Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[ue]

I'm decently impressed with this transit plan. There's some routings I might have changed slightly, particularly to cut on transfers for non-downtown destinations (eg getting from Southglen to Corydon would require 3 transfers) but overall it's not bad.

I wonder what the likelihood of the BRT lines being upgraded to LRT in the next 10-25 years would be. Winnipeg is very behind on meaningful transportation upgrades (the city neither invests in rapid transit nor freeways, and just turns main streets into quasi-highways) and LRT is something that should've started decades ago, but really should not continue waiting. There just doesn't seem to be much political will for it, and the Southwest Transitway is honestly terrible, so I'm not terribly optimistic.

[esquire]

^ What makes the SW Transitway terrible?

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ What makes the SW Transitway terrible?

While I don't think its terrible - it is also the perfect example of "Winnipeg" in 1 project:

- We're unwilling to move rail lines outside of Winnipeg so they toss a huge dog leg into the middle of nowhere rather than have it go along Pembina on the old CN tracks that should have been removed.

- The dogleg is justified because it will inspire new development in the area that will center around the RT line.

- The development is blocked by the city so the justification can't even progress.

It's got all your Winnipeg hallmarks! Lazy compromise, fear of change, refusal to deal with issues, blocking development, racism claims - it's a Winnipeg project thru and thru!

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

While I don't think its terrible - it is also the perfect example of "Winnipeg" in 1 project:

- We're unwilling to move rail lines outside of Winnipeg so they toss a huge dog leg into the middle of nowhere rather than have it go along Pembina on the old CN tracks that should have been removed.

- The dogleg is justified because it will inspire new development in the area that will center around the RT line.

- The development is blocked by the city so the justification can't even progress.

It's got all your Winnipeg hallmarks! Lazy compromise, fear of change, refusal to deal with issues, blocking development, racism claims - it's a Winnipeg project thru and thru!

What other cities have spent the immense capital to move a rail line outside their city limits to accommodate a modest piece of infrastructure that works relatively fine in its current state?

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

- We're unwilling to move rail lines outside of Winnipeg so they toss a huge dog leg into the middle of nowhere rather than have it go along Pembina on the old CN tracks that should have been removed.

The dogleg had nothing to do with the CN tracks. There was plenty of space in the rail corridor for the RT to run alongside the tracks. As proven by the fact that it does run alongside the tracks from Plaza Drive southward.

The dogleg route was chosen because (1) it involves fewer street crossings than the rail corridor route and (2) it passes through tons of empty land that's supposedly ripe for development. I don't think these are very convincing reasons, but that ship has sailed.

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by WildCake

What other cities have spent the immense capital to move a rail line outside their city limits to accommodate a modest piece of infrastructure that works relatively fine in its current state?

How much money do you make that you consider nearly half a billion dollars to be 'modest'?!?!?!

If my suggestion was the only reason to move out the rail lines is the RT line, then you're more than right to criticize. However its a topic that has been coming up in the city for decades now, that's endlessly started/stopped/restarted/stopped/put off - this would have been a perfect first step to removing it (could have put the cost of the Waverley underpass towards moving the tracks forever but oh well). Removing the rail lines wasn't a unique topic for the RT line, its been ongoing for a while now

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

The dogleg had nothing to do with the CN tracks. There was plenty of space in the rail corridor for the RT to run alongside the tracks. As proven by the fact that it does run alongside the tracks from Plaza Drive southward.

The dogleg route was chosen because (1) it involves fewer street crossings than the rail corridor route and (2) it passes through tons of empty land that's supposedly ripe for development. I don't think these are very convincing reasons, but that ship has sailed.

I had heard that the rail corridor was too narrow in the Waller-Clarence-Chevrier area. The area's south of Bishop were further away and were mostly parking lots where the area north was houses with backyards closer to the tracks (tho I'm having trouble digging up that information right now). I do remember that moving the tracks was a major topic when discussing this several years ago - tho I may be mistaken about the Clarence area requiring the tracks moved/removed.

