Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[bomberjet]

While I agree with Mr. Bellamy in principal. It's not BRT, rather transit improvements or the quality corridors mentioned previously.

If you want to have BRT running from Transcona to U of M, this is not it. However, sure it would be awesome to have transit as a catalyst to build up existing areas. That's great and I'm all for it.

Like others mentioned, do what they can now with the Union Station thing and the leg from Archibald to Transcona. If the stop gap in the network now is on street/median BRT along Provencher, I'd be okay with that. Just please, please, please keep options open for future expansion of dedicated corridors. Future being beyond my lifetime because we know hw these things go in Winnipeg.

[ywgwalk]

The cross streets on Provencher are quiet enough that I think it'd be pretty easy to give the transit route dedicated-like priority over the intersections.

[buzzg]

Yeah – the best way forward (honestly) is to do what they can with on-street now, rather than committing hundreds of millions to a route that may not be the best option long term. Connect Union Station from the start though.

In talking with the engineers and city at the open house, they all agreed that transit-priority lights could easily be implemented on Provencher. And not just queue-jumps like we have now, but more similar to TTC streetcars where soon as a bus pulls up, the lights could change to allow the busses through right away.

[scryer]

I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if I'm misreading but what I want to know is how they are going to connect Harkness Station to Union station...

For me, that will be the key to keep Rapid Transit alive here...

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by scryer

I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if I'm misreading but what I want to know is how they are going to connect Harkness Station to Union station...

For me, that will be the key to keep Rapid Transit alive here...

Depends on which option they go with I think. If they go with the Main Street alignment, I believe the current transitway/Mayfair Avenue routing will be used to connect to it. If they're trying to access the back of Union Station, I'm guessing they'd build a viaduct just east of Harkness Station that would go above the railway tracks? Really don't know though.

As far as I want to see:
Main Street alignment > Elevated into Union Station
Serve streets and their collection of destinations, not individual places.

St. B > Point Douglas
It's already a relatively dense, mixed-use neighbourhood - rapid transit would be a perfect complement to continue strengthening that.

Nairn/Regent > Thomas/Railway
Serve streets, not industrial back alleys. Rapid transit goes hand-in-hand with denser, mixed-use development, as they both support each other. But you need the car traffic too. If you go behind where the existing activity already is, it's unlikely to turn into anything of value (see Fort Rouge station). Pembina, Regent, Portage, Main - these should be our Yonge Streets. And they can be, but to do that we can't be taking people off of them onto parallel routes.

Now I care a hell of a lot about speed - I fight against LRT proposals on this ground constantly in the Vancouver forum. But I believe that rapid transit should be connecting communities along it, not shuttling people as fast as it can from one end to the next. If that's your goal - and fair enough - then yeah, take the railway instead of Pembina or Regent. But it's not just A to Z for me, it's B to Y as well. A rapid transit line should look like a heart monitor, with a peak of activity at every station as people and development congregate around the stations. But this development needs the major street to work as well. An unobstructed corridor, like the Southwest Transitway, results in two giant peaks at their ends and a flatline of park and rides and a couple condo buildings throughout the middle. I don't want to see the same mistake repeated. Throughout North America, sending rapid transit through fields never brings the urban development people want it to - there needs to be a street for it to work as well.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying transit has to be ON the street. I fully support elevated/subway rapid transit. But it has to serve a street, not a disuses rail/hydro corridor or a freeway median.

As far as on-street BRT not being rapid transit, that's how it's typically built. If anything, the Southwest Transitway is the outlier, along with Ottawa's.
Here's Viva BRT in suburban Toronto:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...50276&page=503


http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2017/06...more-viva-brt/

Since someone brought up "third world countries," here's the two most famous examples of BRT, both outside the West:

TransMilenio in Bogota:

https://www.scania.com/group/en/even...013-in-geneva/

Curitiba BRT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_ra...nsit_in_Brazil

Now I know these examples have more space to work with, but the general idea is the same: median lanes with at-grade crossings, just as is proposed on Provencher/Nairn/Regent. Buses still won't have to sit in traffic, which is the main issue, not max speed, and they'll be much better integrated with the urban fabric. In general, I don't support at-grade rapid transit to begin with (and if I was king, I probably wouldn't be building rapid transit in Winnipeg at all, but that's another story). But if you're gonna do at-grade rapid transit, this is how you do it. The Southwest Transitway, as a Thomas/railway line in the east would be, is a highway for buses. On-street bus lanes are true urban transportation.

After all, this is what the modern LRT looks like in North America:

https://www.bcbusiness.ca/surrey-to-...-by-early-2016

That's basically exactly what the Eastern Corridor is proposing, except with buses. Is this "not rapid transit" as well, or is that just for buses?

