Winnipeg | Transit | Rapid Transit

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by flatlander

Riverman, what sort of clearance issues?

I don't remember where I read this, but what I understand the clearance is too low in some areas for some of the double stacked container cars.

EDIT: This a big concern for the railway as these cars are their top revenue stream.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by Riverman

I don't remember where I read this, but what I understand the clearance is too low in some areas for some of the double stacked container cars.

I also read this in some of the recent news articles.

[trebor204]

Just check the images on Google Street View, along Jarvis (north of the tracks)

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by trebor204

Just check the images on Google Street View, along Jarvis (north of the tracks)

Ya, totally no room for a double stacked container car:

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear...JB0N6NHUP96jQLZHBw&cbp=12,232.14,,0,1.01

[The Jabroni]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Ya, totally no room for a double stacked container car:

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear...JB0N6NHUP96jQLZHBw&cbp=12,232.14,,0,1.01

Oh there is enough room for most double stacked container cars. It's just that the few of them for sure will not get under that bridge.

I remember witnessing a train passing through with double stacked containers, and I was wondering if it would make it under the bridge. Surely enough, it did. The kicker was it passed underneath the ramp part of the bridge.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

Oh there is enough room for most double stacked container cars. It's just that the few of them for sure will not get under that bridge.

I remember witnessing a train passing through with double stacked containers, and I was wondering if it would make it under the bridge. Surely enough, it did. The kicker was it passed underneath the ramp part of the bridge.

Interesting, from that angle it looks like it wouldn't work, although the Salter bridge doesn't look much better and I assume it is fine.

[1ajs]

yea i've biked passed and seen them pass fine what i think cpr is more woried about is the insurance costs having this bridge there as they have taking hunks outa it in the past because of a train tiping and such

[cslusarc]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Speaking of the old Sherbrook-Mcgregor bridge proposal, ...

I like the idea of a bridge linking Sherbrooke and McGregor. If they do it they can extend the #17 bus down Sherbrooke to Misericordia Health Centre replacing the #29 bus connecting also connecting the Health Sciences Centre to Seven Oaks Hospital. Sherbrooke is a wider street than Arlington (south of Notre Dame Ave) and would be a better corridor to have connected. The bridge could be 3 lanes with the middle lane as a reversible lane during the morning/afternoon peak to save money.

[Mininari]

Considering that Arlington Street is NOT WIDE ENOUGH FOR FOUR LANES between Portage and Notre Dame, this would be a welcome "downgrade" for the road. I am sick and tired of people honking at me because they want to pass me on the right, when in order to make room for them, I'd have to drive down the centre line (or over it). Proof of this? A lane should be able to hold the width of a bus... hence, two lanes would allow two buses to travel side-by-side. This cannot be done on Arlington Street without the second bus leaning over into oncoming traffic.

Nevermind the complete lack of a white lane line anywhere.
Why do people think it is 4-lanes?
I'll give them the benefit of side-stepping left-turners at intersections...
And I plan to keep beating this one until something is done about it. Its a serious safety hazard. (just like those people who flip on the left turn light in the left lane on the Perimeter highway, and slow down to make their turn where there is no left turn lane -- seriously, this city needs to fix some of these blatant sub-standard road safety hazards).

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by Mininari

Considering that Arlington Street is NOT WIDE ENOUGH FOR FOUR LANES between Portage and Notre Dame, this would be a welcome "downgrade" for the road. I am sick and tired of people honking at me because they want to pass me on the right, when in order to make room for them, I'd have to drive down the centre line (or over it). Proof of this? A lane should be able to hold the width of a bus... hence, two lanes would allow two buses to travel side-by-side. This cannot be done on Arlington Street without the second bus leaning over into oncoming traffic.

Nevermind the complete lack of a white lane line anywhere.
Why do people think it is 4-lanes?
I'll give them the benefit of side-stepping left-turners at intersections...
And I plan to keep beating this one until something is done about it. Its a serious safety hazard. (just like those people who flip on the left turn light in the left lane on the Perimeter highway, and slow down to make their turn where there is no left turn lane -- seriously, this city needs to fix some of these blatant sub-standard road safety hazards).

Arlington from Portage to Notre Dame is only 2 lanes (this coming from a bus driver).

[Mininari]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

Arlington from Portage to Notre Dame is only 2 lanes (this coming from a bus driver).

Thank you for backing me up on the fact that is only 2 lanes.

So why do people treat it like a 4-lane road then? Its not quite as apparent during the winter, but spring - fall.. it can be real squeeze, especially when macho Joe in his F350 wants to squeeze by me on the right... again to be clear, this is people treating it like a 4-lane road as having 4 TRAVEL lanes. I am ok with people squeezing around the left-turners at intersections since the car making the left turn is usually stationary, or making the turn.

I emailed the city about this a while back, and they acknowledged that this stretch is a "problem" for them, but apparently they have no money (or urgency) to do something about it. Its wide enough for 3 1/2 standard width lanes, and needs about 1m of widening to (barely) be a 4-lane road. I can dig that email up if you want... but perhaps this isn't the right thread to continue this discussion.

[Andy6]

I guess (I'm not sure) that Sherbrook-McGregor was supposed to be the replacement for the old Salter Street Bridge, but in the end they built the Slaw Rebchuk Bridge on Salter to replace it instead. Or maybe it was supposed to replace both bridges. They planned to convert McGregor into a major arterial, with that extension to join McPhillips that is still shown as "projected" on a lot of street maps. It would certainly make a lot more sense from a traffic-flow viewpoint than having the bridge on Arlington, which isn't much of a street south of the tracks and doesn't connect to a bridge over the Assiniboine. I don't remember why the Sherbrook-McGregor plan was so controversial, other than that it was very expensive.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by vid

Gang wars 24/7? Really?

