Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[headhorse]

here's the Century Park transit development in Edmonton ten years after it opened (they have added one tower since the photo). along the LRT, two stations away from the University, and barely anything.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by headhorse

here's the Century Park transit development in Edmonton ten years after it opened (they have added one tower since the photo). along the LRT, two stations away from the University, and barely anything.

Winnipeg likes to learn and learn again from it's own mistakes thank you very much!

Same scenario is going to occur with the Parker Lands and the piss poor decision to needlessly re-route the BRT route through there!

[bomberjet]

Trying to judge the success of a transit line 1 month after opening, during a pandemic with mass shutdowns?

Questionable decisions and concept, yes for sure. But let's give it some time.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by headhorse

^ I think the dog leg and the amount of stations are the biggest problems. I'm not convinced at all on TOD (all of the TOD so far is low density and has no services - even places like Edmonton where they have LRT their TOD's have been busts)

and the park and ride is similarly bizarre when most of those PNR are what? ten minutes from downtown? if they actually increased congestion along the route like reducing traffic lanes on osborne (or having just run the RT route on Pembina) we might see more ridership but as of right now, I'm not convinced.

we should be building transit to the places that have the density and ridership to support, not trying to crate a fictitious market for transit where the demand does not exist.

I take your points, but to the last one, the reason that the SW line was always pegged for the first RT route in the city is because it was generally regarded as having enough two-way traffic during the day to sustain the line.

If SWBRT can't make it work, it's' unlikely that any other routes could given that they probably wouldn't have the same two-way traffic counts all day long. Although mind you, there is a more recent philosophy that calls for transit improvements concentrated in the inner city where ridership is highest... I recall rgalston was a strong proponent of that here years ago. On that basis you could justify building a new RT route between, say, City Hall and Polo Park on the basis that it would be of use to the greatest number of existing transit users.

[esquire]

Speaking of Century Park, I'm amazed that it is still in its current state... I remember the models and renderings for a sea of towers there from over 15 years ago. Although mind you Edmonton has seen considerable inner city growth so that's preferable to a pile of towers at Century Park, even if that outcome isn't necessarily ideal for the southern LRT route...

[plrh]

There is so much land that can be developed near the U of M and downtown that it's hard to imagine that Parker Lands will develop very quickly. The RT route makes it available as a second choice but only when the first choice is limited. Gem seems to live off of these second choice sites (and borrowed money). I noticed one of the sites they were developing in Fort Rouge is now being developed by Ironclad. I guess they sold it off.

What's the payoff timeframe on RT? 30 years? 50 years? Probably not less than 20.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by plrh

What's the payoff timeframe on RT? 30 years? 50 years? Probably not less than 20.

Is there a RT project anywhere with a payoff timeframe of under 30 years? I was always under the impression that these are built for the long haul. It took decades before TOD really started to become a thing in western Canada.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by plrh

. Gem seems to live off of these second choice sites (and borrowed money). I noticed one of the sites they were developing in Fort Rouge is now being developed by Ironclad. I guess they sold it off.

They sold off all parcels in Fort Rouge Yards after they failed to develop any of it. Streetside Developments, IronClad and Sunstone all bought parcels and are actively developing.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by Biff

They sold off all parcels in Fort Rouge Yards after they failed to develop any of it. Streetside Developments, IronClad and Sunstone all bought parcels and are actively developing.

Probably for the best.

[Winnipegger]

I think the current reality in Winnipeg is that the benefit/cost ratio of traveling by vehicle is much higher than the benefit/cost ratio of travelling by transit . In Canadian cities that have extensive rapid transit systems and TOD - basically just Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal - the benefits of transit are higher because the cost of driving a vehicle is much higher.

Think of it this way: Citizens are going to maximize their benefits, relative to their budget constraint. For many people in Winnipeg, parking is relatively cheap, insurance is relatively cheap, and the time cost of switching to transit is very high. In large cities with higher levels of congestion, taking transit likely saves time (or is roughly equal to commuting via car) and parking and insurance rates mean it is cost prohibitive for many to even own a car in the first place.

