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

Livio Ciaralli wrote:yep, I'd consider Fort Richmond/U of M da "boonies" if my concern was core redevelopment and maximizing / leveraging systems we've spent decades and millions developing and reducing our carbon footprint.

But if you like to discount that there does not exist this contradiction and it makes your life easier to simply accept then, no sweat. It's not like you have a say in it anyways.

What is it you presume I'm accepting?

Why not TRY to discuss this like a mature adult? This is a discussion forum. Try discussing things civilly before reverting to form. Otherwise why do ya bother?

I don't believe in core re-development! where does that leave me Livio?

I believe that leaves you in Fort Richmond Rosie.


Why not TRY to discuss this like a mature adult? This is a discussion
forum. Try discussing things civilly before reverting to form. Otherwise
why do ya bother?

LOL, coming from Mr. Sport himself. I post because it bugs you.

grumpy old man wrote:
Have any city's successfully privatized transit? Interesting idea. I don't know if it could work.

Cancun.

Three companies operate without restrictions (same routes). Busses run 24/7, cost 8.5 pesos (a nickel) to go anywhere, and these guys drive like they're at NASCAR...70 or 80 in a 40 using manual 4-speeds, etc.

In terms of servicing where people live, it would have to be hands-off for sure.

I'm of the opinion that if you live in remote areas, be it a remote town or a suburb, pay for that privlege yourself and don't to be subsidized by others. It will simply get down to an economy of scale need in the future imo, and remote settlements will become deserted.

It will simply get down to an economy of scale need in the future imo, and remote settlements will become deserted.

That should be Winnipeg's goal. Re attracting all those that left. Agree though, both the City and the province will have to come to grips on servicing every remote corner.

Well, we can't of course. It's time to recognize this as a fact and stop making stupid and expensive decisions which go in the opposite direction to such a fact.

But we may be fu uucked as it may be a Right to live anywhere eh.

Well, in Spain, they made these renovated farm haziendas, where they build a little village at every large farmland for the farm labourers. So, they don't have far to go, to work.
If there was more housing available in and around Winnipeg, then some families would move closer to their work places, where possible.
The idea of Park & Ride, from the late 70's, sort of sagged... Especially since less people go downtown.
With the Telebus system, knowing when your bus will be sliding near your favourite bus stop, Winnipeg Transit should take a good look at their timetables, and save some $$$ by not making frequent passages when not needed, and more, when needed. That zigzag perimeter bus route is a nag, as, if a person needs a ride from those areas, they'll probably take a taxi anyways.
The railway would be more reliable, especially in the Winter. Most of the railways go through heavily populated areas anyways. It just takes people a couple of weeks time to get used to the new service. Actually, Winnipeg Transit could already experiment a new service, just to see what impression it would give.
If they know what they're doing, they should give it a go.

JTF wrote:Well, we can't of course. It's time to recognize this as a fact and stop making stupid and expensive decisions which go in the opposite direction to such a fact.

But we may be fu uucked as it may be a Right to live anywhere eh.

I think we can JTF. We would do it by driving the cost of residential taxation down, removing the education taxes from property bills and getting a no strings attached Transfer payment from the province so we can budget properly and not keep shooting ourselves in the feets.

I g8uess thats not creative enough or forward thinking enough, so in the end, you are probably right ,,,We can't.

electrician, once again, NO ONE has spoken to the rail companies and their future in the City. When you add to this mindset of a BRT /LRT system, you get a leadership that demonstrates the mindset of the populace. SHow em some flash and renderings and they'll bite like starving walleyes.

Indeed...it's aaaalllll about the pretty drawings and an illusion of an enlarged tax base in the end.

Then get CN and/or CP involved on a personal project. I'm sure they'd be happy to get extra benefits from their existing lines. If not anything else, they'd be using their tracks alot more often and maybe even get some fed money.

Electrician wrote:Then get CN and/or CP involved on a personal project. I'm sure they'd be happy to get extra benefits from their existing lines. If not anything else, they'd be using their tracks alot more often and maybe even get some fed money.

Personal project.....what so pat martin can spout off about it. kinda like Judy did with the fruit flavoured tobacco.What are you nuts.

Personal Projects make me money. You want to discuss the issue of rails, get elected and do your job.

Besides , the goal is to get them out of the City, reclaim 280 acres of core area land, and hooked into CentrePort not work out a partnership.....but , this is backwards thinking, we must stop the discussion.

Cost/Benefit? Anyone?

Having them use the corridors for transit, is getting them out of the city.
Is there someone in WT who doesn't want the big guys around???
Does it always have to come down to using the most expensive way to do things, just to give certain jugheads their share of the profits???

and besides, getting rid of the rails, would be like a port city getting rid of their port... the ships go elsewhere...

Electrician wrote:Then get CN and/or CP involved on a personal project. I'm sure they'd be happy to get extra benefits from their existing lines. If not anything else, they'd be using their tracks alot more often and maybe even get some fed money.

I'd be surprised if the railroads would even consider sharing their tracks with a municipal people mover. I'd say that if the railroads believed they could make a dime on it, and not compromise their freight movement, they might have already done it by now.

and besides, getting rid of the rails, would be like a port city getting rid of their port... the ships go elsewhere...


CentrePort ring a bell ?

rosencrentz wrote:Cost/Benefit? Anyone?

