Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I would assume that if Winnipeg wanted it, and the MB government supported it, that the federal government would chip in something. The one thing to make it a mess would be the fact that a major bus manufacturer is based in Winnipeg and could see an LRT as a loss of business.

I get what you’re saying but we should not be vesting corporate interests over the quality of life of citizens in the city. The province already gave New Flyer a $50 million bailout this week because their stock has plummeted post covid and they’ve had numerous issues with the supply chain. The city has also moved forward too purchase 160 electric busses again announced this week alone. If New Flyer was so keen on making BRT viable, they could’ve done A LOT more lobbying to have more then 1 dedicated busway by now when the city has been considering building rapid transit since the 70s.

Furthermore, it’s not like the busses would be going anywhere. TTC, Translink, and other major transit agencies throughout the country have very high bus ridership numbers. If the city put rail transit on our major corridors with 5-10 minute headways we can free up busses to increase frequency on our secondary commercial streets and improve our “last mile” connections. Winnipeg is already one of the better cities in the continent in regards to the last mile because of how expansive our bus system is, and rail transit would only strengthen it further.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Ottawa is running what are basically trams like a metro system. So it should be no surprise it has so much trouble.

The REM will be fine.

The choice of vehicles should not affect the catenary system that failed.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Well actually Winnipeg has the highest transit ridership out of any North American municipality under a million residents. Higher then QC and double Hamilton’s while destroying US city ridership numbers of similar size. The reason we don’t have many articulated busses is because the city is cheap as hell and the current provincial government has no intention to fund transit because they are idiots.

The only rapid transit line we have is full to the brim on weekdays and still busy on weekends. The Blue line is actually so busy I remember that I was at a bus stop on Main/Assiniboine which is the last Downtown bus stop trying to go back to campus. This stop is even before the actual Transitway and it was already FULL and wouldn’t let me in. So to reiterate the blue line at certain segments of the day is so busy it doesn’t even let people on the actual rapid transit line get on due to capacity issues. There’s a lot of examples in Winnipeg where busses will simply miss out on ridership numbers because we don’t invest in more frequent service and as a result is surprises ridership numbers. We should have built LRT from day 1.

Furthermore, should Winnipeg actually build LRT it would never doing something as ridiculous as go through a bunch of farm land. Why the hell isn’t Ottawa trying to cover its urban population before going out all the way too low density sprawl showcases lack of planning logic.

Besides the Main/St. Mary’s stretch Portage Avenue, Provencher Blvd, Grant Ave, Anne’s Road, Notre Dame, Henderson Highway, Kenaston Blvd, Osborne Street, Pembina Highway, and hell even Leila Avenue for christ sakes are just some streets that not only deserve BRT but would justify LRT service based on existing ridership figures. This is because there is high density housing as well as access to amenities such as universities, parks, high schools, and shopping centres while having huge tracts of land available on these streets for transit oriented development.

Realistically if Winnipeg were to get similar levels of federal investment that QC and Hamilton are getting for their LRT expansions we would probably have ridership numbers competing with Calgary and Edmonton. It’s too bad the federal government doesn’t give a damn about us though.

400,000 people or 40% of Ottawa's population now lives outside the Greenbelt. This is why Ottawa's LRT is going through farm fields. The alternative is to build more highways.

There are people in Ottawa actively opposing serving urban neighbourhoods because building a second subway will be too expensive for the population served. Bah!

[Doady]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Well actually Winnipeg has the highest transit ridership out of any North American municipality under a million residents. Higher then QC and double Hamilton’s while destroying US city ridership numbers of similar size. The reason we don’t have many articulated busses is because the city is cheap as hell and the current provincial government has no intention to fund transit because they are idiots.

The only rapid transit line we have is full to the brim on weekdays and still busy on weekends. The Blue line is actually so busy I remember that I was at a bus stop on Main/Assiniboine which is the last Downtown bus stop trying to go back to campus. This stop is even before the actual Transitway and it was already FULL and wouldn’t let me in. So to reiterate the blue line at certain segments of the day is so busy it doesn’t even let people on the actual rapid transit line get on due to capacity issues. There’s a lot of examples in Winnipeg where busses will simply miss out on ridership numbers because we don’t invest in more frequent service and as a result is surprises ridership numbers. We should have built LRT from day 1.

Furthermore, should Winnipeg actually build LRT it would never doing something as ridiculous as go through a bunch of farm land. Why the hell isn’t Ottawa trying to cover its urban population before going out all the way too low density sprawl showcases lack of planning logic.

