trams themselves.

I'm pretty sure Glen Murray was advocating exactly that some 20 years ago.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by 3de14eec6a

Are there any documents on exactly what this means? I've definitely heard it since the first phase started, but never really questioned. The stations don't seem very friendly to a change, and past Harkness station, it's just on the roadways. Is it mostly down to turning radius and the surfacing?

It was designed with turning and incline geometry to be able to convert to LRT. I remember the discussions in phase 1 about the length of the tunnel under the rail lines by Osborne. The incline/decline needed to be shallower to accommodate future LRT so the tunnel had to be longer.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by Biff

It was designed with turning and incline geometry to be able to convert to LRT. I remember the discussions in phase 1 about the length of the tunnel under the rail lines by Osborne. The incline/decline needed to be shallower to accommodate future LRT so the tunnel had to be longer.

Are you aware if the rail underpass just west of Pembina and Jubilee, and the rail overpass south of Chevrier also meet these requirements?

[Biff]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Are you aware if the rail underpass just west of Pembina and Jubilee, and the rail overpass south of Chevrier also meet these requirements?

I don't have any documents in front of me, but I believe so.



"Winnipeg to study extension of bus service beyond perimeter, building park & rides for suburban commuters"

"Winnipeg is studying the idea of extending transit service to neighbouring municipalities or creating park-and-ride lots at the city's edges to shorten the drive for commuters who live in bedroom communities.

The city has launched a review of the way people move between Winnipeg and more than a dozen of its neighbours, including Stonewall, Selkirk, St. Andrews, Springfield, Tache, Macdonald, Headingley and Rosser.

The study, which will be launched in the coming weeks, will look at ways of improving transportation between Winnipeg and the surrounding communities."

read more.....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ium%3Dsharebar

[3de14eec6a]

Originally Posted by Biff

It was designed with turning and incline geometry to be able to convert to LRT. I remember the discussions in phase 1 about the length of the tunnel under the rail lines by Osborne. The incline/decline needed to be shallower to accommodate future LRT so the tunnel had to be longer.

Ah, hadn't thought about inclines. Thanks for the info

[bomberjet]

Yes all the of geometry meets the guidelines set out by the City for LRT. They have a documents somewhere that identifies maximum gradients, turning radius, horizontal and vertical clearances, etc.

Most of the gradients at maximum of 4%, with 2 locations being 5% (maybe 4.5%) can't remember. One on the east side of the wye underpass at Pembina and the other at the Chevrier side on the Letellier overpass.

Note subways have sometimes up to 7% to 10% grades. However those are mostly covered in tunnels and not subject to rain/snow. I'm not sure what outdoor LRT grades are usually maxed at. But 5% seems reasonable. Heavy freight is absolute max of 2% and that's usually in the mountains. Out on the prairies it's rarely at 1%. Usually down near 0.2%, which is the maximum gradient for spotting cars.

The Fort Rouge Tunnel is able to accommodate a double track LRT line.

My only comment on the route of the BRT is that it is to move people long distances, not down the street. While I agree it would be nice to have an LRT down the centre of Pembina and other locations. It just wasn't practical for the City. This is why I'm super leery on the next phases of transit expansion because they seem to have no will or money to do anything extensive.

The local feeder routes will get you the the BRT and you can wait a couple mins to catch the blue line or whatever they're going to call it.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Perhaps they should just move to trackless trams, the savings on infrastructure spending to convert to rail would fund the trams themselves.

What’s a trackless tram? A trolley bus?

[dmacc]

Essentially an extra long articulating bus

[rrskylar]

It's pathetic that the second phase of the rapid transit line didn't open as soon as it was completed, total load of BS that they needed to train drivers, seriously!

The city borrowed money for the project and we are paying interest on something which is basically sitting idle.

[bomberjet]

The City pays ~$20m per year to Plenary Roads. Plenary financed the costs through their own means.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

It's pathetic that the second phase of the rapid transit line didn't open as soon as it was completed, total load of BS that they needed to train drivers, seriously!

The city borrowed money for the project and we are paying interest on something which is basically sitting idle.

It is a P3 project with no formal "interest" payments per se. The project is being completed on time and under budget. Goes so show how little you know about municipal finance or just how large infrastructure projects work in general.

Also, when operations are going to be significantly altered, employees are usually trained on how to do things properly. If the City didn't train drivers and there were big screw ups on day one of opening, you'd still complain.

You are the prime example of someone who cannot be pleased, no matter what is done. If they opened up the line and there were delays due to driver error from a lack of training, you'd still be an old man yelling at the clouds blaming the city for not training the drivers properly.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

It is a P3 project with no formal "interest" payments per se. The project is being completed on time and under budget. Goes so show how little you know about municipal finance or just how large infrastructure projects work in general.

Also, when operations are going to be significantly altered, employees are usually trained on how to do things properly. If the City didn't train drivers and there were big screw ups on day one of opening, you'd still complain.

You are the prime example of someone who cannot be pleased, no matter what is done. If they opened up the line and there were delays due to driver error from a lack of training, you'd still be an old man yelling at the clouds blaming the city for not training the drivers properly.

Bolded, your joking right, these guys aren't flying a Boeing 757, the transitway is access limited and makes stops at new stations, the speed limit is 80 KMPH, wow that's complicated!

The analogy for letting the second phase sit idle would be as stupid as buying a new car and leaving sitting on your parking pad for six months before you drive it.

And so it's a P3 project, payments are being made for something that is not being used, pretty dumb no?