Umm...Rapid Transit (Would it be a Winnipeg forum without this thread?)

I would not pay that extra dollar... but that is as good of a plan as I have heard Rosie.. write a letter to the editor... see what kind of response you get.

rosencrentz wrote:I can see lots of costs and ZERO benefits! Saving 10 minutes is not a benefit, unless the system is raising its prices to pay for the new , faster route, and knowing Winnipegers if a regular trip is $2.25 and the faster trip on a new system is $3.25, then Winnipegers will prefer the $2.25 trip!
Who will pay an extra dollar to pay for the new quicker trip?
Has anyone asked that question?
Perhaps the 43,000,000 trips taken by transit riders would generate an additional $43,000,000 ? Then we can figure out what Winnipeg can afford to spend on a new rapid transit system! That would make sense, put into that context, wouldn't it?

How do you do calculations?

It's not saving an extra 10 minutes...it's saving an extra 10 minutes per PERSON who rides the system.
It's saving an extra 10 minutes per vehicle (be it bus or LRT) that transports the people

If you get 6 vehicles running a route...that's 60 extra minutes available to stick a new transit vehicle in the mix.

That's exponentially a benefit.

But...IMO, the REAL benefit of a public transit system, is it's ability to expand and be flexible. The proposed BRT is quite useless, as it has a limited route, limited benefits, and requires too much land appropriation to be effective.

an elevated LRT/monorail system needs much less land, additions can be added by simply connecting new lines when/where needed, and should a vehicle break down or incident occur...on a well-designed system...it can be redirected or routed to accommodate.

AGEsAces wrote:But...IMO, the REAL benefit of a public transit system, is it's ability to expand and be flexible. The proposed BRT is quite useless, as it has a limited route, limited benefits, and requires too much land appropriation to be effective.

Despite thy protests to the contrary all such RT methods have precisely the same limitations mon frere...

The beauty of a BRT is the B part is a bus meaning ANY bus can run on the BRT right-of-way AND the bus can leave the BRT to expand its reach.

You're welcome.

grumpy old man wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:But...IMO, the REAL benefit of a public transit system, is it's ability to expand and be flexible. The proposed BRT is quite useless, as it has a limited route, limited benefits, and requires too much land appropriation to be effective.

Despite thy protests to the contrary all such RT methods have precisely the same limitations mon frere...

The beauty of a BRT is the B part is a bus meaning ANY bus can run on the BRT right-of-way AND the bus can leave the BRT to expand its reach.

You're welcome.

But then it's not a BRT is it? And then becomes nothing more than what there already is in place.

There ARE limitations to any system. My primary argument against the BRT are the resources required to expand it.
Expropriation of people's land and homes. Blockading of current roads and means of transportation.

BRTs show signs of limited/lateral thinking. In order for expansion to occur...the city needs to think of itself 3-Dimensionally. Think up, as down is unreasonable in this climate. Think versatility, and costs of maintenance, expansion.

For every bus route laid on the ground, plows and sanding trucks have to be assigned every winter.

Put rails in the air...plan for it by applying electric heaters to them (doesn't take much to keep the ice off) as required, and no plows or sand is required. That's a HUGE cost savings, especially in a city where they can't keep up with the roads they've got.

Yeah but ya just can't hang a train in the air anywhere you want. You need R-O-W's underneath plus stations. And you are very limited where an elevated train can run, meaning there will be hand-offs to feeder routes.

A BRT is still a BRT even though the B is not dedicated to RT. That can't be dismissed so arbitrarily.

BTW I'm not necessarily an RT advocate. I believe if an RT service is required then do it. And if BRT is the only way it can be done right now so be it. If another mode is better than simply plan to change it when more $$$ becomes available.

Can we start BRT or LRT or SHSCWCYRT happen in an area that does not already have mindblowingly fast transit service? Is that really too much to ask for?

Of course not. But that is only your opinion. rosen says we need it there. That is all I need to hear.

"But that is only your opinion."
not quite true. It is also the gods honest truth.... dont believe me then you are against god... and umm all children and you are racist...and dont support our troops.

AGEsAces wrote:
But then it's not a BRT is it? And then becomes nothing more than what there already is in place.

There ARE limitations to any system. My primary argument against the BRT are the resources required to expand it.
Expropriation of people's land and homes. Blockading of current roads and means of transportation.

BRTs show signs of limited/lateral thinking. In order for expansion to occur...the city needs to think of itself 3-Dimensionally. Think up, as down is unreasonable in this climate. Think versatility, and costs of maintenance, expansion.

For every bus route laid on the ground, plows and sanding trucks have to be assigned every winter.

Put rails in the air...plan for it by applying electric heaters to them (doesn't take much to keep the ice off) as required, and no plows or sand is required. That's a HUGE cost savings, especially in a city where they can't keep up with the roads they've got.

You still need land to put rails in the air. So land would have to be expropriated.
And its not easy or cheap to redirect a monorail system after its built.
At least buses can be redirected to other routes if something happens to the normal BRT route.
I am not convinced there is huge cost savings to run the system after the rails, etc. are in place.
But I have a feeling there is a huge up front cost for building the monorail system over BRT.

SHSCWCYRT ???

FINALLY! someone asks

Super
Hot
Sexy
Chick
Who
Carries
You

I'd love to see the prototype...

looks like a very... comfortable.... ride.

