Rapid Transit: PHASE II

That sounds so cool and futuristic: Rapid Transit: Phase II. I envision a new glistening bullet train speeding over top of the city as a sultry female voice announces "Next stop, Osborne Station".

In reality we're getting ordinary buses that have their own right-of way and a computerized male voice that butchers half the street names. And it's not "Phase II", it's "Stage 2". 

I'll take it.

As most Winnipeggers who give a damn are aware, there has been some debate about how to route Stage 2: go straight down the CN line adjacent to Pembina Highway, or dogleg off to the west to take advantage of the transit-oriented development (TOD if you like acronyms) opportunities afforded by the vacant Parker Lands. A study was done to provide a recommendation on the matter. It can be found here: http://winnipegtransit.com/assets/932/Final_Report_-_SWRTC_Stage_2_Alignment_Options-web.pdf


I am going to get right to it: I don't like the recommendation. The study recommends the crooked option 1B, versus the straight option 2.

 

The primary reasons for this recommendation, given on page 65 of the report, are:

"Based on transit service design, transfer of ridership, flexibility of the system, walking distance to the stations, and development density Concepts 1A and 1B are seen as being more suited to BRT while Concept 2 is seen as being more suited to LRT."

and

"The Concept 1B alignment allows for the U of M to access the rapid transit system via multiple access points,along with alternate extensions of additional phases of rapid transit to other areas of southwest Winnipeg, including Linden Woods, Seasons of Tuxedo, Whyte Ridge, Kenaston Common and Waverley West."

To this second point: the only access point for additional phases of rapid transit that Option 2 precludes is Hurst Way. Where is Hurst Way? Exactly. Hurst Way is that little bit of road that you get when you extend Wilkes Ave. across Waverly. It certainly does not spring to mind as a critical Rapid Transit access point.

Remember, the point of this thing is to get people from downtown to the UofM and places in between. It's not to get people from Linden Woods to the UofM. That would be pointless. They won't use it anyhow.


The earlier point is explained in more detail on pages 35-37 of the study, which concludes with this statement:

"Although BRT technology will work well for the Concept 2 alignment, the more direct route and the current development density along the Letellier subdivision of Concept 2 is higher than along the Manitoba Hydro Corridor and consequently more passengers are within walking distance of the stations. As more opportunities for denser re-development occur along Pembina Highway, the Concept 2 alignment is better suited to LRT technology than the Concept 1 alignments."

Please read that carefully one more time.

Although BRT will work well with Concept 2, it is straighter and more passengers are within walking distance. ... This is the argument against Concept 2.

You see: because the straight line is better for LRT, the other option must be better for BRT because one single option cannot be better for both. The rules just don't allow for that.

In reality the things that make Option 2 better for LRT are the things that make it better for any kind of transit: it goes through a more densely populated area and is within walking distance of far more people. Option 1B divides an industrial park and low-density residential, yet somehow the study spins that into a plus for the dog legged route.


There are other arguments made in favour of 1B in the study, including transit-oriented development (TOD), primarily in the Gen Equities-owned Parker Lands. The assumption seems to be that rapid transit is a necessary condition for development to occur, because the study projects the incremental increase in property tax revenue from developing the Parker Lands to "medium-density" and allocates that as a benefit of the 1B corridor.

I think this is flawed. I don't happen to think that an area wedged between a rail line, a busy thoroughfare and a low-density residential neighbouhood is a likely place for TOD. I think TOD is more likely to occur in walkable areas of town where a person does not necessarily need a car.

If development does occur in the Parker Lands area, I don't think transit should be given all the credit. Development could occur there in any case. In fact, the study states that the owner of the Parker lands is "Indifferent to Letellier or Manitoba Hydro ROW alignment." (p.85)


Another argument in favour of 1B is that there are fewer road crossings than Option 2. This is true, but there are ways to mitigate that. For example, most of the gated intersections (Xs in the diagram below) could be closed off.

