How to Know the Benefit of a Transportation Project

[scryer]

Before we even joke about tolled roads (say that 5 times fast!), Winnipeg needs a good alternative to driving a car. And a half-assed BRT doesn't count!

The benefits of a BRT system in Winnipeg will become apparent when this Southwest transitway is completed. 'Till then I am not holding my breath on it until there are shovels in the ground.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by scryer

Before we even joke about tolled roads (say that 5 times fast!), Winnipeg needs a good alternative to driving a car. And a half-assed BRT doesn't count!

The benefits of a BRT system in Winnipeg will become apparent when this Southwest transitway is completed. 'Till then I am not holding my breath on it until there are shovels in the ground.

There's nothing wrong with adding transit priority signals, and off-board fare collection, to save some time. Stage 2 will save TWO MINUTES for TWELVE THOUSAND PEOPLE, and costs FIVE HUNDRED NINETY MILLION DOLLARS.
You don't measure a city's transportation success by transit ridership. It is simple, how much time does it take to get from point A to B, and how much time does that cost.

Until you can save at least 15 minutes for 50 000+ people, like regular RT systems that actually benefit the riders.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

There's nothing wrong with adding transit priority signals, and off-board fare collection, to save some time. Stage 2 will save TWO MINUTES for TWELVE THOUSAND PEOPLE, and costs FIVE HUNDRED NINETY MILLION DOLLARS.
You don't measure a city's transportation success by transit ridership. It is simple, how much time does it take to get from point A to B, and how much time does that cost.

Until you can save at least 15 minutes for 50 000+ people, like regular RT systems that actually benefit the riders.

Omg... are those really the facts? Can you source those?

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

The problem is that while buses are taken off the road, there is no way they could save people $550 million in time.

The question you need to ask is not how much value the time rapid transit would save but rather what is the cost savings over expanding Pembina to eight lanes from Julibee to Bishop.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The question you need to ask is not how much value the time rapid transit would save but rather what is the cost savings over expanding Pembina to eight lanes from Julibee to Bishop.

Exactly, it's more than just time. Mass transit is cheaper per passenger mile (and takes up less space) than automobiles on roads/highways.

[CoryB]

The comparison for phase 2 rapid transit to expanding Pembina is directly relevant. Currently, the curb line in each direction is a defacto diamond lane. If you remove the buses from that lane the volume of traffic will gradually promote the use of the lane by non-transit vehicles.

Separately, if rapid transit, regardless of its mode, it successful there will be a reduction in the the number of personal vehicles travelling the same route. Keep in mind though with that area still growing it is likely the count on number of vehicles using routes services by rapid transit will still increase however it will take longer to exceed the capacity point of those roads.

These are things you cannot measure if terms of the amount of time saved per passenger. These are also a direct benefit to everyone in city as we are not going to need an expanded roadway from south Winnipeg to downtown, a cost that all taxpayers would bare.

[Arts]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

There's nothing wrong with adding transit priority signals, and off-board fare collection, to save some time. Stage 2 will save TWO MINUTES for TWELVE THOUSAND PEOPLE, and costs FIVE HUNDRED NINETY MILLION DOLLARS.
You don't measure a city's transportation success by transit ridership. It is simple, how much time does it take to get from point A to B, and how much time does that cost.

Until you can save at least 15 minutes for 50 000+ people, like regular RT systems that actually benefit the riders.

At this stage of development, the investment in RT in Winnipeg isn't just about saving a few minutes for a few current passengers now, but in order to build towards the ability to accommodate a much larger ridership with future time savings for all commuters. A RT system, when it is eventually in place, is ultimately designed to make the travel times of public transit faster than that of private vehicles. And the only way to get there in the future is to start building now. Yes it is very expensive in the terms you are trying to use now, the long term payoff is having this ready for the future at todays price instead of the much more expensive future price.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Arts

At this stage of development, the investment in RT in Winnipeg isn't just about saving a few minutes for a few current passengers now, but in order to build towards the ability to accommodate a much larger ridership with future time savings for all commuters. A RT system, when it is eventually in place, is ultimately designed to make the travel times of public transit faster than that of private vehicles. And the only way to get there in the future is to start building now. Yes it is very expensive in the terms you are trying to use now, the long term payoff is having this ready for the future at todays price instead of the much more expensive future price.

This is future planning. Long over due and needed. I believe the benefit will far outwiegh the cost in the long term.

The 60-70's are long gone, It's a game of catch up. Vehicles off the road will benefit RT in the long run.

[Arts]

Originally Posted by Cyro

This is future planning. Long over due and needed. I believe the benefit will far outwiegh the cost in the long term.

