Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There's still lots of companies loading/offloading to rail cars in the city.. Off the top of my head:

City Mix
IPCO
Harris/Hervo
Russell Metals
McAsphalt
McKillican
Winpak

Just a small list off the top of my head. They ship by trains because it's the cheapest. If the City wants to pay them the difference forever, than lets go for it. That list is a lot larger if you actually wanted to go through it. Maybe i'll post part of a conversation I had recently with with one of the mayoral candidates. It's a great idea, but will never happen. The City would need to pay the railways compensation for eternity for causing them to detour. Plus the multiple billion up front cost. And the loss of good paying jobs within the City.

I think there is a compromise to be had that would move tracks out of some more densely populated residential and commercial areas, giving the city some options on how to use that land, including for Transit.

[esquire]

The whole idea of rail relocation would be awesome if there was actually any demand for the land that rail yards sit on. Then the immense acquisition and clean up costs could be paid for by the land development that would follow.

But who is going to buy that land? The CP Winnipeg Yards and Weston Shops are located squarely within some of the most undesirable parts of town. The CN Symington Yards are way out in suburbia, as are the Transcona Shops.

It's one thing if you're talking about rail yards in downtown Toronto or in central Manhattan where developers will line up to buy the sites. But in Winnipeg, the government will end up stuck with the bill for rail line relocation... and to what end? Who is going to use the land that gets freed up? What exactly is the benefit?

The bottom line is that there are far more intelligent and beneficial ways to spend what will inevitably reach into the billions of dollars than on rail line relocation and redevelopment.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by esquire

The whole idea of rail relocation would be awesome if there was actually any demand for the land that rail yards sit on. Then the immense acquisition and clean up costs could be paid for by the land development that would follow.

But who is going to buy that land? The CP Winnipeg Yards and Weston Shops are located squarely within some of the most undesirable parts of town. The CN Symington Yards are way out in suburbia, as are the Transcona Shops.

It's one thing if you're talking about rail yards in downtown Toronto or in central Manhattan where developers will line up to buy the sites. But in Winnipeg, the government will end up stuck with the bill for rail line relocation... and to what end? Who is going to use the land that gets freed up? What exactly is the benefit?

The bottom line is that there are far more intelligent and beneficial ways to spend what will inevitably reach into the billions of dollars than on rail line relocation and redevelopment.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by cllew

The other question is do the RM's of Headingley, McDonald, Rosser, Springfield etc want to have the rail yards there? City of Winnipeg mayor and council just cant dump the yards to somebody else.

Here's the much overlooked point. Places like Springfield have terrible relations with the city. Rosser isn't on much better terms. There's simply no way those municipalities roll over while the city dumps rail yards in their fields.

Springfield has fought tooth and nail against its own landowners trying to subdivide their properties for residential development. It'll be a cold day in hell before they're going to allow any further heavy industry.

[Riverman]

Thank you esquire. Rail relocation in Winnipeg is just silly talk.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Here's the much overlooked point. Places like Springfield have terrible relations with the city. Rosser isn't on much better terms. There's simply no way those municipalities roll over while the city dumps rail yards in their fields.

Springfield has fought tooth and nail against its own landowners trying to subdivide their properties for residential development. It'll be a cold day in hell before they're going to allow any further heavy industry.

I'm sure there would be some RMs (especially those facing serious fiscal issues) that would welcome heavy industry like that. Huge addition to the tax-base, with very little needed in terms of municipal services (relative to residential, that is). Again, the point is moot for the reasons already rehashed here ad nauseum.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I'm sure there would be some RMs (especially those facing serious fiscal issues) that would welcome heavy industry like that. Huge addition to the tax-base, with very little needed in terms of municipal services (relative to residential, that is). Again, the point is moot for the reasons already rehashed here ad nauseum.

Eh, I'm skeptical. A lot of these bedroom communities are going to have residential options in the future. Think about McDonald which is already essentially becoming a suburb of Winnipeg. If you get desperate now and take heavy industry as a tax base, you're completely screwed in the future. You'll never be able to develop residential in a way that's close enough to the city to make it a practical alternative and heavy industry is probably your lowest and worst usage. That means you're having to dump some of these rail yards way off on the outer fringes of your municipality where it's now terribly inconvenient for their customer base. That's not gonna happen.

It's a moot point, anyway. Nobody is buying lots at Dufferin and Arlington at a rate that would justify the development of those lands even if the lines were ripped out...

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by esquire

The whole idea of rail relocation would be awesome if there was actually any demand for the land that rail yards sit on. Then the immense acquisition and clean up costs could be paid for by the land development that would follow.