Yeah, sounds a bit over the top to me.

[rrskylar]

Activists want BRT finished
No budget cash for project, project backer laments

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/activists-want-brt-finished-117892274.html

[bicycles]

must.. avoid.. comments section...

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakin...y-wants-to-increase-rates-117945779.html

this is an interesting piece about free public transit:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/how-about-free-public-transit-117920169.html

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by bicycles

must.. avoid.. comments section...

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakin...y-wants-to-increase-rates-117945779.html

this is an interesting piece about free public transit:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/how-about-free-public-transit-117920169.html

1ajs, feel free to move this to the transit section if necessary...

I wonder where the author of the second article gets his numbers - $2,400 a year will cure transit woes? Based on what assumptions... Also, I don't think that free transit is going to necessarily spike usage all of a sudden - generally, the demand for transit tends to be price inelastic... 5 minute frequency along major routes all hours of the day??? That would be nice, of course, but even a city like Toronto doesn't have that. There is nowhere near the critical mass to support such frequency in Winnipeg. Buses running every 5 minutes at 7PM in Winnipeg would be empty, running at a tremendous cost (financial, and environmental).. Finally, I think we have to be realistic. I know you despise the car, bicycles - but the reality is, they are a necessary part of many people's lives, regardless of how good transit service might be. I'm a huge supporter of rapid transit, so don't get me wrong, but here's the reality:
- Many people work in jobs that require cars (for example, may dad is a tradesperson, and can't possibly take his equipment with him on the bus; many of my friends in construction can't get to various job sites on transit; etc).
- There are some trips that need to be chained, and couldn't possibly be done reasonibly with transit (i.e. A parent dropping off a child at day care, another at school, and then getting a coffee before work).
- When you have kids one day, try juggling hockey practice, a game at the other end of the city, piano lessons, etc. etc. etc. - These are the realities faced by parents all over the city...

Of course we need to improve our transit system. However, the only way to get the public on board is with realistic, gradual proposals (and increased federal/provincial funding)...

[bicycles]

Originally Posted by Bdog

1ajs, feel free to move this to the transit section if necessary...

I wonder where the author of the second article gets his numbers - $2,400 a year will cure transit woes? Based on what assumptions... Also, I don't think that free transit is going to necessarily spike usage all of a sudden - generally, the demand for transit tends to be price inelastic... 5 minute frequency along major routes all hours of the day??? That would be nice, of course, but even a city like Toronto doesn't have that. There is nowhere near the critical mass to support such frequency in Winnipeg. Buses running every 5 minutes at 7PM in Winnipeg would be empty, running at a tremendous cost (financial, and environmental).. Finally, I think we have to be realistic. I know you despise the car, bicycles - but the reality is, they are a necessary part of many people's lives, regardless of how good transit service might be. I'm a huge supporter of rapid transit, so don't get me wrong, but here's the reality:
- Many people work in jobs that require cars (for example, may dad is a tradesperson, and can't possibly take his equipment with him on the bus; many of my friends in construction can't get to various job sites on transit; etc).
- There are some trips that need to be chained, and couldn't possibly be done reasonibly with transit (i.e. A parent dropping off a child at day care, another at school, and then getting a coffee before work).
- When you have kids one day, try juggling hockey practice, a game at the other end of the city, piano lessons, etc. etc. etc. - These are the realities faced by parents all over the city...

Of course we need to improve our transit system. However, the only way to get the public on board is with realistic, gradual proposals (and increased federal/provincial funding)...

I don't mind someone needed a utility vehicle (tradesperson, ambulance, etc) I have a problem wtih the suburbanites who live in south Winnipeg and clog the roads between there and downtown for no apparent reason.

in regards to your other points, if we start to build smart communities, we'd never need to go to other ends of the city to do tasks - they would all be walking distance/a short bus ride. cars have led to us sprawling out so far that they have continue to multiply the problems they cause. the more we sprawl, the more people that live out there need to drive, etc.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by bicycles

I have a problem wtih the suburbanites who live in south Winnipeg and clog the roads between there and downtown for no apparent reason.

Not everyone can or wants to live in the centre of the city. Most people find the suburbs far more comfortable and are willing to put up with the congestion. You can't tell people where to live.

I agree the south side of the City is very congested. If you dislike it, move to the north side - very little congestion here.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Not everyone can or wants to live in the centre of the city. Most people find the suburbs far more comfortable and are willing to put up with the congestion. You can't tell people where to live.

I agree the south side of the City is very congested. If you dislike it, move to the north side - very little congestion here.

we need to look back into winnipegs past and reinvest in the other downtowns we have they all can be hubs that feed off one another we have all these peaces to become a sustainable city yet we ignore them

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

we need to look back into winnipegs past and reinvest in the other downtowns we have they all can be hubs that feed off one another we have all these peaces to become a sustainable city yet we ignore them

I understand what you're saying but , frankly , that's part of the problem . The clock simply can't be turned back and trying to do so is inevitably a waste of time , effort , and money .

If anything , it's those "other" downtowns that have worked to destroy the most important one . We may not think of Polo Park or St. Vital Center as "downtowns" but that's exactly what they are in the modern city . A hub and spoke model for city planning works just fine provided the hub itself is healthy and vibrant . In our case , it simply isn't . The first thing we need to do , which I've been saying for about twenty years now I think , is move people back downtown . The services will follow .