The Guide to Better FINAL Report - Winnipeg Transittraffic congestion, air pollution and use of fossil fuels. It can carry many passengers at a time - specifically during weekday rush

The Guide to Better

Transit for Winnipeg

FINAL Report

January 7, 2000

Submitted by:

Councillor Peter De Smedt (Chair)

Councillor Jae Eadie

Councillor Jenny Gerbasi

Councillor Mark Lubosch

Rick Borland, Director of Transit

1

Final Report of the Working Group on Public Transportation Policy

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................4

1.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................4

1.2. The Benefits of Public Transit ..........................................................................................................5

1.3. Winnipeg’s Urban Travel Market......................................................................................................6

1.4. Factors Affecting Ridership..............................................................................................................7

1.5. Framework for Increasing Ridership ..............................................................................................8

1.6. Recommended Improvements ........................................................................................................9

1.6.1. Making Ongoing Improvements to Service ..............................................................................9

1.6.2. Making Transit Service Easier to Use ....................................................................................10

1.6.3. Making the Service More Affordable......................................................................................10

1.6.4. Making the Service More Productive ....................................................................................13

1.6.5. Making a Commitment to Affordable High Speed Transit ......................................................14

1.7. Funding Of The Transit System......................................................................................................15

1.7.1. Historical Funding of Transit Operations ................................................................................15

1.7.2. Funding of Transit Capital Requirements ..............................................................................16

1.7.3. Improving the Funding of Transit Operations ........................................................................16

1.7.4. A Revised Approach for Funding Major Transit Improvements ..............................................19

1.8. Review of Public Transportation Priorities ..................................................................................19

2. THE ROLE OF PUBLIC TRANSIT IN WINNIPEG ......................................................................................20

2.1. The Urban Travel Market and Winnipeg’s Urban Transportation System ................................20

2.2. Use of Public Transit by Winnipeggers ........................................................................................21

2.3. Trends in Annual Ridership ............................................................................................................24

2.4. Interaction Between Land Use Planning and Transportation Planning ....................................24

2.5. Focusing on Public Transit’s Strengths ........................................................................................27

3. FACTORS AFFECTING RIDERSHIP............................................................................................................28

3.1. Controllable Factors........................................................................................................................28

3.2. Uncontrollable Factors ..................................................................................................................30

Direction To The FutureThe Guide To Better Transit For Winnipeg

4. INCREASING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP ..........................................................................................................31

4.1. Developing Supportive Conditions ................................................................................................31

4.2. Improving Transit Service in Winnipeg..........................................................................................33

5. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ..........................................................................................................35

5.1. Making Ongoing Improvements to Service ..................................................................................35

5.1.1. Route Network Improvements ..............................................................................................355.1.2. Regular Bus Replacement ....................................................................................................365.1.3. Assignment of Low-Floor Buses to the Same Service Each Day ..........................................365.1.4. Upgrades of Major Stops ......................................................................................................375.1.5. More Transit Shelters ............................................................................................................375.1.6. New Transit Terminals ..........................................................................................................38

5.2. Making Transit Service Easier to Use ..........................................................................................38

5.2.1. Non-Traditional Service Delivery (eg. DART) ..........................................................................385.2.2. Park and Ride ......................................................................................................................395.2.3. Bike Racks on Buses ............................................................................................................395.2.4. Map and Timetable Improvements ........................................................................................405.2.5. Posted Information at Bus Stops ..........................................................................................405.2.6. Transit Day Pass ..................................................................................................................405.2.7. Internet Web Site ..................................................................................................................415.2.8. Improved Telebus System ....................................................................................................415.2.9. Automated Trip Planning Service ..........................................................................................425.2.10. Automated Next Stop Displays on Buses..............................................................................425.2.11. Real Time Schedule Displays ................................................................................................425.2.12. New Fare Collection System ................................................................................................43

5.3. Making the Service More Affordable ............................................................................................43

5.3.1. Relationship Between Fares and the Funding of the Transit Service ......................................435.3.2. Level of Discount for the Reduced Cash Fare ......................................................................445.3.3. Fares for Post-Secondary Students ......................................................................................455.3.4. Employer-Sponsored Fare Program ......................................................................................47

5.4. Making the Service More Productive ............................................................................................47