Besides the Main/St. Mary’s stretch Portage Avenue, Provencher Blvd, Grant Ave, Anne’s Road, Notre Dame, Henderson Highway, Kenaston Blvd, Osborne Street, Pembina Highway, and hell even Leila Avenue for christ sakes are just some streets that not only deserve BRT but would justify LRT service based on existing ridership figures. This is because there is high density housing as well as access to amenities such as universities, parks, high schools, and shopping centres while having huge tracts of land available on these streets for transit oriented development.

Realistically if Winnipeg were to get similar levels of federal investment that QC and Hamilton are getting for their LRT expansions we would probably have ridership numbers competing with Calgary and Edmonton. It’s too bad the federal government doesn’t give a damn about us though.

Quebec City and Winnipeg are almost exactly the same size, with almost exactly the same total ridership, almost exactly the same transit ridership per capita, almost exactly the same transit mode share. The only significant difference between them is that Quebec City is in a wetter climate, one of snowiest cities in the world, with over 311cm of snow annually compared to 117cm annually in Winnipeg. Articulated buses not a viable option to expand capacity in Quebec City, and they already have 109 of them compared to 19 in Winnipeg. Articulated buses are a viable option in Winnipeg, and Winnipeg hasn't even invested in them yet.

Ottawa has around 120 transit riders per capita, almost double that of Winnipeg. Even if you use overall system ridership as the main criteria, the idea that Winnipeg deserves LRT more than Ottawa does is just laughable.

And again, it's not about ridership, but the distribution of that ridership, and whether the system has the capacity to handle that ridership. Ottawa with 359 articulated buses vs. Winnipeg with 19 articulated buses tells me LRT is much more needed in Ottawa than in Winnipeg. See also Seattle with 1102 articulated buses. Not much snow, so articulated buses handle the ridership just fine there, so not much need for LRT.

For Winnipeg with a relative dry climate and a transit system with only 19 articulated buses to invest in LRT is just leapfrogging, much like the urban development in Ottawa.

Number of articulated or double decker buses in US/Canadian cities with no LRT:

1. Las Vegas 151
2. Everett 142
3. Honolulu 111
4. Quebec City 109
5. Victoria 78
6. Brampton 75
7. Gatineau 70
8. Mississauga 69
9. San Mateo 55
10. Hartford 51
11. Halifax 47
12. Nashville 45
13. Orange 36
14. Rochester 30
15. Longueuil 29
15. Austin 29
17. Hamilton 25
18. Albuquerque 24
19. San Antonio 19
19. Winnipeg 19

You can go all paranoid Danielle Smith on us and make this all about how much the federal government hates your city, but the stats suggest to me otherwise. With lower snowfall and few articulated buses compared to much snowier cities, and other cities with low snowfall having huge articulated bus fleets, LRT in Winnipeg should not be a priority for either the city or the province, let alone the federal government.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Doady

Even if you use overall system ridership as the main criteria, the idea that Winnipeg deserves LRT more than Ottawa does is just laughable.

I don't think this framing makes any sense. All Canadian cities are behind on infrastructure and it's not zero sum between different cities, particularly when they're in different provinces. If Canada correctly funded urban infrastructure, we would see dramatically more transit all across the country, Winnipeg included.

The real questions are how much Winnipeggers value LRT (which is related to potential ridership but not exactly the same thing), what it would cost to implement some specific system there (i.e. many local details are required for good analysis), and whether or not it could be funded (depends on municipality, province, federal government, revenues, and financing options).

[Doady]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think this framing makes any sense. All Canadian cities are behind on infrastructure and it's not zero sum between different cities, particularly when they're in different provinces. If Canada correctly funded urban infrastructure, we would see dramatically more transit all across the country, Winnipeg included.

The real questions are how much Winnipeggers value LRT (which is related to potential ridership but not exactly the same thing), what it would cost to implement some specific system there (i.e. many local details are required for good analysis), and whether or not it could be funded (depends on municipality, province, federal government, revenues, and financing options).

I'm not the one who brought up the overall transit ridership in Winnipeg vs. other Canadian cities as justification for LRT. That was him, not me. I was arguing against it.

