Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

anyone notice that the dog leg also makes it easyer for a pile of people to get to work on transit... as theres an industrial park right there....

Glad that you pointed it out. Don't have the numbers but another good observation.

[Riverman]

Thanks for your posts Simplicity. I've finally found what I've been looking for on this forum.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Thanks for your posts Simplicity. I've finally found what I've been looking for on this forum.

I'm happy to hear the info speaks to you in some capacity. If I understand correctly, you're an engineer. I'd love to hear more technical commentary in your posts if you're prepared to provide it. It's really the nuance that drives this industry and I feel like I would really benefit from a greater understanding of the technical details...

[Riverman]

Check your PMs.

[Wigglez]

I wonder if one day (crazy as this may sound) they could build BOTH possible paths for RT. Would be nice to see Fort Garry/Pembina have easier access to it while also serving that huge business park.

[bomberjet]

I keep hearing a lot of probably's, maybe's and hopefully's. I don't even know if TV and Simplicity know if they're on the same or opposite sides. Or are there any sides? Seems like nobody really knows what to do.

Some simple questions.
1. Does the City need SWRTC Phase 2?
2. What route is best for transit?
3. Build it, forget about trying to recoup the expense. That's public transit.

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Some simple questions.
1. Does the City need SWRTC Phase 2?
2. What route is best for transit?
3. Build it, forget about trying to recoup the expense. That's public transit.

1 -I'd say yes. I took the rapid transit every day and it starts/ends at the WORST part of Pembina. That underpass is forever backed up with traffic.

Also from what I saw 99% of the people who used rapid transit were taking it from/to downtown or U of M. The rapid transit corridor as is is ONLY used to bypass part of Pembina, no one really uses it specifically for the stops along the way. It would be nice to see people get on at a rapid transit stop, and get off at another rapid transit stop, instead of JUST using the corridor to bypass traffic (tho that is a very nice feature)

3 -Agreed. We should be using transit to help people move around the city, not try to find ways to get maximum profits off of it.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I keep hearing a lot of probably's, maybe's and hopefully's. I don't even know if TV and Simplicity know if they're on the same or opposite sides. Or are there any sides? Seems like nobody really knows what to do.

Some simple questions.
1. Does the City need SWRTC Phase 2?
2. What route is best for transit?
3. Build it, forget about trying to recoup the expense. That's public transit.

1) Probably not. The city can't on one hand be approving 5 precinct plans in the last two years and then somehow justify building a rapid transit line through a mature neighbourhood. You either get one or the other. You're either interested in intensifying mature neighbourhoods through infill redevelopment in the interests of actually achieving your goals of lightening the load on the existing infrastructure budget by trying to use mass transit as the solution, or you're willing to enact some form of infrastructure fee program that actually accounts for the costs of servicing and maintaining these new precincts. Absent that, you're not changing anything. You're continuing to promote single family neighbourhoods in the far reaches of the city where citizens are effectively subsidized at the peril of the city. What is a rapid transit line in the Southwest quadrant of the city going to do to solve that? And it's fine and dandy that the city has a transit master plan, but they haven't got the faintest clue how they're going to pay for it. And no, begging the province and the feds for money every ten years isn't a viable solution. Especially when you're doing everything to virtually assure its failure by giving people options for home ownership that are counter to its mandate.

2) I have no idea what Transit thinks.

3) I can't continue to hammer on this point, so I will for the last time. The city already has an infrastructure problem. It already has a deficit problem. Remember, we're talking about rapid transit as a long term solution to these problems. How in the hell does buying the city a luxury bus lane that can't pay for itself solve these problems and not just contribute to them? We already have a transit system. It works fine for our sparsely populated, sprawling city that, if recent council decisions provide any direction, is only going to become more sprawling over time. At this point, this thing is becoming a little political carrot the city can hang out there as evidence of progress while doing far more to counteract any benefit rapid transit would ever bring us. The point was raised earlier that the rapid transit line acts as a shuttle to the U of M. If that's where we're going with this, there's already a virtual shuttle to the U of M. It's called the 160. Or the 60, even.

I know, I know, the city is going to be a million people and so forth and we're growing exponentially and we need to prepare and let me know if I've missed any provably misplaced optimism, but why in the hell doesn't the city wait for a few more years to see if this growth is ever actually coming to start investing hundreds of millions of dollars into a shuttle bus that takes university students from the Village to the U of M 7 minutes faster.


Honestly. I fucking feel like I'm sitting in that council meeting on the Simpsons with the monorail salesman.

[DancingDuck]

It's also possible to look at BRT as something that will save people time, and not just something to reduce sprawl. If people realize that taking transit from downtown or the village or wherever to the U of M will enable them to leave their house later and not have to deal with rush hour traffic, you'll see less cars on the road. Less cars = less wear/tear = less infrastructure spending to repair those streets.

The city has seen developement caused by rapid transit: a 10+ story high rise proposed behind harkness station and an entire developement around fort rouge station.