5.4.1. Transit Priority Measures ......................................................................................................475.4.2. Increased Promotion of Transit Services................................................................................495.4.3. Upgrade of the Radio System and Automatic Vehicle Location ............................................495.4.4. Replacement of North Garage ..............................................................................................505.4.5. Alternative Fuels ....................................................................................................................50

5.5. Making a Commitment to Affordable High Speed Transit ..........................................................51

5.5.1. Expansion of Express Services..............................................................................................525.5.2. On-Street Rapid Bus ............................................................................................................525.5.3. Rapid Transit ........................................................................................................................53

2

Direction To The Future

6. A MULTI-YEAR TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................54

7. FUNDING OF THE TRANSIT SYSTEM ......................................................................................................55

7.1. Funding of Transit Operations ......................................................................................................55

7.1.1. Transit Operating Costs ........................................................................................................557.1.2. Transit Revenues ..................................................................................................................587.1.3. Revenue/Cost Ratio for Regular Transit ................................................................................597.1.4. Benchmark Comparisons for Regular Transit Service ............................................................60

7.2. Funding of Transit Capital Requirements ....................................................................................61

7.2.1. Bus Replacement Program ..................................................................................................617.2.2. Innovative Transit Program ....................................................................................................62

7.3. Improving the Funding of Transit Operations ..............................................................................63

7.3.1. A Revised Approach for Funding Handi-Transit Service ........................................................647.3.2. A Revised Approach for the Funding of Regular Transit Service ............................................657.3.3. Impacts ................................................................................................................................67

7.4. Funding Major Transit Improvements ..........................................................................................68

8. RECOMMENDED FUNDING SOURCES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO REGULAR TRANSIT ....................70

3

Direction To The Future

1.1.Introduction

Direction to the Future -TheGuide to Better Transit for Winnipegis the final report of the WorkingGroup on Public TransportationPolicy. The report summarizes thefindings of the Working Group andoutlines recommendations for a longterm public transportationframework in Winnipeg forconsideration by City Council.

The Working Group wasestablished by City Council onDecember 16, 1998 followingrecommendation of the ExecutivePolicy Committee:

“That the Transit Department bedirected to explore and report tothe Standing Policy Committeeon Public Works by May 1, 1999on strategies to increaseridership and stabilize transitfares. The aim of achievingreduced fares without increasingthe mill rate support duringforthcoming years would begiven priority.”

At the same meeting, Councilamended the above clause toinclude the following:

“That the Standing PolicyCommittee on Public Works berequested to undertake the formation of a working group,including representatives fromUniversity/College students andthe Transit Department to reviewand submit recommendations ona discount transit fare packageprior to September 1999.”

During the March - December, 1999time period, the Working Group:

a) Reviewed those factors thatinfluence transit ridership levels,such as land use, transportationsystem development, parkingavailability, demographics, transitservice competitiveness, and farepolicy.

b) Reviewed those factors thatdetermine the financial performanceof the transit system, such asoperating and capital requirements,provincial and municipal fundingpolicies, and transit fare policy.

c) Identified and evaluated policyoptions to attain the goals specifiedin the directives.

d) Consulted with stakeholders.

The Working Group recognizesWinnipeg’s fundamental urban transportation objectivesas follows:

To provide effective and efficientmobility for the movement ofpersons and goods which isaffordable and accessible;

To reduce traffic congestionthrough the provision of sufficientcapacity in the transportationinfrastructure;

To minimize the overallinvestment in transportationinfrastructure;

To reduce emissions of airpollutants (carbon dioxide, volatileorganic compounds, nitrous oxidesand chlorofluorocarbons) related tourban transportation;

To reduce energy use related tourban transportation;

To complement and support theobjectives of Plan Winnipeg.

