Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[bomberjet]

I think people would be open to route changes if it improved service. People don't like change though because they think or are scared they're getting screwed. Human nature.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by esquire

Good point. You don't want to change routes too often, but it does seem as though we are still running an inherited legacy system that predates Unicity and is based on a lot of things that don't necessarily make sense anymore, like streetcar routes that were eliminated over 60 years ago.

It could be useful to redraw the network from a blank slate. That's what they did in Houston a few years ago and apparently it led to massive improvements in the system and increased ridership overall. But to advocate for such a measure in Winnipeg, you have to have enough faith in WT's ability to pull something like that off, and in our city council to not ruin it with their meddling. That's asking a lot.

The 43 Munroe route just started in the 80s, for awhile it was combined with the 12 William. The 44 Grey is a spin off from the old Talbot route, I think it started as a separate route in the late 60s/early 70s when Valley Gardens was being built. . The Talbot route used to be two branches, Talbot-Kent and Talbot-Grey. The Talbot-Grey terminated turned back at Grey and Munroe. Streetcars on Talbot ended in 1938, they turned back at Roland Loop, which was just west of Talbot and Gateway.

Most of the routes are pretty logical, except we need to truncate some of the mainline routes and have the outer suburban sections served by feeder or DART routes, ie. Harbour View South, Island Lakes, Amber Trails. This will ensure that service frequencies on the heavily trafficked portions of the mainline routes are not reduced for the sake of portions of the route where buses almost always run nearly empty.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Browaty is smart enough to realize the vast majority of city revenue comes from the property tax on homeowners, subsidized transit should come from the either the Fed. or Prov. coffers not on the backs of homeowners!

Some of you guys need to move to Venezuela, seriously!~

Transit fares for adults jumped to 25 cents in 1969. Adjusted for inflation (Bank of Canada inflation calculator) that is $1.65 in today's dollars, just over half of current fares. Children paid just 10 cents throughout the 70s, adjusted for inflation that's 66 cents using 1969 as the baseline year or 32 cents using 1979, compared with the current $2.45 reduced fare. Expensive!, and ridership has suffered correspondingly.

[bomberjet]

There was a post somewhere recently about transit fares. Winnipeg is below Canadian average in all cases. Of course incomes, etc are lower here too. So doesn't seem like anything is out of whack, even with the 25 cent increase last year.

There was also a graph about ridership. We're at a peak about 2 years ago and numbers have fallen slightly.

I'll see if I can find the post I though it was vike but maybe not.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There was a post somewhere recently about transit fares. Winnipeg is below Canadian average in all cases. Of course incomes, etc are lower here too. So doesn't seem like anything is out of whack, even with the 25 cent increase last year.

There was also a graph about ridership. We're at a peak about 2 years ago and numbers have fallen slightly.

I'll see if I can find the post I though it was vike but maybe not.

You posted this, it's all in here.

https://winnipeg.ca/interhom/Budget/...on20171201.pdf

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Transit fares for adults jumped to 25 cents in 1969. Adjusted for inflation (Bank of Canada inflation calculator) that is $1.65 in today's dollars, just over half of current fares. Children paid just 10 cents throughout the 70s, adjusted for inflation that's 66 cents using 1969 as the baseline year or 32 cents using 1979, compared with the current $2.45 reduced fare. Expensive!, and ridership has suffered correspondingly.

Well, that’s because Schreyer’s government refused to allow any increases, not because those were typical fares in their day. When I came to Toronto in 1986, subway tokens were 8 for $5. This past weekend I think I paid $70 for 20. It’s the same everywhere.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

There was a post somewhere recently about transit fares. Winnipeg is below Canadian average in all cases. Of course incomes, etc are lower here too. So doesn't seem like anything is out of whack, even with the 25 cent increase last year.

There was also a graph about ridership. We're at a peak about 2 years ago and numbers have fallen slightly.

I'll see if I can find the post I though it was vike but maybe not.

Ridership peaked in the 1940s. Despite having nearly 3 times the population now, ridership is much lower than it was in the compact and relatively densely populated city of the 40s. Yes, a lot more people own cars now, but relative to population, Winnipeg has low transit ridership compared with other Canadian cities, at least the larger ones, compare with Calgary and Edmonton, far greater per capita ridership (of course, that's what LRTs accomplish). A couple of years ago, there may have been a peak in terms of recent history but I believe ridership is also lower now than it was in the 70s and early 80s. Ridership is also declining again despite an increasing population, the opening of the first phase of BRT and considerably increased parking rates downtown.

