HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10961  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 2:06 PM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
If the transit route down Portage or Grant isn't elevated then it is not better than what we currently have. The issue with the current system is all the crossing and lights and those don't go away with an at-grade solution regardless of where the lanes are. Having an elevated solution would mean transit is isolated from those issues.
I agree, and both Portage and Grant have a sizeable amount of cross-streets and lights to contend with.

Perhaps a more serious emphasis on light timing/prioritization for the minor intersections would help, but it would still limited by lights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10962  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 2:12 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
If the transit route down Portage or Grant isn't elevated then it is not better than what we currently have. The issue with the current system is all the crossing and lights and those don't go away with an at-grade solution regardless of where the lanes are. Having an elevated solution would mean transit is isolated from those issues.
For Portage I agree, it should be above grade through downtown until the UofW. After that I have no problem with it being at grade with the option to raise longer stretches in the future.

I don't think grant is dense and or busy enough to warrant grade separation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10963  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 3:18 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,799
At-grade on Portage would certainly be an interesting challenge. I think the only way to make it work is to stop left turns and close down lots of crossings. Which to me is perfectly fine as I think there's way too many points to turn right now and some parts are so dangerous with blind turns and cars blocking lanes anyway. I'd like to see lots of the smaller opening closed anyway now and only allow turns at signalled intersections. Lots of the Wolesely and West End AT plans call for intersections with Portage to be RIRO anyway.

Grant is totally fine being on-street with queue jumps etc. East of Kenaston there's little traffic and lots of speed. Through RH, there isn't a single light between Superstore a block from Kenaston and Waverley. Through the GP area there is so much space to use, they could easily rework the street layout as there's currently 8 lanes of space and 3 medians for most of it with the access roads. Stafford to Pembina is very fast and has lots of room for expansion too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10964  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 3:26 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Totally.

The only benefit maybe would be having buses in their own dedicated lanes with transit priority signaling at all intersections. Even though there are diamond lanes, specifically on Portage at BellMTS, there are endlessly cars in that lane during the afternoon rush. People picking up and dropping off. Taxis. It doesn't matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10965  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 5:47 PM
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Orig. frm Alpha Pectaurus
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Assiniboia, Man.
Posts: 2,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post

Grant is totally fine being on-street with queue jumps etc. East of Kenaston there's little traffic and lots of speed. Through RH, there isn't a single light between Superstore a block from Kenaston and Waverley. Through the GP area there is so much space to use, they could easily rework the street layout as there's currently 8 lanes of space and 3 medians for most of it with the access roads. Stafford to Pembina is very fast and has lots of room for expansion too.

Grant Ave. was planned for as far back as the mid-1940s. The city planners of the day had good forresight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10966  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 7:16 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmacc View Post
For Portage I agree, it should be above grade through downtown until the UofW. After that I have no problem with it being at grade with the option to raise longer stretches in the future.
It could work if that is extended west until after Arlington. Then close all the across streets until Erin/Wall and could raise transit over that section only. Or alternatively, run the at-grade transit on the south side of Portage after Arlington and Wall/Erin are mostly a non-issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10967  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2020, 7:55 PM
dmacc dmacc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
It could work if that is extended west until after Arlington. Then close all the across streets until Erin/Wall and could raise transit over that section only. Or alternatively, run the at-grade transit on the south side of Portage after Arlington and Wall/Erin are mostly a non-issue.
I could get behind that though for every additional portion of above grade comes great cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10968  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2020, 1:57 PM
GarryEllice's Avatar
GarryEllice GarryEllice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 544
^ If you guys are expecting an elevated busway on Portage, you need to think again. Take a look at page 9 of the master plan document. The options that they give for "fully separated transitways" are all at grade, and it explicitly states that "Most fully separated transitways outside of Downtown will be centre running, including most of Portage Avenue and Main Street."

Downtown the plan seems to be to place the transitway on the side of the road rather than in the centre, as shown for Main Street in the document.

The description on page 8 describes the type of infrastructure that is planned for each part of the network. There is zero indication that tunnels or elevated lines are being considered anywhere, aside from the segment from Harkness to Union to Portage East, paralleling the already-elevated CN line.

And it's also wrong to say that a fully separate at-grade transitway is no better than what we already have. It's much better. If the buses have an exclusive transitway, then all it takes is traffic signal priority for bus traffic to be totally free-flowing.

