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

the speed will be set to 70.. not 100. Which is what the buses would be travelling at as well.

What road markings and signage do you think it needs?

protection of what public?


You are over thinking things. Its people who continually overthink everything in the city that are the exact reason nothing ever gets done.

No...i'm not overthinking anything.

I'm taking what is KNOWN to be a reality and applying it to a real environment.

#1 - Freeways are not designed for 60-70km...in order for them to be effective, they must be set to 100km...that's the point of them...to move traffic quickly.
#2 - in REALITY...people do NOT drive the speed limit...nor do they drive "safely", especially when in congested traffic. So that 70km you mentioned would be more like 90-100km/hr ANYWAY.
#3 - current design of the BRT line has a simple curb along one side (train tracks on the other with a fence)...but that's because buses don't drive crazy (unless they have a bomb on them)...but if you introduce vehicles to the mix, those curbs have to become WALLS...large concrete ones.
#4 - signage is minimal along the BRT route, as it doesn't need much more than a few bus stop signs. It does not need information signs (green ones) to tell the buses upcoming exits, etc. it does not even need speed limit signs (though will probably have some). But...again, introduce traffic...and all those become required.
#5 - exits/entrances for buses will be minimal...enough for them to get in and out (think of the bus loop at confusion corner)...but for vehicles...they will need to have onramps/offramps...and ones which don't allow traffic to stop or else it will become a parking lot instead of a freeway...again...MILLIONS of dollars of investment.

#1 its 7 kms. It does not need to be 100k to be effective. it just needs to not have all the starts and stops of entrances and exits
#2 it will have photo radar cameras installed.
#3 I will have to go check, but still do not believe much if any more is required
#4 What signage will it need? speed signs.. one at each entrance, that is it.
#5 Yup that is one thing.. but it is one easily solved.

JTF wrote:Soooo.....this thing starts/ends at the Norwood Bridge/Main Street Bridge area, which is pretty much isolated from everything....and does the same at Jubilee....wtf were / are they thinking how people will get to those spots?
What do people do....walk from downtown to the Norwood Bridge to catch a streetcar??? Good luck with that.

If you build an underground station at Pembina @ Stafford - steps access from the east side and at the northwest side (near the current Transit Terminal),
and build an above-grade (monorail type) access at Union Station on the east side somehow, or build and underground station at or near Union Station then easy access is provided.

Access doesn't have to be _exactly_ at Jubilee, nor does it have to be _exactly_ at the Norwood Bridge. I agree that would be silly and a huge waste of $$$, not the least which would piss a whole bunch of people off.

http://www.truwinnipeg.org/2008/07/21/bus-rail-integration/

Deank wrote:they will take a bus to get to the ends of the rapid transit.. duh...

Well duh...very few busses go to these isolated points, so do you think people will transfer twice to get to where they're going?

I don't.

My guess is this will do nothing to increase ridership, which was the point no?

jimj_wpg wrote:

Access doesn't have to be _exactly_ at Jubilee, nor does it have to be _exactly_ at the Norwood Bridge. I agree that would be silly and a huge waste of $$$, not the least which would piss a whole bunch of people off.

But that is exactly where they are being built.

The 'trail' ends very abruptly at the Norwood Bridge and , I believe, at Pembina, not really Jubilee.

Seems to me, they've got a lot more "figuring" to do, to figure out how to start and end this thing, and they'll have to spend tens of millions more to finish the job.

My prediction anyhoo.

I really dont know what the point is to them other then placating a few people who are bemoaning our lack of something to pretend is rapid transit.


Agreed, Zero increase in ridership.


Is it difficult to get from anywhere to downtown or vice versa? no. Our current Transit system kicks some ass for that. Real good, quick, decent times ( during peak of course )

if it difficult to get from anywhere to anywhere else without having to sit downtown for 30 minutes .. yup. That is what should have been fixed.

JTF wrote:The 'trail' ends very abruptly at the Norwood Bridge and , I believe, at Pembina, not really Jubilee..

Their BRT expectation had the buses leave the dedicated roadway downtown (traveling north before the bridge) and reenter the roadway at the Norwood bridge.

But... did sammy play a shell game with everyone? Did sammy "agree" to build a BRT to finagle the coin from the province and the feds with the full plan to change to an LRT only AFTER the roadway was constructed and it was too late to turn back.

Something smells very fishy to me. Very fishy indeed.

Exactly.

Remember how he finagled his baseball park through the system....little bit at a time...a little concession here, a little concession there....and before you know it, it's too late to stop and he's gotten everthing he wanted ?

He's a very slippery character one must remember.

OK...I whipped this up quickly to give an idea of what I'm talking about.
It's rudimentary at best...and would definitely need some modification...but it gets the point across (i hope).

IF, the city would consider a REAL rapid transit system...they would do it as an elevated rail/monorail system.
Expropriation is minimal, as it can be run along current roads/rails or over existing
property (which the city already has rights to anyway).