But who is going to buy that land? The CP Winnipeg Yards and Weston Shops are located squarely within some of the most undesirable parts of town. The CN Symington Yards are way out in suburbia, as are the Transcona Shops.

It's one thing if you're talking about rail yards in downtown Toronto or in central Manhattan where developers will line up to buy the sites. But in Winnipeg, the government will end up stuck with the bill for rail line relocation... and to what end? Who is going to use the land that gets freed up? What exactly is the benefit?

The bottom line is that there are far more intelligent and beneficial ways to spend what will inevitably reach into the billions of dollars than on rail line relocation and redevelopment.

The rail lines cost us a lot of money for bridges. I think we should build buildings over top of them so that pedestrians can get across. The rapid transit corridor's main problem is the rail line, because it has to go under it three times, and move over. I don't think it would be that expensive to build over top of the rail line, and put the BRT in the building. The city would never think of these kind of things as options. We need to start looking at all the options. I have a million options for Stage 2 RT, but they just seem to think the rail line has to move, and they have to decide BRT or LRT, and whether it should go way out to the Hydro corridor or not.

[Riverman]

That's because those kind of things are not really options.

Tell me, who would finance that?

[armorand93]

Our dwindling and rapidly-retiring taxpayers, of course!

[Wpg transit 163-1]

I was looking for info on the south west transit stage 2 on the bid section of the city's website and found that part of the construction will include upgrades to the terminal at the U of M it's about time during the busy parts of the day the buses are blocked in. some have such long layovers that they have to go not in service and sit by the fishers building. I also rode on bus 800 today and saw the special wheel chair lock on that bus. Btw anyone know if the new buses transit ordered are for sure D40LFR's cause if they are they should number them with the 300 series numbers.

[Cyro]

New Flyer to develop first North American-built 60-foot battery-electric/fuel cell bus

Winnipeg-based New Flyer Industries Inc. has announced plans to develop the first North American designed and built zero-emission, 60-foot battery-electric/fuel cell bus.

The new propulsion system will be integrated into the transit-bus maker’s Xcelsior X60 heavy-duty transit bus platform, which includes a combination of batteries, a fuel cell and hydrogen storage.

Con't:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bus...urce=d-tiles-3

[CoryB]

I am really tired of this whole LRT v BRT bs discussion.

The only advantage LRT has is a high volume of departures from one point at a single time. Winnipeg would be better served by more frequent service handling the same capacity than large volumes that are highly spread out in time.

We also have a leading manufacture of transit buses (New Flyer) based out of our City while there is no comparable match for the LRT side. This means if the City goes LRT does jobs, and salary dollars leave our province.

Not only would the city the economic benefit of having the new coaches built in the city but New Flyer would then need to answer the hard questions about why we choose to not implement BRT which has a high potential to either see them stop being a viable business or for them to relocate to a more favorable city.

Instead, Winnipeg needs to become a showcase for the best possibly implementations. We have an excellent start with Phase 1 of the SW leg. If phase 2 continues with the dedicated stations and priority access for transit vehicles, ideally with full grade separations although priority at-grade signalling works too, we could do a lot to boost future New Flyer sales.

[bomberjet]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spe...urce=d-tiles-2

Speakers at downtown rally say that transit is more than just BRT

By: Aldo Santin

Posted: 12:12 PM

A couple of dozen people rallied at Market Square Friday morning to bring attention to public transit.

Speakers representing labour, university students and community groups said public transit is a vital component of the city and the current service needs to be improved and more accessible and affordable.

"The focus in the (civic) election has been on bus rapid transit but transit is much more than that and that can’t be forgotten," said John Callahan, president of Local 1505 Amalgamated Transit Union.

Callahan said Winnipeg Transit had 560 buses in 1989 and in January of this year the fleet was 570 buses, with many of the vehicles smaller capacity, low-floor buses.

"Fewer people can ride the bus than did 25 years ago," Callahan said.


Good initiative. I'm wondering though. Doesn't Winnipeg have one of the highest ridership per capita in the country? For sure it could be more efficient in terms of bus sizes vs. routes, etc. My GF works in an industrial park and I hear all about the level of service there, or lack there of.

It would seem to me the City is doing a decent job in terms of having the appropriate size of fleet. Maybe they need to increase a bit. But the union guy wants more buses and routes for his drivers, pretty obvious.

The City recently had a tender out for 40 new buses or something. Were those replacements or additional buses?

[esquire]

^ Capacity is an issue on some routes. Adding more frequencies with regular sized buses means that you need more drivers, though, and those costs add up in a hurry. If anything, Transit should consider adding more bendy buses to increase capacity on routes where the buses are bursting at the seams.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

. Doesn't Winnipeg have one of the highest ridership per capita in the country?

