Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by esquire

Did anyone really believe Bowman, though? I voted for him as the best of a bad lot in 2014, but I wouldn't have wagered a dime on him getting anywhere close to realizing his BRT promise.

Wasn't the deviation from plan with the Parker Lands dogleg proof enough that you can never trust politicians!

[DirtWednesday]

Maybe drop the 'R' in 'BRT'.

Come on down and enjoy our new super awesome expressaroo bus routes!

[bomberjet]

It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

[EdwardTH]

Honestly I don't get it. Everybody apparently hates the SWBRT because it's not right on Pembina. Now everybody is mad because future transit lines WILL be on-street....

If you want dedicated, grade-separated corridors you're gonna need a right-of-way that is NOT going to be adjacent to a major street or built-up area. If you want to go straight though the areas that are already built-up, you're going on-street or in the median. Pick one. We can't have dedicated grade-separated transit lines that are somehow built in the exact same places as major traffic arterials already exist.

[bomberjet]

Here's my take. On street is trash. If you want it on Pembina, Portage, St. Mary's, whatever, put in underground or overhead. That's not happening. So dedicated corridor separate from the road is my preferred option. Last option is median lanes/diamond lanes which IMO are fine but not any sort of 'rapid transit'. They're just transit, which again is fine.

Now everybody will say "oh but the dog leg is stupid, that's bs". Well yes I'd tend to agree there. Preferred route should've been the CN line near Pembina.

But say for the route that was supposed to follow the CN rail line into east Winnipeg, the dedicated corridor would be great. The need to have stations as transfer points is still valid with any sort of spine and feeder network. Puts bus traffic in low visibility areas, which is good.

Imagine trying to push buses or trains down Provencher. I can gauran-damn-tee the NIMBY's would be out with pitch forks and tiki torches. Actually the NIMBY's already killed that, so hear we are. Also using Provencher Bridge for BRT/RT/whatever was a dumb idea anyways.

We'll see what comes of the plans they propose once the transit master plan is sorted out. I'm not holding out hope for anything earth shattering. Local improvements will make a difference no doubt. But don't hold your breath.

[esquire]

No city with RT has rights of way that just fell from the sky. They had to think creatively and spend a few bucks to make them happen.

How is it that we basically just give up when faced with what is basically a routine engineering challenge anywhere else?

[EndoftheBeginning]

What caught the attention was this from the Director of Planning for the City

In urbanist circles, it used to be an orthodox belief that cities could not become more dense — and therefore easier and cheaper to maintain — without these corridors and the higher-density apartments that would, in theory, spring up alongside them.

In a 2017 interview, planning, property and development director John Kiernan questioned whether this will ever work in Winnipeg. Developers have also questioned whether the city is even interested in development along transit lines.

When your Planning Director is not onboard with TOD, you know there is no internal push that is going to make it happen. There was very little chance of success on the TOD front before they even started.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by esquire

No city with RT has rights of way that just fell from the sky. They had to think creatively and spend a few bucks to make them happen.

How is it that we basically just give up when faced with what is basically a routine engineering challenge anywhere else?

It's really depressing..


In terms of density, it would be at stations. Not necessarily 'along the lines'. Again the preferred place would've been along the CN line near Pembina. More opportunity. There is zero opportunity in the Hydro corridor beyond the parker lands, which is spotty TOD at best.

With the eastern corridor, there would've been numerous opportunities for real TOD. Downtown P&M area. What was Pointe Hebert. That's now gone with the single family homes. Then redevelopment of the semi-industrial areas between Archibald and Lag. What's now big box central along Regent. Same with Transcona. It's too late now.

[headhorse]

none of this would work anyways, with or without transit stations, until we get a hold on sprawl and stop it. only way we are going to build up the density, demand, and infrastructure that makes RT work.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

Honestly I don't get it. Everybody apparently hates the SWBRT because it's not right on Pembina. Now everybody is mad because future transit lines WILL be on-street....

No, nobody wanted the SWBRT to be right on Pembina. They wanted it to be in the CN corridor adjacent to Pembina. This is one of the few places in Winnipeg where a rail corridor is actually in a useful location for rapid transit service, and we didn't even use it.

Originally Posted by esquire

No city with RT has rights of way that just fell from the sky. They had to think creatively and spend a few bucks to make them happen.

How is it that we basically just give up when faced with what is basically a routine engineering challenge anywhere else?

Not sure what you mean by that. How is it "basically a routine engineering challenge" to find an RT right-of-way between downtown and Polo Park, or between downtown and St. Vital Centre? If an area is completely built up, as these areas are, the only options are to go under it (subway), go over it (elevated), or bulldoze a path through it. I guess you can say that those options are routine, but if they're not on the table -- which seems to be the case for Winnipeg -- then no amount of engineering skill is going to make a right-of-way appear.

[bomberjet]

It's all about dollars.

[esquire]

Well yeah, I mean that these are not insurmountable problems that Winnipeg is facing, or even unique ones. Show me a city with a RT system and I'll show you some difficult decisions that had to be made to design and build the route. Yet here not having a totally clear ROW in existence is somehow the death blow for any progress on the whole RT front.