And there is a lot more to transit than just LRT. The Winnipeg urban area with transit mode share of around 13% is better than most UK urban areas of its size, better than Chicago, better than Boston, better than Philadelphia. Winnipeg and the rest of Canada ain't behind when it comes to transit.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Doady

Quebec City and Winnipeg are almost exactly the same size, with almost exactly the same total ridership, almost exactly the same transit ridership per capita, almost exactly the same transit mode share. The only significant difference between them is that Quebec City is in a wetter climate, one of snowiest cities in the world, with over 311cm of snow annually compared to 117cm annually in Winnipeg. Articulated buses not a viable option to expand capacity in Quebec City, and they already have 109 of them compared to 19 in Winnipeg. Articulated buses are a viable option in Winnipeg, and Winnipeg hasn't even invested in them yet.

Ottawa has around 120 transit riders per capita, almost double that of Winnipeg. Even if you use overall system ridership as the main criteria, the idea that Winnipeg deserves LRT more than Ottawa does is just laughable.

And again, it's not about ridership, but the distribution of that ridership, and whether the system has the capacity to handle that ridership. Ottawa with 359 articulated buses vs. Winnipeg with 19 articulated buses tells me LRT is much more needed in Ottawa than in Winnipeg. See also Seattle with 1102 articulated buses. Not much snow, so articulated buses handle the ridership just fine there, so not much need for LRT.

For Winnipeg with a relative dry climate and a transit system with only 19 articulated buses to invest in LRT is just leapfrogging, much like the urban development in Ottawa.

Number of articulated or double decker buses in US/Canadian cities with no LRT:

1. Las Vegas 151
2. Everett 142
3. Honolulu 111
4. Quebec City 109
5. Victoria 78
6. Brampton 75
7. Gatineau 70
8. Mississauga 69
9. San Mateo 55
10. Hartford 51
11. Halifax 47
12. Nashville 45
13. Orange 36
14. Rochester 30
15. Longueuil 29
15. Austin 29
17. Hamilton 25
18. Albuquerque 24
19. San Antonio 19
19. Winnipeg 19

You can go all paranoid Danielle Smith on us and make this all about how much the federal government hates your city, but the stats suggest to me otherwise. With lower snowfall and few articulated buses compared to much snowier cities, and other cities with low snowfall having huge articulated bus fleets, LRT in Winnipeg should not be a priority for either the city or the province, let alone the federal government.

Here’s the problem with your argument. Quebec has similar, yet lower ridership numbers to Winnipeg yet has almost 100 more articulated busses then Winnipeg. This means that despite QC investing much more in transit, Winnipeg is still doing a better job generating ridership and is currently getting a better bang for its buck. Again you completely disregarded the point about Hamilton having half the ridership compared to Winnipeg while only having 6 more articulated busses yet there investing in a $3.4 billion LRT plan with $1.7 billion in federal funding that spans a measly 14km. And QC is getting $1.2 billion in federal funding for what was a $3.3 billion transit project that spans 23km. Respectively that’s $243 million/km for Hamilton and $173 million/km for QC. Not to mention QC has already had numerous cost overruns which the feds are funding 40%. The tramway already has $700 million in cost overruns which means the feds are going to provide an additional $280 million on top of the already existing $1.2 billion in funding for a total of $1.48 billion in federal funding.

Winnipeg’s BRT expansion in comparison is only $1.1 billion total and has 33 km of dedicated infrastructure. That’s $33 million/km in comparison. So when 2 municipalities are getting more federal funding then Winnipeg’s TOTAL cost for rapid transit there’s clearly a problem. Especially considering the funding for our rapid transit expansions haven’t even been confirmed. Have you considered if we got equivalent federal funding we could come up with an even more efficient rapid transit expansion? Using even just Hamilton’s budget we could stretch that too 102 km of dedicated infrastructure. In fact since we are on flat land primarily it would be MUCH easier for Winnipeg to get more then 23km of LRT track with an equivalent budget to QC.

It’s ok though we’re used to it considering the lack of funding to deal with our rampant social and addictions issues as well but that’s another can of worms.

Furthermore, the reason Winnipeg should try LRT rather then doubling down on BRT is because 60% of transit’s budget goes to salary and pensions. Since trains obviously have higher capacity it would mean that we wouldn’t have to put as much of our budget to salaries and can therefore put more money on actual service. It would be even more prominent if the trains were autonomous. That way not only would Winnipeg transit have a chance to eliminate its deficit, it could actually be a revenue generator for the city that is direly cash-strapped.