In Winnipeg, the convenience factor for car ownership is amplified by several months of difficult weather. This makes it even more difficult for citizens to move away from Transit since if transit cannot provide time savings, it has to make up for it through a combination of convenience or cost savings. With cheap insurance and parking, the cost savings are minimal so convenience needs to be extremely high which it currently is not.

As Winnipeg grows and becomes more congested, and if the City has foresight and will add more diamond lanes that bring down commute times for transit users while vehicle users commute time increase, then the equation begins to change.

But for now, congestion time costs are simply not high enough to spur massive transit demand.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

I think the current reality in Winnipeg is that the benefit/cost ratio of traveling by vehicle is much higher than the benefit/cost ratio of travelling by transit . In Canadian cities that have extensive rapid transit systems and TOD - basically just Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal - the benefits of transit are higher because the cost of driving a vehicle is much higher.

Think of it this way: Citizens are going to maximize their benefits, relative to their budget constraint. For many people in Winnipeg, parking is relatively cheap, insurance is relatively cheap, and the time cost of switching to transit is very high. In large cities with higher levels of congestion, taking transit likely saves time (or is roughly equal to commuting via car) and parking and insurance rates mean it is cost prohibitive for many to even own a car in the first place.

In Winnipeg, the convenience factor for car ownership is amplified by several months of difficult weather. This makes it even more difficult for citizens to move away from Transit since if transit cannot provide time savings, it has to make up for it through a combination of convenience or cost savings. With cheap insurance and parking, the cost savings are minimal so convenience needs to be extremely high which it currently is not.

As Winnipeg grows and becomes more congested, and if the City has foresight and will add more diamond lanes that bring down commute times for transit users while vehicle users commute time increase, then the equation begins to change.

But for now, congestion time costs are simply not high enough to spur massive transit demand.

Good post! The truth!

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

I think the current reality in Winnipeg is that the benefit/cost ratio of traveling by vehicle is much higher than the benefit/cost ratio of travelling by transit . In Canadian cities that have extensive rapid transit systems and TOD - basically just Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal - the benefits of transit are higher because the cost of driving a vehicle is much higher.

Think of it this way: Citizens are going to maximize their benefits, relative to their budget constraint. For many people in Winnipeg, parking is relatively cheap, insurance is relatively cheap, and the time cost of switching to transit is very high. In large cities with higher levels of congestion, taking transit likely saves time (or is roughly equal to commuting via car) and parking and insurance rates mean it is cost prohibitive for many to even own a car in the first place.

In Winnipeg, the convenience factor for car ownership is amplified by several months of difficult weather. This makes it even more difficult for citizens to move away from Transit since if transit cannot provide time savings, it has to make up for it through a combination of convenience or cost savings. With cheap insurance and parking, the cost savings are minimal so convenience needs to be extremely high which it currently is not.

As Winnipeg grows and becomes more congested, and if the City has foresight and will add more diamond lanes that bring down commute times for transit users while vehicle users commute time increase, then the equation begins to change.

But for now, congestion time costs are simply not high enough to spur massive transit demand.

Truth. Also Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are MUCH more denser than Winnipeg and they all have an explosive development scene; all those factors and then some need to be considered when comparing to Winnipeg.

However I do feel like Winnipeg is looking for that exact replica-city to make a comparison to which isn't going to happen. The closest that we have to compare with is Edmonton and Calgary - both of which have completely different economies although they are the most similar to us (in terms of transit).

I will say right here and now, that the BRT system will never be recognized as an effective system until it makes a grade-separated connection to downtown.

Originally Posted by esquire

Is there a RT project anywhere with a payoff timeframe of under 30 years?

Are we talking TOD or a business case cost/benefit ratio? I know a tiny bit more about the former and less about the latter.

