Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[bomberjet]

70/80's era development I grew up in (Valley Gardens) has no sidewalks on the curvilinear streets. All the main streets had sidewalks. Although there were numerous cat walks connecting the bays together, it made walking very easy.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Pallister has been pretty much as expected. Cuts and controversy.

Spending $1B on a single dedicated transit route is more to blame than a responsible government!

[vid]

Your province provided funds for a transit system? :O No wonder Winnipeg has all those express bus routes. There's extra funding from daddy.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Spending $1B on a single dedicated transit route is more to blame than a responsible government!

In what bizarro universe does running vital public services into the ground = "responsible government"? Don't get me wrong, the NDP created a hell of a mess, but I fear Pallister's short-sightedness is going to cost us just as much in the long run. Get your wallets out because congestion is only going to get worse without proper transit and the infrastructure we need is only going to cost more down the road. It's a shame the otherwise smart-with-money types on the right (Pallister included) can't figure that out.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by windypeg

In what bizarro universe does running vital public services into the ground = "responsible government"? Don't get me wrong, the NDP created a hell of a mess, but I fear Pallister's short-sightedness is going to cost us just as much in the long run. Get your wallets out because congestion is only going to get worse without proper transit and the infrastructure we need is only going to cost more down the road. It's a shame the otherwise smart-with-money types on the right (Pallister included) can't figure that out.

What part of the province is spending more than it takes in don't you get, Pallister is trying to get a handle on Manitoba's finances and even then we are arill in a huge spending deficit.

If you want health care and other basic services cuts in other areas need to be made, the NDP regimes of offloading expenses on future generations was plain wrong and shortsighted, it's because of the NDP regime that we're in the mess we are in now!

The only way the govt. can provide all the services Manitobans have become accustomed to is through the federal transfer payments to the tune of $1 B a year to Manitoba!

[Riverman]

Thank goodness I only have to drive to work for 4 more weeks.

[GreyGarden]

The fact that we are considering shrinking our transit services is embarrassing. This is contrary to what just about every other city is doing right now and it reaffirms that we are content with remaining an out-of-date car-centric city. It’s unfortunate that other cities are realizing the benefits of expanding and investing in their transits services, yet we (likely not most of the people on this forum) can’t seem to understand that. As someone who not only values, but relies on walkability and quality transit this really upsets me.

I imagine that the PC’s base does not use transit so this likely won’t affect them and really shouldn’t come as a surprise.

[Riverman]

Transit's woes and decline are not just related to funding. I have been riding the bus lately and can't believe how bad the service is. Buses are frequently 15-20 minutes late (mid morning) or do not show up at all. Also an astounding number don't pay a fare. On a recent trip downtown on the 20 I counted 16 people who got on and didn't pay. The driver doesn't seem concerned at all.

[LilZebra]

I boarded a bus on Graham yesterday afternoon and the transfer printer had some paper stuck on it.

One of the other fare inputs were blocked with tissue.

The bus operator said "I cannot give you a transfer, you'll have to get one on your next bus."

I didn't get it at the time, but the driver was basically saying "hop aboard (and ride for FREE). You don't have to pay a fare because the machine is BROKEN. You'll need to pay your fare next bus and get a transfer if you need one." Because I didn't want to take up the driver's time I just got another bus behind it.

Does anyone have stats. on how many fareboxes at any one time are BROKEN?

Which brings up the point of the OCTranspo fare boxes. I can see WT getting rid of them and replacing them with more reliable units <5 yrs. from now, if not sooner.

And as far as the 50/50 Transit funding goes and such. Remember that back in the late 90s under the Filmon regime, WT had faced cutbacks too. There was talk of privatizing WT. So maybe, as Pallister is Filmon 2.0, he is cutting back funding because he wants to sell off parts (suburban routes?) to a private company. I'd be OK with that on the condition that the service company uphold good frequent service in the areas that they cover.

Also, Katz wanted that "Transit Authority" (lets call it CRT for Capital Region Transit) to replace or have them oversee WT. The PMCR is also in favour of such an organization. What is holding up the follow-through on doing it? I'd bet its the Transit Union. Not surprising.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

The fact that we are considering shrinking our transit services is embarrassing. This is contrary to what just about every other city is doing right now and it reaffirms that we are content with remaining an out-of-date car-centric city. It’s unfortunate that other cities are realizing the benefits of expanding and investing in their transits services, yet we (likely not most of the people on this forum) can’t seem to understand that. As someone who not only values, but relies on walkability and quality transit this really upsets me.

I imagine that the PC’s base does not use transit so this likely won’t affect them and really shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Good article in the Sun about transit;

http://winnipegsun.com/opinion/colum...self-inflicted

excerpt;
the mayor accuses the province of creating a $10-million deficit in Transit’s 2018 operating budget because the Pallister government ended the previous administration’s blank-cheque funding scheme for bus service. Under the former funding model, the province would cover 50% of Transit’s operating costs, regardless of how much the utility spent and how much of that spending may have been wasteful, discretionary or inefficient.

Bowman keeps talking about a $10 million Transit “cut” from the province, which is inaccurate. Transit funding has not been cut by $10 million, it has been frozen at 2016 levels for 2017, which is up 21% from 2012. The province has not yet revealed what its funding support will be for 2018.
What Bowman does not talk about is the extent to which Transit’s deficit is driven by plummeting ridership and the utility’s unsustainable spending. Transit reported last month that its ridership is down 9% this year so far compared to 2015, causing a revenue decline of $5.6 million. So at least half the projected $10-million deficit has nothing to do with provincial funding and everything to do with fewer people taking the bus (or at least fewer people paying to take the bus).