As for your point about Ottawa, I never said it didn’t deserve LRT. I mean for Christ sakes it’s the capital of our country and realistically should be getting heavy rail service. The city should have world-class transportation.

My problem is that Ottawa is directing funds to go through green belts rather then expanding services within their grid and urban area. If I was seeing the LRT being built next to middle housing and highrises I would have no complaints but that’s not the reality of the situation.

For your final point about LRT not being a priority, you do realize Winnipeg at one point had one of the largest streetcar networks in Canada before stupidly disbanding it? Also, are you aware that we still have 100s of km of track running throughout the city that is only being used by freight. Even just having freight gtfo out of our city and replaced with passenger vehicles would give Winnipeg a world class rail network. Just need the required funding to expropriate the tracks.

The city was built by rail and now its long overdue to go back to our roots. There was a reason we were Canada’s third largest city and rail transportation was reason #1.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The choice of vehicles should not affect the catenary system that failed.

What about the doors? The wheels? etc etc.....The thing has been a disaster from the begining and will continue to be so. This is what happens when you try to run a tram like a metro.

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't think this framing makes any sense. All Canadian cities are behind on infrastructure and it's not zero sum between different cities, particularly when they're in different provinces. .

Would you also include Vancouver and Montreal in that? Montreal seems to be doing a great job with its transportation infrastructure and I always see people on here and elsewhere raving how great Vancouvers trasnportation system is (minus the commuter traints).

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

The city was built by rail and now its long overdue to go back to our roots. There was a reason we were Canada’s third largest city and rail transportation was reason #1.

That's why we need to skip street LRT and go straight for a light metro system or at least a high floor high capacity LRT that is grade seperated if not.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Would you also include Vancouver and Montreal in that? Montreal seems to be doing a great job with its transportation infrastructure and I always see people on here and elsewhere raving how great Vancouvers trasnportation system is (minus the commuter traints).

I don't know much about Montreal's system aside from visiting there and taking the subway. One barometer there is the apparent lack of airport train service. I am sure there are other projects higher up the list but this triage mentality is part of what I'm talking about.

With Vancouver you have to be clear about expectations and what you're comparing against. Vancouver has better transit than Seattle or Calgary and is one of the best North American cities if not the best for growing transit in the 80's and later. However, this is a city/province that has limited road building and greenfield development a lot, is growing a lot, and where the transit expansion hasn't matched the population growth. The Broadway extension to take one example should have been done a long time ago, and I'm still not sure if it's clear it will go to UBC as it clearly should. A lot of the urban core of Vancouver is not really covered by rapid transit.

Vancouver also has some problems with older LA-like urban fabric that's hard to integrate into a high quality transit system (having buses that come every 15 mins and take you from your rental apartment to the train might be better than 30 min frequency but it is not convenient). We have major affordability issues and a lot of what looks like it should be car dependent detached home suburbia has been converted into multi-unit apartments inhabited by people without cars.

I think a lot of Canada has similar issues or is moving down the same path. We don't want roads or highways, don't want to disrupt some people with construction, don't want to do too much greenfield development, and have high population growth. But the transit development is not very aggressive even though it's the only thing really left to add the capacity that's needed. And so travel times get longer and quality of life suffers. As with the housing situation the impact is not evenly distributed throughout society, and this is something more privileged people can live with as they have more options in terms of where to live and how and when to get around.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Here’s the problem with your argument. Quebec has similar, yet lower ridership numbers to Winnipeg yet has almost 100 more articulated busses then Winnipeg. This means that despite QC investing much more in transit, Winnipeg is still doing a better job generating ridership and is currently getting a better bang for its buck. Again you completely disregarded the point about Hamilton having half the ridership compared to Winnipeg while only having 6 more articulated busses yet there investing in a $3.4 billion LRT plan with $1.7 billion in federal funding that spans a measly 14km. And QC is getting $1.2 billion in federal funding for what was a $3.3 billion transit project that spans 23km. Respectively that’s $243 million/km for Hamilton and $173 million/km for QC. Not to mention QC has already had numerous cost overruns which the feds are funding 40%. The tramway already has $700 million in cost overruns which means the feds are going to provide an additional $280 million on top of the already existing $1.2 billion in funding for a total of $1.48 billion in federal funding.

