HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10581  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2020, 6:02 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
If all we were going to end up with was a moderately improved on street bus network, then the City should have just said that from the get-go. For years the focus was on rapid (not "mass") transit... ending up with a few new diamond lanes feels like a letdown after all of that.

Oh well... at least we got the one leg that actually somewhat resembles real rapid transit.
Maybe wait a few years and see whether this first line, which is probably in the most justifiable location for a separated route, really provides a $500 million (or whatever) value to the local ratepayers (or even to the average transit user).
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10582  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2020, 6:07 PM
GarryEllice's Avatar
GarryEllice GarryEllice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmacc View Post
Some of the issue with the corridor being on the CN line instead of the Hydro right of way is there would have been an additional 7 streets that it would have intersected with causing further delays in the free flowing corridor. The McGilvary overpass would have required some expropriation of homes and businesses and likely would have required the City to build another rail bridge there as well adding to the cost.
Not to re-litigate the debate yet again, but I don't recall any expropriation being required for the CN option. The rail corridor is wide enough to hold both the rail line and the busway, including stations, and an overpass isn't any wider than a station. And there's certainly no need for a rail bridge at McGillivray, you're just inventing that.

The only reasonably solid justifications that the city gave in their final report were (1) more TOD opportunities on the dogleg and (2) fewer residential streets to cross on the dogleg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10583  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2020, 6:09 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Maybe wait a few years and see whether this first line, which is probably in the most justifiable location for a separated route, really provides a $500 million (or whatever) value to the local ratepayers (or even to the average transit user).
Fair enough, but from the tone that the discussion has taken, I don't think the City would be willing to entertain the thought of more legs even if the first one turns out to be a big success.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10584  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2020, 6:58 PM
headhorse headhorse is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,743
the city's entire philosophy for transit is do anything that doesn't change the flow of cars. so obviously we're going to continue to have infrastructure geared towards everyone driving a car. until they start removing traffic lanes for transit... (which they hopefully will be doing on portage/main/etc as part of the new plan)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10585  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2020, 7:11 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryEllice View Post
Not to re-litigate the debate yet again, but I don't recall any expropriation being required for the CN option. The rail corridor is wide enough to hold both the rail line and the busway, including stations, and an overpass isn't any wider than a station. And there's certainly no need for a rail bridge at McGillivray, you're just inventing that.

The only reasonably solid justifications that the city gave in their final report were (1) more TOD opportunities on the dogleg and (2) fewer residential streets to cross on the dogleg.
Though I have no information to support this idea, if you look at the site, the width of the McGilvary overpass is proportionate to the width of the thoroughfare along the rail line, it would be a very tight squeez. If you're doing an overpass there already, why wouldn't you raise the rail line?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.84122.../data=!3m1!1e3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10586  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2020, 7:14 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,643
I guess it doesn't matter since they didn't choose that route in the end and there is no need to rehash this argument. We can find many other things that are more possible outcomes to argue about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10587  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2020, 7:43 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
It would likely have to be McGillivray going under (or over if it works at Pembina), as opposed to the BRT and rail line going over.

Rail grades a super flat. I posted some info in this thread a couple days ago. Or just have the BRT go over and keep the rail line as is. Moot point now anyways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10588  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2020, 8:02 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,723
Everyone here seems to be focussing on the City and what the City is or isn’t doing. The fact is the City doesn’t have the cash for rapid transit - as is the case everywhere, funding from the province and the feds is absolutely required, and is available from the feds. The real culprit here is the province and its lack of vision or interest in funding rapid transit. The City knows that and is up against it without provincial buy-in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10589  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2020, 8:36 PM
Winnipegger Winnipegger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ando View Post
Everyone here seems to be focussing on the City and what the City is or isn’t doing. The fact is the City doesn’t have the cash for rapid transit - as is the case everywhere, funding from the province and the feds is absolutely required, and is available from the feds. The real culprit here is the province and its lack of vision or interest in funding rapid transit. The City knows that and is up against it without provincial buy-in.
This is absolutely 100% the truth. There are no shortage of great ideas Transit and private contractor engineering firms could come up with to make rapid transit work in Winnipeg. The #1 issue is, and always will be, money. In our low property tax environment and with politicians devoting nearly 100% of new revenue to fixing our roads, there is next to money left to invest in transit infrastructure moving forward, especially given that the city has very little room left in it's self-imposed debt ceiling. The Feds also aren't too keen on ponying up money if provincial governments don't want to play ball.