Sorry for the long post - I'm not necessarily trying to sway anyone here. Just wanted to be thorough in my own argument so it was understandable. And given the opposition they've faced, wanted to extend my own kudos to those that worked on this project and came up with what we see.

[esquire]

^ I'd be shocked if the EBRT through St. Boniface ended up having any resemblance to that surface LRT route you posted from BC. By the end of the design process, it will inevitably be downgraded to a curb lane restricted to buses only from 7:30-9:30 and 3:30-5:30 on weekdays.

[buzzg]

Great post GlassCity, couldn't agree with you more. And actually, Provencher and Regent have more space than most of those examples (Provencher much is currently un(der)used). Nairn may be the only stretch that wouldn't allow dedicated lanes.

My biggest point I've been saying to people, and at the open house (planners agreed) is that the speed is really not an issue. It doesn't matter if the busses can get to 80 km/h because soon as they get there they need to stop at the next station. The most important aspect is stopped time at stations and lights. Stations – pre-board with paid fare zones. Lights – give busses priority just like streetcars get.

Esquire in talking to planners at the open house they definitely floated lots of options. One being diamond lanes on both route options, even if one was to become the "main" route. They also didn't mind the idea of testing out curbside diamond lane with automated signal optimization, to test the technology and effectiveness before deciding to commit to reconfiguring the medians. In both scenarios, they said most likely these would be restricted access diamond lanes – no right turns or entry from vehicles at all, especially on Main.

[bomberjet]

Nairn can be expanded to the south. There is one of those setbacks in place along that side. All the buildings are pushed back enough to allow for an expansion.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I'd be shocked if the EBRT through St. Boniface ended up having any resemblance to that surface LRT route you posted from BC. By the end of the design process, it will inevitably be downgraded to a curb lane restricted to buses only from 7:30-9:30 and 3:30-5:30 on weekdays.

We can only comment on what's before us, and right now the Provencher alignment has a little "median exclusive lane" picture in its description online. If what you describe occurs, I'll be extremely disappointed, but at this time I can't support off-street proposals. Why compromise on a decision that's we're not currently facing?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Great post GlassCity, couldn't agree with you more. And actually, Provencher and Regent have more space than most of those examples (Provencher much is currently un(der)used). Nairn may be the only stretch that wouldn't allow dedicated lanes.

My biggest point I've been saying to people, and at the open house (planners agreed) is that the speed is really not an issue. It doesn't matter if the busses can get to 80 km/h because soon as they get there they need to stop at the next station. The most important aspect is stopped time at stations and lights. Stations – pre-board with paid fare zones. Lights – give busses priority just like streetcars get.

Esquire in talking to planners at the open house they definitely floated lots of options. One being diamond lanes on both route options, even if one was to become the "main" route. They also didn't mind the idea of testing out curbside diamond lane with automated signal optimization, to test the technology and effectiveness before deciding to commit to reconfiguring the medians. In both scenarios, they said most likely these would be restricted access diamond lanes – no right turns or entry from vehicles at all, especially on Main.

When it comes to rapid transit and the "service/speed --------- development catalyst" continuum, I am much closer to the service/speed end of things (the BC LRT photo I put up is actually a proposal that I'm fighting against because it offers virtually no time improvement to the current express bus). But to me, it's about getting people moving between activity points as fast as possible. Sure an off-street highway-style transitway would get you from KP to downtown faster, but if you're trying to go anywhere in between you'll have a 200 metre walk. Or what if you want to transfer to a north-south bus?

Speed is important, but it needs to serve existing demand corridors. Otherwise, you're literally going nowhere fast. The Southwest Transitway could have brought significantly increased activity to Pembina as people go to their jobs, restaurants, etc. Instead, we now have a high-speed shuttle from downtown to the UofM, while all the destinations in between continue to be served by a slow local run, inhibiting their potential. (Urbanity-inclined) people don't want to live in fields, they want to live on streets, which is why greenfield TOD struggles so much, everywhere.

The points you bring up are important too. Off-board fare collection, all-door boarding, signal priority, high frequency and getting out of traffic all have a greater effect than the km/h. If you're stopping every 800 metres anyway, the speed probably matters least of all.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Nairn can be expanded to the south. There is one of those setbacks in place along that side. All the buildings are pushed back enough to allow for an expansion.

Ya you're right – always thought it'd be an almost impossible battle with landowners because all the development there relies on the parking out front. However, almost all of them have just as much, if not more, space behind them that could be or already is parking. Might be a few that would have a tough time – but I guess if they built their buildings in that way, knowing the front lots were reserved for future street expansions... tough luck?

