Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[EndoftheBeginning]

I like posting this image every few years. I made it back in 2008. It was the Wilson subway plan from his March 1959 report to the City. I would say that decision (not to build) is one of the biggest inflection points in the City's history.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by EndoftheBeginning

I like posting this image every few years. I made it back in 2008. It was the Wilson subway plan from his March 1959 report to the City. I would say that decision (not to build) is one of the biggest inflection points in the City's history.

http://dallashansen.com/wp/?p=532

This guy wrote an open letter to Bowman when he was elected. He raises some compelling points, including the fact that the soil conditions are not unworkable as has been demonstrated by two separate studies to construct the subway in 58 and 66. The only thing holding us back is money and a lack of will, mostly will though.

[bomberjet]

I would love that as I live directly adjacent to a green line station.

[cheswick]

The Toronto Subway opened in 1954 when Toronto CMA population was just under 1.5 million.

The Montreal Metro opened in 1966 when Montreal island population was just under 2 million (2.5million cma).

In 1960 what would the population of Winnipeg have been? Under 500k I'm guessing. Pretty ambitious.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by cheswick

The Toronto Subway opened in 1954 when Toronto CMA population was just under 1.5 million.

The Montreal Metro opened in 1966 when Montreal island population was just under 2 million (2.5million cma).

In 1960 what would the population of Winnipeg have been? Under 500k I'm guessing. Pretty ambitious.

Ambitious yes, but the Floodway was ambitious, the idea of getting the Jets back was ambitious, CMHR was ambitious, just about every good thing that has happened here in the last 50 years was driven by ambition. I honestly believe that if the right politician were to come along, the ambitious goal of having a subway would be perfectly attainable and we'd all be better off for it.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Ambitious yes, but the Floodway was ambitious, the idea of getting the Jets back was ambitious, CMHR was ambitious, just about every good thing that has happened here in the last 50 years was driven by ambition. I honestly believe that if the right politician were to come along, the ambitious goal of having a subway would be perfectly attainable and we'd all be better off for it.

It could have been done, it would have basically meant cutting back a bit on road infrastructure. I don't think we would have ended up with a spaghetti network of multiple routes or anything, but maybe something more analogous to what they have in Vancouver or Edmonton... a couple of routes acting as a good backbone for transit service.

[EndoftheBeginning]

Certainly, the specifics of the routes proposed in 1959 don't make as much sense today, as they anticipated continued growth in areas of the city that have not materialized.

It just seems like we got close to something that would have dramatically altered our city (and most would argue, altered it for the better), only to step back and let pragmatism overtake vision (not always a bad thing either, but in this case, the vision was based on some achievable outcomes). Of course, it could also have turned into a boondoggle and bankrupted the city, who really knows.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by cheswick

The Toronto Subway opened in 1954 when Toronto CMA population was just under 1.5 million.

The Montreal Metro opened in 1966 when Montreal island population was just under 2 million (2.5million cma).

In 1960 what would the population of Winnipeg have been? Under 500k I'm guessing. Pretty ambitious.

Even after Unicity we didn't hit 500,000 until the 70s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Winnipeg

[esquire]

Originally Posted by EndoftheBeginning

Certainly, the specifics of the routes proposed in 1959 don't make as much sense today, as they anticipated continued growth in areas of the city that have not materialized.

It just seems like we got close to something that would have dramatically altered our city (and most would argue, altered it for the better), only to step back and let pragmatism overtake vision (not always a bad thing either, but in this case, the vision was based on some achievable outcomes). Of course, it could also have turned into a boondoggle and bankrupted the city, who really knows.

Yeah, having an amenity as big as a subway system probably would have made many inner city neighbourhoods more appealing than they currently are. I'm sure places like the West End, Centennial and the North End would probably be better off as a result. Other inner city areas wouldn't have been touched by the Wilson plan (Crescentwood, River Heights, St. Boniface) so it might not have made much of a difference there.