Originally Posted by headhorse

^ I think the dog leg and the amount of stations are the biggest problems. I'm not convinced at all on TOD (all of the TOD so far is low density and has no services - even places like Edmonton where they have LRT their TOD's have been busts)

I think that you aren't taking into consideration that both "rapid" (puh-leese) transit systems command a lot of drawbacks and gripes from the public. Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Calgary all have systems that are mixed in with regular traffic combined with unprotected stops/stations in some of the coldest cities on Earth - how COULD that conveniently serve anyone enough to have them consider ditching their vehicle? People aren't going to buy a place with reduced parking in lieu of access to transit because everyone knows that the benefits of private vehicles outweigh the benefits of transit.

Originally Posted by headhorse

and the park and ride is similarly bizarre when most of those PNR are what? ten minutes from downtown? if they actually increased congestion along the route like reducing traffic lanes on osborne (or having just run the RT route on Pembina) we might see more ridership but as of right now, I'm not convinced.

I actually don't see anything offensively wrong with the Park and Rides and I gently disagree with you. I can see them being used a lot more in the Summer or when there's a special event like Canada Day going on . I actually think that the Park and Rides on Seel and Clarence stations have the potential to have the biggest impacts on the system. I will wait and see on that one though since it's too early to tell how often they will get used. And remember: a parking lot can be easily redeveloped.

Originally Posted by headhorse

we should be building transit to the places that have the density and ridership to support, not trying to crate a fictitious market for transit where the demand does not exist.

Transit (specifically rapid transit) needs to carry you betwixt major destinations. In all cities major destinations are the downtown area, the airport, and any larger universities. I say this to point out that I actually do think that the grade-separated corridor for Harkness > Stadium with its current set of stations is actually a decent route if it was all done in one phase and not have its construction spread out for almost a decade.

However they completely mucked the university part by not continuing the grade-separated transit corridor all the way to the U of M. There won't be another rapid transit extension into the U of M for a LONG time now. On paper, the route itself is decent but the actual execution is shit. And the weird little turnaround at Markham station is... just.. weird.

As for developing rapid transit around density - I hate to break it to you but most of the population of Winnipeg is sprawled out in the suburbs so the opportunity is actually to connect the suburbs to Downtown in order to get any decent transit into the city centre.




Winnipeg Transit Site

I know that I am going against what I had just said but the next logical step, IMO, would be a completely grade-separated connection downtown all the way to Portage and Main with a proper station at Union Station. This is outlined above in the dotted orange line.

A proper grade separated connection would provide a legitimate rapid transit pathway between the major economic centre of downtown and the U of M. This would actually be convenient enough to encourage people from the Southwestern suburbs to ditch their cars at the Park and Ride to take the BRT downtown since downtown is somewhat walkable.

The only thing is that this has to be done right or the city's next generation will pay dearly for it.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by plrh

There is so much land that can be developed near the U of M and downtown that it's hard to imagine that Parker Lands will develop very quickly.

Where? I don't know of any vast swathes of unoccupied land between downtown and the U of M that is just sitting there waiting to be developed. That there are individual parcels scattered along the way isn't a shock to anybody but there's no other large piece of land in between. Do you mean the university of Minnesota or something?

A developer can get in on opportunity to build a master-planned high-density community in a desirable part of the city. There are no other similar options that I'm aware of.

[plrh]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Where? I don't know of any vast swathes of unoccupied land between downtown and the U of M that is just sitting there waiting to be developed. That there are individual parcels scattered along the way isn't a shock to anybody but there's no other large piece of land in between. Do you mean the university of Minnesota or something?

A developer can get in on opportunity to build a master-planned high-density community in a desirable part of the city. There are no other similar options that I'm aware of.

U of M golf course
Sugar Beet lands
Parker lands
Fort Rouge yard
Harkness area
are what i was referring to. Some are made up of individual parcels, some are not. By developed I meant built on, not subdivided.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by scryer

Are we talking TOD or a business case cost/benefit ratio? I know a tiny bit more about the former and less about the latter.

The whole project, including transportation and TOD. Look at Edmonton and Calgary's LRT lines as an example of what I'm talking about... there is an immediate payoff in terms of additional transportation infrastructure, but there is still new TOD happening decades after the rails were laid on LRT routes. There is a long game here, which is why I don't worry about it too much if someone rides their bike down the AT trail and notices empty parking lots near the stations.