[ReeceZ]

If you look at cities like Phoenix or St. Petersburg (Russia), the majority of their LRT system in on the street with priority signalling. Even in Melbourne, their trams are on roadways, so yes it can work.

Also, most cities do not use the word "rapid", when describing these types of metro systems. They are referred to as "mass" transit because the primary objective is to get a large amount of people off the roads and into public transit to reduce congestion on the roadways. It's not about speed; it's about reduction of vehicle usage. This is how the system should have been promoted in Winnipeg, and still can be.

[GlassCity]

There are dozens of precedents for urban LRT/BRT set in in-street right of ways. It is the urbanist solution, the off-street routes are not. Many Winnipeg urbanists did want the BRT down Pembina. Obviously the urbanist solution isn't necessarily the objectively correct one (not that that exists) and it's no surprise that many prefer the off-street highway-type BRTs, but that is one of two options with each having tradeoffs, not the clear "right" way to do it.

The thinking behind this decision may have been based on money, but that doesn't automatically mean it's the inferior choice.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

No, nobody wanted the SWBRT to be right on Pembina. They wanted it to be in the CN corridor adjacent to Pembina. This is one of the few places in Winnipeg where a rail corridor is actually in a useful location for rapid transit service, and we didn't even use it.

Some of the issue with the corridor being on the CN line instead of the Hydro right of way is there would have been an additional 7 streets that it would have intersected with causing further delays in the free flowing corridor. The McGilvary overpass would have required some expropriation of homes and businesses and likely would have required the City to build another rail bridge there as well adding to the cost.

I personally don't have a big problem with the dogleg, it may not be ideal but it was the best of the options in my opinion. It also helps provide the opportunity for TOD which wouldn't have been available otherwise. We can argue the Cities ability to properly manage and promote TOD but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by ReeceZ

If you look at cities like Phoenix or St. Petersburg (Russia), the majority of their LRT system in on the street with priority signalling. Even in Melbourne, their trams are on roadways, so yes it can work.

Also, most cities do not use the word "rapid", when describing these types of metro systems. They are referred to as "mass" transit because the primary objective is to get a large amount of people off the roads and into public transit to reduce congestion on the roadways. It's not about speed; it's about reduction of vehicle usage. This is how the system should have been promoted in Winnipeg, and still can be.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

There are dozens of precedents for urban LRT/BRT set in in-street right of ways. It is the urbanist solution, the off-street routes are not. Many Winnipeg urbanists did want the BRT down Pembina. Obviously the urbanist solution isn't necessarily the objectively correct one (not that that exists) and it's no surprise that many prefer the off-street highway-type BRTs, but that is one of two options with each having tradeoffs, not the clear "right" way to do it.

The thinking behind this decision may have been based on money, but that doesn't automatically mean it's the inferior choice.

While yes, that is great. We already have buses, on street, with diamond priority lanes during rush hours. Pretty much City wide. We will not have trams or trains anytime soon as the City has no will in getting that done.

The City went with BRT, on dedicated corridors, and now is scrapping that plan. It is sooo Winnipeg to half ass do something, then change the plan. In 10 years, they'll change their minds again. And Again. And so on.

And the plans they are proposing are half baked. Where are they going to find room on St. Mary's to put in any more lanes for buses? There is no room unless they demolish the entirety of buildings on one side of the street. What is the point of that? Demolish the very businesses and people you are trying to serve?

Some of the other locations, such as Main St or Portage have possibilities. But just look at the P & M discussions. People are so upset about allowing pedestrians to cross the street. Just wait until they need to take 2-3 lanes away from public traffic to put bus lanes in. It'll be anarchy.

I know there aren't much details out right now in actual technical proposals.

[DirtWednesday]

Originally Posted by ReeceZ

Also, most cities do not use the word "rapid", when describing these types of metro systems.

Bazinga.

Dropping the 'R' in BRT from now on.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

And the plans they are proposing are half baked. Where are they going to find room on St. Mary's to put in any more lanes for buses? There is no room unless they demolish the entirety of buildings on one side of the street. What is the point of that? Demolish the very businesses and people you are trying to serve?

I'm open to elevated trains.Supposed to be expensive too, and some people (probeadably the same who don't like trolleybus wire overhead) don't like elevated train infrastructure.


But yes, either demo half the side of St. Mary's OR grade separate the damn thing by building above the current road.








But regardless of where to place Line 'B' of the 'rt', St. Mary's is past capacity and with a growing region at one point will have to be widened, no question.

[bomberjet]

I see CTV now has an article out about transit. Must've seen CBC's article from yesterday haha. Where have they been? This has been going on for a while now.

I guess the only changes that will really happen will be frequency of buses. Which is great. Rapid lines will have buses every 5 mins or whatever during peak times. 10 mins outside of that. Etc for frequent lines.

[esquire]

If all we were going to end up with was a moderately improved on street bus network, then the City should have just said that from the get-go. For years the focus was on rapid (not "mass") transit... ending up with a few new diamond lanes feels like a letdown after all of that.

Oh well... at least we got the one leg that actually somewhat resembles real rapid transit.