The 60-70's are long gone, It's a game of catch up. Vehicles off the road will benefit RT in the long run.

Yes, a large part of the current costs are paying for the deficit caused by lack of planning in the past.

It is hard to quantify a real value for it. You can measure it in time savings, as njaohnt does, and get some real numbers, in those terms. But what do his figures really mean? Why would any taxpayer who has decided to not use public transit want to pay even a dime? Well if they choose to live in this city then it is part and parcel of municipal services. If you, a voting citizen, think this is of value and is worth spending your tax dollars on, then you vote for an alderman/councilor that will support it. And similarly if you think it is not cost effective, or something you don't want your tax dollars funding, then vote for a representative that is against it.

But if you look at all cities that have RT in place, they all had to start somewhere, and I bet that in all those instances the upfront costs could not be justified using the time-savings valuation of the project.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by Arts

But if you look at all cities that have RT in place, they all had to start somewhere, and I bet that in all those instances the upfront costs could not be justified using the time-savings valuation of the project.

Couldn't agree more.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The comparison for phase 2 rapid transit to expanding Pembina is directly relevant. Currently, the curb line in each direction is a defacto diamond lane. If you remove the buses from that lane the volume of traffic will gradually promote the use of the lane by non-transit vehicles.

Separately, if rapid transit, regardless of its mode, it successful there will be a reduction in the the number of personal vehicles travelling the same route. Keep in mind though with that area still growing it is likely the count on number of vehicles using routes services by rapid transit will still increase however it will take longer to exceed the capacity point of those roads.

These are things you cannot measure if terms of the amount of time saved per passenger. These are also a direct benefit to everyone in city as we are not going to need an expanded roadway from south Winnipeg to downtown, a cost that all taxpayers would bare.

It would take a lot less money to add a few overpasses than to spend it on rapid transit.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by scryer

Omg... are those really the facts? Can you source those?

Yes. The transportation master plan, and google maps say:
-SW transitway will have 1 800 people per AM peak hour
-15% of trips are made in the AM peak
-161 takes 11 minutes along from Jubilee on
-Stage one is 3.6 km
-Stage two is 7 km
-Stage one takes 6 minutes to complete
-Stage two costs $590 million

There is no way a bus can get through 7 km in less than 9 minutes.
1 800*6.67=12 000

[scryer]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

Yes. The transportation master plan, and google maps say:
-SW transitway will have 1 800 people per AM peak hour
-15% of trips are made in the AM peak
-161 takes 11 minutes along from Jubilee on
-Stage one is 3.6 km
-Stage two is 7 km
-Stage one takes 6 minutes to complete
-Stage two costs $590 million

There is no way a bus can get through 7 km in less than 9 minutes.
1 800*6.67=12 000

Wow. A ~10km "rapid transit" system, and that's stage 2? Kinda sounds like crap to me especially when compared to Calgary's BRT...

[bomberjet]

Jesus Chirst. I'm a rapid transit supporter, but will elaborate a bit here.

This is stage 2 of a, I don't know, 15 stage system. This is one snippit of a much larger thing. Everyone (most people) wants an RT system and sees that real cities need this type of infrastructure. But everyone's complaining it costs way too much. And this is only stage 2!

I understand the $590 price tag is large. But, again, only $400M of that is for RT. Don't get me wrong, $400M is a ton of money! When the eastern corridor goes through, there's a new river crossing. Any guesses on price tag on that alone? $75M?? For one bridge.

I won't get into the Pembina vs. dog leg thing for stage 2. But this is one key piece to the whole system, the link to the U of M. The largest university for literally a thousand km's. Once buses (or trains) from the eastern, western, northern, whatever routes come online, they should just use Pembina?! That seems ludicrous and backwards thinking to me.

But we'll scrap this key piece of this system, so buses from all around can line up in the curb lane on Pembina. That 2 minutes will turn into 20 minutes. Every City has to start somewhere. Calgary didn't have an extensive RT system all at once. You need to build it up over time. Winnipeg seems to have a good plan going forward in terms of routing/service. It's all tarnished now because Katz and his cronies had their hands all over it. Let's get trough this stage and move on already.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by njaohnt

It would take a lot less money to add a few overpasses than to spend it on rapid transit.

Induced demand: planning 101.

http://www.worldbank.org/transport/r...s/apbinduc.pdf
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-tr...nduced-demand/
http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf


The biggest flaw in your evaluation of this transit line is your assumption that we're in a static system. Like others have pointed out, building a transit line will lead to more transit trips. Every year it's in operation it will save more people time.

