Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[Biff]

What i don't understand about phase 2 of the proposal is this - they say it is to be a totally dedicated right of way for buses and that there will be bridges at Jubilee and Bishop Grandin. If you follow the route on google there are no less than 12 cross street to where the line would go. Hopefully i need to give the designers the benefit of the doubt but i can't believe they would just dead end these streets and i would think that it would be cost prohibitive to make the whole thing elevated so...what gives?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Pegger5

Come on guys. give the designers/engineers credit. They will look at the mistakes Ottawa made and try to avoid them. Ottawa has a lot of experience in "what to do and not to do"
Winnipeg can thank Ottawa for "pardon the pun" paving the way... It will be designed for LRT period! Most of Ottawa's BRT were not thus the constant debate there...

The Transitway was designed to LRT criteria w.r.t. radii, clearances, gradients and structural loadings. Theoretically, a last minute decision at the time of construction could have seen rail laid rather than asphalt and it wouldn't have caused any grief to make that change. A 'transitway' is literally a technology-neutral transit corridor designed to accommodate a wide range of transit technologies. We could even put in heavy rail metro.

The constant debate is really between the entire transit-using population (and then some) who are sick of the poor transit experience and want rail and the small cadre of BRT engineers who came up with it not wanting to see their busways converted. The lessons to learn from Ottawa are not so much technical as political. Does Winnipeg have a schedule for conversion to LRT or criteria to be met for conversion to take place? If not there'll be never-ending arguments about it. Get those criteria or schedules on the public record now, before it is built. Will the cost of conversion appear in the long term capital budget along with everything else? Were the politicians told how much extra it costs to build a busway and then convert it later? Nobody thought about those things in Ottawa 30 years ago but we ought to have.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

That set: was there a specific reason for the buses backing up that day, or a regular occurrence?

Love your photo sets BTW.

Actually, they're not mine. I have no idea who the guy is who is taking them but I'm sure glad he does because he's a veritable gold mine of embarrassing pictures. As for the particulars of that day, that extent of backing up is not a regular occurrence. I believe there had been an accident involving one of the articulated buses. An all-to-common problem is bus engine failure, which results in other buses having to overtake the disabled bus rather than just pushing it into a siding like with LRT. I suspect that is what happened, or rather was the aggravating circumstances leading to an accident.

There are regular backups on a smaller scale, especially in the afternoon. Downtown Ottawa is generally one long line of buses in the evening - you can watch it any day from the City's own live webcams. Winter snowfall backups are now routine - even in the mornings, which hadn't historically been a problem. The articulated buses frequently wrap themselves around poles in the snow and can't make proper turns because the powerplant is in the tail section in order to keep most of the bus as low floor. The BRT model requires buses to leave the Transitway to maintain "transfer-free rides", so there's always the potential for the artics to get stuck in the snow at the turn-offs as well as at stations when passing other buses. In order to avoid this, the Transitway is cleared, salted and sanded within an inch of its life, so consequently our buses are generally filthy in the winter and stops can't be seen from inside.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Biff

so...what gives?

Probably phase 2 of the project...

[Ruckus]

The proposal sounds promising Winnipeg, although, comments from Dado and the complete Ottawa experience do raise valid concerns for the current BRT application, as well as future transitioning to LRT.

Hope everything works out alright.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Dado

The constant debate is really between the entire transit-using population (and then some) who are sick of the poor transit experience and want rail and the small cadre of BRT engineers who came up with it not wanting to see their busways converted. The lessons to learn from Ottawa are not so much technical as political. Does Winnipeg have a schedule for conversion to LRT or criteria to be met for conversion to take place? If not there'll be never-ending arguments about it.

I would doubt it because Winnipeg's layout as a city is much different than Ottawa's and it is unlikely that the BRT, which basically replaces a single bus route with minimal opportunity for feeder lines into the stations, would become congested enough to warrant the huge expense of conversion. Were more funds to become available in the future, it would make much more sense to extend similar BRT transitways into other parts of the city.