4

1. Executive Summary

Chairperson

Working GroupMembers

Technical Supportfrom Transit Department

Councillor Peter De Smedt

Councillor Jae EadieCouncillor Jenny GerbasiCouncillor Mark LuboschRick Borland, Director of Transit

Bill Menzies, Manager of Planningand Schedules

Nick Iafolla, Manager of Marketingand Customer Services

The members of the Working Group include:

This report makes a number ofrecommendations to createconditions supportive of increasedtransit use as part of the ongoingphysical and economic developmentof Winnipeg. Factors that can becontrolled and influenced by Citypolicy such as land use decisions,parking policies, investment ininfrastructure as well as transit faresand service quality are the primaryfocus in this regard. Recommendedimprovements are centred on thefollowing themes:

Making ongoing improvementsto service

Making the service easier to use

Making the service moreaffordable

Making the service moreproductive

Making a commitment toaffordable high speed transit

Specific improvements are focusedwhere the potential to attract newridership is highest, with priority fortrips made:

To, from and within thedowntown

Along the major radial travelcorridors of the City

To and from major centres ofemployment, education, health careand shopping

Revised approaches to fundingregular transit service, Handi-Transitservice, and major transit improve-ments are also recommended.

The reader of this report isreminded that the mandateof the Working Group onPublic Transportation Policywas to study and makerecommendations regardingthe “regular” fixed routetransit system. The City’spolicy and long range planfor Handi-Transit, the paralleltransit system for physicallydisabled persons, wasapproved by City Council onSeptember 21, 1994 with theadoption of the final reportof the Task Force ReviewingHandi-Transit Issues.

5


Transit is well-recognized formany of its traditional benefits. It is asafe, reliable and accessible form oftransportation for all ages. It reducestraffic congestion, air pollution anduse of fossil fuels. It can carry manypassengers at a time - specificallyduring weekday rush hours - andcan reduce the City’s need to investin road and bridge capacity.

However, public transit providesother potential benefits that are notas well recognized or understood.Public transit is space-efficient andcost-efficient, and enhances bothpublic safety and the economicdevelopment and revitalization ofdowntown.

To be completely realized, thesebenefits require additional ridership.In short, transit improvements helpachieve sustainable developmentand lead to an improved urbanenvironment. To attract increasedridership, supportive conditions forpublic transit must be created andtransit improvements must befocused in those areas that generatethe greatest benefits.

1.2.The Benefits of Public Transit

Transit Users

In general, a high proportion ofWinnipeggers use Winnipeg Transitservices with 6 people in 10reporting that they use transit atleast occasionally. About 4 people in10 make at least one trip on transiteach week, while about one-third ofthe population makes regular use ofthe system. Further analysis ofridership indicates that:

People tend to use transit morewhen they are young than whenthey are older;

More women than men usetransit;

The most frequent users areteenagers and young adults, with50% to 60% considered regularriders;

45% to 50% of those in their 20sare regular riders;

For females 25 years and older,about 1/3 are regular riders;

For men 25 years and older, theirusage decreases with age.

Types of Trips Made

Urban travellers do not use thesame mode of transportation for alltypes of trips:

About 14% of Winnipeggers arecompletely dependent upon transitfor all their trips;

An additional 11% ofWinnipeggers use transit to make alltheir work/school trips, but may notuse transit for other purposes;

A further 22% of Winnipeggersuse transit to make some of theirtrips, but they also choose to drive,walk, or cycle for various other trips.

Major Destinations

While transit’s overall share of thecity-wide work and post-secondary trip market is currently20%, it is much higher in areas ofconcentrated employment orstudent populations. For example,transit carries approximately one-third of all employees to thedowntown area and a similarproportion of students to theUniversity of Manitoba, and to Red River College. At the Universityof Winnipeg, almost 60% of thestudents use transit.

6

1.3.Winnipeg’s Urban Travel Market


Since 1995, annual transitridership in Winnipeg has stabilizedsomewhat, following a significantdecline that occurred between 1987and 1995.

Some factors affecting ridershipare beyond the City’s control. Theseinclude demographics, employmentlevels in the local economy, thenature of employment, automobileoperating costs, and parkingavailability and costs.

Other factors such as policies andactions taken by the City in theareas of land use, transportationinfrastructure investments, parkingpolicy, transit fares, and transitservice quality, affect ridershipdirectly and are within the control ofthe City.

Land Use Planning

Inter-relationships between landuse patterns, transportation supply,and the choice of transportationmode means the City directlyinfluences the demand fortransportation:

Land use decisions determinethe density of the City and theproximity of residences toemployment and major activitycentres. These, in turn, affect theamount of travel and average triplengths.

The City’s decisions about thenature and mix of transportationinfrastructure and services supplieddirectly affects the transportationmode choices made by Winnipegresidents.