Bowman has also failed to investigate why Transit’s costs are increasing so rapidly, another factor that’s contributing to its deficit. Transit’s cost per passenger jumped 19% from 2012 to 2016 and its overall budgeted operating expenses increased 12.3% in 2017 compared to 2015. That included a 14.6% increase in salaries and benefits over two years, which is not sustainable.

Transit budgeted an increase of 82 full-time equivalent positions in 2017 over 2015, a 5.5% increase. And in 2016, 33 people were paid more than $100,000 at Transit, only one of which was a bus operator.

Despite that, Bowman continues to ignore Transit’s spending problems.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Good article in the Sun about transit;

http://winnipegsun.com/opinion/colum...self-inflicted

excerpt;
the mayor accuses the province of creating a $10-million deficit in Transit’s 2018 operating budget because the Pallister government ended the previous administration’s blank-cheque funding scheme for bus service. Under the former funding model, the province would cover 50% of Transit’s operating costs, regardless of how much the utility spent and how much of that spending may have been wasteful, discretionary or inefficient.

Bowman keeps talking about a $10 million Transit “cut” from the province, which is inaccurate. Transit funding has not been cut by $10 million, it has been frozen at 2016 levels for 2017, which is up 21% from 2012. The province has not yet revealed what its funding support will be for 2018.
What Bowman does not talk about is the extent to which Transit’s deficit is driven by plummeting ridership and the utility’s unsustainable spending. Transit reported last month that its ridership is down 9% this year so far compared to 2015, causing a revenue decline of $5.6 million. So at least half the projected $10-million deficit has nothing to do with provincial funding and everything to do with fewer people taking the bus (or at least fewer people paying to take the bus).

Bowman has also failed to investigate why Transit’s costs are increasing so rapidly, another factor that’s contributing to its deficit. Transit’s cost per passenger jumped 19% from 2012 to 2016 and its overall budgeted operating expenses increased 12.3% in 2017 compared to 2015. That included a 14.6% increase in salaries and benefits over two years, which is not sustainable.

Transit budgeted an increase of 82 full-time equivalent positions in 2017 over 2015, a 5.5% increase. And in 2016, 33 people were paid more than $100,000 at Transit, only one of which was a bus operator.

Despite that, Bowman continues to ignore Transit’s spending problems.

I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow for the retraction that ridership has actually increased.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by cheswick

I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow for the retraction that ridership has actually increased.

LOL! Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!

In this case though, the Sun article is right, ridership is down, service terrible and too much spent where it shouldn't be.

[Riverman]

Every media outlet has stated ridership is down 19%, not just the Sun. That number comes from City Hall.

[GreyGarden]

That really surprises me, I always assumed that as cities grew, transit use would also grow. Any theories as to why ridership is down?

[LilZebra]

People could be deterred from using Transit here because of insufficient seating capacity and the abomination that is public transit in the Capital Region.

Also, the Millennial generation are getting older. The eldest is now 38, almost middle age. So they're more likely now to be married with children, and that means ditching Transit in favour of their own vehicle.

The very same thing happened in the mid-1990s when Boomers and Gen Xers moved on from riding public transit and bought SUVs or whatever.

And I can assure you that every mid decade or so will happen again.

The eldest Gen Z is now about 16 years old. Still in High School, planning for College/Univ., still a Transit captive... until they too get married and buy their own vehicle.

[esquire]

The Sun article quoted above says according to Transit, ridership is down 9% year over year. That's an oddly steep drop in and of itself. But 19%? How long a timeframe are we talking there?

I wonder what impact fare evasion has? I presume people who don't pay aren't counted as riders?

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

[From the Sun Article]Transit budgeted an increase of 82 full-time equivalent positions in 2017 over 2015, a 5.5% increase. And in 2016, 33 people were paid more than $100,000 at Transit, only one of which was a bus operator.

Looking at salary expenditure per employee alone doesn't always tell the full story. I don't know if this is the case but say one of those $100,000 a year people was a mechanic working 20 hours a week overtime due to a shortage of mechanics to keep the fleet on the road. That extra salary might actually be a "cost savings" v staffing the positions. There is a lot more to the story than some lines of a budge boiled down to a couple sentences of print in a newspaper.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by esquire

The Sun article quoted above says according to Transit, ridership is down 9% year over year. That's an oddly steep drop in and of itself. But 19%? How long a timeframe are we talking there?

I wonder what impact fare evasion has? I presume people who don't pay aren't counted as riders?

That seems like a huge change.

I wonder whether it's an accounting change as people with passes from school or work are shifted onto Peggo cards

(e.g., maybe they estimated how many rides per pass, but now it's being precisely counted because people have to tap on).

[esquire]

^ Very good point, the Peggo card is a pretty big change which could be disrupting the numbers. I don't recall the ridership numbers shifting that wildly in the past.

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Transit's woes and decline are not just related to funding. I have been riding the bus lately and can't believe how bad the service is. Buses are frequently 15-20 minutes late (mid morning) or do not show up at all.

Buses are late due to traffic and unrealistic schedules. The new fare collection system has also slowed bording and added delays. For decades WT has been cutting time on main line runs in order to provided service to new suburbs. Inadequate recovery time is provided at the route's terminal and the bus remains late.

Originally Posted by Riverman

Also an astounding number don't pay a fare. On a recent trip downtown on the 20 I counted 16 people who got on and didn't pay. The driver doesn't seem concerned at all.

Nor should the driver be concerned. WT policy is that operators are to request to "pay double next time". A bus operator's job is not to enforce fares but to inform passengers only. This is about assault prevention. You as a passenger should be concerned and hammer your city councillor about it.