Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[dmacc]

We really do need to think of this as at generational project and it's success needs to be viewed in the decades to come, not upon completion. If this spurs growth around the stations in the years to come and sees success even 15-20 years out than we won't be talking about how this was a huge failure. RT should be built for the future, not just for today's riders.

[rkspec]

I was down Chevrier last week and saw all the construction, might slow things down a bit if it is going to be a controlled intersection.

[Spocket]

The Parker lands will fill up quickly with development and considering it could potentially be one of the densest population centers in the city, those stations make perfect sense. In fact, if you want higher density development, not choosing the dogleg would have been stupid.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by Spocket

The Parker lands will fill up quickly with development and considering it could potentially be one of the densest population centers in the city, those stations make perfect sense. In fact, if you want higher density development, not choosing the dogleg would have been stupid.

They missed an opportunity with the Parker lands. They could have joined Jubilee to Wilkes , or whatever its called when it gets to lindenwoods tben parker lands.
Imagine turning off Osborne and beinf able to drive all the way to the permieter instead of a clusterfck at Pembina. Wilkes i know goes all the way to Elie MB.

Instead the make it have an abrupt turn with a set of lights for cars and busses. Then funnel traffic back through a residential area.

[LilZebra]

^^^

The plan decades ago was to connect McGillivray to Fermor. Both roads have a reserved way in the form of golf courses.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by dmacc

We really do need to think of this as at generational project and it's success needs to be viewed in the decades to come, not upon completion. If this spurs growth around the stations in the years to come and sees success even 15-20 years out than we won't be talking about how this was a huge failure. RT should be built for the future, not just for today's riders.

Yes and no.

Winnipeg's BRT doesn't actually function like a proper BRT found everywhere else in the world.

1. The boarding process is a big reason why BRT was developed in the first place. You have passengers paying to get in the station, reducing the loading time.

2. Winnipeg's BRT doesn't connect popular destinations properly. And won't in the near future. The most basic connection would be from Downtown's Union Station (grade-separated; and don't give me no soft soil-bullshit in this day-and-age's engineering marvels) to the U of M. And it has taken what? 10 years? To build extra roads, tunnels, and bridges; ain't that basic infrastructure for cities to build anyways? And those stations are ghetto especially considering that Winnipeg has harsh winters. No one is getting out of their car.

3. This whole "spine" function is a basic function of BRT's found across the globe. The fact that it has taken almost 10 years for Winnipeg to figure it out is straight up shameful.

My friend, dmacc, you can certainly call this project a generational one if you'd like. However it is going to be the younger generations that are going to have to pay to fix the mistakes of the short-sighted silverback boomers who are leaving them with a hell of a mess to clean up. This dog's breakfast of a transit system has destroyed the reputation of rapid transit and I seriously doubt that the everyday citizen of Winnipeg will give up their car to use it during the 6 months of winter in unsheltered stations.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by scryer

Yes and no.

Winnipeg's BRT doesn't actually function like a proper BRT found everywhere else in the world.

1. The boarding process is a big reason why BRT was developed in the first place. You have passengers paying to get in the station, reducing the loading time.

2. Winnipeg's BRT doesn't connect popular destinations properly. And won't in the near future. The most basic connection would be from Downtown's Union Station (grade-separated; and don't give me no soft soil-bullshit in this day-and-age's engineering marvels) to the U of M. And it has taken what? 10 years? To build extra roads, tunnels, and bridges; ain't that basic infrastructure for cities to build anyways? And those stations are ghetto especially considering that Winnipeg has harsh winters. No one is getting out of their car.

3. This whole "spine" function is a basic function of BRT's found across the globe. The fact that it has taken almost 10 years for Winnipeg to figure it out is straight up shameful.

My friend, dmacc, you can certainly call this project a generational one if you'd like. However it is going to be the younger generations that are going to have to pay to fix the mistakes of the short-sighted silverback boomers who are leaving them with a hell of a mess to clean up. This dog's breakfast of a transit system has destroyed the reputation of rapid transit and I seriously doubt that the everyday citizen of Winnipeg will give up their car to use it during the 6 months of winter in unsheltered stations.