Past Decisions

As the “Baby Boom” generationgrew and had families of their own,the City met their demand for singlefamily housing by expandingsuburban developments.

In order to accommodateincreased travel activity in theseareas, the City made significantinvestments in new roads, roadwidenings, bridges andunderpasses, without a parallelinvestment in the public transitsystem.

Making significant investments inroad infrastructure without parallelinvestments in transit services hashad major consequences. Trafficcongestion is minimal and travel byauto around the City is easier thanever. More car travel has increasedtraffic in residential areas, reducedpedestrian activity on sidewalks, andaffected the viability of street-frontbusinesses downtown. Meanwhile,Transit struggled to serve theseadditional needs within existingbudgets, and for those with thefinancial means, the automobile hasbecome a more attractive option.

The geographic area requiringmunicipal services has grown larger,but without an equivalent growth inpopulation and assessment base.As a result, the City’s financialcapacity to deliver the necessaryservices has diminished. Furtherfinancial implications includedincreased debt charges for newroads, bridges and underpasses,resulting in a diminished capability toprovide needed maintenance ofexisting infrastructure.

7

1. Executive Summary1.4.Factors Affecting Ridership

Annual Transit Ridership 1982-1998

Mill

ion

s

RevenuePassengers

Boardings

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Year

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

While an understanding of allfactors affecting transit ridership isimportant, it is necessary to focuson those factors that may becontrolled/influenced by City policy.

City Council and the City’sadministration need to continue tocollaborate with developers, thebusiness community, and the publicto create conditions that supportincreased transit use and that makeWinnipeg a more liveable city.

The development of thesesupportive conditions requires that:

Land use planning be more fullyintegrated with transportationplanning.

Pedestrian facilities be improved.

Transit be more fully integrated inthe downtown, at major activitycentres, and on neighbourhoodmain streets.

Individual and group modes oftravel be more fully integrated.

Any increase in the supply oflong term parking in the downtownbe minimized.

Recommendations:

That conditions supportive ofincreased transit use be createdas part of the ongoing physicaland economic development ofWinnipeg.

That specific improvementsto transit service be focusedwhere the potential to attractnew ridership is highest. Priorityfor improvement should be fortrips made:

• To, from, and within thedowntown;

• Along the major radial travelcorridors of the City;

• To and from major centresof employment, education,health care, and shopping.

8

Indirect Costing

A complicating characteristic ofurban transportation is that users donot directly pay for all of the costsincurred by their travel. These costsinclude the capital costs of urbantransportation infrastructure, theoperation and maintenance oftransportation facilities, air, waterand noise pollution created byvehicular transport, ambulance andhealth system costs resulting fromaccidents, and the costs of trafficpolicing.

Many of these external costs areborne by the general population -not the users alone, a factor thattends to favour travel by auto.

This results in travel behaviours thathave implications well beyond thetransportation sector.

1.5.Framework for Increasing Ridership


9

1. Executive Summary1.6.Recommended Improvements

To provide real benefits topassengers, transit improvementsmust be focused on the followingfundamentals:

Improving speed andreliability

Improving comfort,convenience, safety, andaccessibility

Improving user information

Improving productivity

This report makes a variety ofrecommendations centred on thefollowing themes:

Making ongoingimprovements to service

Making the service easier touse

Making the service moreaffordable

Making the service moreproductive

Making a commitment toaffordable high speed transit

The Committee’s recommendationsare summarized in sections 1.6.1 to1.6.5 and details are contained inthe complete report.

1.6.1.Making Ongoing Improvements to Service

Operational improvements mustbe made to the transit system on anongoing basis to meet the travelneeds of passengers.

Recommendations:

Facilitate route networkimprovements

Continue regular busreplacements

Assign low floor buses tosame service each day

Upgrade major bus stops

Add more transit shelters

Build new transit terminals

• Relationship Between Faresand Funding of the TransitService

Transit service is funded fromthree major sources: systemgenerated revenues (primarily fares),a Provincial grant, and a grant fromthe City (funded through propertytaxes). During the 1990s, theProvincial grant was reduced threetimes, currently has been frozen forfour years, and remains at its lowestlevel since 1990 and 6.4% lowerthan its level in 1992. At the sametime, the City’s grant has varieddepending upon the needs of theTransit operation. Since 1997, theCity’s contribution has decreased by9.1%. To balance these fundingcuts, fare increases have beenimplemented every year. While small increases in fares

appear not to have significantimpacts on some ridership groups,the effect of the cumulativeincreases in fares over the past

decade seems to have resulted inreduced ridership levels amongstcertain groups of passengers —particularly young people and thoseon limited incomes.