Winnipeg’s BRT expansion in comparison is only $1.1 billion total and has 33 km of dedicated infrastructure. That’s $33 million/km in comparison. So when 2 municipalities are getting more federal funding then Winnipeg’s TOTAL cost for rapid transit there’s clearly a problem. Especially considering the funding for our rapid transit expansions haven’t even been confirmed. Have you considered if we got equivalent federal funding we could come up with an even more efficient rapid transit expansion? Using even just Hamilton’s budget we could stretch that too 102 km of dedicated infrastructure. In fact since we are on flat land primarily it would be MUCH easier for Winnipeg to get more then 23km of LRT track with an equivalent budget to QC.

It’s ok though we’re used to it considering the lack of funding to deal with our rampant social and addictions issues as well but that’s another can of worms.

Furthermore, the reason Winnipeg should try LRT rather then doubling down on BRT is because 60% of transit’s budget goes to salary and pensions. Since trains obviously have higher capacity it would mean that we wouldn’t have to put as much of our budget to salaries and can therefore put more money on actual service. It would be even more prominent if the trains were autonomous. That way not only would Winnipeg transit have a chance to eliminate its deficit, it could actually be a revenue generator for the city that is direly cash-strapped.

As for your point about Ottawa, I never said it didn’t deserve LRT. I mean for Christ sakes it’s the capital of our country and realistically should be getting heavy rail service. The city should have world-class transportation.

My problem is that Ottawa is directing funds to go through green belts rather then expanding services within their grid and urban area. If I was seeing the LRT being built next to middle housing and highrises I would have no complaints but that’s not the reality of the situation.

For your final point about LRT not being a priority, you do realize Winnipeg at one point had one of the largest streetcar networks in Canada before stupidly disbanding it? Also, are you aware that we still have 100s of km of track running throughout the city that is only being used by freight. Even just having freight gtfo out of our city and replaced with passenger vehicles would give Winnipeg a world class rail network. Just need the required funding to expropriate the tracks.

The city was built by rail and now its long overdue to go back to our roots. There was a reason we were Canada’s third largest city and rail transportation was reason #1.

It is hard to understand what you arguing. Winnipeg is doing a better job better than Quebec City at increasing ridership without investing in LRT, so that's why it needs LRT? If it is doing so well without LRT, then why does it need LRT?

Hamilton's ridership is concentrated along two corridors: King St. and Barton St. 1 King, 5 Delaware, 10 Beeline which serve King Street got around 35,000 boardings per weekday, while the system as whole got around 87,000 boardings per weekday. That means these three routes serving King Street represents 40% of the ridership of the entire Hamilton transit system.

It is much different situation than Winnipeg, where you yourself listed "the Main/St. Mary’s stretch Portage Avenue, Provencher Blvd, Grant Ave, Anne’s Road, Notre Dame, Henderson Highway, Kenaston Blvd, Osborne Street, Pembina Highway, and hell even Leila Avenue" as potential candidates for BRT and LRT. Count them, 10 potential candidates for BRT and LRT. In Hamilton, there are only two candidates: King Street and Barton Street. The transit ridership in Hamilton is much more concentrated, and therefore capacity is a greater concern.

Trains have higher capacity, but articulated buses have higher capacity too, 60% higher capacity than 40 foot buses. If wages and capacity were such a big issue, than Winnipeg would have invested in 60 foot articulated buses, but it hasn't done that yet. As I have been arguing all along, capacity is the only reason to build LRT is higher capacity, and so far I have not seen any evidence that Winnipeg needs such high capacity yet. Quebec City needs it. Hamilton needs it. Brampton needs it. Halifax needs it. Winnipeg doesn't need it.

If we want to go down the route of one municipality gets this therefore another municipality automatically deserves it also, I think that would hurt Winnipeg more than help. Does Durham Region deserve as much transit funding as Winnipeg does? I don't think so. Better to avoid that slippery slope.

Don't get me wrong. I would happy to see LRT in Winnipeg. I want to see LRT in Winnipeg. But should it be the same priority as LRT in Quebec City, one the snowiest cities in the world, with a fleet of 109 articulated buses? Is it as urgent as the situation in Halifax, with so many buses concentrated along a couple of bridges on a small peninsula? That is what I question. Winnipeg will need LRT eventually, but not immediately.

