Wpg: Chief Peguis Trail Extension - Page 63

steveosnyder · #**1241** Posted **May 2, 2014, 6:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0twired

Raleigh should just be turned into a BRT/LRT line.

I agree with this -- close Raleigh (which might be a problem for a few properties that front it), keep the pedestrian corridor and force traffic to Gateway.

bomberjet · #**1242** Posted **May 2, 2014, 6:26 PM**

How is it worse? If anything, IMO it would improve pedestrian access. Instead of having a pathway between two roads, have the road on one side. Close Raleigh, and have a lane to all the garages. Seems better to me. And yeah RT is on the beyond 2031 list in the TMP.

Biff · #**1243** Posted **May 2, 2014, 7:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

Really guys? This is one of the only places in the North East that has any semibalance of pedestrian orientation, and you want to widen streets? No thanks.

Sorry to say there is absolutely nothing pedestrian about this stretch. The pathways are the best in the city but putting in a 10 lane roadway wouldn't change any of the vibe. The issue is they severed Raliegh (a 2 lane north south) and Devires (a 2 lane north south) streets and replaced that capacity with nothing. Gateway needs more capacity because it is generally too busy. The project I spoke of (4 lane) was the plan all along they were just waiting to see how things worked out first with the changes the CPT made.

rypinion · #**1244** Posted **May 2, 2014, 7:33 PM**

Lets say it became Pioneer Greenway/BRT/4 Lane Gateway. Are there any road crossings that can be removed to make all three uses better? I assume there's already a minimum number of crossings?

What do they do at, say, the end of Edison? Small public lane connecting it and Eade Crescent where Raleigh used to be?

biguc · #**1245** Posted **May 3, 2014, 11:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

That is (was) suppose to go on the abandoned CPR Marconi land where the trail is.

Raleigh could be turned into a BRT line tomorrow at no cost though. That's a pretty appealing option.

As for all the calls to expand traffic capacity, do you all forget so easily that when it comes to road construction, demand always follows supply?

Claims like Biff's, "Sorry to say there is absolutely nothing pedestrian about this stretch." are akin to "Winnipeg is a car city" statements--an apologistic restatement of the problem. Since the long-term plan calls for BRT--a pedestrian friendly piece of infrastructure--how is widening a roadway that will put off pedestrians a good idea?

I know this isn't the best corridor for rapid transit right now, but the city could make Raleigh a BRT line for as little as making Gateway 4 lanes from CPT to Concordia. Why the hell not just do it?

cllew · #**1246** Posted **May 3, 2014, 2:09 PM**

Closing Raleigh probably would not fly between Kimberly and McLoud because of all the streets that end there.

I can imagine that that the residents who live in the 600 blocks would not want to have to go back west to Golspie or Watt to get out of their streets. Also there are access problems with Centennial Park and the soccer pitches at Anderson Park.

rypinion · #**1247** Posted **May 3, 2014, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

Closing Raleigh probably would not fly between Kimberly and McLoud because of all the streets that end there.

I can imagine that that the residents who live in the 600 blocks would not want to have to go back west to Golspie or Watt to get out of their streets. Also there are access problems with Centennial Park and the soccer pitches at Anderson Park.

Some may actually want it though, they'd have reduced through traffic on their streets. If neccessary you could have a small public lane where Raleigh used to be (or beside the BRT if biguc's plan was implemented).

steveosnyder · #**1248** Posted **May 3, 2014, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

Closing Raleigh probably would not fly between Kimberly and McLoud because of all the streets that end there.

I can imagine that that the residents who live in the 600 blocks would not want to have to go back west to Golspie or Watt to get out of their streets. Also there are access problems with Centennial Park and the soccer pitches at Anderson Park.

What I think is this -- Closing Raleigh for BRT is one of the best things to do for the City. It would be extremely low cost compared to what we are doing Jubilee to U of M, and it would be really high impact. It would promote density without the huge cost that building brand new tracks/lanes would.

The City can't afford to do high cost/high risk/high return investments. They can't even afford to keep up what they already have. Doing something like this would be low cost/low risk (just re-open it if it doesn't work) and high return. It's the sort of thing the City should be looking for.

h0twired · #**1249** Posted **May 5, 2014, 1:25 PM**

Just because a street is as BRT or LRT line does not mean that it would have to be blocked from traffic crossing it.

