Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

The new construction will be reallocated space on existing roads with only 1 new overpass constructed on Stradbrook to connect the Blue line with Union Station. Theoretically it should be easier to construct this expansion then the southwest transitway.

More than that actually. A new bridge over the Assiniboine River, along with connecting infrastructure to get the buses down to Portage Ave. I'd like to see that done sooner than later though to get those Blue line buses off of Main St, and away from that mess coming out of Harkness Station to get to Main. Now they come up with the garbage plan to send RT buses down Sutherland. Nice corridor, but it should have nothing to do with the eastern RT corridor. I suppose it's the cheapest option and will look pretty.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

However, it has been proven that we know how to build BRT competently and therefore should keep pursuing BRT expansion.

This also goes to show that P3 partnerships are NOT the way to go forward when constructing public transportation lines.

um... the Phase 2 SWBRT was a P3

given our city's obvious incapacity to effectively manage the costs, schedule and design/construction risks itself for major infrastructure projects, i think it would be a disaster for us to use traditional procurement for major rapid transit projects

[bomberjet]

IMO, the P3 part of it saved the City like $100 mil on the BRT job over the 30 year period. Went from $590 Mil with contingency down to $400 mil. This may be one of the more extreme examples of cost savings via P3.

The P3 thing is separate from your opinion on the route and form of the Southwest Transitway. P3's have their place. The owner just needs to stand firm in what they want and not accept cheaped out versions.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

IMO, the P3 part of it saved the City like $100 mil on the BRT job over the 30 year period. Went from $590 Mil with contingency down to $400 mil. This may be one of the more extreme examples of cost savings via P3.

The P3 thing is separate from your opinion on the route and form of the Southwest Transitway. P3's have their place. The owner just needs to stand firm in what they want and not accept cheaped out versions.

At a minimum, it's good to have the party who builds the infrastructure responsible for the maintenance of the infrastructure over its expected lifespan.

Lots of our roads are bad by design, but some of them are bad because they were shoddily built in ways that only become apparent a few seasons in. I like that under a well-structured P3, there's an alignment of incentives. You build it right because you have to live with the results.

In traditional city procurement, the contractors cheap out or cut corners in hidden ways... and then when it fails it's the city's problem.

[trueviking]

i wrote a column last night about LRT and came across this youtube video that made me laugh. titled Why Light Rail is better than Bus Rapid Transit

Its a guy from New York. The first line of the video. You are watching this for one of three reasons, you love LRT and agree with me, you Love BRT and are already writing a comment to disagree, or you are from Winnipeg and the title induces an inner rage in you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUk-GypkNs

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i wrote a column last night about LRT and came across this youtube video that made me laugh. titled Why Light Rail is better than Bus Rapid Transit

Its a guy from New York. The first line of the video. You are watching this for one of three reasons, you love LRT and agree with me, you Love BRT and are already writing a comment to disagree, or you are from Winnipeg and the title induces an inner rage in you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUk-GypkNs

Alan Fisher is one of the better youtube channels in regards to urbanism. Honestly, I've had to take a deep introspection in terms of my rationale for BRT vs Tram and to my utter dismay I must officially concede that rail transit (even light rail) would be superior to BRT. There are some advantages to BRT, but in terms of busses vs trains specifically here's what I have unearthed on a comparison between the New Flyer XE60 and Alstom Citadis Spirit Train which run predominantly on tramways or light rail.

This will be a direct comparison between the New Flyer XE60 and the Alstom Citadis Spirit Train.

King County Metro purchased 40 XE60 articulated busses for $50 million USD or approximately $64 million CAD. This equals approximately [B]$1.6 million for each XE60.The XE60 has a seated capacity of 61 and standing capacity of 62 for a total capacity of 123. Extrapolating this to cost/passenger would mean a total cost of $13k passenger.