To increase ridership, transitservice must be made moreconvenient to users.

Recommendations:

Further explore non-traditional service deliveryopportunities (eg. DART)

Expand the park and rideprogram

Consider expanding the “bikeracks on buses” program

Continue to improve map andtimetable information

Continue expansion of busstop information program.

Assess the potential for aTransit “Day Pass”

Improve the Telebus System

Further develop the Transitweb site

Investigate automated tripplanning for the Transit web site

Implement automated nextstop displays on buses

Explore real-time scheduledisplays at bus stops

Implement a new farecollection system

10

1. Executive Summary1.6.2.Making Transit Service Easier to Use

1.6.3.Making the Service More Affordable

1980

-199

9

1980

1985

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

Annual Revenues ($ Millions)

Transit Operating Revenues By Source

SystemGenerated

ProvincialGrant

City Grant

• Level of Discount for theReduced Cash Fare

In 1995, a new transit farestructure was implemented thatincluded the introduction ofdiscounted tickets, weekly passes,and the “power hour” transfer. Inaddition, a set of ratios between theadult cash fare and all other farecategories was defined. At that time,reduced fares (for children, highschool students, and senior citizens)were set at 60% of thecorresponding adult fares. In 1998,the reduced cash fare category waseliminated, although reduced ticketsand passes were maintained.

After public dissatisfaction andloss of ridership, Council decided toreinstate the reduced cash fare at80% of the adult cash fare for 1999- and keep tickets and passes at60%. It was hoped that this changewould help recover some of thelosses incurred. However,preliminary results for 1999 indicatethat this is unlikely.

Recommendation:

Because of the budgetaryimpact, the level of the reducedcash fare not be further reducedand be maintained at 80% of theadult cash fare.

• Fares for Post-SecondaryStudents

Over 40% of students at the majorpost-secondary institutions ridetransit. They pay regular adult faresand generate approximately $6.3million in fare revenues each year.On a number of occasions, studentassociations have requested that theCity introduce discounted transitrates for post-secondary studentsas they struggle to cover tuition andliving costs.

In 1996-97, the TransitDepartment worked with theUniversity of Manitoba and theUniversity of Winnipeg studentassociations, and the Universityadministrations, to develop aproposal that would providediscounted transit fares to students,maintain existing transit revenues,and generate some surplus funds toimprove transit service to theuniversities. The proposal requiredthat a mandatory Transportation

Levy be paid by all students as partof their student fees. The value ofthe levy was approximately 50% ofthe equivalent cost of using an adultmonthly bus pass for the eightmonth school year. In the end, thestudent associations decidedagainst a mandatory fee and did notput the proposal to a studentreferendum.

Because the proportion of post-secondary students already usingtransit is quite high, it is unlikely thata discount would attract sufficientnew users and new revenue tooffset the loss of existing revenuesresulting from the fare discount.Therefore, a discount to post-secondary students would mean anet revenue loss to transit. While themagnitude of the loss would dependon the value of the discount, itwould not be reasonable tocompensate this shortfall with anincrease in fares for otherpassengers, or a reduction in transitservice levels.

11


The Working Group considered anoption that would involve acontribution from the studentassociations, at a lesser amountthan that proposed in 1996-97. If allstudents were to pay a small transitlevy as part of their student fees,discounted fares could be providedfor students who are transit users.While the estimates would varyslightly for each institution, a 20%fare discount would require a levy ofabout $50 for the academic year foreach registered student.

This option was reviewed withrepresentatives of the studentsassociations of the University ofManitoba, the University ofWinnipeg, and Red River College.For the following reasons, none ofthe student associations is preparedto support this approach:

1. The net reduction in transit faresfor a full academic year (20%discount less the value of the levy)would amount to only a $40 to $50savings for each student that usestransit. When compared toescalating tuition costs, this is notviewed as a significant saving bystudents.