I do agree with your point that the way the SW BRT line was built near each end of the route is seriously lacking. The stretches between Harkness and Graham, as well as Markham to the stadium leave much to be desired.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by esquire

The whole project, including transportation and TOD. Look at Edmonton and Calgary's LRT lines as an example of what I'm talking about... there is an immediate payoff in terms of additional transportation infrastructure, but there is still new TOD happening decades after the rails were laid on LRT routes. There is a long game here, which is why I don't worry about it too much if someone rides their bike down the AT trail and notices empty parking lots near the stations.

Development of any kind is completely dependent upon the economy though. Again I really hate to downplay the comparisons to Edmonton and Calgary (as they're the closest comparison we got!) but Edmonton and Calgary have had it rough this last decade. I agree that there is a long-game to be played however Winnipeg's Phase 1 has not got anything to show for it after almost 10 years of operation. I'm willing to bet that most transit systems have something to show after 8 years of operation whether it be excellent ridership numbers or one great TOD.

One of the many problems with Winnipeg's BRT is that there was no immediate pay off with Phase 1. I have been saying this all along but Phase 1 and Phase 2 should have just been ONE phase. Other cities with similar sizes are able to construct significant infrastructure pieces about 11km long without having to do it the Winnipeg way which leads me to wonder which level of government needs a clean out.

The immediate pay off for phase 2, like you mentioned before, will definitely not be detected until after cities start operating normally again. I think that when the dust settles, Phase 2 will hopefully alleviate some misconceptions about rapid transit.

Originally Posted by esquire

I do agree with your point that the way the SW BRT line was built near each end of the route is seriously lacking. The stretches between Harkness and Graham, as well as Markham to the stadium leave much to be desired.

The U of M will never see a true extension (or a station) until all other extensions are built first. I'm not even that old and I seriously doubt that I will live long enough to see a true extension into the U of M - which is sad.

The real nail in the coffin for me is how the extension into downtown will play out. That specific segment into Union Station and further into downtown will make or break the city's transit system.

[joshlemer]

What is wrong with how the SW corridor connects to UofM? It turns off at South Park, crosses Pembina at a dedicated light, and takes a dedicated transit road into campus. What else are you imagining, a viaduct from Markham Station to University Centre?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by joshlemer

What is wrong with how the SW corridor connects to UofM? It turns off at South Park, crosses Pembina at a dedicated light, and takes a dedicated transit road into campus. What else are you imagining, a viaduct from Markham Station to University Centre?

I know the question wasn't for me, but to me the irritant with the end of the route isn't so much the entry into the U of M (I'm fine with the existing set up of going on street once it gets out of Stadium station), but rather the way it abruptly goes from a dedicated ROW to what is basically a local street where it crosses Pembina at grade. I would have preferred a path that involved a grade separation with Pembina before following the existing path.

For the last 500 metre stretch from IG Field to the university quad, the existing setup is fine. There is never really any traffic or congestion there.

[buzzg]

I saw three different non-BLUE routes today using BLUE decorated busses. Two were 60s, missed the exact number of the third.

—

Also I’ve changed my tune on the new standard bus stop sign designs. They’re terrible, can’t even tell from anything but immediately in front of them that they’re bus stops. They’re so plain, the tiny transit logo in blue blends in to the border, the fonts of the stop name are too thin and route number too small.

It’s like they designed them on a computer but didn’t test them out in the real world. Very poorly done.

I also saw a random new (i think) blue Park & Ride sign on Pembina. It was on a street light and very small, simply said Park & Ride and had a little arrow pointing west. No transit logo, no mention it was a transit P&R or which station it was. We should have prominent signs on big streets like Pembina that call out and direct people to the stations like you see for subways stations in other cities.

And while all the new AT infrastructure is pretty good, yet again there is almost zero signage for it. Absolutely insane that in a city that has snow on the ground for 6 months, sand covering for 2 months, and the last month without snow the paint is worn off, the city thinks a few sporadic pavement cycling markings are sufficient. It’s absurd.

[buzzg]

The final report on the new RT masterplan is supposed to be presented to council tomorrow.