The Alstom Citadis Spirt Train on the other hand has a capacity of 292 with 120 seated and 172 standing. “Alstom has been awarded a contract worth close to 200 million (approximately CA$300 million) by Rideau Transit Group (RTG) [1] to supply 38 Citadis Spirit light rail vehicles for the Stage 2 O-Train Light Rail Transit Expansion Project in Ottawa, Ontario.” That means each train in this purchase was approximately $7.9 million and extrapolating this to 292 passengers equals $27k per passenger.

Since you're paying 5x the price for a train if you bought the equivalent of 5 busses then the municipality would be able to carry about 325 more people for the same rate as buying the train.
123x5 =615 passengers or more then 2x the Spirit Train
However, on average
123x2.5 (to account for lifespan) = 307.5 passengers so it's still comparable at this junction.

Now comparing seated passengers is a different story. Cost/seated passenger of the XE60 is $26k compared to $66k for the Citadis Spirit. So LRT in 5 minute headways = 292x12 =3504 passengers/hour 1 way (7000 passengers/hour total). However in terms of seated passengers 120x12 = 1,440 or 2,880 seated passengers/hour.

The XE60 at 5 minute headways = 123x12 = 1,476 passengers 1 way (2,952 passengers/hour). Seated Passenger wise cut it in half to about 1,450 seated passengers/hour. To get comparable passenger capacity with the tram would require 57 busses to run or basically 2 minute headways. 57x$1.6 million = $91.2 million to purchase while 24x$7.9 million = $189.6 million to purchase. Double the price to account for the BRT lifespan and it would still be $182.4 million or $7.4 million cheaper to buy the electric BRTs during the train's lifespan. The difference now is that 57 busses can carry 3,477 seated passengers/hour while the 24 LRT can carry 2,880 seated passengers/hour.

However, paying the wages of 33 extra bus drivers compared to conductors make any savings on a BRT negligible and fruitless. Furthermore, trains have on average double the lifespan of an average bus which also reduces operating costs significantly. Finally, due to their more impressive construction and being on rails it is much easier to automate and Winnipeg could build a new rail system and go straight to automation with the technology present in the industry. In comparison there are 0 autonomous busses currently running the technology simply isn't there rn. The busses have also been firmly established in this city and the transition to autonomous busses will take decades. Literally 60% of transit's budget is solely for salaries and benefits. Only 9% of transit's budget currently is spent on the actual service. Winnipeg Transit will never make a profit at this rate. With all the bus operator shortages happening as well we have to consider that a labour shortage is a catastrophe for public transportation. Even the supposed "Rapid Transit" Blue line was running 17 minute headways during the day before yesterday... No matter what time of day it is anything longer then 15 minute wait times is utter failure for rapid transit.

If switching back to rail transit means automated public transportation in Winnipeg then sign me tf up. After all Winnipeg was in it's peak when rail transportation dominated why not go back to our roots?

Too lazy to cite but here are my references.
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/washingtons-king-county-metro-to-purchase-up-to-120-new-flyer-electric-buses/
https://www.newflyer.com/bus/xcelsior-charge-ng/
https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/lrv/lrv.aspx#:~:text=The%20Citadis%20Spirit%20has%20a,toughest%20winter%20and%20hottest%20summer
https://www.alstom.com/press-release...ederation-line

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Even the supposed "Rapid Transit" Blue line was running 17 minute headways during the day before yesterday...

Headway between rush hours is actually around 8 minutes on the Southwest Rapid Transit Corridor between Chancellor Station and downtown, but I digress. I don't know what fall frequencies are going to be however. The original scheduling had 6 to 7 minute headways.

[esquire]

It is normally hard for me to disagree with anything written in Brent Bellamy newspaper columns, but I guess there's a first time for everything:

The time is right for LRT transition

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...lrt-transition

There are currently 18 light rail projects under construction or in development in Canada, and Winnipeg will soon be the only city in the country’s 10 largest without light rail. The federal government has become a willing investment partner, and with changes already happening to Winnipeg Transit, the moment might be right to finally end the debate and join the more than 50 cities across North America that have invested in LRT, transforming the image of our city and redefining public transportation for the next generation.

