Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[j.online]

Originally Posted by flatlander

Anybody know when downtown streets were converted to one-ways, and when the streets between portage and broadway were widened for traffic or parking?

I remember learning from one of the planning profs at the U that they ripped out all the trees along those streets in order to 'increase road safety & efficiency'.

a nice canopy of trees woulda, at the very least, lessened the emptiness that you feel from all the surface lots on alot of those streets.

[Beltliner]

Originally Posted by j.online

I don't know of any Canadian cities that use mini-buses. I know Seattle tried it out during a pilot a few years back. Not sure what became of it.

We've been using 24-seat community shuttles here in Calgary for at least a decade. The drivers out here were on the brink of a strike in the spring when the city articulated their plan to replace the shuttles with 30-foot minibuses--there's a significant gap in pay scales between shuttle drivers and mainline bus operators, though the recent overall scramble for labour out here has made that distinction something of a wash.

The thing is, the vast majority of these shuttles run on feeder routes to C-Train stations. There are a couple of crosstown routes that run with shuttles, but the general MO out here is that if it's worth running as a standalone route at all, it's worth running with a forty-footer. I didn't think there was much of a hub-and-spoke ethos to the Winnipeg system, which is why the talk of community shuttles struck me as rather odd.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by j.online

The Dart is a great service, but it only services the privileged St. Vitalers. (And according to the 2001 census stats, it's arguably one of the neighborhoods that need/use a service like that the least, compared to other neighborhoods.)

Actually, there are numerous DART routes. Last time I heard there were six but it may have been either expanded or scaled back. Either way , I know that there are at least two since I use one in my neighbourhood (central St. Boniface) all the time and then there's the one you refer to in St. Vital. I think the city intends to convert most of the regular routes with low ridership during off-peak to DART routes. Not really sure but they used to have something about it on their website. I should check into it myself actually.

[j.online]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Actually, there are numerous DART routes. Last time I heard there were six but it may have been either expanded or scaled back. Either way , I know that there are at least two since I use one in my neighbourhood (central St. Boniface) all the time and then there's the one you refer to in St. Vital. I think the city intends to convert most of the regular routes with low ridership during off-peak to DART routes. Not really sure but they used to have something about it on their website. I should check into it myself actually.

Oops, you're right Spocket. There's apparently 4 DART routes: 3 St. Vital + your St. B route.

[spiritedenergy]

Finally a good article from the Winnipeg Sun!

Rapid transit conspiracies absurd, right?

By ROSS ROMANIUK




It might be Winnipeg's most creative way yet to slow down any gathering momentum toward a rapid transit system -- weigh down the hopes of its proponents with the very same coins going into bus fare boxes to make it happen.

Of course, that's an extremely cynical view of the latest proposed fare hike -- the largest rider fee increase in Winnipeg Transit's recent history. And it's got to be way too wacky -- even paranoid -- to be credible.

Doesn't it?

After all, Mayor Sam Katz apparently sees the coming 25-cent increase on regular cash fares -- boosting them to $2.25 for most riders as of January -- as, in part, a revenue generator for a reserve fund to begin assembling the bus-based system which has been faintly sketched on the drawing board for years.

And transit director Dave Wardrop points out that ridership has continued to rise amid several previous fare increases.

So what's with this emerging suspicion that a different, more conspiratorial motive is behind this? That this supposed user-fee strategy to begin paying for a rapid transit system is really a subversive attempt to run it off the road?

Coun. Jenny Gerbasi, who surely has watched too many Oliver Stone films, points out that the plan pushes the bulk of the initial payment burden onto regular transit users -- the very same people clamouring for the system projected to cost upward of $800 million when all put together.

"We're charging bus users a fee for building rapid transit. It's a really unfair way to fund it," Gerbasi (Fort Rouge-East Fort Garry) points out, noting that Route 90 drivers weren't dinged a toll to cover costs of the $45-million Kenaston Boulevard underpass.

"If I were cynical enough -- it's one way to reduce public support for rapid transit, if you have to pay for it out of your own pocket. If you're struggling from day to day to survive and need transportation, you're not thinking about rapid transit. You're thinking about just getting to work -- getting to where you have to go."

Could this be true? Even after showing a willingness to begin assembling rapid transit, could Katz be trying to curb the enthusiasm of its loudest fans?

Coun. Dan Vandal (St. Boniface) goes so far as to level the paranoid charge that the fare plan is "a cynical attempt to undermine support for rapid transit."

The allegations are shocking. Because the mayor has since voiced support for buses and Earth-friendly initiatives, hasn't he?

Even after pulling tens of millions of dollars from a similar transit plan three years ago? And even while seemingly trying to do everything possible, including constructing underpasses and synchronizing traffic signals, to keep motorists happy in their gas-guzzling vehicles?