And there are the other savings beyond time. Personal vehicles are a tremendous expense that a rapid transit line can unburden people from. If you want to cast an even wider net, we could add in healthcare savings from people being in fewer car crashes and living less sedentary lifestyles.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by CoryB

The question you need to ask is not how much value the time rapid transit would save but rather what is the cost savings over expanding Pembina to eight lanes from Julibee to Bishop.

I don't care how much traffic Pembina has, if the investment of widening the road doesn't pay for the time saved, it shouldn't be done.

Using taxes to pay for stuff is no different than stealing when it is not beneficial. If the average it is like stealing $850+ from everybody. Can you imagine someone showing up at your door, saying that you have to pay $850+ so they can build rapid transit? Imagine how mad people would be. You can say that people who will use it would pay $850+, but the people who use it are going to have to pay more because there are less of them. They would have to pay $84 000+ each, which is absurd. If you have that kind of money to spend on transportation, you don't ride the bus.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Exactly, it's more than just time. Mass transit is cheaper per passenger mile (and takes up less space) than automobiles on roads/highways.

But it is $84 000+ per person. Who would pay that?
If you want to make rapid transit happen, look at route 90. People will save a lot there.

Of course the calculation is not perfect, but they don't have the statistics available to accurately calculate it. The point is that Stage 2 is far from worth it.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by Arts

At this stage of development, the investment in RT in Winnipeg isn't just about saving a few minutes for a few current passengers now, but in order to build towards the ability to accommodate a much larger ridership with future time savings for all commuters. A RT system, when it is eventually in place, is ultimately designed to make the travel times of public transit faster than that of private vehicles. And the only way to get there in the future is to start building now. Yes it is very expensive in the terms you are trying to use now, the long term payoff is having this ready for the future at todays price instead of the much more expensive future price.

I'm not saying that Stage two shouldn't happen, I'm saying that now is not the time. Maybe when Pembina has F LOS at most intersections, and ridership at AM peak hour is more like 10 000. For now, I think a route 90 corridor has a lot of value.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Jesus Chirst. I'm a rapid transit supporter, but will elaborate a bit here.

This is stage 2 of a, I don't know, 15 stage system. This is one snippit of a much larger thing. Everyone (most people) wants an RT system and sees that real cities need this type of infrastructure. But everyone's complaining it costs way too much. And this is only stage 2!

I understand the $590 price tag is large. But, again, only $400M of that is for RT. Don't get me wrong, $400M is a ton of money! When the eastern corridor goes through, there's a new river crossing. Any guesses on price tag on that alone? $75M?? For one bridge.

I won't get into the Pembina vs. dog leg thing for stage 2. But this is one key piece to the whole system, the link to the U of M. The largest university for literally a thousand km's. Once buses (or trains) from the eastern, western, northern, whatever routes come online, they should just use Pembina?! That seems ludicrous and backwards thinking to me.

But we'll scrap this key piece of this system, so buses from all around can line up in the curb lane on Pembina. That 2 minutes will turn into 20 minutes. Every City has to start somewhere. Calgary didn't have an extensive RT system all at once. You need to build it up over time. Winnipeg seems to have a good plan going forward in terms of routing/service. It's all tarnished now because Katz and his cronies had their hands all over it. Let's get trough this stage and move on already.

I don't think Calgary's RT is really that successful. Yes you need to build it up over time, but is now the time? How much worse will Pembina get? Once Pembina takes an extra twenty minutes, of course we can build stage two. But do you think I am going to pay $84 000 today to $8 000 per year, when it take quite a bit longer, and I can go where ever I want? Never. Once RT is faster than driving, then make it. Think of what we could do with the money! Saving twenty minutes won't happen for a while, so lets wait for that. In the mean while, add transit priority, and off-board fare-collection, and we'll save people a lot of time and money.

[njaohnt]

Originally Posted by biguc

Induced demand: planning 101.

http://www.worldbank.org/transport/r...s/apbinduc.pdf
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-tr...nduced-demand/
http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf


The biggest flaw in your evaluation of this transit line is your assumption that we're in a static system. Like others have pointed out, building a transit line will lead to more transit trips. Every year it's in operation it will save more people time.

Yes, it goes for 50 years. By then major repairs will be necessary. Ridership won't be 12 000 until 2031.

And there are the other savings beyond time. Personal vehicles are a tremendous expense that a rapid transit line can unburden people from. If you want to cast an even wider net, we could add in healthcare savings from people being in fewer car crashes and living less sedentary lifestyles.

It would take care of the $84 000 people have to pay for it.