Come to think of it, I guess the plan more or less ignored the east of the Red River except for Elmwood and a couple of stops in St. Vital and St. Boniface given that those were other cities at the time?

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

Even after Unicity we didn't hit 500,000 until the 70s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Winnipeg

Winnipeg hit 500k+ due to Unicity. You can see in that chart they show the population more than doubling from 71 to 76 due to Unicity. Not sure what the capital region population was in 1960, Winnipeg proper was 265k.

[EspionNoir]

I think a subway or whatever can come sooner or later eventually, population should be a factor

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by esquire

Yeah, having an amenity as big as a subway system probably would have made many inner city neighbourhoods more appealing than they currently are. I'm sure places like the West End, Centennial and the North End would probably be better off as a result. Other inner city areas wouldn't have been touched by the Wilson plan (Crescentwood, River Heights, St. Boniface) so it might not have made much of a difference there.

Come to think of it, I guess the plan more or less ignored the east of the Red River except for Elmwood and a couple of stops in St. Vital and St. Boniface given that those were other cities at the time?

If the mini metro game on iphone hass taught me anything, it's that the plan has too many river crossings.

[EndoftheBeginning]

The crossings are certainly one of the biggest risk factors in a project like this, especially given our soil and groundwater conditions.

However, structural and geotechnical engineers can pretty much design anything these days. Even in the late 50'/60's when Wilson wrote his plan, there was a solid understanding of the risk factors related to soil and groundwater conditions in the city. The seminal paper on the geohydrology of Winnipeg was written by Render in 1969 and there were still large drawdown cones in in the central/industrial areas, and noticeable seasonal drawdown in the core from large capacity wells used for air conditioning. Since those activities have subsided and large industrial users have stopped pumping (meat packers), we are worse off with deeper excavations encountering water because the groundwater table has risen.

[cheswick]

Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but would the city be able to start drawing on groundwater if they so wanted to supplement the water supply? What would that involve?

On a related note, what's the capacity of the shoal lake aqueduct? I thought when it was built it was for a million residents, but I assume efficiencies have made that number obsolete.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but would the city be able to start drawing on groundwater if they so wanted to supplement the water supply? What would that involve?

On a related note, what's the capacity of the shoal lake aqueduct? I thought when it was built it was for a million residents, but I assume efficiencies have made that number obsolete.

NO to the ground water as its very poor quality. It was one of the reasons the aqueduct was built.

From what I have read the city water use peaked in the 1990's and has dropped.

Here is a link to the city water usage https://winnipeg.ca/waterandwaste/wa...tionReport.stm

Because of the lower usage the city has suspended the investigation of alternative sources of water. Somewhere in my notes I have a link to that report and the water from the second location (Winnipeg River?) was going to be brought into the ponds @ Decaon east of Winnipeg and blended

[cllew]

One other thing Winnipeg use to have a lot more information about its water supply available but it appears for security reasons that this information is no longer available.

[bomberjet]

I posted somewhere recently a paper on aquifer water usage in Winnipeg. It showed all the changes over the decades. It would be nearly impossible to draw the water down adequately to dewater such a large area. I would also assume it would have widespread negative impacts to the surface. Consolidation due to loss of water pressure, causing everything to sink. Although I am by no means an expert on that.

Engineering can resolve any issues with the water if we ever ever ever were looking at a subway.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

.

[Bdog]

Anything can be solved with engineering, but at what cost?

Every few threads there are comments about underground parking being infeasible past the first basement because of the high water table. The subway would be a lot deeper than that.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Bdog

Anything can be solved with engineering, but at what cost?

Every few threads there are comments about underground parking being infeasible past the first basement because of the high water table. The subway would be a lot deeper than that.

The developers claimed this on Good Street, and the city refuted it saying the water table was close to 4x lower than what the developer claimed. For some unfathomable reason the city caved and allowed them to build the parking as was originally planned apparently.