Surely, the critics' suspicions are crazy.

Aren't they?

Katz, you're a dick.

Edit: however, I must say that at least monthly passes will stay the same.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by spiritedenergy

Finally a good article from the Winnipeg Sun!



Katz, you're a dick.

Edit: however, I must say that at least monthly passes will stay the same.

Why shouldn't transit users fund the system? Some of those comments in the article are indications certain people shouldn't be in public office. And the underpass comment is more of the typical nonsense from car/road haters. Drivers through the gas tax would have paid for that $45 million dozens of times over the years so why should there be another toll? One last point, $2.25 is expensive?! Just how and who is suppose to fund transit? Transit fares should be much higher with huge reductions for poorer people.

[Greco Roman]

$2.25 is not expensive, however considering the mediocre transit service the citizens of Winnipeg gets, it's way more than it should be. Winnipeggers are getting ripped off for what they pay, and I don't think that's fair at all.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Why shouldn't transit users fund the system?

They do. They pay a fare, and most of them pay taxes. A lot of transit users also drive cars, and use transit to save money. (It's true!)

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Drivers through the gas tax would have paid for that $45 million dozens of times over the years so why should there be another toll?

Cars pollute and put more stress on roads than mass transit. Cars require more roads than mass transit. Mass transit uses fuel and therefore contributes to the fuel tax. Considering buses can drive about 5,000km a day, that's quite a bit of fuel, no?

Originally Posted by Corndogger

One last point, $2.25 is expensive?!

Not really. It's been 2.25 in Thunder Bay for years and we're going just fine, though having the extra quarter can be a nuisance sometimes. (Drives are pretty lenient though, they might let you on if you promise to pay next time.) At least it isn't something outlandish. In Ottawa, it's 2.35, and the most efficient way to pay that needs three coins, not two.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Just how and who is suppose to fund transit?

Being public transit, the public. That is, everyone. You can use it if you want. Go ahead! It's fun! Users fund it too, every time they pay a fare or use a bus pass (Much cheaper, by the way. Buy those instead.)

Transit users pay taxes to maintain highways, highway police, emergency services should something go wrong on those highways, and the health care costs to deal with the results of living in polluted environments, just like public transit shunners like yourself do. Businesses have to pay taxes to have land for parking lots, and additional money goes to maintaining them.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Transit fares should be much higher with huge reductions for poorer people.

Then the only people who ride it will be poorer people and it will not make much money, therefore needing more subsidies.

Your problem is that you thinking of public transit as poor transit. DON'T. It is public transit for a reason. They operate it for you. Your family, your friends, your fellow citizens.

Here:



Cars cost, on average, $9,000 a year to operate. 12 monthly bus passes cost what, $800? That's more than 90% savings. And the bus passes are tax deductible! Gas isn't.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Why shouldn't transit users fund the system? Some of those comments in the article are indications certain people shouldn't be in public office. And the underpass comment is more of the typical nonsense from car/road haters. Drivers through the gas tax would have paid for that $45 million dozens of times over the years so why should there be another toll? One last point, $2.25 is expensive?! Just how and who is suppose to fund transit? Transit fares should be much higher with huge reductions for poorer people.

Why does the government pay for roads? I guarantee that you would be paying many times over what you do know if roads were funded through tolls or user fees. The fact of the matter is that roads benefit local economies by enabling the free flow of goods. Transit is the same way, it enables the free movement of people within a city.

Interestingly, I'm rather ambivolent about the tax-deductable bus passes. The poorest people using transit wouldn't be paying taxes anyway, so it basically amounts to a tax break for the middle class. Considering that many municipalities are considering that as an impetus to increase transit fares, it's not really fair to the poorest people using the system. How much extra funding would cities need to drop fares to something like a dollar?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by vid

They do. They pay a fare, and most of them pay taxes. A lot of transit users also drive cars, and use transit to save money. (It's true!)

Cars pollute and put more stress on roads than mass transit. Cars require more roads than mass transit. Mass transit uses fuel and therefore contributes to the fuel tax. Considering buses can drive about 5,000km a day, that's quite a bit of fuel, no?

Not really. It's been 2.25 in Thunder Bay for years and we're going just fine, though having the extra quarter can be a nuisance sometimes. (Drives are pretty lenient though, they might let you on if you promise to pay next time.) At least it isn't something outlandish. In Ottawa, it's 2.35, and the most efficient way to pay that needs three coins, not two.

Being public transit, the public. That is, everyone. You can use it if you want. Go ahead! It's fun! Users fund it too, every time they pay a fare or use a bus pass (Much cheaper, by the way. Buy those instead.)