[Tower Crane]

Can someone please post a photo of what exactly the BRT roadway and buses will look like for the Winnipeg proposal.
I have not seen BRT and by reading the posts I'm not sure if there is some sort of guideway on the road for BRT, is there???
What happens at crossroads, does BRT have the right of way???

[Andy6]

Repasting the map

I don't know if there would be any crossroads in Phase I (between Harkness and Jubilee) -- it would be mostly an unimpeded flow, I think.

I would assume that the vehicles themselves would just be ordinary buses, since Phase I would make little sense unless the Pembina buses coming from the south could proceed straight onto the transitway at Jubilee. Of course, I'd expect that some sort of high-end bus would be bought for this route. But maybe someone else knows more about it.

[Only The Lonely..]

Rapid money waste: Iffy transit plan makes little sense

By Tom Brodbeck | Winnipeg Sun - Tuesday, Aug. 9 , 2008

Here we go again.

Another expensive bus rapid-transit announcement with no details, no business plan, incomplete funding and at best a sketchy timeline.

That is, if the city can find the money to do it. If they can, the first half of the route -- from downtown to Jubilee Avenue -- could be built in three years, says Mayor Sam Katz.

And if the feds are on board for the second half of the route, then maybe they can build that part in six years -- but only if the city can obtain the land currently owned by CN.

It's a lot of ifs.

Oh, and by the way, Katz doesn't think BRT will get most people out of their cars and into transit.

He thinks only light-rail transit can do that. In fact, he promised Winnipeggers during yesterday's announcement that they "will" have LRT and that LRT is "just around the corner." Then why did he and Premier Gary Doer announce BRT?

Well, because if we don't get LRT, we'll do BRT along the same route -- even though it won't do much to increase ridership.

Follow?

How can they put a price tag on rapid transit when they don't even know if they're building a bus corridor or a light-rail line?

Considering the city wants to spend $323 million on a rapid transit, you'd think they would have their act together.

They also had no details whatsoever on the proposed BRT line.

All they released yesterday was a one-page news release with vague language about "rapid transit." There was no business plan, no funding details and no concrete timeline.

And there are still no estimates on how much faster BRT could transport people compared with regular, on-road buses -- a key piece of information required to do any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

The only way you're going to get people out of their cars and into transit is if you shorten travel times. But it has to be a substantial improvement over the status quo.

Right now it, it takes about 20 to 25 minutes to get from downtown to the U of M on a regular, on-road express bus. How much faster would it take with bus rapid transit?

They have no estimates. If it only shaves five or six minutes off the trip, for example, does anyone really think people are going to leave their cars at home and flock to BRT?

Think about it.

Are we going to spend $323 million on a BRT corridor that sounds nice and flashy and forward-thinking but in reality does very little to increase ridership?

Even Katz doesn't believe BRT will substantially increase ridership. He says we need LRT to do that.

So why is he announcing a BRT system?

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'd rather see $323 million go towards something concrete, like fixing Winnipeg's combined sewer system to end the practice of dumping raw sewage into our rivers.

How about using $323 million for more hybrid government vehicles or to retrofit public buildings with geothermal energy?

Those would result in substantial, guaranteed cuts to carbon emissions.

At best, BRT may attract a few more riders and result in very modest emission reductions, but there's no guarantee.

Sounds like a colossal waste of money to me.

[Only The Lonely..]

Winnipeg Sun Poll of the Day:

Do you support the rapid transit plan unveiled by the province and city?

yes 46%
no 54%


Total Votes for this Question: 1358

[Only The Lonely..]

Winnipeg Free Press Online Poll:

Do you think the first phase of the rapid transit plan is the right path?
Yes 55%
No 45%

Total Votes: 1496

[Only The Lonely..]

Free Press Rapid Transit Video:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/mul...tid=1781124612

Why does it show a train running down Portage Ave? I got my hopes up.

[thegreattait]

Originally Posted by Biff

People will most likely have some criticisms towards Andrew Marquess and his style of projects, but you can't question his recent track record of getting things done - Hargrave Tower conversion, Apartments off McPhillips and Troy and now the old Sheraton conversion. He has come through with what he has said he would do.

