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

JTF wrote:Naw. It's that they don't have a clue and we do. We do slurpees here and not kool-aid.

You're dead wrong. We have not one fricken clue. Trouble is jimmy maybe we've been drinking YOUR cool-aid far too long.

Well, we do have to be realistic though. We are 1000 miles from anything...always will be. We won't grow to be a million for 100 years.
Work around that.

Is a million a magic number? Is this a phallic thing jimmy???

I agree that our traffic is not so bad mostly. Today. But bottlenecks are getting more problematic. Confusion corner, mid-town bridge, St. Mary's are all heavily traveled every morning and night. More traffic will not help in any way.

I also believe we cannot afford any further sprawl. So sooner we'll have to build up.

Rapid transit will help us manage that growth and development.

We need more bridges.

Small ones...lots of them.

About growth...

Current immigration and rural migration and repatriation is driving our growth right now. Will Winnipeg grow at 10k annually for 5 years? 10 Years?

Will Winnipeg grow at a greater rate? What will an effective transportation corridor/hub do for Winnipeg?

Should we sit back and wait for something to happen or should we plan? Will our plan need more housing? Where will we put future Winnipeggers? There is TON's of space outside the perimeter. Do we really want that?

Where we putting these bridges? Look at the outcry when a few small commercial properties were at risk due to the first leg of the RT corridor? Imagine the outcry when someone's house on Wellington Crescent is expropriated... What if that property is rosen's? But yes, eventually more bridges will be required. I wonder if rapid transit will delay that need?

grumpy old man wrote:Difficult to compare other cities as other factors come into play. Surrounding municipalities for example may lead some to believe the city is smaller. Southern Ontario and West Ontario are hugely congested areas.

The Waterloo region (Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge) is about 500k As is metro Spokane.

Progressive cities will have a greater vision and better planning. That planning should include rapid transit. Smarter folk would have put such a plan in place in earlier times and would well have driven development much differently than Winnipeg has been.

But Winnipeg will continue to grow. If ever we get a smart provincial and municipal plan it could still help future generations. If the "old folk" 20 and 40 years ago could not grasp the notion of future planning maybe us current generation old folks better.

Maybe an RT will only save 5 minutes today. What might the presence of such a system do for our young folk today, tomorrow and years down the line?

I think I know now why nothing ever gets done. We won't think about the future.

Well, we do need to look at other cities to get an idea of proper planning since Winnipeg really doesn't have a clue.

But on the rest of your statement, I fully agree. Again, proper planning for the future is key, and we need to stop making excuses and delaying the inevitable.

Anyone can 'project' anything though. Taking the numbers as they are, it will be many. many, many years (>100) before we reach a mil. Our geography will never change, and that, imo, predicates how our population will increase.

grumpy old man wrote:Is a million a magic number?

This mythical, magical number is yet another crock meant to prevent change. This is what they said about IKEA. Both Edmonton and Calgary started with LRT when their populations were between 500K to 600K.

JTF wrote:Anyone can 'project' anything though. Taking the numbers as they are, it will be many. many, many years (>100) before we reach a mil. Our geography will never change, and that, imo, predicates how our population will increase.

Oh come on, JTF, you surely aren't that gullible to believe that geography is the main reason for population growth. I guess a strong economy doesn't have a roll in that, eh?

JTF wrote:Anyone can 'project' anything though. Taking the numbers as they are, it will be many. many, many years (>100) before we reach a mil. Our geography will never change, and that, imo, predicates how our population will increase.

What does a mil have to do with anything?

JTF wrote:Anyone can 'project' anything though. Taking the numbers as they are, it will be many. many, many years (>100) before we reach a mil. Our geography will never change, and that, imo, predicates how our population will increase.

What about our geography will restrict growth?

Here's what I find amusing...Winnipeg...when it was growing in the early 1900s...DID plan for congestion.

They thought ahead of their times...and planned themselves similar to larger US Cities like Sacramento and Philadelphia.

They had horse-drawn trolleys, and then implemented electric-rail trolleys. They planned the city based on what they knew at the time, and what the future may hold (in their knowledge).

As Winnipeg evolved, and the trolleys gave way to buses...Winnipeg still planned ahead, and made bus routes based on the city of the time.

So why are the current administrators so unwilling to look ahead yet again? Probably the same reason most people don't move from the neighborhood they grew up in...because they're AFRAID of CHANGE.

Winnipeg should be looking to the future yet again. Nobody can predict it accurately...but they can use some reasonable logic to make certain deductions.

1) Oil costs will rise, so fuel will become more expensive.
2) Technologies will adapt to meet rising costs and changing demands.
3) Electricity (short of some new invention which can't be predicted) will become a/the primary source of power for mobility.
4) Smaller, more efficient vehicles will become the "standard", saving the larger trucks and vans for primarily larger families and commercial applications.
5) Buses which currently run on fossil fuels or even alcohol-based fuels will become less efficient, and maintenance costs will rise significantly.
6) Electric LRT, elevated, will provide the greatest option for expansion, with the lowest costs...if planned properly, an entire grid system accessing major parts of downtown, out to the edges of the perimeter could be done inexpensively. Preferably a monorail system to provide the greatest versatility.