I didn't call it a generational project as a way to express how it will change Winnipegs course for generations to come. Instead I call it a generational project to express how you can't deem its success before it's even complete or even in the first few years of it's existence. This leg of RT will be deemed a success based on the TOD's and rates of usage 15-25 years from now.

There is only one unsheltered station along this route and that's Osborne station I believe and that's a relatively cheap and easy fix in the future.

All I'm saying is give this a real chance and judge it after it has actually gone into service. I use phase 1 everyday and Phase 2 will make my life much easier when it's complete. I might be the only person who thinks so but who knows.

[borkborkbork]

The "BRT" line has:

• No offboard payment. Everyone has to queue at one door to board and wait for everyone to struggle with their Peggo or count out change.
• No real-time arrivals information. The "1 minute" on the arrivals board is a sad joke.
• No comfortable stations. Osborne Station is obviously the worst offender, but all the stations have shelters that are warmer than outside, but don't feel like an actual heated "station".
• No level boarding. They advertise the stations as "near level", but it still means any stroller, walker or wheelchair requires the little bridge contraption to board.
• No proper lane treatment/alignment. The alignment (diamond lane and stops) are on the right of the street. So, they have to contend with turning cars, taxi pickups/dropoffs, etc. The diamond lanes are shared with bikes and taxis. And then, they have to make a three-lane change through traffic in order to turn left onto Graham Transit Mall. And at the southern extremity, buses have to mix with regular traffic from the stadium to the university.

The "blue line" plan is a step in the right direction, but man, there's a lot of work ahead for this to be a functional alternative to driving for most people.

[bomberjet]

I seriously doubt having all those things will change anyone's perception in Winnipeg. You're not going to take the BRT because you have to pay on the bus instead of at the station? Sure people who know understand the advantages. But regular Winnipeg Jane Doe will not give two shits.

I do agree with all the points though. A lot of those things can be remedied. They do have pseudo level boarding. The curbs are higher (I think) and the buses kneel. It's up to the driver to pull right up to the edge, which can be the difficult part with the set-up of some stations.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I seriously doubt having all those things will change anyone's perception in Winnipeg. You're not going to take the BRT because you have to pay on the bus instead of at the station? Sure people who know understand the advantages. But regular Winnipeg Jane Doe will not give two shits.

Even if people don't specifically recognize that as the problem, they will notice the excruciatingly long stops when more than a few people are making cash payments. It doesn't help that our fareboxes only accept one painstakingly deposited coin at a time.

It's just one of those small but impactful ways in which the BRT system could have been better.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

Even if people don't specifically recognize that as the problem, they will notice the excruciatingly long stops when more than a few people are making cash payments. It doesn't help that our fareboxes only accept one painstakingly deposited coin at a time.

It's just one of those small but impactful ways in which the BRT system could have been better.

Fare zones would be huge. It might not be apparent to Winnipeg transit users but the impact would make the whole experience actually feel like a RT system. The only other upgrade would be heated stations... Less feasible unless underground.

[bomberjet]

I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying people like my mom have no idea. Love her to death of course. They'll just catch the bus as they normally do.

I would hope the City would implement fare zones. Maybe they have a long term plan we just don't hear about. Likely not, but maybe.

Also the stations, at least shelters are heated. All of them. They're just not heated to 20c. Are stations anywhere heated like that?

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I seriously doubt having all those things will change anyone's perception in Winnipeg. You're not going to take the BRT because you have to pay on the bus instead of at the station? Sure people who know understand the advantages. But regular Winnipeg Jane Doe will not give two shits.

I do agree with all the points though. A lot of those things can be remedied. They do have pseudo level boarding. The curbs are higher (I think) and the buses kneel. It's up to the driver to pull right up to the edge, which can be the difficult part with the set-up of some stations.

I would guess that the average rider (or prospective rider) cares a lot about reliability.

Many of those issues that people don't know/give a shit about are all related to that one clear priority.

