Winnipeg | Transit | Rapid Transit

[g35]

Originally Posted by Greco Roman

Well then, tell me something. If BRT is so great and desirable, why didn't other cities in Canada (Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, etc.) implement BRT as their main mode of rapid transit instead of any rail-based system, and why are cities like Hamilton and Saskatoon planning for LRT instead of a BRT system?

The transit system in Vancouver is ALRT (fully grade separated) not LRT like Calgary and Edmonton. LRT and BRT are both on the ground level...ALRT is much more expensive and doesn't intersect with any streets.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by g35

The transit system in Vancouver is ALRT (fully grade separated) not LRT like Calgary and Edmonton. LRT and BRT are both on the ground level...ALRT is much more expensive and doesn't intersect with any streets.

I've travelled on the skytrain many times and am quite familiar with the system.

And once again, it isn't BRT.

[g35]

Originally Posted by Greco Roman

I've travelled on the skytrain many times and am quite familiar with the system.

And once again, it isn't BRT.

So are you saying Winnipeg should build the kind of system Vancouver has or the kind that Edmonton has?

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by g35

So are you saying Winnipeg should build the kind of system Vancouver has or the kind that Edmonton has?

I am of the opinion that BRT is a cheap fix to rapid transit, and once it is implemented, Winnipeg loses all hope of seeing any kinds of upgrades to a rail-based rapid transit system, because we all know how things progress in Winnipeg.

[spiritedenergy]

Originally Posted by Greco Roman

And you'll have probably moved back to your homeland by then

can't wait, Euro is getting stronger and stronger and Europe is ready to take over

• Video Link

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by spiritedenergy

can't wait, Euro is getting stronger and stronger and Europe is ready to take over

• Video Link

Meh, I'll be the judge on how great Europe is when I get a chance to visit there one day.

I'm betting it's one of those places that is great to visit, but I would never want to live there.

[Greco Roman]

Anyways, enough Eurotalk.

Let's just stick to our transit talk.

[spiritedenergy]

Originally Posted by Greco Roman

Meh, I'll be the judge on how great Europe is when I get a chance to visit there one day.

I'm betting it's one of those places that is great to visit, but I would never want to live there.

Europe is light years ahead of here in terms quality of living. The only real problem is the (relative) lack of jobs as compared to North America. Tides are turning though as the dollar is collapsing and unemployement rates are skyrocketing. It will bring down US and Canada with it. After that, i bet it will be easier to find jobs in Europe than here.

[Pootkao]

I just got back on Wednesday from 3 weeks in Spain & Morocco.

I can tell you firsthand that both Madrid and Barcelona are light years beyond anything in North America for public transportation. New York's subway system is the only thing close, and thats in a city 4 or 5 times Madrid's size.

They have an incredible combination of density, useable urban spaces (green space + public squares), bike lanes everywhere, and great connections between transportation modes. And very very few freeways.

Walkable, liveable and excrutiatingly enjoyable.

Toronto looks and functions like a sh*t-hole compared to either of those two cities.

Did I mention the Madrid subway only costs 1 euro ($1.50 Cdn)?

[nordique]

i dont know it becomes a whole 'nother ball game when you start comparing canadian cities to european cities. spain and morocco -- both of those places have like 500 years each on us in terms of city planning and the mobile mentality of walking/biking engrained into their DNA. i'm sure we'll get decent rapid transit/bike friendly streets comparable in about 250 years.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by nordique

i dont know it becomes a whole 'nother ball game when you start comparing canadian cities to european cities.

Exactly, so let's stick to Canada, even North America

[Spocket]

Actually, Pootkao brings up a valid subject.
The reason public transportation works in Europe is simple : density.
We simply don't have it.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Actually, Pootkao brings up a valid subject.
The reason public transportation works in Europe is simple : density.
We simply don't have it.

I think there is density in the core areas, such as west Broadway and parts of the north end, but its not even close to being satisfactory. Let's get more dense housing projects going to try and curb urban sprawl. It's time we started to pull on the reins a little around there.

[spiritedenergy]

Originally Posted by nordique

i dont know it becomes a whole 'nother ball game when you start comparing canadian cities to european cities. spain and morocco -- both of those places have like 500 years each on us in terms of city planning and the mobile mentality of walking/biking engrained into their DNA. i'm sure we'll get decent rapid transit/bike friendly streets comparable in about 250 years.

500 years? 2000 years maybe. And I don't think it has nothing to do with that.
Winnipeg was (re)built for cars and the Unicity decision was the final blow to urbanism here. If the oil price wasn't going up like it's doing, i wouldn't expect any significant change in the usage of cars and public transport like forever. Suburbs could keep growing outward and people would be encouraged to drive cars. Thanks God the cheap oil era is over.