The answer to this is yes. The reality of this is that it's irrelevant given how many different places those people are going.

I mean, seriously. These people can't honestly think that running empty buses all over the city so that 1 or 2 people don't have to wait more than 10 minutes is a realistic idea, can they?

I can't believe this stuff even gets coverage anymore. All of these public sector unions need to just keep quiet. Just once I want to hear a reasonable idea from a union that's been costed and doesn't require the sacrifice of everybody except the membership.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by CoryB

I am really tired of this whole LRT v BRT bs discussion.

The only advantage LRT has is a high volume of departures from one point at a single time. Winnipeg would be better served by more frequent service handling the same capacity than large volumes that are highly spread out in time.

We also have a leading manufacture of transit buses (New Flyer) based out of our City while there is no comparable match for the LRT side. This means if the City goes LRT does jobs, and salary dollars leave our province.

Not only would the city the economic benefit of having the new coaches built in the city but New Flyer would then need to answer the hard questions about why we choose to not implement BRT which has a high potential to either see them stop being a viable business or for them to relocate to a more favorable city.

Instead, Winnipeg needs to become a showcase for the best possibly implementations. We have an excellent start with Phase 1 of the SW leg. If phase 2 continues with the dedicated stations and priority access for transit vehicles, ideally with full grade separations although priority at-grade signalling works too, we could do a lot to boost future New Flyer sales.

Soon Winnipeg won't be able to buy buses from New Flyer unless they are the cheapest bidder on specific contracts due to the free trade agreement with Europe. Better to focus on the best implementation possible.

As it looks from the bus fleet size, the city is constrained due to operating costs. Moving more users onto larger buses, and possibly LRT at some point in the future is the only way to increase service without raising the operational subsidy. Winnipeg shouldn't be wedded to BRT anymore than Calgary be wedded to LRT.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

I mean, seriously. These people can't honestly think that running empty buses all over the city so that 1 or 2 people don't have to wait more than 10 minutes is a realistic idea, can they?

The buses might be empty once you get out to outer suburbia. But they sure as hell aren't empty in the downtown and the inner suburbs, especially not at rush hour. Packed to the gills would be a more apt description in my experience.

Adding frequencies is a very good idea, but it has as much to do with adding capacity as it does with increasing convenience. This should be focused on the areas where ridership is highest. That means more short turns - instead of running an extra 16 from Island Lakes right up to the far reaches to Garden Grove, run it from McPhillips to Kingston Row. Same with the 11, 18, etc.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

The buses might be empty once you get out to outer suburbia. But they sure as hell aren't empty in the downtown and the inner suburbs, especially not at rush hour. Packed to the gills would be a more apt description in my experience.

Adding frequencies is a very good idea, but it has as much to do with adding capacity as it does with increasing convenience. This should be focused on the areas where ridership is highest. That means more short turns - instead of running an extra 16 from Island Lakes right up to the far reaches to Garden Grove, run it from McPhillips to Kingston Row. Same with the 11, 18, etc.

Sorry, I may have been unclear with my comment. I wasn't referring to rush hour. The tagline of this rally yesterday was "A Bus Every 10 Minutes". Capacity is a huge issue on a few major routes at peak times; there's no question about that. But yesterday's rally was about ensuring that at any stop in any part of the city a transit user would never have to wait more than 10 minutes for a bus. That's complete lunacy.

What you're saying is bang-on. Frequency is absolutely a matter of capacity because every bus equals potential seating. But that's also the issue - every bus equals many empty seats. Transit - like air travel - uses a per seat mile revenue figure. There's a fixed cost associated with every 'x' number of seats a transit bus represents - most notably the driver and all maintenance and fuel costs. Not to mention larger garages for storing more buses. The unit contribution margin of every seat increases as those seats fill - the more filled seats, the more justifiable all of those fixed costs become. And at some point there's a break even. And if there isn't - which there won't be unless probably something like half the bus is full (though I'm interested to know exactly what it would be) - then the subsidy needs to kick in. Can anybody even imagine the subsidy required to pay empty buses to run all over the city strictly for the purposes of serving one or two people? Those transit rides would probably be close to $25/ride.

And this is where I take issue. The union has access to all of this information. I'd bet even the public does. Why is anybody out there talking about something so ridiculous when it's obvious on the face why it's a totally unfeasible idea?

[armorand93]

My very-short list of recommendations:

- *NEW* Downtown Spirit buse's: one that will operate as a Waterfront route for the daytime, and one for at night, as a bar-hop service.