Off-board payment means that everyone queues up to get on the bus, and the bus sits in the station, with other buses bunching up afterwards. At stops without passing lanes (Osborne Station, Graham Transit mall), this can be a substantial amount of time. If you have a dozen people queueing, especially if you have a wheelchair boarding, this is a non-trivial amount of time. If a bus gets caught in traffic trying to make the three-lane change on Main, if a bus has to go behind a cyclist at 10kph for two blocks, if a bus is stuck behind a taxi in the diamond lane, etc., etc.... these contribute to the unreliability of service.

And with transit, these small disruptions compound and you end up with serious deviations from scheduled services. For those whose commute involves a transfer, a late bus means a missed transfer, which means you can easily add 20 minutes to your commute.

And all of this is exacerbated by the psychological pain of sitting at a stop with a sign that has said your bus has been "due" for 10 minutes.

If you talk to people who occasionally take transit, you'll hear lots of stories of buses that "just didn't even show up". The impression created by all these delays and points of unreliability, along with inaccurate arrivals forecasts, is that buses just 'disappear'.

In short, the reason that it matters that we don't have those nice BRT features that nobody cares about is that they all impact reliability of service, which everyone cares about.

[bomberjet]

I ride the bus nearly everyday. Mornings heading downtown, the bus comes on time almost every time. Heading out of downtown at evening rush, the buses are always messed up for my routes. I notice endless 160/162 series buses.

The blue line thing should clear that up for BRT. There should be a constant stream of blue buses and you can get on any one of them. That will be yuuuuge in my opinion.

Like I said though, I agree with all the points. I also find casual riders don't understand the systems in place, such as navigo. My friends will ask me when the buses come, etc haha.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The blue line thing should clear that up for BRT. There should be a constant stream of blue buses and you can get on any one of them. That will be yuuuuge in my opinion.

Heading downtown, yes. Heading south, no. If I understand right, half the blue line buses will go to the University, and the other half will skip the campus and go to St. Norbert along Pembina.

It feels like WT hasn't learned the lesson of buses that have the same name but go to different places (e.g. the old 78)

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Heading downtown, yes. Heading south, no. If I understand right, half the blue line buses will go to the University, and the other half will skip the campus and go to St. Norbert along Pembina.

It feels like WT hasn't learned the lesson of buses that have the same name but go to different places (e.g. the old 78)

There are plenty of systems that have lines which split and branch out to different locations. I don't think that it will be a major problem so long as the terminus is clearly marked. Like the header should just read either :BLUE-ST NORBERT or BLUE-UNIVERSITY. Heading north they would just read: BLUE-UNION STATION or something along those lines (if WT ever gets its f'n act together on that one)

[esquire]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Heading downtown, yes. Heading south, no. If I understand right, half the blue line buses will go to the University, and the other half will skip the campus and go to St. Norbert along Pembina.

It feels like WT hasn't learned the lesson of buses that have the same name but go to different places (e.g. the old 78)

I don't get why they don't make it clearer the way they do in other cities, by adding a letter or whatever to the number. "16A", "16B", that kind of thing. Something like that could be more intuitive than "16 Selkirk Manitoba"... does that mean the city? The street? Or what? It's just harder to figure out for the non-regular user.

[dmacc]

So who's going to create a new RT thread now that this one has surpassed 10,000?

[EdwardTH]

Offboard payment, level boarding, etc are definitely good to have and should be part of the BRT, but too small to really affect ridership I think. I think route & frequency accounts for 90% of ridership decisions.

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't get why they don't make it clearer the way they do in other cities, by adding a letter or whatever to the number. "16A", "16B", that kind of thing. Something like that could be more intuitive than "16 Selkirk Manitoba"... does that mean the city? The street? Or what? It's just harder to figure out for the non-regular user.

My wife moved here from ON and at first she definitely thought the 16 went all the way to the city of Selkirk.

[buzzg]

I agree frequency/reliability are the number 1 issue or point of importance.

Osborne station is so frustrating. It’s supposed to be the flagship, yet it’s unbearable in winter. It wouldn’t be a hard thing to solve either - the Portage Place parkade has rubber doors that open in less than one second when triggered by a sensor. Install those and heat it properly. It’s also well set up to test for pre-boarding, and will likely be the busiest next to U of M. Add vestibules with a payment station and turnstiles to the front of both entrances. Done.

This should happen at U of M as well. Are there any upgrades planned to the U of M terminal?