P.s.: sorry for my poor English my brain is in a loop right now i'm not sure the wording i'm using is right

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by Reed Solomon

Well whoop-de-doo. The same sort of efficiencies can be had by having LRT, which doesn't require $1.50 a litre gasoline and uses electricity which is abundant here in Manitoba. If the LRT corridor stops at a major transit intersection point for downtown, then whats the difference? Rapid Transit is bottlenecked by downtown, therefore having the buses go downtown will cause gridlock anyways. Dedicated Busways, Dedicated LRT.. it works out to the same thing, except of course Winnipeg wasn't built by the Bus industry..


people need to transfer downtown anyways. If the dedicated LRT line went to the forks and didn't have anything blocking it, then it intersects just fine with the current transit system.

I don't believe the prices thrown around for LRT in Winnipeg. We have Railyards and Rail lines criss crossing the city already. They're certainly profitable enough. The topography of the city implies that it would LRT prices would lean towards the lower end of the price spectrum. It might be more expensive to start up than BRT but it's more efficient in the end, better for the image of the city than a boring old bus, uses as fuel one of the primary exports of manitoba.

Your argument for BRT instead of LRT makes no sense to me.

I guess the real issue is what's the point of building a rapid transit line twice?

We build BRT, and then in 6 to 20, maybe 50 years later we cover it with rail. Personally, I would like to ask the government how is it that a light rail system will become so much cheaper to buy in the decades to come?

I just can't see where the savings will come from.

Especially when we will have to essentially close down the Pembina line for a year or two to do the conversion. One can only imagine the opposition that will come from the public once they have come to depend on the BRT line for getting to the University.

If we're going to build an LRT then lets do it NOW! And if we're not, then our politicians should come clean with it and confess that BRT is as good as it will get.

But, it makes no sense at all to build a BRT line when what everybody really wants is LRT.

As a voter I find this issue very confusing.

Our politicians haven't been very forth coming about their true intentions.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by Greco Roman

I am of the opinion that BRT is a cheap fix to rapid transit, and once it is implemented, Winnipeg loses all hope of seeing any kinds of upgrades to a rail-based rapid transit system, because we all know how things progress in Winnipeg.

Sad, but truer words have never been spoken.

In Winnipeg temporary means never.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

I guess the real issue is what's the point of building a rapid transit line twice?

We build BRT, and then in 6 to 20, maybe 50 years later we cover it with rail. Personally, I would like to ask the government how is it that a light rail system will become so much cheaper to buy in the decades to come?

I just can't see where the savings will come from.

Especially when we will have to essentially close down the Pembina line for a year or two to do the conversion. One can only imagine the opposition that will come from the public once they have come to depend on the BRT line for getting to the University.

If we're going to build an LRT then lets do it NOW! And if we're not, then our politicians should come clean with it and confess that BRT is as good as it will get.

But, it makes no sense at all to build a BRT line when what everybody really wants is LRT.

As a voter I find this issue very confusing.

Our politicians haven't been very forth coming about their true intentions.

This is my opinion to a tea! Why build it two times when it will be cheaper and economically efficient in the LONG RUN to just build the damn LRT now and expand on it as the demand increases, but once again, our politicians are so narrowminded they don't grasp this concept.

And as far as the whole "oh, well do LRT later" plan, I still believe that this is one big lie, where the politicians have no intentions of implementing LRT and lying to all their constituents.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Actually, Pootkao brings up a valid subject.
The reason public transportation works in Europe is simple : density.
We simply don't have it.

Also keep in mind that almost all european cities were designed before the evolution of the automobile and truck. They weren't designed with the same infrastructural needs of the newer cities found in North America. The downside of course is newer NA cities have seen sprawl much as a result of post war idealist lifestyle of owning a house in the suburbs with a picket fence.

I don't think many europeans who where looking towards rebuilding there coutries were thinking .. gee lets enjoy the good life out in the edge of our ruinous cities and be close to "nature" (which is nearly non existant in much of europe).. with visions of tank batalions running roughshot over the plains, running through the minds of terriorized masses.

Nope... North America and Europe have significantly different histories (even recent .. last 100 years) which is reflected in the desision making of its citizens.

[Pootkao]

Greco: The only neighbourhood in Winnipeg which even comes close to European density is Osborne Village and South Broadway. And even then, there's still a world of difference.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Pootkao

Greco: The only neighbourhood in Winnipeg which even comes close to European density is Osborne Village and South Broadway. And even then, there's still a world of difference.

Yet you can't drive through much of rural europe without noticing significant amounts of housing checkered over the land. I'd call it a lower level of undefined suburbia over a vast amounts of land.