[GreaterMontréal]

Here’s the problem with your argument. Quebec has similar, yet lower ridership numbers to Winnipeg yet has almost 100 more articulated busses then Winnipeg. This means that despite QC investing much more in transit, Winnipeg is still doing a better job generating ridership and is currently getting a better bang for its buck. Again you completely disregarded the point about Hamilton having half the ridership compared to Winnipeg while only having 6 more articulated busses yet there investing in a $3.4 billion LRT plan with $1.7 billion in federal funding that spans a measly 14km. And QC is getting $1.2 billion in federal funding for what was a $3.3 billion transit project that spans 23km. Respectively that’s $243 million/km for Hamilton and $173 million/km for QC. Not to mention QC has already had numerous cost overruns which the feds are funding 40%. The tramway already has $700 million in cost overruns which means the feds are going to provide an additional $280 million on top of the already existing $1.2 billion in funding for a total of $1.48 billion in federal funding.

The thing nobody really know is that Quebec City has more KMs of highways/capita than pretty much any city in Canada aside Calgary.

The Quebec City region is at 1,09km/1,000 people, Winnipeg at 0.2/1,000 people. Calgary 1,2/1,000.

With as many highways, you won't get a high BRT ridership in any way.
Winnipeg Metro area is about 5,285km², whereas the Quebec City Metro is 3,408km². One could argue that Quebec City is overserved by its highway network but we could also say that Winnipeg doesn't have a proper highway network and/or has an underdevelopped highway network.

Laval (466k) will have about 55 kms of intra-city autoroutes once the A-19 will be finished, Quebec City is almost double that, Winnipeg doesn't even have a proper intra-city highway network. Winnipeg does have a Perimeter Highway but that's about it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

I get what you’re saying but we should not be vesting corporate interests over the quality of life of citizens in the city. The province already gave New Flyer a $50 million bailout this week because their stock has plummeted post covid and they’ve had numerous issues with the supply chain. The city has also moved forward too purchase 160 electric busses again announced this week alone. If New Flyer was so keen on making BRT viable, they could’ve done A LOT more lobbying to have more then 1 dedicated busway by now when the city has been considering building rapid transit since the 70s.

Furthermore, it’s not like the busses would be going anywhere. TTC, Translink, and other major transit agencies throughout the country have very high bus ridership numbers. If the city put rail transit on our major corridors with 5-10 minute headways we can free up busses to increase frequency on our secondary commercial streets and improve our “last mile” connections. Winnipeg is already one of the better cities in the continent in regards to the last mile because of how expansive our bus system is, and rail transit would only strengthen it further.

I was not suggesting we should care about the companies that make buses. I more meant that they might have some sway in the MB/Winnipeg governments.

Originally Posted by Doady

Quebec City and Winnipeg are almost exactly the same size, with almost exactly the same total ridership, almost exactly the same transit ridership per capita, almost exactly the same transit mode share. The only significant difference between them is that Quebec City is in a wetter climate, one of snowiest cities in the world, with over 311cm of snow annually compared to 117cm annually in Winnipeg. Articulated buses not a viable option to expand capacity in Quebec City, and they already have 109 of them compared to 19 in Winnipeg. Articulated buses are a viable option in Winnipeg, and Winnipeg hasn't even invested in them yet.

Ottawa has around 120 transit riders per capita, almost double that of Winnipeg. Even if you use overall system ridership as the main criteria, the idea that Winnipeg deserves LRT more than Ottawa does is just laughable.

And again, it's not about ridership, but the distribution of that ridership, and whether the system has the capacity to handle that ridership. Ottawa with 359 articulated buses vs. Winnipeg with 19 articulated buses tells me LRT is much more needed in Ottawa than in Winnipeg. See also Seattle with 1102 articulated buses. Not much snow, so articulated buses handle the ridership just fine there, so not much need for LRT.

For Winnipeg with a relative dry climate and a transit system with only 19 articulated buses to invest in LRT is just leapfrogging, much like the urban development in Ottawa.

You can go all paranoid Danielle Smith on us and make this all about how much the federal government hates your city, but the stats suggest to me otherwise. With lower snowfall and few articulated buses compared to much snowier cities, and other cities with low snowfall having huge articulated bus fleets, LRT in Winnipeg should not be a priority for either the city or the province, let alone the federal government.

If you want to use a single metric, or have a bar set high and then use it to disallow a city to get something, it makes no sense.

Fun fact, about 100 municipalities had streetcars 100 years ago. Most of them shut down, not due to ridership, but due to lack of maintenance and cost to do that maintenance. They were busy and popular. Fast forward 100 years and we are trying to just get that back. So, if one of the top 10 metros in Canada wants to get into the LRT business, It would be a good start.