I've been in one of the B&M Land "Andrew Marquess" properties downtown and those were some of the nicest apartments I have seen in that price range. Also from hearing first hand from the tenants, the company is very responsive to their needs. I think Andrew Marquess is a great addition to this city, his business principles ensure things get done and he believes in spending money to do a project right.

That's a rare thing in Winnipeg. So this announcement is great news, I just hopes he wants to pressure the city a little and say build LRT and you get two concrete towers. That would be nice.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Free Press Rapid Transit Video:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/mul...tid=1781124612

Why does it show a train running down Portage Ave? I got my hopes up.

I know, eh? Talk about false advertisement

What a joke of a video.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I would doubt it because Winnipeg's layout as a city is much different than Ottawa's and it is unlikely that the BRT, which basically replaces a single bus route with minimal opportunity for feeder lines into the stations, would become congested enough to warrant the huge expense of conversion.

If that's the case, why bother doing rapid transit at all?

I don't know about the route part, but this study says that this will be the most intensively-used corridor in Winnipeg, with something on the order of 23,000 riders per day:
http://winnipeg.ca/cao/pdfs/news_rel...inalReport.pdf

That's enough for LRT, but yes, once you've got BRT in a corridor with that level of ridership there's unlikely to be sufficient grounds to ever convert it. This is a commitment for BRT for the long term, unless there is a very strong political will to change it over. Once built, the BRT consultants will then argue that it doesn't make sense to build LRT in any other corridor because it won't be part of a complete LRT network.

I have to say I found that report very disconcerting because of the claims made in it about BRT and especially LRT in Ottawa. Seems that Ottawa's favourite BRT consultants have been busy again.

[Greco Roman]

Originally Posted by Dado

If that's the case, why bother doing rapid transit at all?
This is a commitment for BRT for the long term, unless there is a very strong political will to change it over. Once built, the BRT consultants will then argue that it doesn't make sense to build LRT in any other corridor because it won't be part of a complete LRT network.

This is my biggest reason why I am against BRT. Once it's in, we will never be able to convert it. And I don't care what any politician tells me, because we all know that BRT is here to stay in Winnipeg. LRT never had a chance in hell as far as I'm concerned. So I wish that shammy would stop lying to the public and just say that Winnipeg will never get anything better than poor-mans rapid transit. This is the reality we face. Sam Katz is a liar.

[Tower Crane]

I have watched the video a few times now. Those 2 ( Katz and Doer ) should be be ashamed of that presentation. Alot of fluffy nothingness and a LRT style train used in the video while announcing BRT. I guess they figure that the public aren't smart enough to see the difference. I believe that they are just being themselves some time.....the Smoke and Mirrors Magic Act by Katz and Doer.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Dado

Ever been in an articulated bus going at 80 km/h or faster on a bumpy road? That's uncomfortable. And let there be no doubt - buses degrade the quality of the asphalt very quickly in a freeze-thaw climate, so after a few years the ride is miserable.



If

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawab...ry/2312819837/

you

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawab...ry/2244012157/

say

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawab...ry/2539619824/

so.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawab...ry/2538802663/


On a side note, I see absolutely no point whatsover in building BRT in rail corridors, which is what I read the second phase will be using. The last time we did that around here we've had to spend money twice: to relocate the railway (i.e. rebuild it) and then build the busway, whereas with light rail we could have just added tracks to the corridor. La Ville de Gatineau (across the Ottawa River in Quebec) will be building BRT in a rail corridor and sure enough they're going to rebuild the railway as well. It's just the height of stupidity to build BRT in a rail corridor because you end up doing half of what you need to do to build LRT anyway. It's also easy to build LRT in a rail corridor because you can deliver the supplies by railway construction train rather than trucking it all in.

Okay, to answer your question, yes, in fact I've ridden articulated buses many times on a dedicated bus corridor. That's why I keep saying I've ridden articulated buses many times on a dedicated bus corridor.

