Winnipeg | Transit | Rapid Transit

[esquire]

Originally Posted by biguc

Capacity has a knock-on effect on comfort too. LRVs are wider than busses; even in mixed traffic, running on rails means they keep a straight line and can max out the space they use. This makes them a lot more roomy and comfortable. Even under heavy loads, there's more room to move around and you're less likely to get your nose stuck in someone's armpit, or get bowled over by someone falling down at a sudden stop.

I used to pooh-pooh the light-rail advantage but since moving somewhere with a tram network, I just love them. In a lot of ways, I prefer taking trams to taking subways. It's too bad Canadians don't have a lot of experience with tram systems and jump right to building flashy light-metro lines.

Good point regarding rail based transit, the vehicles are a bit wider and that extra space does increase the comfort level on a packed train where you're sitting next to someone. I can tell you as a bigger guy, if I'm sitting at a window seat on a bus, it can feel like a squeeze when someone sits down next to me. Not really an issue on rails. I'm not sure what the width difference is... probably not much, but it's enough to make a difference in terms of comfort.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

This is anecdotal and comes from one driver only, but I'm told Winnipeg Transit is having a hard time finding and more especially retaining drivers.

Bus driving has always been a tough gig to recruit to... the split shifts make for a tough lifestyle, and let's face it... you have to deal with a lot of BS as a driver. We've seen many reports of racism directed at drivers, even assaults in some cases. If you're going to be a driver, it's probably a lot less hassle and stress to drive a truck down the highway and just be in the cab by yourself.

[biguc]

@ GarryEllice It's the craziest thing, from the outside looking in, that Winnipeg is literally built around the railways, but they can't manage to build them.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Toronto has the most extensive and highest used tram system in the Americas. It's just that in Canada we call them streetcars. All the major cities had them until the postwar era. Or when you say "tram systems" are you meaning a LRT system like the C-Train in Calgary?

I laughed at the nose in the armpit comment. Brought back a memory of the Paris Metro. Honestly, it's a work of art, but the stink and the dog poop on the platforms were off-putting to say the least.

I should say objet d'art.

All true about the Paris Metro. I once put about twenty Euros into a venting machine in the Le Defense metro station, trying to jiggle out the malfunction that made it eat one Euro, only to find out that someone had pissed in the delivery bin. Ahh, Paris.

As far as trams go, I differentiate them from both streetcars and C-train-style light rail in that they run at grade, usually in a street, but usually not in mixed traffic. The Spadina, St. Claire, or Waterfront lines in Toronto would qualify, but street would not. Queen out on the Queensway stretch does; King st. with its transit priority improvements might. Like the mode of transportation itself, it's a flexible definition.

For what it's worth, Toronto's trams could be a lot better. Last time I visited I was disappointed to see a tram on St. Claire waiting for a left turn signal. One single car took priority over a tram full of people. That shouldn't happen. The distance between stops is also far too short in Toronto--they don't need to stop every block. Trams here tend to stop 600-800 metres apart (but can have closer-spaced stops). Combined with good design that gives them priority over cars, they're nearly as speedy as metro rail.

[H2man]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Have you lived in a city with LRT? Gliding along in a smooth, straight line on a train is just inherently a more pleasant and dignified experience than getting bounced around in a shaking and swerving bus. Think of how much more pleasant a smooth flight is compared to a turbulent flight (for most people). If you asked rail riders "wouldn't you rather be on a bus instead?", I bet that like 95% of them would say no. Rail travel is more comfortable than bus travel, and that's not a frill -- it translates into higher ridership. You try to portray this as an irrational infatuation, but there are valid reasons for it.

This is in addition to the more concrete benefits of efficiency and capacity mentioned by others, as well as being a stronger trigger for development.