Top 10 metros
1) Toronto
2) Montreal
3) Vancouver
4) Ottawa
5) Calgary
6) Edmonton
7) Quebec City
8) Winnipeg
9) Hamilton
10) Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge

The odd one out is Winnipeg in that no plan for an LRT is made public.

Originally Posted by Luisito

Would you also include Vancouver and Montreal in that? Montreal seems to be doing a great job with its transportation infrastructure and I always see people on here and elsewhere raving how great Vancouvers trasnportation system is (minus the commuter traints).

Are they great, or is the bar set so low that they are better than most? If we compared Montreal's transit with others around the world, is it actually that good? Same for Vancouver; is it actually good, or is it just good for Canada?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

The thing nobody really know is that Quebec City has more KMs of highways/capita than pretty much any city in Canada aside Calgary.

The Quebec City region is at 1,09km/1,000 people, Winnipeg at 0.2/1,000 people. Calgary 1,2/1,000.

With as many highways, you won't get a high BRT ridership in any way.
Winnipeg Metro area is about 5,285km², whereas the Quebec City Metro is 3,408km². One could argue that Quebec City is overserved by its highway network but we could also say that Winnipeg doesn't have a proper highway network and/or has an underdevelopped highway network.

In the "Highways in Canada" forum, the lack of good highways in Winnipeg has been discussed. It is almost as though Winnipeg has been ignored for its infrastructure needs for a long time so they make do with what they can.

[someone123]

What's the causal chain with this lack of Winnipeg projects? Is there an entity to plan and execute highway and LRT projects that gets turned down by Manitoba or the federal government, or is it that projects do not get planned in the first place and/or there is no consistent lobbying effort?

There are some cases in Canada where the feds have been trying to fund transit and it's the provinces that are behind. And the places with "shovel ready" projects tend to go to the front of the line (often promoted for years and then they get funded when there is an appetite for it politically). If you really want good highway or transit development, you need an agency planning consistently for decades, with a future planning horizon of many decades.

I think more complicated geography and bottlenecks often encourage highways or higher order transit and that effect along some corridor can be much more significant than say a 2x difference in population or some nominal density difference. It's pretty obvious, IMO, that the old town of Quebec and some central parts should have a transit tunnel for example. Alternatives would not provide the same quality of connectivity. The street network is difficult and essentially fixed for historical reasons and there are grade issues that tunneling can help with.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If you want to use a single metric, or have a bar set high and then use it to disallow a city to get something, it makes no sense.

Fun fact, about 100 municipalities had streetcars 100 years ago. Most of them shut down, not due to ridership, but due to lack of maintenance and cost to do that maintenance. They were busy and popular. Fast forward 100 years and we are trying to just get that back. So, if one of the top 10 metros in Canada wants to get into the LRT business, It would be a good start.

Top 10 metros
1) Toronto
2) Montreal
3) Vancouver
4) Ottawa
5) Calgary
6) Edmonton
7) Quebec City
8) Winnipeg
9) Hamilton
10) Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge

The odd one out is Winnipeg in that no plan for an LRT is made public.

Really? I am using a single metric? How am I using a single metric? Tell me. I talked about the concentration of ridership, capacity, snowfall, and you say I am using one metric? Seems like you are the one using a single metric, not me.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Doady

Really? I am using a single metric? How am I using a single metric? Tell me. I talked about the concentration of ridership, capacity, snowfall, and you say I am using one metric? Seems like you are the one using a single metric, not me.

It appeared that the common metric you were using was amount of snowfall and artic buses. Which was highlighted by the long list of places that never see snow and have lots of artics.

[GreaterMontréal]

Quebec City is also not flat, https://en-ca.topographic-map.com/ma....25046&zoom=13

The tramway network will be mainly in the upper part of the city. That is where high-density projects will be built. If Winnipeg wants a LRT, they have to create TODs along the line, like Montreal with the REM. But TODs are not afterthoughts projects, they are planned in advance so that the LRT line will go through them or near future new high-density projects. I don't know Winnipeg enough to say where that could take place. Then you have all the feeder bus lines that will bring in people to the terminal stations. It's really a complex interconnected network. Less buses going downtown, more frequency.

One of the goal of the CAQ government is to bring the Quebec City (CMA) to 1 million and make it the 2nd Metropolis in the province.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It appeared that the common metric you were using was amount of snowfall and artic buses. Which was highlighted by the long list of places that never see snow and have lots of artics.