You would want to maintain a crossing at Windermere Ave (second X from the right) and maybe one other one, but all of those access points to Pembina Highway are not needed. In fact they are kind of dangerous. I got into a pretty bad accident once with a minivan trying to cross Pembina at one of those uncontrolled intersections.

There may also be ways to speed transit along this stretch through technology: priority signals for the transit way and synchronization for example.


I could go on because there is more to say about this, but I'm running out of steam. I encourage you to read Christopher Leo's Oops, forgot the environmental assessment for other points about the project. Also listen to the discussion on Winnipeg Internet Pundits.

While at this point I would be happy just to see any kind of rapid transit line built, I think it should be built with current needs foremost in mind. The chosen route trades off usefulness for the questionable potential of transit-oriented development. It's a gamble, and not a wise one in my view.

It's so simple: Bus Fares and Waterparks

This is so obvious that I'm sure somebody else has pointed this out already, but just in case ...

There are a couple of big stories coming out of Winnipeg City Hall these days. One has to do with a 20 cent transit fare increase to fund the first leg of the rapid transit corridor from downtown to the University of Manitoba. As one would expect, this has generated a storm of protest. People are upset, a web site has been created in opposition to the proposal, old men are breaking their hips in protest ... it's getting ugly out there folks. And what does this transit fare do for us? It nets us $7 million (rounded off) in annual revenue to put towards the rapid transit line.

Meanwhile ...

The mayor is at long last thinking of giving up on his dream of having an indoor water park in Winnipeg, assisted by $7 million of public money, should a white knight not step up (or sashay out of the water .. kind of like this) in the next month.

In case you forgot where the money came from:

the money for the water park was taken from a $43-million pot of multi-lateral money destined to fund the first stage of Bus Rapid Transit.

... the same first stage of bus rapid transit that the 20 cent fare increase is supposed to help.

Sam says "There's lots of other projects we can do." Hey ... I know a project!

Dan Lett, in the column linked to earlier, argues it should be spent on hockey rinks and community clubs. Not a bad idea, and other people may have other thoughts, but putting the cash back where it belongs will allow us to shelve the ridiculous transit fare increase and will buy us another year to allow Sammy and Greg to work through their embarrassingly disfunctional transit funding courtship.

Sometimes the simplest solution is the best solution.

Winnipeg Transit, take me home

I haven't posted a profanity-strewn tirade in a while, so without further ado...

I live in a 40 year old middle-class suburb that we'll call "Southdade" for the purposes of this post. One day last week, I worked little later than normal and left work at 5:30 to catch the express "57" bus home. I get to the bus stop and check the electronic time board ... no '57'. What? Must be some kind of mistake. Phone telebus ... "Route 57. Next bus: 7:10. Following bus: 6:15. This is the last bus of the day". WHAT?? What the Hell?? What happened to my 5:45 bus? Since when is there a 7:10 bus? ?

I'll tell you what happened: the 7:10 bus is my 5:45 bus -- delayed by an hour and a half:


Lest you think this is an isolated incident, there have been at least three other incidents recently where I have noticed this schedule "glitch", including one incident where my wife was left standing on Marion for an hour waiting for the bus, until I finally came and picked her up with the car.

Okay. So. I don't want to wait around 45 minutes for the next 57. The only other bus that goes to my neighbourhood is a version of the 16 that meanders through Osborne Village, Fort Rouge, St.Vital, and part of Windsor Park before finally arriving at the north edge of Southdale. It only comes once an hour, but maybe I'll get lucky and catch that one. Oh, but Graham avenue is under construction ... so where do I catch it now? Well, I see that transit taped a handy little map to the sign post over here ... let's have a look:


Route 16 ... "north on Smith, west on Portage". OK. So I can catch it at Portage and Donald.

Cross the street to the westbound Portage and Donald stop ... look at the electronic signboard .......... No sixteen! What? Ok, phone telebus for the second time in five minutes .... "invalid route number". What the FUCK? I cross the street again to double-check the sign. Yup, there it is, the yellow line right at the little dot: Portage and Donald. Hmmm.