Electric buses will improve the bus experience somewhat by getting rid of the noise and vibration from the diesel engine and enabling smoother acceleration, but it's still a far cry from the rail experience. Even on a purpose-built busway like the Southwest Transitway, the ride is still awfully bumpy and swervy. It's easy to stay standing up on a train without holding onto anything, whereas if you try that on a bus, you'll fall on your face. Not that anyone should be standing up without holding on, but it just illustrates how much gentler the train is on your body.

I think I have an interesting perspective, having lived in Boston for several years, which has grade transit, subway, LRT (Green Line is like an underground LRT) and BRT (Silver Line is like underground BRT). I used them all quite a bit and I guess I don't see the massive delta in comfort/pleasantness and how is correlates to ridership.

I don't disagree that the ride is nicer, I just don't get the cost-benefit argument and am not sure if e.g. an LRT in Winnipeg would get that many more people out of their cars compared to an equivalent BRT at less cost and more flexibility. I just don't think that Winnipeggers' disdain with Transit has much at all to do with "swerviness" (which is mostly address with dedicated BRT lanes, as others have said).

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by H2man

I think I have an interesting perspective, having lived in Boston for several years, which has grade transit, subway, LRT (Green Line is like an underground LRT) and BRT (Silver Line is like underground BRT). I used them all quite a bit and I guess I don't see the massive delta in comfort/pleasantness and how is correlates to ridership.

I don't disagree that the ride is nicer, I just don't get the cost-benefit argument and am not sure if e.g. an LRT in Winnipeg would get that many more people out of their cars compared to an equivalent BRT at less cost and more flexibility. I just don't think that Winnipeggers' disdain with Transit has much at all to do with "swerviness" (which is mostly address with dedicated BRT lanes, as others have said).

Well, I was a daily transit user in Toronto for several years, which also has all the modes, and I certainly did find rail much more pleasant than bus. It was always a relief to get off a bus and onto a streetcar or train.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that Winnipeggers avoid the bus because it's swervy. Your original post implied that people have an "infatuation" with LRT because they think it's progressive or trendy or fancy, and I was giving a reason why the "infatuation" may not be as irrational as you portrayed it.

[bomberjet]

Not sure if anyone's read through the Transit stuff from the March 11 meeting. There's some text there on why they made some decisions. I haven't read through the final report, so don't know if that info is included.
http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/perm...210311(RM)PW-7

Reading through the options they looked at for different things. In the eastern corridor appendix. Everything is too expensive. And divided public support for the St. B route options. Go figure....

It also indicated that there is better long term options for going down Higgins and opposed to Sutherland. But they choose Sutherland because there are more people there now. Like I said though, it's just on street. If they ever wanted to do something more, no reason it couldn't go through south PD.

[H2man]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

Well, I was a daily transit user in Toronto for several years, which also has all the modes, and I certainly did find rail much more pleasant than bus. It was always a relief to get off a bus and onto a streetcar or train.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that Winnipeggers avoid the bus because it's swervy. Your original post implied that people have an "infatuation" with LRT because they think it's progressive or trendy or fancy, and I was giving a reason why the "infatuation" may not be as irrational as you portrayed it.

Again, no doubt that LRT is better, but I'm questioning how much. I guess for me when I change modes my thoughts were more "oh, I'm on a train now which is a bit better I guess" and not "thank god I'm off that bus and onto a far better rail experience!". The comparative value proposition just isn't there IMO but you obviously think there is a sizable difference and that's fine

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

This is anecdotal and comes from one driver only, but I'm told Winnipeg Transit is having a hard time finding and more especially retaining drivers.

I could tell you stories. And it's a problem that could be fixed if there was a will.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by esquire

Bus driving has always been a tough gig to recruit to... the split shifts make for a tough lifestyle, and let's face it... you have to deal with a lot of BS as a driver. We've seen many reports of racism directed at drivers, even assaults in some cases. If you're going to be a driver, it's probably a lot less hassle and stress to drive a truck down the highway and just be in the cab by yourself.

