Winnipeg Construction IX

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Totally agree. The layout, density and location of River Heights makes it prime for transit use. But two busses an hour makes it incredibly inconvenient. Ditch bus service to the new suburbs and focus on areas where transit is more likely to be used.

I don't know about ditching service to new suburbs, as some people like teenagers or the elderly still need a basic level of access, but it can definitely be scaled down. For example, why does Waverley West get direct RT service downtown, while a corridor like Academy struggles? Truncate the route and allow service hours to be redeployed in higher demand (or higher potential demand) areas.

Now I don't have ridership numbers, so maybe Waverley West really does warrant that level of service, but my general point stands.

[1ajs]

someone should look at the suburban ridership of transcona..

[CoryB]

It is laughable to suggest "ditching transit service to new suburbs". Considering there is no service to ditch in the first place that will have no impact. Most new developments take 10+ years to get transit service based on my past experiences and even then it is extremely marginal service. It isn't like there is a fleet for buses with AC and WiFi roaming around some newly built suburbs with no passengers on them.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Most new developments take 10+ years to get transit service based on my past experiences and even then it is extremely marginal service.

Sage Creek got bus service pretty much immediately. (Even if marginal.)

All areas of the city should have bus service, even new ones, to be a viable alternative to cars. Because "taking the bus most places and a car where the bus isn't available" is just not a real alternative. Once you have the sunk costs of car ownership, you might as well take it everywhere.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't know about ditching service to new suburbs, as some people like teenagers or the elderly still need a basic level of access, but it can definitely be scaled down. For example, why does Waverley West get direct RT service downtown, while a corridor like Academy struggles? Truncate the route and allow service hours to be redeployed in higher demand (or higher potential demand) areas.

Now I don't have ridership numbers, so maybe Waverley West really does warrant that level of service, but my general point stands.

See but IMO this is where that trade off has to come in – pick your location based on necessity. Transit (or any service/utility with limited funds) should focus on efficiency – giving the best service to the most people it can. If you are old and use transit, or have kids that you want to have good transit access so you don't have to drive them everywhere, locate somewhere that allows these things. If you want to live in Sage Creek or Amber Trails or somewhere near the perimeter, that's your prerogative, but know that you're going to have to give some things up to do that – like transit access.

[Roger Strong]

Should that also apply to water, sewer and hydro service?

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by buzzg

See but IMO this is where that trade off has to come in – pick your location based on necessity. Transit (or any service/utility with limited funds) should focus on efficiency – giving the best service to the most people it can. If you are old and use transit, or have kids that you want to have good transit access so you don't have to drive them everywhere, locate somewhere that allows these things. If you want to live in Sage Creek or Amber Trails or somewhere near the perimeter, that's your prerogative, but know that you're going to have to give some things up to do that – like transit access.

This is just plain old discrimination. There areas should get better service than the inner city because they pay more taxes.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Should that also apply to water, sewer and hydro service?

Is Transit a basic requirement of life?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by buzzg

See but IMO this is where that trade off has to come in – pick your location based on necessity. Transit (or any service/utility with limited funds) should focus on efficiency – giving the best service to the most people it can. If you are old and use transit, or have kids that you want to have good transit access so you don't have to drive them everywhere, locate somewhere that allows these things. If you want to live in Sage Creek or Amber Trails or somewhere near the perimeter, that's your prerogative, but know that you're going to have to give some things up to do that – like transit access.

I mean the efficiency (ridership) vs coverage debate is a massive one in transit (http://humantransit.org/2015/07/mega-explainer-the-ridership-recipe.html) but it is a debate.

I believe that everywhere should have at least a base level of transit. There are too many variables at play in housing location choice for suburban residents to be left stranded if for whatever reason they don't have access to a car. But regardless, we should start pushing for suburbs to be built that look more like River Heights than Sage Creek and allow for better mobility allowance overall. Today's outlying suburbs may not be ideal (to put it mildly) but they're as much as part of the city as anywhere else and their residents deserve a certain minimum standard of services. It isn't the residents' fault that the City approves such terrible subdivisions and we don't know why their reasons for why they can't live closer to the core. Sprawl will happen - it just needs to be managed better. The fact that it's being managed so poorly right now doesn't mean those moving into these places have to suffer.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Riverman

This is just plain old discrimination. There areas should get better service than the inner city because they pay more taxes.