What you didn't mention right there was that those aren't pictures of the busway itself but pictures of the downtown portion or near it where the buses enter the regular street system. It's no different than taking a picture of the Queensway around five o'clock looking, say, westbound towards Kanata. And why does everybody get on the Queensway ? Because it's one of only two practical routes that will take you past the Greenbelt to reach Kanata or Stittsville. You could take Carling I suppose but the vast majority of people who live in Kanata don't live in Morgan's Grant and Carling won't take you to Stittsville anyway.

Let's not try and compare Winnipeg to Ottawa though. For one thing, Ottawa is considerably denser inside the greenbelt (and outside of it too for that matter where there is urbanization)

Secondly, Ottawa and Winnipeg are spread out in completely different ways. Ottawa ends up having to funnel traffic onto what basically boils down to three or four major routes to reach the core whereas in Winnipeg you have at least seven that I can think of off the top of my head. So here, those routes are handling less traffic and on top of that, our traffic capacity along those routes is much higher than equivalent arteries in Ottawa. We have, through sheer luck really, some major advantages where capacity and volumes are concerned. We can re-route onto other streets to serve the same people. For example, if Graham finds itself too packed with buses one day, Portage Avenue makes a very handy re-routing option.

Thirdly, Ottawa has much higher transit usage per-capita , has a higher population even before taking the Quebec side into account, and has a considerably greater need to serve the downtown employment hub along Slater and Albert. There is no real comparison between these two cities that can be made thanks to their layout, density, and ridership differences. This is truly apples and oranges.

Lastly, Ottawa's problem is a function of its success with BRT. You also have healthier funding levels thanks to the NCC and the federal commitment to making Ottawa a showpiece whenever possible. As well, the only real solution to Ottawa's current issue with buses downtown is a tunnel. Whether it had been trains or buses Ottawa originally went with, sooner or later this would have come up.

[thegreattait]

The topic has fallen off the radar recently, but the bad decision to run a transmission line down the West side of Lake Winnipeg remains. The projected cost difference is an estimate $400 million more then running the line down the east side of Lake Winnipeg.

What does this have to do with Transit in Winnipeg? Well surely the if province of Manitoba has the budget to waste $400 million, then they will have $400 million to redirect to LRT funding in Winnipeg, once they smarten up and make a better decision.

If canceling their previous decision and instead decide to run the line down the east side, additional funds could be redirected to build both phases of the rapid transit route at one time and make that route Light Rail, instead of a bus corridor.

Smart thinking, two good ideas for the price of one.

Just a thought. Any comments?

[madsad]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Rapid money waste: Iffy transit plan makes little sense

By Tom Brodbeck | Winnipeg Sun - Tuesday, Aug. 9 , 2008

I agree with Brodbeck on one point. There was too little information presented with this song-and-dance release. Now is the time to generate the business and communications plan for this BRT system. Will it be a dedicated line? Or will existing routes (61, 62, 63) just tie into it? If it is a dedicated line, will it be branded with a unique identity? Can Winnipegers suggest the name of the system (like the City slogan)? Will special vehicles be used? WiFi? Off-board fare collection? Frequency? Running times? Span of service? A million questions are unanswered and need to be addressed now, not later. This is the wrong way to plan a BRT system.

However, of course there will unquestionably be travel time savings with a dedicated running way. That's the whole purpose of having a dedicated ROW.

The travel times between the U of M and downtown by bus are under-represented here, in the interest of making a pro-light rail (or, in Mr Brodbeck's case, anti-transit-investment) arguments. The express buses, running in mixed traffic and subject to all the delays associated with mixed traffic operations take far more time than 20 minutes to travel between the U and Downtown. The 61's travel time is currently 31 minutes, not 20 or 25, and I hazard a guess that it rarely makes it within that time, particularly during Winter weather.

A dedicated right of way will mean, barring the odd incident on the busway (which can happen with light rail as well), that the travel time is 25 minutes (an estimate, it could end up being more or less) rain or shine, car accidents and congestion on Pembina, or no congestion, it does not matter, it will always be 25 minutes. That is a service guarantee and that will attract choice riders.

And thank-you, Sprocket, for some level-headed analysis of the congested (because it's well used) BRT system in Ottawa.