It hasn't always been a tough gig to recruit to. In the 90's and earlier there were over 1000 applicants for 30 or less positions each year. It was a good career, even with the split shifts one had to endure for many years. Operators were recruited who were likely to make it a career. The job has changed, the initial pay is lower than many other jobs and hard to raise a family on so many do overtime just to pay the bills. Equipment has improved, working conditions have gotten worse. New operators are recruited for a transient work force. They don't expect people to stay.

[pspeid]

Originally Posted by H2man

I don't disagree that the ride is nicer, I just don't get the cost-benefit argument and am not sure if e.g. an LRT in Winnipeg would get that many more people out of their cars compared to an equivalent BRT at less cost and more flexibility.

IMO a very good point. A lot of people rely on busses to get them around the city, so having a good BRT system will make their lives a bit easier. If the BRT system provides more convenient access to larger numbers of people then taking a bus becomes more of an option for more people to, let's say, go to a Jets game or attend a concert.

Would LRT permanently raise ridership more than a BRT? IMO I kind of doubt it. people who usually drive might try it once or twice, but as soon as they experience something they don't like (having to wait outside, seeing another rider who displeases them ,etc.) I can easily see many of those "devoted drivers" getting back in their cars and abandoning public transit.

[biguc]

Canucklehead shared this over in the transportation thread. It's pretty interesting, given that WT wants to drop a billion dollars and spend 24 years setting up some jersey barriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Very_Light_Rail

Coventry has about 370k people. They have a system of modular tracks and trams run on supercapacitors to spare the expense of running catenary wires.

At that point, running track isn't that expensive if you're willing to give up road space to a more efficient mode of transit. The question shouldn't be, "why incur the expense of rail when busses in a grade separated ROW is almost as good?" when the grade-separated ROW is the expensive part.

[bomberjet]

There's almost zero grade separated right of way in WT's plan. Just the downtown part at Union station and the stuff already built.

Winnipeg planners lack thinking outside the box and are too scared to permanently take away roads from the cars.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by biguc

@ GarryEllice It's the craziest thing, from the outside looking in, that Winnipeg is literally built around the railways, but they can't manage to build them.



All true about the Paris Metro. I once put about twenty Euros into a venting machine in the Le Defense metro station, trying to jiggle out the malfunction that made it eat one Euro, only to find out that someone had pissed in the delivery bin. Ahh, Paris.

As far as trams go, I differentiate them from both streetcars and C-train-style light rail in that they run at grade, usually in a street, but usually not in mixed traffic. The Spadina, St. Claire, or Waterfront lines in Toronto would qualify, but street would not. Queen out on the Queensway stretch does; King st. with its transit priority improvements might. Like the mode of transportation itself, it's a flexible definition.

For what it's worth, Toronto's trams could be a lot better. Last time I visited I was disappointed to see a tram on St. Claire waiting for a left turn signal. One single car took priority over a tram full of people. That shouldn't happen. The distance between stops is also far too short in Toronto--they don't need to stop every block. Trams here tend to stop 600-800 metres apart (but can have closer-spaced stops). Combined with good design that gives them priority over cars, they're nearly as speedy as metro rail.

All the local businesses that were virtually ruined during the years that it took to build that tram, and lost most of their curbside parking because of it, need people to be able to get off a lot closer than half a kilometre away to (hopefully) patronize them. They also need cars to be able to get to them from the opposite side of the street (hence the turning lights). It’s just a local bus replacement (actually I think it was a non-separated streetcar), not a commuter rail line, so you also have to consider the elderly people that need a stop nearby, just like they had when it was just an ordinary streetcar route.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and value your observations, but in the end there are a lot of interests that need to be balanced in these projects. I don’t know how Europe deals with issues such as the potential devastation of excellent high streets caused by the construction phase and loss of street parking. Maybe it’s partly a climate and culture issue where people can/do walk more over there.