No one at any government level has done one.

That is what distrubs me. Going full bore on implementing a system with marginal benefits before studying every possibility let alone the one that seems to bisect this City and yet the best we can do is rip it out ( Canadian Tire backyard ), sell it off for townhome development ( River heights ), or sell a rail bridge to some architect with a truly stupid idea of building condo's on it and then realizing it can't be done.

grumpy old man wrote:Is there really a boonies in Winnipeg? This seems to contradict your rapid transit argument.

for the rest of the world - Winnipeg IS da boonies!

EdWin wrote: Have a look at other cities (Not only the bix six, but K-W, Saskatoon, Spokane, Quebec City, Hamilton, etc., all of who are planning or at least have strong consideration for light rail in terms of their mass transit planning. Some of these cities are still smaller than Winnipeg, however they are indeed planning for growth in their respective cities.
Now, you take Phoenix and Minneapolis. They waited until the metro population was in the millions for them to develope mass transit systems, and these are very spread out, sprawling cities. But in the end, intelligent planning prevailed and the lines were built. However, I would rather not see Winnipeg wait until it gets to these sizes before implementation.

Other cities also have healthy economic bases and exonomic growth prospects that are driving population growth. Economic prosperity aslo provides municipal revenues that can be expended on tranportation projects. But what drives the (substantially smaller) population growth of Winnipeg? It's the breeding of natives and associated population pressure in the reserves that causes the Winnipeg population to grow. Will they provide the economic prosperity and also the demand for public transporttation that will be needed in the future?

Those condos on the bridge- Why do you say it couldn't be done? I was at the City meeting where everyone living in the area were complaining that there would be too much traffic on Wellington Crescent.
20-24 new condos ,each paying $3,000-$5000 in new taxes, some rental commercial space, and having a view of the river.
What a great, never-been-done before anywhere in the world before, so we don't want it here.
Yup , we have a rusted bridge generating nothing, and that is what we get in Winnipeg.
This project, I believe was held up in the Province's or the Federal level, because it was to be built over the water.
Mr. Katz has left the City, perhaps retired ?
I cannot think of a nicer view to have in a condo.
Livio, why couldn't it be done? Mr. Katz(architect) , bought the bridge to do it. he had the plans .
The City did approve it!

This is why winnipeg is such a dump. Nothing gets done because the full time NIMBYs won't let anything get done.

It's projects such as the one proposed by Mr. Katz that collectively contribute to the vibrancy and uniqueness of a City. If this were to occur in Vancouver or Toronto, it would be oh so fantastic - but bring it to our own back yard and we bury our heads. It is truly unfortunate that after all this time it has come to this... nothingness.



http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/A-bridge-without-direction-68543262.html


A bridge without direction


It’s not often that the city and province both manage to damage a golden opportunity. Their joint bungling of the abandoned CN Rail right of way through central River Heights and over the Assiniboine River, however, is one such example.

20 to 24 condos selling off at $400,000 -$600,000?
Katz, a Winnipeg architect who now lives in Victoria, B.C.,
The City of Winnipeg and the federal government signed off on the plan, but the province never provided the environmental approvals.

Hmm lets see, if it wasn't done anywhere else, yup we should'nt do it here....kinda like, if its done somewhere else , we should do it here.

Why it shouldn't be done, well, because its a bridge for starters. Its a river,its by a major bridge which may need to be rejigged, its a ROW, its a stupid concept which would require quite a bit of infrastructure to service.

And i'm not basing my argument on what the revenues would be, after all, Mr. Katz could build the same units on "land" and still generate the same monies for the City.

So let him build where he must, the end result will be the same since taxes will be generated as you mentioned but, we would have the benefit of saving the ROW.


But the last sentence in the article is what rings true. abandoned ROW was bungled.( and it started at Polo Park when Canadian Tire went up and the Prairie Dog was chased away )

It's a ROW? Dumb idea, I agree , because what we have there is certainly more appropriate for Winnipeg ( a rusty bridge) , compared to high-end Tuxedo condos!
The right of way may be an argument, but the City agreed ahead of time with Katz, that this was a "great", an "innovative", "brilliant use of an abandoned property.
There was one person living in an apartment block who claimed that his right-of-way view down the River would be obstructed, and put up false pictures on the elevations from his apartment.
We have so few (none) buildings that we can be proud about.
This Museum of dead things will be one of the 1st, since that great building (The Richardson Building) has been built, and before that the Bank of Montreal building at Portage and Main.

One of the arguments about the bridge was the parking problem , there was none . The other down side was they would be right under one of the major fly ways to the airport . And under Winport the amount of traffic to it would increase . Hence the noise complaints would have increased . If the city had thought before the line got riped up the rails would have worked for Light Rail Transit . Building houses down the row would not have worked as the area would have been ruined , for the lanes to work as front streets .

because what we have there is certainly more appropriate for Winnipeg ( a rusty bridge) , compared to high-end Tuxedo condos!


Part of the charm Rosie. After all the BDI is a smashing success because of the foor bridge, imagine, building condo's over there, or how about the bridge to St. B from the Forks, would be great to see Condo's over that span. Yes, its an intriguing idea for those that live there, but i dare say, the visual pollution of the structure wouldn't appeal to many.