Route 4 - Waterfront (free)
Daily 7am - 7pm, every 30 minutes
The Forks, via Waterfront Drive, to Red River College (Princess campus)

Route 5 - Exchange (Downtown Bar-hop, free)
Mon-Thurs 11am - 11pm, Fri/Sat 11am - 2:30am, 11am - 7am the NEXT DAY, with MADD endorsement and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries funding for December 31st all-night service, sparing transit and Downtown BIZ the bill.
The Forks, via Waterfront (District Stop, Union Sound Hall, Carnarval), Concert Hall, City Hall, Exchange (Kings Head/Cube Stage), SB Donald to MTS Centre, Convention Centre as a terminus (with Shark Club, Elephant&Castle along the way), and back again.
Frequency every 30 minutes, with Route 4 bus signed onto a Route 5 run after 7pm, and a driver switchover, allowing first Route 5 bus of the day to return to garage.

- Route Frequency/Capacity Boosts

Route 14 Ellice (Polo Park, via Empress, to Downtown Layover/360 Main Street, on the Fort St. side)
Monday-Saturday 6am-10pm, every 25 minutes.
Sundays 11am-7pm, every 30 minutes.
It would improve frequency along Ellice, prevent overcrowding caused by the rapid succession of high-volume stops (Ellice/Empress, plus the Dollarama/giant discount warehouse), and also the Polo Park connection, which would be very good for West End employees, and also, as a connection from the West End, to St. James, Charleswood, Kenaston... if there's anything Winnipeg Transit would consider if one of them were to read this, Route 14 NEEDS a short-route in order to boost service, and to also create higher frequencies down Empress, towards Polo Park as an employment hub, and a transit hub.

Routes 19 and 75 - extension of service (19) and hours (75) to Stereo and Cowboys.
THIS SHOULD BE A NO-BRAINER!!! Cowboys and Stereo can attract hundreds of people at night, if not a thousand or more. Route 19 extended to CanadInns Windsor Park will increase revenue, and Route 75 hours extended beyond 7pm on Saturdays (to 1am), would turn an otherwise dead route into a money-making machine. Last time I checked, Winnipeg Transit needs money.

Route 21 - accomodation of Articulated buses
Especially between 3:30 and 4:30pm, anything EB Portage becomes a sheer mess until the 21 short-turns and first PM Route 22 start coming Eastbound.

If not accomodate an artic or two, at least throw on a couple extra EB trips between 3:30pm and 4:30pm. Especially to try and curb the leapfrog situation I always see at Portage/Moray around 4pm.

Route 32 - additional mid-day/Saturday trips.
Main Street could use the extra capacity. Make the mid-day/Saturday frequency every 20-30 minutes. Even an express bus every half-hour would help aleviate the situation.

Route 50 - mid-day/Saturday/Sunday trips
Sage Creek, secluded car-dependent neighborhood across from the Mint, Windsor Park, Archibald... even a 45-60 minute frequency daytimes and weekends would be a tremendous boost for people in these neighborhoods.

Route 78 - Seasons of Tuxedo/Polo short-trip
Between 7-11pm, utilize a short trip. I used to work at Ikea myself... I actually spent my bus rides home from work doing passenger counts on my phone! Mostly stayed between 3-5 people with the most being 8 one night, but that was Spring 2013. 50-75% of those passengers were Ikea employees, the other 25% were extra pick-up's along Kenaston.

Route extensions
Route 82 - "Westport Festival", Pointe West Autopark, Assiniboia Downs, MTS Iceplex. Covers former Route 601 (Racetrack Shuttle). Maybe not enough to fill the D30LF completely outside of the Red River Ex or a Winnipeg Jet's practice, but more than enough to help out it's otherwise dismal revenues

New Routes (minus the Downtown Spirit)

St. James/Charleswood
Route 23 - if residential development north of Crestview is approved, begin the route at Unicity, route it through Buchanan up to the new neighborhood, and during weekday rush hour (like the 83 and 98), extend it up into the future CentrePort Canada development. Will connect with Route 83 and the 11/21/22 Lumsden terminus before Unicity.
Route 80/81 - Headingley (clockwise): Headingley used to be part of Winnipeg, and although its an RM now, the vast majority of it's people live, work, go to school and even party in Winnipeg. The teens all go to Oak Park or to Sturgeon/JT. People work around the town and in Unicity. Might have to work out funding through the RM... but a 45-minute route, just like it was before, would be sufficient. And would also increase Routes 21-25, 66 and 83's passenger amounts, aka, more profitable.

Other suggestions: Amber Trails suburban feeder.