[biguc]

In Winnipeg's case, what excellent high streets are we talking about? The SW BRT line took busses off Osborne and turned it into a traffic sewer. Everyone rips their hair out and cries to Jesus when they lose street parking, but it's losing on-street transit that killed Osborne.

[zen-kz]

I think Winnipeg need to apply tactical urbanism to improve its transit system rather than wait 25 years to get BRT-like system. For example let’s create dedicated transit lanes with jersey barriers and planters on Portage ave and Main Street, let’s close Osborne for thru traffic for private cars for 1-2 months and see how car flows will balance in new conditions.
Portage had 2 lanes each direction when the Empress overpass was reconstructing and it was not too badin terms of traffic

[zalf]

Originally Posted by zen-kz

I think Winnipeg need to apply tactical urbanism to improve its transit system rather than wait 25 years to get BRT-like system. For example let’s create dedicated transit lanes with jersey barriers and planters on Portage ave and Main Street, let’s close Osborne for thru traffic for private cars for 1-2 months and see how car flows will balance in new conditions.
Portage had 2 lanes each direction when the Empress overpass was reconstructing and it was not too badin terms of traffic

Back in the summer, a lane of Henderson Highway near Disraeli was closed to motor traffic and made a bike lane as a demonstration. But because it was for one day, it caused a big traffic snarl for surprised drivers, and cyclists were generally unaware so they didn't use it. Everyone was then convinced closing a lane to make way for bikes was a terrible idea.

I totally believe it was done with good intentions, but if you wanted to sabotage the process, doing it for one day is exactly what you would do.


I do really like the idea of experimental closures for longer periods, like you suggest. It just needs that longer period for people to update their routines. For Osborne, I could totally imagine that traffic diverting down Donald instead. Of course, if the city put it to a poll before doing it, people would be convinced it would bring about the Four Horsemen and the city would end in fire.

[bomberjet]

See the thing with Henderson is Disraeli only 2 lanes, Henderson 3. There's a whole curb lane that mainly gets used by people bypassing the line-up. Then the duck in at Hespeler. Which is legal and all fine and dandy.

But Henderson, (and all the major streets) could totally handle a separated bike lane running along one side, maybe the west side for it's entirety. But you'll get the yahoos who speed down the curb lane, cut in and out, to gain 10 seconds on their commute. We all meet up at the lights on Disraeli at Main St.

I love when the police enforce the diamond lane on Henderson south of Hespeler. They hide in the back lane by the funeral home and catch all the loser's going through the intersection. All for nothing.

[ywgwalk]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

See the thing with Henderson is Disraeli only 2 lanes, Henderson 3. There's a whole curb lane that mainly gets used by people bypassing the line-up. Then the duck in at Hespeler. Which is legal and all fine and dandy.

But Henderson, (and all the major streets) could totally handle a separated bike lane running along one side, maybe the west side for it's entirety. But you'll get the yahoos who speed down the curb lane, cut in and out, to gain 10 seconds on their commute. We all meet up at the lights on Disraeli at Main St.

I love when the police enforce the diamond lane on Henderson south of Hespeler. They hide in the back lane by the funeral home and catch all the loser's going through the intersection. All for nothing.

A west side bidirectional bike lane would be great if even only for the section between Kildonan Drive and Elmwood Park.

[Luisito]

Sorry if some one alrady posted this already. Its pretty funny they mention WPG in the beginning. lol Pretty good video.
• Video Link

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Sorry if some one alrady posted this already. Its pretty funny they mention WPG in the beginning. lol Pretty good video.
• Video Link

I challenge someone to point out a lie contained in the video.

[Luisito]

I have nothing against BRT. In some cases it is better than rail to get people around faster, Like trams for example. I like Trams but for rapid transit not the best choice if want to increase speed and getting number of passengers around. Now if an LRT is fully (or close to) grade separated then yes rail is better for getting more people around. In the long run it would also be a better investment than BRT .