But alas, that ship HAS sailed... As I said in my original comment, I don't think the dogleg is horrific - I just think the events surrounding it are very 'Winnipeg'

[buzzg]

It's critical to note half-billion was not just for the RT project, it included a full rebuild of the vehicular and rail bridges (which were needed), full rebuild of underpass (which flooded every time it rained) and expanding NB Pembina, which benefits passenger vehicles. All the non-RT components were needed anyway, and the city saved a lot of money combining these all into one project, a rarity for the CoW.

[GarryEllice]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

I had heard that the rail corridor was too narrow in the Waller-Clarence-Chevrier area. The area's south of Bishop were further away and were mostly parking lots where the area north was houses with backyards closer to the tracks (tho I'm having trouble digging up that information right now). I do remember that moving the tracks was a major topic when discussing this several years ago - tho I may be mistaken about the Clarence area requiring the tracks moved/removed.

The final report on the choice of alignments is available here.

Page 59 indicates that both alignments were fine in terms of construction:

Discussions have taken place with CN regarding both the Concept 1 [dogleg] and Concept 2 [rail corridor] alignments. Although discussions were very productive and no show stoppers were noted, additional discussion and work will need to be undertaken

Page 63 indicates that the rail corridor option would have been slightly more expensive than the dogleg option ($313M versus $292M) due to the higher land acquisition costs. The actual construction costs would have been lower on the rail corridor route, though.

Also, they said there was no opportunity for grade separations on the rail corridor option, whereas the dogleg option did get us the overpass at McGillivray.

My "favourite" quote of all is on page 65:

Concepts 1A and 1B [= the dogleg] are seen as being more suited to BRT while Concept 2 [=the rail corridor] is seen as being more suited to LRT

So despite all the talk about potentially converting the line to LRT in the future, they explicitly chose the alignment that is more suited to BRT. The suitability of the rail corridor alignment for LRT was actually treated as a negative rather than a positive.

[Jeff]

The way the active transportation path is handled at Chevrier is super amateur hour, as well.

[Wigglez]

Originally Posted by GarryEllice

The final report on the choice of alignments is available here.

Page 59 indicates that both alignments were fine in terms of construction:


Page 63 indicates that the rail corridor option would have been slightly more expensive than the dogleg option ($313M versus $292M) due to the higher land acquisition costs. The actual construction costs would have been lower on the rail corridor route, though.

Also, they said there was no opportunity for grade separations on the rail corridor option, whereas the dogleg option did get us the overpass at McGillivray.

My "favourite" quote of all is on page 65:


So despite all the talk about potentially converting the line to LRT in the future, they explicitly chose the alignment that is more suited to BRT. The suitability of the rail corridor alignment for LRT was actually treated as a negative rather than a positive.

Thank you for this!!! Not only sources but also quotes and referenced pages - you're my hero!!!!!

the page 65 quote just adds to that whole "very Winnipeg" concept of this. Phase 1 was built very much with LRT in mind but it was a little too inconvenient for Phase 2 so meh forget it.

Page 39 is a great overview of how many more homes/businesses would have been served by the rail line route rather than the dogleg. With 1 less stop you cover more people - unless they one day they build on the Parker lands, which.... - "Winnipeg remains in contempt of court over Parker Lands development" (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...uess-1.5752093) - seems... unlikely right now.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by Jeff

The way the active transportation path is handled at Chevrier is super amateur hour, as well.

The City didn't want to pay to take the path on the Letellier overpass. Which is the largest structure in the project. So it uses the streets. Originally it was supposed to be a tunnel, so there was no choice in that option.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

Thank you for this!!! Not only sources but also quotes and referenced pages - you're my hero!!!!!

the page 65 quote just adds to that whole "very Winnipeg" concept of this. Phase 1 was built very much with LRT in mind but it was a little too inconvenient for Phase 2 so meh forget it.