So here I am downtown at 5:35 and I have no bus to take home. The 57 isn't coming for 40 minutes and I don't know where the fuck the 16 goes. Why the farking hell is it so hard to get a stupid bus!?! Anyhow, a 19 to Windsor Park came by, and for lack of a better option I decide to hop on that and take the 30 minute walk to get home from Drake Ave.

I don't doubt that the civil servants who run Winnipeg Transit are either sleeping on the couch by 5 o'clock or stick-handling on the 9th green at Pine Ridge, so perhaps they can't comprehend that somebody might actually have to work past 5 and take a bus home. But here's the kicker: as I was riding home (and by "home" I mean "to a different neighbourhood in roughly the same quadrant of the city") on the 19 bus, I saw two more 19s going the same way. In fact, by chance at one point there were three 19s on the same block going the same way. Why the hell are so many buses going to Windsor Park when none are going to Southdale? Do the geniuses at Winnipeg Transit think that Windsor Park is some inner city slum where nobody can afford a car, while Southdale is a posh suburban paradise where everybody drives their Range Rovers in to the office?

It wasn't always this bad, but a couple of years ago Transit cut back the number of routes run by the 57 bus, and around the same time they also chopped the route 50 bus completely, diverting it instead to the transit-riding hotbed of Sage Creek. Urban sprall: decreasing the level of service for all of us. Like I told Transit (via. 311) "Bus service to Southdale has been cut back substantially in the past few years to the point that it is barely adequate. If it cannot at least be reliable then it is completely useless. "

footnote 1:
When I finally got home, I checked the Transit web site to see what was up with the 16 bus, and voila: it goes down Ellice, not Portage. The map at the bus stop was wrong. Me being the good guy that I am, immediately sent a note to 311 telling them that the map is wrong. I even sent them a picture. This was a week ago -- Sept 28. Did they fix it? No. I walked by the bus stop today and the incorrect sign was still up there.

footnote 2:
You'll be happy to know that I didn't pay for my bus ride. Even though I had a pocket full of bus tickets, I asked for a courtesy slip instead, which I properly filled out with my phone number. If they ever call looking for their two dollars and thirty-five cents, I will politely explain to them that I am not paying because they failed to provide adequate service.

somewhat related: Rise & Sprawl

The Winnipeg Bus Blues

Winnipeg Transit is increasing my bus fare, but at least the service is getting crappier.

Starting today, the # 57 Southdale Express bus starts on a new schedule that reduces the already-limited number of trips that it takes downtown, and increases the wait times between buses. I now have two fewer buses going to work and three fewer coming home. I also have to be a little snappier in the morning or I'll miss my bus and be late for work.

Maybe they think that they can get away with it because of the increased cost of parking downtown, but with the reduced service I'll probably end up driving more often and taking Transit less. Either way I'll need to increase my transportation budget next year.

Mind you, they've replaced my bus shack twice in the past year, so I guess they still care about the suburbs.

Letter to the Mayor on Transit Fares

I sent an email to the mayors office recently. Here is part of it:

I am sure the mayor's office is familiar with basic economic concepts such as elasticity of demand.  Let me suggest that we may be at the point where increasing fares could result in less revenue and an increased burden on the city.  There are a two main reasons for this:

a) parking in downtown Winnipeg is relatively cheap.  Saving money is the primary motivator for most people to take public transit, so as the cost of riding the bus approaches the cost of parking downtown, the incentive is reduced.

b) the increase breaks a psychological and convenience barrier.  It is a simple matter to pay for transit using a toonie, but I suspect that increasing the price above two dollars will discourage many people from taking transit if they have other alternatives.

I believe the city should encourage use of public transit and is misguided in this latest increase.  While attempting to increase revenues for future improvements, you may actually find that revenues decrease, or increase only marginally, while taking more money out of the pockets of those who have no choice but to use transit ... and I am sure you know that most of those people are part of a low income demographic.

To summarize, I recommend that you reconsider the transit fare increase. It will reduce ridership and add to the burden of low income users while failing in it's purpose of generating additional revenues for the City.

The response: "Please be assured that your comments are valued and will be brought to the Mayor's attention."