Utilizing existing rails is unreasonable, as property within the city is already at a premium, and freight already commands too much of the current rail lines.

I don't understand the extreme cost concerns. Someone in this thread quoted $57M and $125M (give or take). An enormous and highly efficient elevated monorail system can be constructed for either one of those amounts, and that can be spread over several years of construction. Property costs could be almost $0, as right-of-way already belongs to the city, if they take the rails and put them over existing roadways.

Imagine how many people might consider taking trains in to work, if, while sitting at red lights...a 1/2 dozen monorail cars go whizzing by over their heads? There's no benefit to taking the bus right now...because they're sitting in the same traffic the cars are. And if you take the buses off the main roads to a BRT line...the other drivers probably won't see many buses...so what incentive would they have then? Not to mention the fact that the city will have to steal property from people in order to get a BRT up and running.

grumpy old man wrote:Where we putting these bridges? Look at the outcry when a few small commercial properties were at risk due to the first leg of the RT corridor? Imagine the outcry when someone's house on Wellington Crescent is expropriated... What if that property is rosen's? But yes, eventually more bridges will be required. I wonder if rapid transit will delay that need?

There already exist places that could take a bridge...Lipton ? Cambridge ? Churchill / St.Mary's.?
But more importantly, our "rush hours" are insignificant. Our "times" are insignificant. Those won't change much.

So...one must ask, why are we doing it?

grumpy old man wrote:

JTF wrote:Anyone can 'project' anything though. Taking the numbers as they are, it will be many. many, many years (>100) before we reach a mil. Our geography will never change, and that, imo, predicates how our population will increase.

What about our geography will restrict growth?

Again, a weak argument, since if it were true, cities like Denver and Perth, Australia wouldn't have grown to become large cities as they are today.

You nailed it: we are afraid of change. I also believe Winnipeggers are afraid of progress. Perhaps this goes back to whatever made Winnipeggers so frugal. We are afraid to spend any money (isn't that right jimmy?). What has that done for (or to) this city?

We've earned a reputation as cheap. And we've become a socialist-like society. Cheap + socialism = a real damper of growth and development.

Facts never present a weak argument. Our rate of growth indicates that it is not financially feasible for us to have such things, and the need for them, in any event, is questionable to begin with.

JTF wrote:There already exist places that could take a bridge...Lipton ? Cambridge ? Churchill / St.Mary's.?
But more importantly, our "rush hours" are insignificant. Our "times" are insignificant. Those won't change much.

So...one must ask, why are we doing it?

I sorta agreed with ya j2f. Best get expropriating those spaces today.

As for why? What do you mean why? Please forgive me jimmy. I'm not as smart as you are and I can't understand your cryptic and short posts.

grumpy old man wrote:You nailed it: we are afraid of change. I also believe Winnipeggers are afraid of progress. Perhaps this goes back to whatever made Winnipeggers so frugal. We are afraid to spend any money (isn't that right jimmy?). What has that done for (or to) this city?

We've earned a reputation as cheap. And we've become a socialist-like society. Cheap + socialism = a real damper of growth and development.

THIS is what truly needs to change. I think that people who have lived in other cities are the ones to understand this; your average Winnipegger who has never lived anywhere else might have a hard time grasping the concept, and I can understand this but only to a point.

JTF wrote:Facts never present a weak argument. Our rate of growth indicates that it is not financially feasible for us to have such things, and the need for them, in any event, is questionable to begin with.

What facts?

Do you believe Calgary and Edmonton need rapid transit?

If they did not plan and build their system 30 years ago when they were at 500k and were in the same stasis you prefer how would that affect those cities today?

Fact. Winnipeg will reach a population of a million in about 100 years or so.

Why isn't Brandon considering a LRT system btw?

Duh. Unhuh. I guess you are not as intelligent as I gave you credit for J2F. Those are really stupid comments.

I guess people think the transit lines would be similar to the Chicago or New York dull and ugly transit systems. Winnipeg still has alot of open spaces (some are being sold or leased...). I still can't understand WHY Winnipeg still doesn't use hydro power for local transit. What a waste of money and environment... Maybe they should count all the money they spent and will spend for fuel and tires, and THEN compare the costs.

Maybe our winter extremes have something to do with using electric power. Not sure why we don't. I know I don't like the look of overhead trolleys...

JTF wrote:Fact. Winnipeg will reach a population of a million in about 100 years or so.

Why isn't Brandon considering a LRT system btw?

Normally, once cities reach a population of about 300K, that is when they start to consider a rapid transit system for once they reach about 500k, at least that is how I've seen things work on the Canadian side of the issue.

Minneapolis was a late bloomer for their implementation of LRT.

Winnipeg is too spread out now to have an economical LRT system.

I know just how stupid that sounds to you GOM, but what the hell, live with it.