AGEsAces
My calculations are based on the income from charging those that use the transit system. If someone out there is suggesting that Winnipeg spend new money for a system that generates no additional income, then I say forget it!
A person saving 10 minutes times 43,000,000 rides puts no money in the City of Wpg bank account to pay for the ride.
To me it makes sense, that if the Transit riders want to get a faster trip, which I think is a great idea, then if they are willing to pay a little more money for a better service, let's get it done!
If those same people want a better service and do not want to pay for that service, then forget it!
Better service, higher cost makes a lot of cents!
It should be put to the City Transit riders! Have them fill out a form when they get on the bus to see if saving 15 minutes is worth an extra $1.Lets get rapid transit for an extra $1 per ride x 43,000,000 rides per year= $43,000,000 to pay for a better service.
I will vote for that!

Ok...but all those numbers would be met anyway.

If a BRT/LRT service was implemented, and it provides cost savings for maintenance, and long-term improvements...then why raise the costs for use?

For argument's sake, let's say it currently costs $1M/year to run the system.
The new system is built costing $10M for construction, equipment, etc.
Now it only costs $750k/year to run/maintain the new system.
That's a savings of $250k/year that goes towards that $10M expense.

As operation/maintenance costs increase...THEN raise the rates to adjust, but the purpose of the system is to improve service without gouging those who use it and driving them off the system.

On a side note though...IMO, if the current fees charged aren't high enough to cover the operating costs of the service...the fees aren't high enough to begin with.

oh yeah the fees are way off..

umm damn now I find to read budget stuff again but more then 30 million less in fees then expense I believe

AGEsAces wrote:Ok...but all those numbers would be met anyway.

If a BRT/LRT service was implemented, and it provides cost savings for maintenance, and long-term improvements...then why raise the costs for use?

For argument's sake, let's say it currently costs $1M/year to run the system.
The new system is built costing $10M for construction, equipment, etc.
Now it only costs $750k/year to run/maintain the new system.
That's a savings of $250k/year that goes towards that $10M expense.

As operation/maintenance costs increase...THEN raise the rates to adjust, but the purpose of the system is to improve service without gouging those who use it and driving them off the system.

On a side note though...IMO, if the current fees charged aren't high enough to cover the operating costs of the service...the fees aren't high enough to begin with.

Kinda' meaningless to discuss relative costs in a vacuum eh?

Use the existing secondary rail lines. They are already partially elevated and there's lots of room near them for stations and stops. Electricity is the main factor here. Gotta think about it in this manner, or else the city won't grow.

Electrician wrote:Use the existing secondary rail lines. They are already partially elevated and there's lots of room near them for stations and stops. Electricity is the main factor here. Gotta think about it in this manner, or else the city won't grow.

Going back to my soapbox of LRT...there should be NOTHING on the ground.

Existing rail lines (secondary or not) still require expropriation of land for use.

Right-of-way is ALREADY in place throughout the city for aerial construction. No additional funding or adjustments would be required. And if an elevated LRT is planned correctly...they would be running over existing roads/sidewalks anyway...where the city already owns the land AND the aerial.

[quote="AGEsAces]
Right-of-way is ALREADY in place throughout the city for aerial construction. No additional funding or adjustments would be required. And if an elevated LRT is planned correctly...they would be running over existing roads/sidewalks anyway...where the city already owns the land AND the aerial.[/quote]

Can you please provide an example of a route where a right of way for aerial construction could be built without paying for the land under the right of way?
For example if the someone is building some aerial track over top land I own I would expect to be reimbursed because I am sure my land is going to be negatively impacted somehow.

Outsider wrote:[quote="AGEsAces]Can you please provide an example of a route where a right of way for aerial construction could be built without paying for the land under the right of way?
For example if the someone is building some aerial track over top land I own I would expect to be reimbursed because I am sure my land is going to be negatively impacted somehow.

Reimbursed for what?
You don't own the aerial over your land.

The area over your property is already owned by the government, they have the rights to it for aerial drops for Hydro/phone/cable, etc., as well as anything else they need up there.

Even if they touch your property with something...they don't have to reimburse you if it's to provide access to an aerial object. For example if they need to run a Hydro line over your land, and have to put a pole in. No reimbursement is required for where they put the pole. If/when they remove the pole though, they are required to repair the area back to a reasonable state (ie. not leave a hole).

This usually applies on farm land, where high-tension lines are installed to feed areas.

Compensation is allowed, and is usually awarded, but it's not required.

It would be no different with an elevated LRT.
I would be willing to wager no government is dumb enough to build trains OVER people's homes intentionally...but should they need Hydro lines to feed the rails...I can see them installing lines over properties.

I can't. They don't today do they? Show me an example where the government has arbitrarily (or otherwise) placed something over-top of private property?

What will hold those elevated rails up in the air? Where will they build the stations? It is simply not as cut and dried as you suggest AA.

The farmers get compensated for the towers on their property in St Leon, The goverment would have to compensate you for the negative impact of the structure over your property . No they do not have to but then they would properly buy you out .

Surly this was covered some where in the last 45 yrs of this debate .

I know the perfect route to build something over that would not require paying anyone for use of the land if you were to just concentrate on the south leg of RT.
Its called ( get this it has a name ) Pembina Highway