I was in Omaha recently, a city of similar size to Winnipeg, adult fare is $1.25, seniors pay 60 cents. Vancouver's one zone fare with a compass card is $2.30 and their system is vastly superior to Winnipeg's, esp. in the City of Vancouver and the inner suburbs.

I'll try to dig up historical ridership levels for Wpg and post them when I get a chance.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by dmacc

You posted this, it's all in here.

https://winnipeg.ca/interhom/Budget/...on20171201.pdf

Doesn't work, you posted the abbreviated link rather than the actual one.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Well, that’s because Schreyer’s government refused to allow any increases, not because those were typical fares in their day. When I came to Toronto in 1986, subway tokens were 8 for $5. This past weekend I think I paid $70 for 20. It’s the same everywhere.

The fare for Mexico City's fantastic metro (based on the Paris metro) is $5 pesos. That's 35 cents Canadian! It went up since I was there, it was $3 pesos! Whether you're paying a transit fare or having a pint in the pub, Canadians get gouged wherever they turn.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Well, that’s because Schreyer’s government refused to allow any increases, not because those were typical fares in their day. When I came to Toronto in 1986, subway tokens were 8 for $5. This past weekend I think I paid $70 for 20. It’s the same everywhere.

8 for $5 = 62.5 cents or $1.26 adjusted for inflation.
70 for $20 = $3.50.

Increase of 177.8% in REAL terms.

It's a result of the shift of the tax burden.

Oh well, at least you enjoy a very good system.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Doesn't work, you posted the abbreviated link rather than the actual one.

Hopefully it works this time.

https://winnipeg.ca/interhom/Budget/...on20171201.pdf

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Hopefully it works this time.

https://winnipeg.ca/interhom/Budget/...on20171201.pdf

So the peak in that chart is just slightly over 50 million in 1990, in 1982 it was 60 million according to this chart (see page 7 of report):

https://winnipegtransit.com/public_c...nsitReport.pdf

Note that fares went up quickly during the 80s, and that's when service began to decline, culminating in Mayor Thompson's decimation of the system in the early 90s.

I'm thinking from memory the peak was 76 million sometime in the 40s but I have to try and find the old figures.

[bomberjet]

I meant recently. Winnipeg was a totally different world back in the 40's. And by peak I meant from the sag in the graph we reached another peak, and are declining. cyclical type thing. Possibly generational? Where's the analytics people?

[esquire]

I suspect the demographics of transit usage has changed bigly since the 60s. The upper middle class has disappeared from buses, and even the middle classes are probably a lot less likely to be on the bus apart from rush hour commuting. We are probably a lot more like many US cities where buses are seen as a de facto social service than we are like most larger Canadian cities where buses and transit have pretty broad ridership. (I think that also has a lot to do with the antipathy towards transit projects in this city.)

These days, transit is mostly the domain of the working class, the poor and those on fixed or restricted incomes (students/seniors). In other words, those most sensitive to any sort of fare increases. I think that's what conflicts with drivers may be becoming more common too, leading to the security concerns we've been hearing about in recent years.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I meant recently. Winnipeg was a totally different world back in the 40's. And by peak I meant from the sag in the graph we reached another peak, and are declining. cyclical type thing. Possibly generational? Where's the analytics people?

Sources:
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/re...on-calculator/
Stats Canada Table: 18-10-0001-01

[bomberjet]

Of course, how silly of me. haha

For me it's cost of parking downtown. paying $200/month. Now thank you. I'll take the bus. Also it's just more convenient for me.

[EspionNoir]

IMO a LRT will be built in Winnipeg eventually anyways

[EdwardTH]

I have to think urban sprawl had a big effect on ridership since the 70s. I don't remember the exact stats but Mr Bellamy wrote a great article once that summed it up, I think the population increased by 30% since then but the city footprint grew 80%? So we built a lot of neighbourhoods that were NOT transit-friendly during that time, and emptied out the existing streetcar suburbs.

[tvor202]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Ya. Lots of good ideas.

I just looked at the map again here.
https://winnipegtransit.com/assets/2..._Route_Map.pdf

Look at transcona. The 90 goes all the way from NK into the depths of Tcona. No need for that. The 42 and 92 are on the same route for extended periods of time. No need. Tons of that stuff going on when you dig into the map. Use Kildonan Place as a transfer point because all routes go there.

My point being if the entire system gets revamped, it can be way more efficient and cost friendly. Maybe it's the union who doesn't want to change or reduce anything. They just want more drivers, mores jobs, so they get more money.

But the 92 doesn't operate when the 42 does. The 42 is convenient so you do not have to transfer, most of the passengers are commuters so it works out well. During the day its reduced to just the 92.

[bomberjet]

That's good news.