Yes, and that was one indicator of too much concentration of riders and capacity issues. I didn't automatically disqualify Hamilton even though it has similar number of artics and similar snowfall as Winnipeg. I even explained why capacity is such a big problem in Hamilton.

I didn't say Nashville or Longueuil needs LRT more than Winnipeg either. There are so many ways to increase capacity like increased frequency, articulated buses, all-door boarding schemes, ROWs, limited stops but Winnipeg has so few of these.

I glance at corridors like Portage and Main and I think they would be awesome for LRT. But how much of the system's ridership is concentrated along these corridors? That's what I am wondering.

Portage Avenue with 10 minute service in midday is different from Hurontario Street in Mississauga with 2 minute 51* seconds service in midday (6 minutes local, 10 minutes express Mississauga Transit, 12* minutes express Brampton Transit) or King Street in Hamilton with 4 minutes 17 seconds service all day (6 minutes local 1 King, 15 minutes express 10 Beeline). We are talking about 2 to 4 times difference in the amount of buses serving these three corridors.

* - corrected numbers

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Doady

It is hard to understand what you arguing. Winnipeg is doing a better job better than Quebec City at increasing ridership without investing in LRT, so that's why it needs LRT? If it is doing so well without LRT, then why does it need LRT?

Hamilton's ridership is concentrated along two corridors: King St. and Barton St. 1 King, 5 Delaware, 10 Beeline which serve King Street got around 35,000 boardings per weekday, while the system as whole got around 87,000 boardings per weekday. That means these three routes serving King Street represents 40% of the ridership of the entire Hamilton transit system.

It is much different situation than Winnipeg, where you yourself listed "the Main/St. Mary’s stretch Portage Avenue, Provencher Blvd, Grant Ave, Anne’s Road, Notre Dame, Henderson Highway, Kenaston Blvd, Osborne Street, Pembina Highway, and hell even Leila Avenue" as potential candidates for BRT and LRT. Count them, 10 potential candidates for BRT and LRT. In Hamilton, there are only two candidates: King Street and Barton Street. The transit ridership in Hamilton is much more concentrated, and therefore capacity is a greater concern.

Trains have higher capacity, but articulated buses have higher capacity too, 60% higher capacity than 40 foot buses. If wages and capacity were such a big issue, than Winnipeg would have invested in 60 foot articulated buses, but it hasn't done that yet. As I have been arguing all along, capacity is the only reason to build LRT is higher capacity, and so far I have not seen any evidence that Winnipeg needs such high capacity yet. Quebec City needs it. Hamilton needs it. Brampton needs it. Halifax needs it. Winnipeg doesn't need it.

If we want to go down the route of one municipality gets this therefore another municipality automatically deserves it also, I think that would hurt Winnipeg more than help. Does Durham Region deserve as much transit funding as Winnipeg does? I don't think so. Better to avoid that slippery slope.

Don't get me wrong. I would happy to see LRT in Winnipeg. I want to see LRT in Winnipeg. But should it be the same priority as LRT in Quebec City, one the snowiest cities in the world, with a fleet of 109 articulated buses? Is it as urgent as the situation in Halifax, with so many buses concentrated along a couple of bridges on a small peninsula? That is what I question. Winnipeg will need LRT eventually, but not immediately.

Ok I can concede that Winnipeg at its current junction could be better served with BRT first with our large amount of corridors so it would be faster to implement and to test. I do want to say I overrated the amount of corridors because Portage-Provencher can be considered 1 corridor and so can theoretically Pembina-Henderson highway Via Donald St.

My main concern is Winnipeg Transit is already facing a massive labour shortage and there’s simply no point in expanding a system where that trend can be further exacerbated unless we go the route of autonomous busses but who knows how long that takes before it becomes reality. That’s why I feel rail transit will better serve our needs.

However, too state that Durham region, a suburb of the GTA with a lower population and population density spread over a larger land area is comparable to Winnipeg which is the capital of a province in the middle of the country is a bit far fetched don’t you think? Especially considering that it’s the largest population centre for literally THOUSANDS of kilometres. There’s really not any city in Canada that “deserves” rail transit more then Winnipeg that don’t already have plans for it.

So does Winnipeg NEED it?

Well not really, but would it urbanize the city faster, lead to more TOD development, accommodate our cities population growth better, and provide a higher quality of life then BRT? Absolutely!

So it’s a want that can be considered a need depending on how needy a person is. When it comes to transit I’m a very needy person.