In regards to express buses to the U of M, even express buses that only make every 4th or 5th stop still have to deal with red lights and rush hour on pembina every day. (And those buses are usually full long before they pick up university students from the village, they sometimes drive right through Osborne station because they have no more room on them)

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

3. Build it, forget about trying to recoup the expense. That's public transit.

I think this hits the nail on the head. Of course, we can quibble about the best route and the best options to encourage development, but the fact remains that this is public investment in transit infrastructure. Transit doesn't make make money. The province and the city subsidize it because it's a much needed public service. What other major piece of civic infrastructure is operated on a cost recovery basis? And, given enough investment, increasing transit options and efficiency can be part of a long term solution to Winnipeg's infrastructure crisis. Doing nothing to our transit system doesn't offer this potential.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I keep hearing a lot of probably's, maybe's and hopefully's. I don't even know if TV and Simplicity know if they're on the same or opposite sides. Or are there any sides? Seems like nobody really knows what to do.

Some simple questions.
1. Does the City need SWRTC Phase 2?
2. What route is best for transit?
3. Build it, forget about trying to recoup the expense. That's public transit.

1. Yes the city is growing most in the southwest quadrant of the city and will likely remain that way until waverley west and seasons of Tuxedo are done.

2.The best route is the dogleg. It has the potential to have more development; Connection to the business park; and Pembina is probably not going to be developed like these new TOD areas possibly would unless their is a crazy zoning change.

3. Yes build it. It won't make the $600M profits right away so that's where the long term planning comes from. It might take atleast 10 years of decent ridership for these TOD and other neighbouring areas to recieve the actual profit

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

I wonder if one day (crazy as this may sound) they could build BOTH possible paths for RT. Would be nice to see Fort Garry/Pembina have easier access to it while also serving that huge business park.

I have always thought that the BRT could have a main corridor and a bunch of branches like a tree. Although it would be way to expensive

[bomberjet]

Simplicity, lets just agree to disagree.

[Cyro]

I personally hope we don't see an option #4.

Shelving or putting this RT corridor on hold for another 2-3 years, and starting over in 2017-18, with cost increasing exponentially and affecting current development plans as well as potential future developments now in the planning stages. It would be unfortunate to have to restart this whole discussion with transit ridership increasing, population steadily inching upward at aprx: 1.5 %.
We've waited decades, so what's 5 more years tacked on to the total.

[Andy6]

I don't think it's worth anything like $600 million, not to mention the opportunity cost of spending money that way. So no, it shouldn't go ahead. Spend a quarter of that on the existing bus system across the city and you'll achieve better results for transit ridership city-wide (in my opinion).

It would be nice but not $600 million nice.

Nevertheless, it will likely go ahead because too many politicians and others have their credibility invested in it.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I don't think it's worth anything like $600 million, not to mention the opportunity cost of spending money that way. So no, it shouldn't go ahead. Spend a quarter of that on the existing bus system across the city and you'll achieve better results for transit ridership city-wide (in my opinion).

It would be nice but not $600 million nice.

Nevertheless, it will likely go ahead because too many politicians and others have their credibility invested in it.

It's actually a $425 million project. Still a lot of cake for sure, but nearly 1/3 of the project budget has nothing to do with rapid transit and is going to be spent regardless of whether another metre of the RT corridor is built or not.

[Cyro]

Breakdown: As previously posted. Cost has also decreased to 590M so these figures are not completely accurate.

Transitway = $425M
Pembina Widening = $105M
Combined sewer relief = $70M

City pays $225M.
Province pays $225M.
Feds pay $150M.

[trueviking]

Simpicity. Your argument is getting more humourous. The truth finally comes out. You really believe the city will stop growing? You really accept that the current development model is not flawed? You really think that the city growing 30% in population and 80% in area in the last 30 years is sustainable?

Have you not been paying attention? Surely you've noticed taxes and deficits rising and services dropping. If your such a brilliant economist, explain your solution.

It doesn't matter how fast we grow. We will grow. Like it or not. And we need to change the already unsustainable growth patterns. It's not about housing starts today or whatever absorption rate you are on about. Don't you get that? It's a long term plan to change a flawed model. It's a 25 year investment. If GEM turns out to be a house of cards, it doesn't matter. It's not about who or when but how. All your in the moment projections are meaningless. You are frustrated because you are completely missing the point. Do you really think the fact that next year might see a 10% drop in multi-family construction, or the fact that units take 6 months to sell has anything to do with a decision trying to change what Winnipeg is in 2039? Look through the other end of the telescope my friend.

We want the same thing. Lower taxes, better roads etc. Rapid transit is a model for change. Suggesting that we wait a few years just to make sure the water is warm before we go swimming is hilarious. We've waited 60 years.

You are such a total Winnipegger.

[trueviking]

The way the city has grown is the reason the government has no money. Suggesting we allow the status quo to continue and just wait to see if at some point the economics of sprawl somehow change and infrastructure investment becomes more affordable is like driving your car off a cliff and hoping the laws of gravity change before you hit bottom instead of grabbing the tree branch half way down.

[Kinguni]

The City should just carry on as it has for year with politicians bending to the wills of "typical Winnipegers." No reason to build for tomorrow when you can plan for the the needs of today and then once it's built it's already out of date.