It's pretty rare for elevated lines to be built for buses, anyway. The huge investment in an elevated structure only usually makes sense if passenger numbers are in the light rail/heavy rail range.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10969  
Old Posted Oct 31, 2020, 3:12 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,799
I don't know the numbers but I would not be surprised if many of the downtown/Portage/Main bus routes ridership was as high as some LRT other places, especially in Canada (pre-COVID of course).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10970  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2020, 5:07 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
And the Parker Lands shit show continues and proving once again of the foolishness of the dogleg in the SW transitway for no apparent reason!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10971  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2020, 6:38 PM
BlackDog204's Avatar
BlackDog204 BlackDog204 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: west
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
And the Parker Lands shit show continues and proving once again of the foolishness of the dogleg in the SW transitway for no apparent reason!
That dogleg route is such an embarrassment. The city should have built it along the rail line, much closer to Pembina.

PS...when is the last time a train went down the CPR line? I grew up in Fort Garry in the 80s/90s and I don't recall ever seeing or waiting for a train before turning on to Pembina.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10972  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2020, 7:14 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackDog204 View Post
That dogleg route is such an embarrassment. The city should have built it along the rail line, much closer to Pembina.

PS...when is the last time a train went down the CPR line? I grew up in Fort Garry in the 80s/90s and I don't recall ever seeing or waiting for a train before turning on to Pembina.
You mean the CN line along Pembina? From what I've observed, there are trains there on a daily basis between the long-distance trains and the local trains to and from the various industries in the area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10973  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2020, 7:33 PM
Wigglez's Avatar
Wigglez Wigglez is offline
Source?
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
You mean the CN line along Pembina? From what I've observed, there are trains there on a daily basis between the long-distance trains and the local trains to and from the various industries in the area.
My mom lives in Fort Garry fairly close to the tracks - they're not as common as other lines in the area but there are a few a day. I've been held up by trains on McGillivray trying to get onto Pembina several times over the years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10974  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2020, 8:09 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
CN trains go through almost every day on their runs to southern Manitoba and back. A few times a week at least. It is also the connection to the US which BNSF uses. Not sure how frequent those trains are.

Regarding the Parker Lands. I have no problem with the City raking Marquess over the coals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10975  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2020, 8:22 PM
cllew cllew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackDog204 View Post
That dogleg route is such an embarrassment. The city should have built it along the rail line, much closer to Pembina.

PS...when is the last time a train went down the CPR line? I grew up in Fort Garry in the 80s/90s and I don't recall ever seeing or waiting for a train before turning on to Pembina.
In the 2020 crossing report for the PTH 100 upgrade it was stated that there are at least 12 trains a week from CN using that line. Add in the on demand switching into the Ft Gary Industrial Park that does not make it to PTH 100 and that subdivision is well used in Winnipeg proper.

And BNSF also has running rights to run their own trains on that line for grain service to the Peterson grain terminal by the Prairie Dog Central station in the north west part of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10976  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2021, 4:49 PM
BarbadosSlim's Avatar
BarbadosSlim BarbadosSlim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...fer-to-cities/

Hopefully some of this funding will find its way to Winnipeg for the planned upgrades to transit downtown and Union Station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10977  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2021, 8:14 PM
borkborkbork's Avatar
borkborkbork borkborkbork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbadosSlim View Post

Hopefully some of this funding will find its way to Winnipeg for the planned upgrades to transit downtown and Union Station.
i'm sure our provincial and municipal leaders will find a way to divert it into just about anything else

i mean, we already spent our initial transit funding on the waste water treatment plant. maybe we can spend this on the brady landfill? or a road extension?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10978  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2021, 8:21 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
I vote for reallocating it to cost overruns and litigation costs coming out of the police HQ project
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10979  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2021, 8:24 PM
Jeff's Avatar
Jeff Jeff is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winnipeg|MB
Posts: 2,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I vote for reallocating it to cost overruns and litigation costs coming out of the police HQ project
and this will in turn stimulate the new luxury car dealerships built along kenaston. win-win. circle of life, etc, etc.
__________________
instagram: @jeff_vernaus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10980  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2021, 2:40 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
The City and Province need to get their shit together. Even though the City doesn't have anything planned right now. They need to get sorted ASAP. This is the problem I've had with the City constantly flip flopping and changing their minds. They never have projects ready to go.

The funding is over 8 years. $5.9 bil stimulus right now. Then $3 bil per year starting in 2026 for 3 years. The article mentions the $3 bil is a permanent transit program beyond that.

Seems the $5.9 bil is not just transit. So the City will suck the money dry for the NEWPCC projects.
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 12:42 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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