The provincial government is strapped for cash and can barely afford the most essential infrastructure projects. (Let's leave aside for a moment that much of this is is self-induced, as the province loves to announce various tax cuts and rebates in spite of the various dire needs that exist throughout Manitoba.)

The feds are reasonably generous, but how long will this last given that the current government is starting to get long in the tooth and its likely successor will probably not follow their lead?

All that a mode shift at this point will accomplish is stall rapid transit development even further. It's been 20 years since the city really started to get serious(ish?) about rapid transit, and all we have to show for it is one measly, not-quite-complete line, with a second one baking in the oven.

BRT may not be perfect, but it is still rapid transit. And since getting funding for that has proven to be difficult, switching to a more expensive mode will probably slow things down even more. Not to mention the delays that will come from having to essentially re-engineer an entirely new network. If we switched to LRT today, it could be at least 15 years before we actually saw a new route go into service.

I appreciate that LRT has certain advantages over BRT, but we made our collective decision and we should advance that vision instead of getting wishy-washy over it and spending the next 7 years debating which mode we should use going forward.

[thebasketballgeek]

^The existing BRT line can still be converted to LRT or Tramway at any time. It's not like it would require a complete overhaul of our existing system just simply add rail lines to the transitway. Although I would've agreed with you until a week ago when I got introduced to Tram Greenways.

Should we rather spend our money on this:



Or this?



We have to ask ourselves what will make our city look nicer, increase the residents quality of life more, what is more affordable for the city in the long run, and of course what will spur more development?

All of those questions are simply better answered by rail transit and we can't make the mistake of thinking that BRT can be a viable replacement for rail transit. Winnipeg should have never gone away from being a rail hub because that's exactly when you can pinpoint our fall from prominence in the Canadian context. If we want this city to be truly exceptional like it was in the early 1900s we have to provide the appropriate public transportation to do so.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by esquire

It is normally hard for me to disagree with anything written in Brent Bellamy newspaper columns, but I guess there's a first time for everything:

The time is right for LRT transition

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...lrt-transition



The provincial government is strapped for cash and can barely afford the most essential infrastructure projects. (Let's leave aside for a moment that much of this is is self-induced, as the province loves to announce various tax cuts and rebates in spite of the various dire needs that exist throughout Manitoba.)

The feds are reasonably generous, but how long will this last given that the current government is starting to get long in the tooth and its likely successor will probably not follow their lead?

All that a mode shift at this point will accomplish is stall rapid transit development even further. It's been 20 years since the city really started to get serious(ish?) about rapid transit, and all we have to show for it is one measly, not-quite-complete line, with a second one baking in the oven.

BRT may not be perfect, but it is still rapid transit. And since getting funding for that has proven to be difficult, switching to a more expensive mode will probably slow things down even more. Not to mention the delays that will come from having to essentially re-engineer an entirely new network. If we switched to LRT today, it could be at least 15 years before we actually saw a new route go into service.

I appreciate that LRT has certain advantages over BRT, but we made our collective decision and we should advance that vision instead of getting wishy-washy over it and spending the next 7 years debating which mode we should use going forward.

I too usually agree with most of Vike’s takes ( P&M aside) and enjoy his columns, but he is off base on the whole LRT debate when trying to compare Winnipeg to either Calgary and Edmonton.

Both cities were flush with Alberta oil cash when the lines were built and both cities had a lot of empty land to build the routes on neither of which Winnipeg or Manitoba has unfortunately!

Let’s get our bus service figured out on the non-BRT lines before we even contemplate further BRT expansion let alone fantasy LRT lines!

PS it’s hard to believe but the original C train line in Calgary began operating way back in 1981! So about the same time as Bishop Grandin was an operational roadway here that hasn’t been upgraded since but now carries 3-4 times the traffic volume it did back then! The City of Winnipeg can’t even figure out arterial roadways and we’re supposed to implement LRT!