Of COURSE it can't all be built reasonably in one phase...it would be cost prohibitive and certainly cause other issues...but...

IF it was done in phases, ie. start by building a station and some feed lines E/W or N/S for commuters...and then get some people actually using a system to work out some kinks.

Phase 2 would be to tie in some "local" depots, and especially a feed to the airport.

Phase 3 would be to install more "local" depots targeting high-density housing and/or retail/business areas.

Eventually...additional depots can be added as "stop routes" along the system...but the target right now should be getting people to leave their cars outside the city and ride in. From there they can take buses, taxis, walk, or use the underground walkways.

you are forgetting the very important hub of that wheel me thinks.

I cant stand all this pandering to force almost every person to go through downtown just to get somewhere else. BUT if it was actually RAPID transit it might be acceptable.

You guys ain't getting the point!
We gotta re-use the abandoned and existing railway tracks for rapid transit electric rail lines. It's environment-friendly, and doesn't take away already congested traffic lanes. The new commuters would just need to get used to the new stops in different parts of their neighborhoods. All normal freight trains would be diverted around a new perimeter railway line alongside the perimeter highway on the outer side. The existing bus lines would be modified so to move commuters to and from the new major rapid transit lines. This is the ONLY reasonable way to do things right.

Deank wrote:you are forgetting the very important hub of that wheel me thinks.

I cant stand all this pandering to force almost every person to go through downtown just to get somewhere else. BUT if it was actually RAPID transit it might be acceptable.

nope...not forgetting it at all.

the POINT of Rapid Transit is to get people downtown to the most highly used & populated areas quickly and efficiently.

And...if you look at the map...eventually, the central system would be running with independent lines serving most anywhere.

Rapid Transit is NOT for the block-to-block commuter who wants to (for example) get on at Main and get off at the MTS Centre. That's called Public Transit (or take a taxi)

Rapid Transit is strictly for covering larger distances WITHOUT the encumbrance of traffic, lights, construction, etc. with stops/access points in largely accessible and popular/populated areas.

the point being that people living in Tcona should be able to get to the UofM rapidly. that is a large distance ie the reason for the hub. hell the hub would take enough pressure off traffic to make it the sensible first step.

i agree with you there...they should...but unfortunately should/would be part of the phase 2/3 of the map.

Part of the key thing here would be funding though.

There's no reason taxpayers should have to pay for the whole thing...it could be privately funded as well.

Private companies can front money to build stations, sponsor trains/cars, etc.
It helps attract business for them, helps the city get the RT it needs, and helps those companies have workers who are happier and more dependable.

Heck...if they did it right...they could get big companies (I'll use Hydro as an example, even though it's partially taxpayer funded) to put money up for construction, in exchange for free passes for all the Hydro workers to ride the trains.

It will:
1) provide funding otherwise not available
2) increase ridership if workers can get on the trains whenever they want at no cost
3) increase reliability and punctuality of workers...no more "got caught in traffic" excuses
4) reduce stress on workers making a 45-minute drive/commute into a 15-minute train/commute.

It has to be done in stages...focusing on the UofM as a primary feed line would be useful up front as well. Put a station right on campus to feed the downtown initially...and/or other areas down the road.

hell if they did it right they would just need tim hortons to build a timmies at every major station. and use the timmies as the hub. thing would pay for itself in 2 days

see...NOW you're thinking positively

while I am joking about the 2 days... you know it would work. one of the bigger complaints of drivers is.. but I cant get .... timmies, groceries, whatever so I will continue to drive.

Lottery store, timmies and a smaller grocery store.. TADA!!

Plus, we can use the existing hydro high voltage line property, by putting the wires down within the new structures. So the routes can further expand in many different directions, where needed the most.

But...not just Timmies..

If it's planned correctly...each STATION would have a full complement of things...like a small mini-mall.
Timmies, McDs, Lottery, Magazine/Newspaper, Grocery, other food options...probably some kiosks selling glasses & umbrellas too...and you could even get Rogers/MTS/Fido to get in there and sponsor or pay rent.

Each "DEPOT" could just have a few kiosks available...not as elaborate as a station, as it only would have 1 or 2 lines coming through it instead of 5/6 of a station...so people would not be in them as long...but still could have a Tim Express, or McD express.

The revenue alone from the various stations and depots would be more than enough to pay for the buildings...the real cost for the city/taxpayer would be the rails themselves.

Even the trains could be "sponsored"...painted to match (like the buses)...etc.

Could a train be named after Jonathan Toews?

I kid! I kid!

Mantha wrote:Could a train be named after Jonathan Toews?

I kid! I kid!

Yes...but not the Jets .

definitely not the jets

while it would start out fast and furious it would pretty much lose interest and you never would make it to that goal of getting downtown for the win.

we should go with these buses

http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/drive-under-chinas-buses-future-450210?pi=pi

If we got those, would we still need a hali-chopter?

Don't need one now.