Comments on: Bus Rapid Transit vs light rail

By: Wynston

Wynston — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:59:13 +0000

Also, Winnipeg pretty much has brt like half implemented anyways with transit priority lights at some intersections and diamond lanes.

By: Wynston

Wynston — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:54:59 +0000

I could be wrong, but I don’t think that bus rapid transit would result in a lot more buses being sold, but rather just faster travel. Though I guess if service was improved then ridership would probably go up. Although a lot of buses would be sold if they actually replaced all the old orange non-wheelchair access ones. Though I almost prefer those because it generally means less strollers taking up 5 seats.

By: Grant Hamilton

Grant Hamilton — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:38:19 +0000

But shouldn’t the New Flyer peeps be kicking ass to get bus rapid transit approved? And yet even that isn’t going anywhere.

By: Wynston

Wynston — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:23:30 +0000

Ya I would say that the New Flyer plant is one of the big obstacles to light rail. There is no way Sam Katz would screw over one of Winnipeg’s most successful manufacturers.

By: Grant Hamilton

Grant Hamilton — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:34:32 +0000

Which is weird because there's a goddamn BUS MANUFACTURING PLANT in Winnipeg!

By: Colin Corneau

Colin Corneau — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:18:12 +0000

Ah, but some crony of the powers-that-be can make a fast buck off of developments like roads, IKEA big-boxes, etc.

Not so much with buses or rail.

That’s your difference right there, IMO.

By: Grant Hamilton

Grant Hamilton — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:06:29 +0000

I just spotted a great comment from a related column, which notes that total "vehicle miles traveled" has been declining now for 14 solid months. That started with the spike in gas, but it's continuing, even with cheap gas. Why? The obvious answer is "the recession" but some people are pointing out that the trend may have reached a tipping point, and people expect expensive gas to return soon, so they're making permanent lifestyle changes. The argument in the comments is pretty good. Check this guy out:

Monies spent on roads, highways, interchanges are always called “investments”. Monies spent on rails and buses are always called “subsidies”.

Now isn't that an interesting way to look at the argument over rapid transit in Winnipeg -- especially in conjunction with the major roadwork necessary for the IKEA development?