[robertocarlos]

With no right turns on Main how do you get into the Winnipeg Square parking garage. There's 9 million workers and a fourty story building full of residents that need to get into the garage.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by robertocarlos

With no right turns on Main how do you get into the Winnipeg Square parking garage. There's 9 million workers and a fourty story building full of residents that need to get into the garage.

You turn from the next lane... It's essentially just like having a protected bike lane, for busses.

[robertocarlos]

OK. I didn't think of that because it's unimaginable under the current rules.
What about when leaving the garage via Main street? Do you have to wait for the bus lane and the next lane to be cleared before you can proceed? That might be never at rush hour. It would certainly require some adjustment.
Cars drive on and also block bike lanes all the time. They make one lane Hargrave two lanes during rush hour and just before Jets games. I imagine if the curb lane was a buses only lane that it would be God help you if you block that lane.

[bomberjet]

For me the transitways are basically bypasses. If I'm going from KP to downtown or U of M, I don't care abuot St. Boniface. If I'm going from KP to St. B, the bus can exit the tranitsway and do it'sa loops through local streets.

All about routes. Building stations in empty fields are pointless, as others noted.

The whole thing about the east corridor is there would be a dedicated route from Plessis all the way to U of M. Making it realistic for people in transcona to bus efficiently to U of M.

Not even just to U of M. With the other future routes it provide fast bus service throughout Winnipeg. That's why this new plan sucks and only provides spot local improvements.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by robertocarlos

OK. I didn't think of that because it's unimaginable under the current rules.
What about when leaving the garage via Main street? Do you have to wait for the bus lane and the next lane to be cleared before you can proceed? That might be never at rush hour. It would certainly require some adjustment.
Cars drive on and also block bike lanes all the time. They make one lane Hargrave two lanes during rush hour and just before Jets games. I imagine if the curb lane was a buses only lane that it would be God help you if you block that lane.

Haven't gotten that far... this is all about routing at this point. Nothing has been designed yet.

[dmacc]

Looking at the intersections at Clarence and Chevrier, there is no over pass. Will busses have to stop or will there be controlled lights that give buses priority?

[bomberjet]

There will be traffic lights on the transitway at Beaumont, Clarence, Chevrier, Chancellor and Markham. But I think it's supposed to be some kind of priority signals for buses. However, I can not confirm that.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

For me the transitways are basically bypasses. If I'm going from KP to downtown or U of M, I don't care abuot St. Boniface. If I'm going from KP to St. B, the bus can exit the tranitsway and do it'sa loops through local streets.

All about routes. Building stations in empty fields are pointless, as others noted.

The whole thing about the east corridor is there would be a dedicated route from Plessis all the way to U of M. Making it realistic for people in transcona to bus efficiently to U of M.

Not even just to U of M. With the other future routes it provide fast bus service throughout Winnipeg. That's why this new plan sucks and only provides spot local improvements.

They are basically bypasses, I just don't think they shouldn't be. A big advantage of rapid transit is legibility, in how you can get on and know exactly what's ahead of you. For this reason, I hope they eventually stop the through-routing of buses and create single dedicated routes for the transitways, like trains.

It's more efficient to run transit with multiple important destinations on the way too. That's what allows a rapid transit system to truly prosper, when lots of people are getting on and off at every station, and when you can take the same route back and forth between the places you need to be. That's accessibility. Bypass service, which essentially becomes point-to-point service, might be good for people making those exact trips, but it's inherently not a "system." By-pass routes may open up access to a few key city destinations: UofM, downtown, KP, the airport, Polo Park. An urban-minded system can bring access to a much larger collection of neighbourhoods and centres, tying the whole city closer together, not just a few big places.

Not a rhetorical question: for those of you criticizing this project, what would you prefer? I ask because to me it seems like there's two options: the on-street lanes on Nairn/Regent, and then the parallel SW transitway-style routing on Thomas and the railway that to me ticks the boxes of fast, bypass service. Many are attacking the former, but not voicing support for the latter either. Do you mean to be supporting the latter, or is there some third option that you'd prefer?

[bomberjet]

I want it all! seriously though. You can put median bus lanes down both Nairn and Provencher (or curbs lanes). And other locations.

Then have just the bypass high speed roadway running through north St. B and along the railway all the way out to Transcona for long distance travel. No need for fancy stations every 500m, just a simple 2 lane roadway. Maybe a hub station at key locations.

Redundant, maybe a bit. But the median BRT's serve locals, provides opportunity for densification along the corridor, etc, etc. All the good urban stuff. But then there is still a fast, high speed network that serves the overall City.

The thing about buses is they can start on the median BRT, then get onto the bypass transitway at access points to get through congested areas or for longer distance travel.