[soewnz]

Not sure if it has been addressed on here, but Winnipeg has never even rolled out a true BRT where you're ticketed to get into the station as opposed to onboard the buses. That would be a good upgrade for the Southwest Transitway to give people a taste of what BRT could really be like.

I'm not gonna lie though, feasibility aside, I'd love to see a Union Station>Polo Park LRT. Maybe have a section go underground under Graham Ave with a sweet Woonerf built on top afterwards. That'll happen... right?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

It is normally hard for me to disagree with anything written in Brent Bellamy newspaper columns, but I guess there's a first time for everything:

The time is right for LRT transition

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...lrt-transition



The provincial government is strapped for cash and can barely afford the most essential infrastructure projects. (Let's leave aside for a moment that much of this is is self-induced, as the province loves to announce various tax cuts and rebates in spite of the various dire needs that exist throughout Manitoba.)

The feds are reasonably generous, but how long will this last given that the current government is starting to get long in the tooth and its likely successor will probably not follow their lead?

All that a mode shift at this point will accomplish is stall rapid transit development even further. It's been 20 years since the city really started to get serious(ish?) about rapid transit, and all we have to show for it is one measly, not-quite-complete line, with a second one baking in the oven.

BRT may not be perfect, but it is still rapid transit. And since getting funding for that has proven to be difficult, switching to a more expensive mode will probably slow things down even more. Not to mention the delays that will come from having to essentially re-engineer an entirely new network. If we switched to LRT today, it could be at least 15 years before we actually saw a new route go into service.

I appreciate that LRT has certain advantages over BRT, but we made our collective decision and we should advance that vision instead of getting wishy-washy over it and spending the next 7 years debating which mode we should use going forward.

ha ha...its ok...i forgive you....i kind of expected you might.

but i disagree....we are completely re-engineering a new network...southwest will forever be a standalone busway. We are now moving to on-street dedicated routes that run up and down the line and do not travel off into neighbourhoods...pretty much the only advantage besides cost that BRT offers.

southwest is a complete failure and we should just cut bait and move on. The truth is that it ended up costing a similar amount to LRT in the end.

The other truth is that even BRT is a hard ask, so asking for more to do it right will likely take the same amount of time.

Kitchener, hamilton, quebec are all smaller than winnipeg and they are moving forward with LRT. Ottawa was the posterchild of BRT and they see the need to move on from it now. There are 50 cities with LRT in north america...50!

The only reason we feel like we should accept second best is because that's what we expect as winnipeggers....personally I am tired of that....BRT will always be a half measure sold on the false promise that maybe one day it can be changed to LRT.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Both cities were flush with Alberta oil cash when the lines were built and both cities had a lot of empty land to build the routes on neither of which Winnipeg or Manitoba has unfortunately!

three words. Hamilton. Quebec. Kitchener.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by trueviking

ha ha...its ok...i forgive you....i kind of expected you might.

but i disagree....we are completely re-engineering a new network...southwest will forever be a standalone busway. We are now moving to on-street dedicated routes that run up and down the line and do not travel off into neighbourhoods...pretty much the only advantage besides cost that BRT offers.

southwest is a complete failure and we should just cut bait and move on. The truth is that it ended up costing a similar amount to LRT in the end.

The other truth is that even BRT is a hard ask, so asking for more to do it right will likely take the same amount of time.

Kitchener, hamilton, quebec are all smaller than winnipeg and they are moving forward with LRT. Ottawa was the posterchild of BRT and they see the need to move on from it now. There are 50 cities with LRT in north america...50!

The only reason we feel like we should accept second best is because that's what we expect as winnipeggers....personally I am tired of that....BRT will always be a half measure sold on the false promise that maybe one day it can be changed to LRT.