Taxpayers fund public transit but users fund very little of it. Using Calgary as an example, transit users fund about 35% of the operational costs and none of the capital costs. Capital costs are huge. We're in the last stages of extending two LRT lines at a cost of just under $400 million and getting ready to do another $1 billion or so worth of extensions and a new line. That is serious money.

Originally Posted by vid

Transit users pay taxes to maintain highways, highway police, emergency services should something go wrong on those highways, and the health care costs to deal with the results of living in polluted environments, just like public transit shunners like yourself do. Businesses have to pay taxes to have land for parking lots, and additional money goes to maintaining them.

Transit users should pay taxes for highways as everyone benefits from them as virtually every good and service sold in this country at one point makes use of the road system. The same can't be said of the transit system. When was the last time did you see a load of lumber being delivered to your local Home Depot via public transit?

Originally Posted by vid

Then the only people who ride it will be poorer people and it will not make much money, therefore needing more subsidies.

Your problem is that you thinking of public transit as poor transit. DON'T. It is public transit for a reason. They operate it for you. Your family, your friends, your fellow citizens.

The problem is public transit gets huge subsidies already. If people were charged more it would need less subsidies and they might start offering better service. I don't think of public transit as being poor transit but as crappy transit. I don't think public transit has to be dirt cheap for people to use it. It has to be convenient and reliable. Yes it has to be affordable for people with low incomes but I think reduced fares based on income would solve that. Don't most cities already offer low income passes?

Originally Posted by vid

Here:



Cars cost, on average, $9,000 a year to operate. 12 monthly bus passes cost what, $800? That's more than 90% savings. And the bus passes are tax deductible! Gas isn't.

But public transit is subsidized. Also, depending on what you use your car for the expenses might be deductible. Then there's the convenience factor to consider. For a lot of people the convenience of having a car is worth a lot--especially on a cold, ugly day like it was here yesterday.

[The Jabroni]

I don`t know if this has been posted here, but I found an interesting video about Winnipeg Transit and their buses.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=R6P860yY6hs

No audio or live video. Just stills.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Taxpayers fund public transit but users fund very little of it. Using Calgary as an example, transit users fund about 35% of the operational costs and none of the capital costs. Capital costs are huge. We're in the last stages of extending two LRT lines at a cost of just under $400 million and getting ready to do another $1 billion or so worth of extensions and a new line. That is serious money.

Yes, but what is their roadways maintenance budget? Thunder Bay Transit has a budget of $12M with revenue of $4.4M. City of Thunder Bay - Department of Roads has an annual budget of $14.6M and revenue of $0.87M.

Thunder Bay Transit revenues, the fares paid by it's users, is 37% of its budget.

Thunder Bay Dpt. Roads revenues account for 6% of its budget.

That's serious money! Or, a lack of it.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Transit users should pay taxes for highways as everyone benefits from them as virtually every good and service sold in this country at one point makes use of the road system. The same can't be said of the transit system. When was the last time did you see a load of lumber being delivered to your local Home Depot via public transit?

I'm not saying that general goods should be delivered by public transit. To suggest that is completely stupid! General good should be transported by trains, the most efficient and cost effect method of doing so, with trucks to fill in gaps that trains can't fill.

Public transit should be for people. It is a more efficient option for urban transportation of individuals.

Transit users should pay taxes for highways, because they do use them in some form. Citizens should pay taxes for public transit, because they can use it, but for some odd reason choose not to. It's not my fault you live in a soulless under serviced neighbourhood! It's yours! It costs more money to run water lines to spread out suburbs than it does to downtown. Yet we pay the same rates?

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The problem is public transit gets huge subsidies already. If people were charged more it would need less subsidies and they might start offering better service. I don't think of public transit as being poor transit but as crappy transit. I don't think public transit has to be dirt cheap for people to use it. It has to be convenient and reliable. Yes it has to be affordable for people with low incomes but I think reduced fares based on income would solve that. Don't most cities already offer low income passes?

How efficient does it have to be before you use it? How far are you willing to walk to catch a bus?

Originally Posted by Corndogger

But public transit is subsidized. Also, depending on what you use your car for the expenses might be deductible. Then there's the convenience factor to consider. For a lot of people the convenience of having a car is worth a lot--especially on a cold, ugly day like it was here yesterday.

Well thats a pretty expensive convenience. It costs 11% more for the convenience of a car, and then there is the bureaucracy involved!

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by vid

Yes, but what is their roadways maintenance budget? Thunder Bay Transit has a budget of $12M with revenue of $4.4M. City of Thunder Bay - Department of Roads has an annual budget of $14.6M and revenue of $0.87M.

Thunder Bay Transit revenues, the fares paid by it's users, is 37% of its budget.

Thunder Bay Dpt. Roads revenues account for 6% of its budget.

That's serious money! Or, a lack of it.