So as long as rural farmsteads in the south end of the province are dictating the decisions that are made on Broadway, the provincial government sees little incentive to invest in the main economic engine of this province.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10590  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2020, 2:11 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
I just hope that at least the SWBRT route will eventually be completed properly with a bridge over the Assiniboine as part of an exclusive ROW extended from Harkness right into downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10591  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2020, 4:29 PM
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Orig. frm Alpha Pectaurus
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Assiniboia, Man.
Posts: 2,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I just hope that at least the SWBRT route will eventually be completed properly with a bridge over the Assiniboine as part of an exclusive ROW extended from Harkness right into downtown.
I may have said it here or on the transit forum, but for that to happen, Harkness Stn. will have to be completely redone as an elevated station like Osborne. That's a good thing,because currently the way Harkness was done, the designers didn't or couldn't make room for a covered (heated) shelter on the northbound platform.
__________________
Buh-bye
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10592  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2020, 4:59 PM
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Orig. frm Alpha Pectaurus
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Assiniboia, Man.
Posts: 2,873
https://winnipegsun.com/news/news-ne...nsit-with-feds

Winnipeg Sun
Wed., Feb 12, 2020

Bowman talks green transit with feds
...
"...we need to be innovative..."


"...needs to be open to ideas when it comes to public transportation."


Where have I seen this before?

Innovative Transit Projects (1976, Kohut)
https://web.archive.org/web/20071213...nnovative.html

The Non-history of Rapid Transit in Winnipeg (1985, Lowe)
https://web.archive.org/web/20071213...onhistory.html

Strong hints were dropped at (and since) the press conference unveiling the agreement that the above clause would be exploited to the fullest. Whatever faint hope this expedient holds out for the realization of the long-delayed Corridor (partially if innovative flywheel or electric storage-battery techniques can be adapted for use within its confines), the

...


Fourth, and last, entrenched fiscal conservatism. Since the 1919 General Strike, city council in Winnipeg has followed business domination as its prime credo. This takes various forms. For example, incumbent Mayor Bill Norrie the reigning virtuoso of the "calculated stall". On all-too-numerous occasions he has single-handedly sabotaged moves towards rapid transit by ceaselessly and ploddingly invoking his pet shibboleths: "Let's keep our options open" and "An expenditure of such magnitude and impact requires careful consideration on our part".
__________________
Buh-bye

Last edited by LilZebra; Feb 12, 2020 at 5:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10593  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2020, 6:19 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
On another thread there was mention of St. Mary Ave. being called St. Mary's in a newspaper article and that jogged a question.

Until sometime in the 80s, there was a bus called St. Mary's Road - St. Germain. Does anyone know how far down St. Mary's that bus went?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10594  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2020, 6:32 PM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
It was before route numbering was brought in, which if I remember correctly was in 1984.

There were three St. Mary's buses, Rose, St. Amant and St. Germain.

The Rose bus turned around at Avalon Road, I think the loop is still there, the St. Amant bus turned down Riel, but I can't remember how far down the St. Germain bus went.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10595  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2020, 8:47 PM
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Orig. frm Alpha Pectaurus
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Assiniboia, Man.
Posts: 2,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
On another thread there was mention of St. Mary Ave. being called St. Mary's in a newspaper article and that jogged a question.

Until sometime in the 80s, there was a bus called St. Mary's Road - St. Germain. Does anyone know how far down St. Mary's that bus went?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
It was before route numbering was brought in, which if I remember correctly was in 1984.

There were three St. Mary's buses, Rose, St. Amant and St. Germain.

The Rose bus turned around at Avalon Road, I think the loop is still there, the St. Amant bus turned down Riel, but I can't remember how far down the St. Germain bus went.
I remember riding a St Mary's bus downtown 1982-ish and the transfer did say St. Germain. I always thought that it went passed the Perim. Hwy., but I guess not.

Wish WT had better quality schedules back then and I wish the Internet existed back then.

Ride By Route Number (September 8, 1984). Winnipeg Free Press. pg. 19

14 St. Mary's used to say St. Germain...now says South St. Vital
14 St. Mary's used to say Avalon ... now says Bishop Grandin

It's possible that Metro 1960s or the Greater Winnipeg Transit Commission of the 1950s had or proposed to have service out to the community of St. Germain, Manitoba, an area just south of flood prone Grande Pointe.

https://roadsidethoughts.com/mb/sain...th-profile.htm

There is a St. Germain St. in St. Vital. I wonder if that is what was meant

https://winnipegtransit.com/en/route...rmain%20Street

Back then there were but two branches to the 16 Osborne:
16 Osborne used to say Southdale...now says Vermillion
16 Osborne used to say Hwy. 1 East ... now says Lakewood

81 Headingley used to say Unicity ... now says Roblin or Unicity

Also interesting tidbit...The 12 William used to travel on Regent to KP.
__________________
Buh-bye

Last edited by LilZebra; Mar 3, 2020 at 9:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10596  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2020, 9:20 PM
armorand93's Avatar
armorand93 armorand93 is offline
Transit Nerd
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Calgary (former Winnipegger)
Posts: 2,707
Extending the 12 to KP again would releive overcrowding on Regent. That is, if Winnipeg Transit started aggressively expanding, not contracting...
__________________
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10597  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2020, 9:30 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 2,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by armorand93 View Post
Extending the 12 to KP again would releive overcrowding on Regent. That is, if Winnipeg Transit started aggressively expanding, not contracting...
What overcrowding on Regent?

