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

So, how many times will you use the Unwanted Museum then?

Probaly once a year which is more then the bus , and I still will pay for the transit too.

And it is probaly more then I will go to IKEA too, and look at what that is costing us .

IKEA is actually paying for the road upgrades etc. themselves, and in advance. They will receive a tax credit to repay them. In the long run IKEA will eventually show a return.

For there building not the entire site I don't believe, could be wrong but check tonight if you are going .

If'n I recall correctly the developer is taking on all site development costs including the roads and access lanes etc. I recollect the $18,000,000 cost will be be repaid through tax rebates or some such mechanism.

I think we should move this discussion into the IKEA thread eh?

grumpy old man wrote: In the long run IKEA will eventually show a return.

I reckon the taxes generated will be similar to Polo Park.

This is the biggest thing happening around here in 25 years, that isn't taxpayer funded.

Well if they are paying for it , good for them . The city should have made this a part of all development undertaken . As I don't believe Waverly West is the same is it .

If you make a valid transit service, the peeps will use it. If it's just another bus route, then it's a waste of money.
Hey! How about that? I got the discussion back to the thread title.

Dam I thought JTF and I had brought an end to the longest debate this city has had.

JTF wrote:So, how many times will you use the Unwanted Museum then?

None, except for the time the "Respect in the Workplace" drones force me to.

And when that happens, I'll just take a very quick walk through and that'll count for "being there".

Pavolo wrote:Dam I thought JTF and I had brought an end to the longest debate this city has had.

Oh yeah?
Then I want them to bring back the Winnipeg Arena Zamboni and have it take tourists sightseeing Winnipeg in the Winter months!
There!

When the TransPlan Committee was created in the 1990s, they had been
given the direction to seek out a comparison between Busway, LRT,
Subway, and Streetcar.

They hired rail-experts DS-Lea Consultants Ltd. and reported back in the form of a written report dated August 1996.

While
DS-Lea was acknowledged in the Final edition of TransPlan 2010 Report,
it does not mention this "Review of Alternative Transit Technologies".

Here is the link to the transcribed version... link

One interesting point about this study is why was the Busway figure for "$/Vehicle Revenue - Hour" not have a value in Table 8?

Saskatoon has it right when it comes to planning for rapid transit:

http://www.planetsmag.com/content.php?vn=6&is=22&an=797&sc=2

and also


Originally Posted by dsim249



Plan now for light-rail, forum hears

[i]Saskatoon could use old rail lines to cut costs

By Jeremy Warren, The StarPhoenixApril 4, 2009



Proponents say a light-rail transit system should be built in the city,
but it could be decades before the first car leaves the station.

Until then, local governments should use existing railways and create
plans to build passenger lines to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, said
two mass transit proponents at the Road Map 2020 sustainable
transportation forum.

"The CP and CN Rail corridors and right of ways in Saskatoon are
potential gold mines for an eventual light-rail transit line," said
FutuRail associate George Wooldridge on Friday.

"There isn't the financing or the population base for a mega-project
like this right now, but what we do propose is the incremental
development of an LRT in Saskatoon."

FutuRail estimates Saskatoon needs 400,000 people before an LRT makes sense.

Using existing rail corridors -- Sutherland through Innovation Place
and downtown past 22nd Street -- in the city can keep the cost of
building a light-rail system low enough to make it feasible for
Saskatoon, added Wooldridge.

The city has explored the possibility of moving the CP and CN switching
stations outside of the city, leaving the existing lines empty.

Plan now to modify the lines, and save a headache later when the city's
population hits a tipping point, Friday's audience was told.

"Crisis prevention now, rather than crisis management later," Wooldridge told the audience at TCU Place.

Roadmap 2020 is a partnership between the Meewasin Valley Authority,
the City of Saskatoon and the Saskatchewan Environmental Society.

FutuRail is a group born from the coalition of local governments that
wanted to buy a portion of railway between Regina and Davidson that CN
planned to abandon.

It's that rail line that former MLA Peter Prebble wants the province to
buy, perhaps under the Saskatchewan Transport Company, and re-establish
a passenger line between Saskatoon and Regina.

"It's a good time for the province to step in and purchase the line," said Prebble.

Using rail lines to decrease car traffic cuts down on greenhouse-gas
emissions, especially if the province institutes mandatory use of
inter-city transport for public service and Crown corporation
employees, said Prebble.