I wouldn't say that the SW BRT is a failure. The dogleg didn't help, and it had the misfortune of being completed right at the time the world shut down for two years. But it's there and people use it. And also, development takes time. The Edmonton LRT opened in 1978 and it took over 20 years for even the most basic forms of TOD to take shape along the northeastern stretch of that route. It didn't really get going until the line was almost 30.

Also, as a sidenote, I find it interesting that we debated LRT and BRT all those years (and continue to, I guess) but we never included trams in the discussion. I wonder if that might have delivered most of the benefits of LRT with the simplicity and reduced expense of using existing streets/rights-of-way. Anyone who has lived in or visited Europe has probably ridden trams extensively and I can tell you I was certainly impressed by the level of service they provided.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i wrote a column last night about LRT and came across this youtube video that made me laugh. titled Why Light Rail is better than Bus Rapid Transit

Its a guy from New York. The first line of the video. You are watching this for one of three reasons, you love LRT and agree with me, you Love BRT and are already writing a comment to disagree, or you are from Winnipeg and the title induces an inner rage in you.

Not sure why these are such difficult concepts for people to grasp but here we go again.

Both the Provincal and Winnipeg have correctly applied either an informal or possibly formal "local first" policy in terms of public transit spending. Notice how all but the oldest Winnipeg Transit buses are exclusively New Flyer? Ever been over to Transcona and seen the large New Flyer plant? Ever been to other cities and noticed they too have New Flyer transit buses? Did you also know New Flyer is an international company with their HQ in Winnipeg?

What ONE advantage does LRT have which cannot be matched by BRT?

A high volume of passengers leaving a fixed origin travelling to a fixed destination at a specific point in time. It is going to be a LONG time before Winnipeg reaches that point, if ever.

Can we now put the LRT talk into the grave where it has always been and leave it alone and instead focus on how New Flyer, Winnipeg and the Provincal governments can jointly work together to make Winnipeg the world class showcase for the BRT advantage it should be?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

What ONE advantage does LRT have which cannot be matched by BRT?

A high volume of passengers leaving a fixed origin travelling to a fixed destination at a specific point in time. It is going to be a LONG time before Winnipeg reaches that point, if ever.

To expand on that point, the only time that SW BRT would have been better off as LRT would be immediately following Bomber games so you could haul large numbers of people on trains with theoretically one staff member (driver). But pretty well at all other times there is no advantage.

I'm not sure it's worth the cost to have a LRT take people home after large stadium events maybe a dozen times a year.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not sure it's worth the cost to have a LRT take people home after large stadium events maybe a dozen times a year.

In Winnipeg dares to say New Flyer, remember HQ is here and their products are made here, isn't good enough for the Winnipeg the Preimer and Mayor better heads over to the New Flyer plant in Transcona to personally hand out layoff notices to the estimated 8000 people that company employees. (Yes not all are Winnipeg based). To move away from New Flyer transit buses locally sends a strong single to every other jurisdiction looking to purchase their own public transit vehicles that they too should take New Flyer off their list. Also since when is it okay for our governments to say to a large local employer we don't want your product but will instead spend the tax dollars from your company and your employees on buying products from an out of province competitor?

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Notice how all but the oldest Winnipeg Transit buses are exclusively New Flyer?

The entire fleet is New Flyer buses actually.

[trueviking]

if I have to hear about New Flyer one more time....ha ha....who the hell cares about one order for a company that makes much of its product in north dakota.

I want what is best for my city, not the shareholders of a private company.

[trueviking]

southwest would be a waste as LRT...its fine to have empty buses running through empty fields.....cut bait and move on. It will never be a busy line.

The TOD it will inspire and has inspired is transit adjacent development....buildings surrounded by big parking lots...commercial along the highway, if there is commercial at all.....the adjacency to the busway is irrelevant...it was a waste of money in my opinion....if you have to have giant parking lots at each station so people can drive to the bus, you have done something wrong...that large amount of parking should have been large amounts of housing.