The 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 & 48 don't give you enough options to go from downtown to KP?
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10598  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2020, 1:02 AM
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilZebra View Post
I remember riding a St Mary's bus downtown 1982-ish and the transfer did say St. Germain. I always thought that it went passed the Perim. Hwy., but I guess not.

Wish WT had better quality schedules back then and I wish the Internet existed back then.

Ride By Route Number (September 8, 1984). Winnipeg Free Press. pg. 19

14 St. Mary's used to say St. Germain...now says South St. Vital
14 St. Mary's used to say Avalon ... now says Bishop Grandin

It's possible that Metro 1960s or the Greater Winnipeg Transit Commission of the 1950s had or proposed to have service out to the community of St. Germain, Manitoba, an area just south of flood prone Grande Pointe.

https://roadsidethoughts.com/mb/sain...th-profile.htm

There is a St. Germain St. in St. Vital. I wonder if that is what was meant

https://winnipegtransit.com/en/route...rmain%20Street

Back then there were but two branches to the 16 Osborne:
16 Osborne used to say Southdale...now says Vermillion
16 Osborne used to say Hwy. 1 East ... now says Lakewood

81 Headingley used to say Unicity ... now says Roblin or Unicity

Also interesting tidbit...The 12 William used to travel on Regent to KP.
I was looking at some old maps but none were definitive about where St. Mary's - St. Germain buses turned around. On one map c.1960 it appears that the route did extend past today's Perimeter Hwy. out to St. Germain. I wonder if it was subsequently cut back? I know when St. Vital Centre opened in 1979 there wasn't much on St. Mary's south of there. I remember the old loop right on St. Anne's in the middle of nowhere past Southglen Blvd.

A couple of interesting things I found looking at a 1947 map. North Kildonan buses went to Henderson and Pritchard Farm in East St. Paul, and one of the Portage West routes went past St. Charles St. to where Bloomberg is today. There were a few trips to Lot 70 Turnbull Drive in St. Norbert just as there are today. What is the purpose of these trips? Are they utilized? They are at strange times.

I also remember Osborne - Dakota which turned around in a loop at Dakota and Novavista and also Osborne -Kingston Row which like today were mostly rush hour "trippers" or late night buses. There were more trippers then as headways were quite a lot shorter, some were Portage - Olive, North Main - McAdam, and every second Sargent bus was Sargent - Valour.

Before route numbering and the new roller signs were introduced in 1984, the old signage in many cases didn't make sense anymore. I don't think there was a Unicity destination sign. Grant buses to Unicity were signed Grant - St. Charles on the front and Grant - Charleswood on the side, but there were also Grant - Charleswood buses that turned around at Roblin and Dieppe. Buses to RRCC were signed Grant - King Edward on the front and Grant - Kenaston on the side, but there were actually a few Grant - Kenaston trips that turned around in a loop on the south side of Grant just past Kenaston. There were a few confusing route names. Talbot buses were called Talbot - Bird's Hill even though Bird's Hill Road had been renamed Panet many years prior and the bus actually went to Munroe and Prevette. I remember talking to two girls in what must have been the early 80s going to Folk Fest waiting for the Talbot bus as they thought that would get them there!

Yes, I remember the 12 William (formerly William - Valour) did run through to KP, that's why it still has a crosstown route number. But I think the eastern and western portions of the route had very differing service requirements and so the eastern portion got its own route as 43 Munroe, kind of like how the old Talbot - Grey branch became its own route, now 44 Grey, which routing is, to say the least, ridiculous, some of them don't even go down Grey St. at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10599  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2020, 1:17 AM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
I remember weighing the decision to take Osborne-Kingston Row just to get out of downtown and take my chances waiting for another Osborne Bus in that windswept drop-off point at by the Canoe Club. There was no bus farther south on Dunkirk until the late 70s (?) so I guess maybe Osborne used to end at Kingston Row.

St. Mary's - Rose was another one that I remember seeing occasionally.

I think the St. Germain one went down to Mountbatten School or around there. It would have been the bus that a lot of my farmer classmates at Dakota Collegiate came up on.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10600  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2020, 2:01 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 cheswick View Post
What overcrowding on Regent?

The 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 & 48 don't give you enough options to go from downtown to KP?
Have you ever been on a crushload on the 47, on Regent? Yes, KP to Downtown, plentiful bus service. But on the 47 between KP and Downtown? It's ridiculous. If they don't want to slap artics on the 47, then there should be more bus service added by a different route, or something. So maybe extending the 12 would solve some things? And maybe boost transfer options and one seat trips, directly to HSC, AND to KP? RRC students, HSC workers and anyone in the West End that works around Transcona, would probably appreciate the extra service.
__________________
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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