But what isn't shown is how much drivers pay in gas taxes each year. This is the entire basis of my argument--people who drive more than pay for the roads they use. And don't forget that gax taxes are not the only source of revenue from drivers. There's also vehicle registration fees, taxes on big trucks, etc.

Your figures also fail to show that capital costs are not covered at all by transit revenues. What is the budget figure for capital costs? More than likely a significant amount.

Originally Posted by vid

I'm not saying that general goods should be delivered by public transit. To suggest that is completely stupid! General good should be transported by trains, the most efficient and cost effect method of doing so, with trucks to fill in gaps that trains can't fill.

Public transit should be for people. It is a more efficient option for urban transportation of individuals.

Trust me, trains are far from the most efficient and cost effect method for shipping most goods. If they were companies would be using them a lot more than trucks.

Originally Posted by vid

Transit users should pay taxes for highways, because they do use them in some form. Citizens should pay taxes for public transit, because they can use it, but for some odd reason choose not to. It's not my fault you live in a soulless under serviced neighbourhood! It's yours! It costs more money to run water lines to spread out suburbs than it does to downtown. Yet we pay the same rates?

I'm not if I would classify my neighborhood as soulless. I actually live in the inner city in Calgary. As for your point about water lines, I'm not sure if that is true everywhere. Wouldn't that depend on where the water is located, where the sewage treatment plants are located, etc.

Originally Posted by vid

How efficient does it have to be before you use it? How far are you willing to walk to catch a bus?

Well thats a pretty expensive convenience. It costs 11% more for the convenience of a car, and then there is the bureaucracy involved!

I used to take transit a lot but there are only so many hours in a day and I reached the point where I needed to better manage my time. My car expenses are not that high so from an economic standpoint the car vs. transit costs issue is a nonstarter.

I have a bus stop 4 blocks from where I live and I do use transit if it is more efficient, etc. Going into downtown Calgary where parking costs are crazy is a good example.

[Alva360]

Not sure if this is posted already.....

http://www.winnipegtransit.com/pdfs/...ements1107.pdf

Coming from a daily transit rider for over 3yrs now..... all I can say is this is definitely better then nothing. Slowly but surely our transit system is improving!

I would still prefer some sort of rapid transit system however our bus transit system was lacking big time and needed this improvement badly.

So... hopefully our city and government will recognize the importance of implementing a made in city rapid transit system to help increase new ridership but more importantly help the environment by reducing gas emissions.

To tell you the truth, with all that is going on with Global Warming, Kyoto/Green initiatives and what have you, I'm really surprised cities across the country aren't pushing more for this type of transportation. No doubt it costs money, though we all know the Government has the funds for it.... I said it before and I'll say it again, make it a priority and it will happen!

[Aylmer]

they should consider a ULR line from the perimeter road south to city hall tunneling under Main from just past the train station to the destination mentioned above!
they could have the level sections run beside the train tracks near Pembina Ave.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

they should consider a ULR line from the perimeter road south to city hall tunneling under Main from just past the train station to the destination mentioned above!
they could have the level sections run beside the train tracks near Pembina Ave.

Pembina Hwy.

Back on track, I swear if Saskatoon or Regina get a LRT before Winnipeg, the shit will hit the fan

With 70,000 people working downtown and 700,000 in the metro area, it only makes sense that Winnipeg gets rapid transit. I'd imagine the busses going downtown are pretty crowded, no?

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Greco Roman

Pembina Hwy.

Back on track, I swear if Saskatoon or Regina get a LRT before Winnipeg, the shit will hit the fan

But will those cities have fancy new community centres where seniors and low-lives can play bingo. Taking money away from rapid transit and directing it towards community centres (none have even been built) was the worst mistake by a mayor and council in the past 25 years in Winnipeg!

[drew]

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

With 70,000 people working downtown and 700,000 in the metro area, it only makes sense that Winnipeg gets rapid transit. I'd imagine the busses going downtown are pretty crowded, no?

During rush hour yes.

But the availability of (relatively) cheap parking downtown means that transit is still considered a step down on the social ladder for many if not most of downtown's office type worker.

You can pay to park from between $100 to $200 a month downtown.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

With 70,000 people working downtown and 700,000 in the metro area, it only makes sense that Winnipeg gets rapid transit. I'd imagine the busses going downtown are pretty crowded, no?

70,000 is a fairly low number compared to other major cities.

Calgary is around the 250,000 people working downtown with about 1.2 million people in the CMA.

Parking is still too cheap in Winnipeg for anyone to justify a transit system. I still find it funny that Winnipeggers make fun of "poor" people that take transit, but if you are on the train or bus in Calgary they tend to be filled people working professional jobs and wearing suits.

If you want to remove the "poor person" stigma of transit use make parking within reach of the top 1-2% of the population. Force more of the professional working class on the bus and it will get better support from the public.