This is not how public services work, nor is it how they should. Considering how inefficiently suburbs use resources like power, water and sewage, nor is what you said even really true.

[Biff]

There is a Transit thread like....right below this thread, in the Manitoba & Saskatchewan section.

Maybe there is some construction comments in the Transit thread.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This is not how public services work, nor is it how they should. Considering how inefficiently suburbs use resources like power, water and sewage, nor is what you said even really true.

I was being facetious.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Riverman

I was being facetious.

Haha sorry, I get excited

[Riverman]

Np

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Is Transit a basic requirement of life?

Both my parents grew up without water, sewer and hydro service. It's only seven years since I was providing my own water and sewer service.

Transit is one of those things - along with water, sewer and hydro service - that you'd expect in a modern city.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by Biff

There is a Transit thread like....right below this thread, in the Manitoba & Saskatchewan section.

Maybe there is some construction comments in the Transit thread.

couldn't agree more!

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by buzzg

See but IMO this is where that trade off has to come in – pick your location based on necessity. Transit (or any service/utility with limited funds) should focus on efficiency – giving the best service to the most people it can. If you are old and use transit, or have kids that you want to have good transit access so you don't have to drive them everywhere, locate somewhere that allows these things. If you want to live in Sage Creek or Amber Trails or somewhere near the perimeter, that's your prerogative, but know that you're going to have to give some things up to do that – like transit access.

You've obviously never seen busses heading to amber trails. I regularly take the 38 through the north end and also busses going through amber trails. The busses through amber trails are far more packed than anything through the north end. This notion that every bus to the suburbs is half empty and every bus to the inner city is under serviced and packed to the gills is just patently incorrect.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by cheswick

You've obviously never seen busses heading to amber trails. I regularly take the 38 through the north end and also busses going through amber trails. The busses through amber trails are far more packed than anything through the north end. This notion that every bus to the suburbs is half empty and every bus to the inner city is under serviced and packed to the gills is just patently incorrect.

Not all suburbs are the same. Amber Trails and other NW Winnipeg suburban communities have a lot of new Canadians where the percentage of non-drivers is much higher. I suspect it's probably the exception among newer suburbs.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by cheswick

You've obviously never seen busses heading to amber trails. I regularly take the 38 through the north end and also busses going through amber trails. The busses through amber trails are far more packed than anything through the north end. This notion that every bus to the suburbs is half empty and every bus to the inner city is under serviced and packed to the gills is just patently incorrect.

Originally Posted by esquire

Not all suburbs are the same. Amber Trails and other NW Winnipeg suburban communities have a lot of new Canadians where the percentage of non-drivers is much higher. I suspect it's probably the exception among newer suburbs.

Yes sorry for using a specific example, should have just said "perimeter suburbs with low ridership."

[buzzg]

To shift conversation a bit...

Wondering what everyone things about the idea of having the city introduce some pedestrian/AT-only lanes mid-block downtown where possible. We have insanely long blocks here downtown, which is funny considering our harsh winter.

I think it'd be awesome to see the city break these up a bit with some mid-block lanes running E-W to give more connection options to pedestrians. There's already lots of streets that have vehicle lanes like this, but purpose-built pedestrian ones would be great, and could encourage more patios and CRUs. Could also help to avoid more of the massive block-long blank walls we have. There's lots of places where this could be possible thanks to surface lots.

For example: connecting Donald & Smith here, between York & Broadway.

Would also be amazing to have a sort of pedestrian promenade here right from Bell MTS Place to Fort/Winnipeg Square. There's actually already technically lanes that line up here all the way though, adjacent to the surface lot properties.