Page 39 is a great overview of how many more homes/businesses would have been served by the rail line route rather than the dogleg. With 1 less stop you cover more people - unless they one day they build on the Parker lands, which.... - "Winnipeg remains in contempt of court over Parker Lands development" (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...uess-1.5752093) - seems... unlikely right now.

How fast can you really have a surface level RT running right alongside buildings and houses, where there are level crossings of numerous residential streets in quick succession? How fast are CN trains allowed to go down that stretch? Even setting aside the cost of relocating a significant railway line (over which the city has no jurisdiction), that route doesn't make much sense.

[esquire]

^ I'm not sure what the speed limit is, but the trains on that stretch look to me like they're usually never going faster than 50 km/h. Although I wonder if that has to do with them slowing down to navigate the switch tracks at Portage Jct. near Pembina and Jubilee.

[bomberjet]

20mph from jubilee area south to somewhere north of Bishop. Than 25 mph.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Andy6

How fast can you really have a surface level RT running right alongside buildings and houses, where there are level crossings of numerous residential streets in quick succession? How fast are CN trains allowed to go down that stretch? Even setting aside the cost of relocating a significant railway line (over which the city has no jurisdiction), that route doesn't make much sense.

The city actually does have jurisdiction, by way of the feds – the rail line has to move for infrastructure projects, but the government is responsible for the costs. It's the same conversation with the rail yards – CN will "happily" move (they have no choice) but they won't pay for any of it.

[bomberjet]

I don't think it's that simple. In the overall premise sure. There would be numerous hearings and rulings by the courts to force them to move. The railways will have demands and compensation required for any detriment to their operations.

It's easy to say just move the railway and all their infrastructure out of the City. Then come the tax implications. The City effectively loses their business and likely numerous businesses that support the railways and/or rely on railway service. Employees of the railways will move to bedroom communities near the ne yard areas.. Etc. Etc.

Say if the City wanted to move CN Symington Yards. We're not going to have a yard in the City with the tracks outside. It will be billions upon billions just for Symington. That yards is like 100 tracks wide and is one of the largest in the country. To get that kind of money together is nearly impossible. We can't even fund a sewage plant without taking money from transit.

Similar for CP yards in the north end. Numerous billions. Never mind the right of way and tracks leading up to them.

[michelleb]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The City didn't want to pay to take the path on the Letellier overpass. Which is the largest structure in the project. So it uses the streets. Originally it was supposed to be a tunnel, so there was no choice in that option.

The grade on the Letellier overpass was too steep to bike over. I biked over it last fall before everything was completed. It was killer. The detour is confusing as heck though.

[bomberjet]

I feel the same when I see people biking over disraeli. Use the bike path and bridge. It's the same distance and much easier.

I'm not sure how well signed the Chevrier route is. Basically just need to go east to Hudson and then south.

I worked on the project and this is where I feel the City let things slip a bit. The path south of the Letellier overpass, going over Bishop. The City allowed the path to be placed on the west side of the rail bridge at Bishop. Instead of needing to build a new rail bridge and track. The path was originally supposed to continue on the east side straight across bishop. So now you do the dog leg at Chevrier, then need to cross over at Plaza station to the west side. Then cross back over to the east side again at Chancellor.

it was all a cost savings thing because the path wouldn't fit on the east side without moving the rail bridge. And it's cheaper to build a ped bridge than a rail bridge and all the new track. So now you need to cross the track twice, which is silly.

[michelleb]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

it was all a cost savings thing because the path wouldn't fit on the east side without moving the rail bridge. And it's cheaper to build a ped bridge than a rail bridge and all the new track. So now you need to cross the track twice, which is silly.

I enjoy the crossover, makes the trip more interesting and you see a different view. But once again, the lack of signage is the failure point. I've seen people stop at the crossover and be utterly bewildered because you can't see the path from the other side and there's nothing to indicate that you should cross over the transit route.