You would just see lights on the stretch with buses/trains getting priority.

That said. The number of streets crossing or exiting onto Raleigh would shrink. This might be attractive for some people on the smaller streets.

h0twired · #**1250** Posted **May 5, 2014, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveosnyder

I agree with this -- close Raleigh (which might be a problem for a few properties that front it), keep the pedestrian corridor and force traffic to Gateway.

There are a couple of light industrial businesses that technically front onto Raleigh but their access could be moved to the adjacent streets quite easily.

CoryB · #**1251** Posted **May 5, 2014, 2:19 PM**

I saw a presentation by the City of Winnipeg have the active transportation trail replaced the rail line. In that presentation there was a plan to run the rapid transit line down the old rail right of way. From memory, I think the trail was structured to allow for the current rapid transit design, meaning if we change to lrt or the standards for brt change the plan would need to be revisited.

All that considered, even having to completely relocate the trail component is going to be a small fraction of the cost paid for the downtown/Polo Park/airport rapid transit line.

yellowghost · #**1252** Posted **May 5, 2014, 10:34 PM**

So whats the score? Transit users will have to get off the buses at the end and transfer to a train for the renainder of the journey? Saves the cost of building a road. Are there any other abondoned train tracks we could use for rapid transit?

CoryB · #**1253** Posted **May 5, 2014, 11:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowghost

So whats the score? Transit users will have to get off the buses at the end and transfer to a train for the renainder of the journey? Saves the cost of building a road. Are there any other abondoned train tracks we could use for rapid transit?

You mean like the one that used to run parallel to route 90?

h0twired · #**1254** Posted **May 6, 2014, 11:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowghost

So whats the score? Transit users will have to get off the buses at the end and transfer to a train for the renainder of the journey? Saves the cost of building a road. Are there any other abondoned train tracks we could use for rapid transit?

You still need to build new tracks for LRT.

They wouldn't be just using old CN/CPR lines.

yellowghost · #**1255** Posted **May 7, 2014, 12:15 AM**

Why new tracks? Perhaps a company out there somewhere builds a traincar that can use those tracks,no? Too bad there wasn't a way to modify the buses to drive on those tracks..like the Railway trucks that drive on the tracks.

cllew · #**1256** Posted **May 7, 2014, 12:41 AM**

I think that CN/CP have converted highrail school buses for their maintenance of way crews so it should not be too hard to convert a Transit Bus.

The problem is coordinating running on the tracks with the railway. Freight trains don't really run on a schedule like a Via Rail train does. As the owner they (CN/CP) would have operating priority over a transit bus. Right now Via has to take the sidings when meeting a freight train.

bomberjet · #**1257** Posted **May 7, 2014, 1:25 AM**

They could use the same tracks if it passenger only and no freight. So if they took over an old freight line. They would have to have some type of power source, either overhead or third rail. So that's why it can't be both at the same time. Unless its heavy commuter rail, which is usually diesel powered.

cllew · #**1258** Posted **May 7, 2014, 1:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

They could use the same tracks if it passenger only and no freight. So if they took over an old freight line. They would have to have some type of power source, either overhead or third rail. So that's why it can't be both at the same time. Unless its heavy commuter rail, which is usually diesel powered.

I was thinking of the mainlines when I was reading Yellowghost's post as they are fairly direct to the downtown areas from the north east part of Winnipeg.

cllew · #**1259** Posted **Jun 6, 2014, 6:04 AM**

City of Wpg has out out a RFP for the westward extension of CPT to Brookside Blvd.

http://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/finda...r_Proposal.pdf

and the route to be studied (includes interchage / signal /roundabout locations)

http://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/finda...y_Overview.pdf

JamieDavid Exchange · #**1260** Posted **Jun 6, 2014, 1:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cllew

City of Wpg has out out a RFP for the westward extension of CPT to Brookside Blvd.

http://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/finda...r_Proposal.pdf

and the route to be studied (includes interchage / signal /roundabout locations)

http://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/finda...y_Overview.pdf

7 new traffic lights to be included. Must be a Winnipeg thing......