The proposed mandatory use provision could also apply to STC buses between both cities, but only if the buses arrive earlier.

Currently, buses between Saskatoon and Regina arrive at 11:15 a.m. in either city.

An earlier arrival would better accommodate public sector and industry employees, said Prebble, a longtime NDP MLA in Saskatoon.

The province could look beyond alternate transportation to keep cars
off the roads and reduce harmful emissions. Tax incentives for video
conferencing investments would reduce the need for travel, said Prebble.

He also suggested lowering the speed limits on highways to 90 km/h.

"This is a highly unpopular idea, but would give us a 20 per cent reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions," said Prebble.

In the question-and-answer session, Prebble was reminded that the
passenger train and frequent bus service between Regina and Saskatoon
failed to gain popularity.

"If I remember correctly, that started in the '70s and was phased out in the next decade," said Prebble.

"The problem there was the lack of downtown-to-downtown service. We can fix those past mistakes."

jjwarren@sp.canwest.com

Man, I hate to say it, but Saskatoon, a city that is significantly smaller than Winnipeg, is lightyears ahead of Winnipeg in terms of planning for rapid transit, and aren't settling for poorman's BRT like some cities. Cudos to the city on the South Saskatchewan River for having vision for a better and brighter future in rapid transit! There is something very wrong with this picture.

End rant.

Planning is one thing. Executing is another. Give Saskatoon props for thinking long term.

Thing is EdWin I don't think you'll be satisfied with anything less than some sorta' sexy light rail approach. I know starting with a BRT approach doesn't cut it for you. But it is a start. And if it succeeds, maybe we can move to that sexy LRT you so crave.

Heck I'm not sure we even need RT, but others a little smarter than me have determined maybe we do. Since I don't have the answer I'll defer to those that do.

Winnipeg NEEDS an all-season transit system, preferably electric powered, period.

So...I was searching for something completely unrelated...and came across this:

Rapid Transit Final Report (it's a pdf file...might take awhile to open)

What I find interesting is the title..."Final" report? and from 2005?

How is Rapid Transit EVER "final"? Rapid Transit should be ever-evolving...looking for the most cost-effective and reasonable means of expanding the city...and providing the best possible form of transit for the citizens. (hint: BRT is NOT the way to go)

We decided at our luncheon, that spending $322 million dollars for 2 miles if rapid transit was a waste of resources, because only 20% of Winnipegers use transit , and of those 20%, only 1% would use that route.
That $322 million dollars , we decided would be better used in the Human Rights Museum, or on timing the red lights and fixing the roads , so one could drive an ox cart faster down those roads.
$322 million might also bring back the Jets!

AGEsAces wrote:So...I was searching for something completely unrelated...and came across this:

Rapid Transit Final Report (it's a pdf file...might take awhile to open)

What I find interesting is the title..."Final" report? and from 2005?

How is Rapid Transit EVER "final"? Rapid Transit should be ever-evolving...looking for the most cost-effective and reasonable means of expanding the city...and providing the best possible form of transit for the citizens. (hint: BRT is NOT the way to go)

Well, this wasn't really the first 'final' report on the BRT system either. I still have a pdf copy of the one from before Katz was in office.

what a waste of resources, for such a small number of users!

http://www.sfu.ca/dialog/undergrad/readings2009-1/Rethinking+the+need+for+speed.pdf
Instead of spending 2.8 billion for a proposed 12 Km sky train, this writer suggests saving the money and just giving every graduating UBC student a $25,000 base model prious (without the leather seats)
Pretty funny!
"RETHINK THE NEED FOR SPEED"
We need to do the same regarding spending any money on any bus service- Just a waste of money for 20% of the people who use the service!

Uhh, if I recall correctly I remember you or someone else with very similar views, posted that link in the past 8 months here or on SSP.

But I'm not surprised, given your former position with the City, in promoting pseudo-expressway construction for the past couple of decades.

What makes you think Rosencrentz worked for the city?

jimj_wpg, perhaps a less antagonistic approach might help win your POV. Maybe getting your facts lined up will be helpful as well.

What pisses you off so when people have an opposing view? It is possible others might be right as might you...

One thing just popped into my brain... Would you be willing to pay $36.00 for a one day LRT pass? More or less, that's just about how much it would cost.
Uhm, maybe by the year 2050, at 36 bucks, the price would be economical.