2. Not only would a mandatorylevy effectively reduce the value ofthe fare discount for students whoare transit users, it would increasethe student fees of those who arenot transit users. Consequently, theconcept of a mandatory fee will notfind support amongst students atthe three post-secondaryinstitutions.

Despite concerted efforts in 1996-97 and in 1999, it has not beenpossible to identify an arrangementto provide discounted transit fares topost-secondary students withoutrealizing a revenue loss for thetransit system. While discountedfares will result in some increasedridership, the higher use is unlikelyto be sufficient to compensate forthe loss of revenue due todiscounted fares. Consequently, theimplementation of discounted faresfor post-secondary students willrequire increased operating grants totransit by the City and/or theProvince.

Because the financial difficultiesfaced by students are real andbecause post-secondary studentsconstitute a significant segment oftransit ridership in Winnipeg, it isrecommended that a discountedpost-secondary pass beimplemented for students attendingthe University of Manitoba, theUniversity of Winnipeg, and RedRiver College. It is estimated that theimplementation of such a pass on atrial basis for the 2000-2001academic year at a 20% discountfrom the regular monthly pass ratewould require an annual increase inthe transit grant of $700,000.

Recommendation:

That a post-secondary pass,discounted at a value of 20%from the equivalent cost ofregular monthly passes, beimplemented for studentsattending the University ofManitoba, University of Winnipeg,and Red River College during the2000-2001 academic year.

• Employer-Sponsored FareProgram

Many employers offer free orsubsidized parking as a benefit totheir employees. In severaljurisdictions, employer-sponsoredbus pass programs have beenimplemented to reduce commutingcosts for transit users, to reduce thedemand for parking, to provide amore equitable benefit program toemployees, and to make thepurchase of transit passes moreconvenient.

Such a program would requireidentification of potential employerparticipants, the design, production,and distribution of informational andpromotional materials, and thedevelopment of an administrativesystem to support the program.

Recommendation:

That an employer-sponsoredtransit fare program beinvestigated for Winnipeg(preferably in conjunction with a decision by the FederalGovernment to treat employer-paid transit passes as anon-taxable benefit).

12


• Transit Priority Measures

Transit priority measuresimplemented to date in Winnipeghave worked successfully and enjoypublic support.

Recommendation:

That further transit prioritymeasures be implemented toimprove the speed and reliabilityof transit service.

• Increased Promotion of TransitServices

Transit service can be made moreproductive if additional passengerscan be attracted to utilize theexisting capacity. New customersneed to be recruited.

Recommendation:

That sufficient funds beprovided in the transit operatingbudget so that additionaleffective promotion initiativescan be undertaken.

• Upgrade of the Radio Systemand Automatic Vehicle Location

Installed in 1982, the existing two-way bus radio system isapproaching the end of its useful life.

Recommendation:

That the existing two-waybus radio system be replacedwith one that includes automaticvehicle location (AVL) capability.

• Replacement of North Garage

The antiquated transit operatingcentre at Main Street and CarruthersAvenue needs to be upgraded/replaced. With the closure of St.James garage, additional capacity isalso required at this location.

Recommendation:

That the transit garagelocated at Main & Carruthers bereplaced by a more modernfacility by 2010.

• Alternative Fuels

Recent testing and demonstrationsinvolving the use of hydrogen as analternative fuel for transit buses lookpromising.

Recommendation:

That when technologicallypractical and economicallyfeasible, Winnipeg Transitconsider converting to hydrogenon a phased-in-basis.

13

1.6.4.Making the Service More Productive


If additional ridership is to beattracted to public transit, thenmeasures must be taken to improvethe performance of the transitsystem. Improved performance —including faster speeds, improvedreliability, a more accessible system,improved user information, improvedwaiting facilities, etc. — is essentialto make transit a competitive andattractive option for urban travel.

The key to improving transitperformance in Winnipeg is speed.As the built-up city has expanded,transit service has becomeincreasingly less competitive withautomobiles in terms of travel time.For trips that can be made by transitin 35 minutes or less (including walk,wait, and in-vehicle time), transit useis quite high. For trips that takelonger than 35 minutes by transit,transit use is much lower. Becauseof the geographical expansion thathas occurred in recent decades,less than half of Winnipeg’s currentpopulation is located within 35minutes of downtown by transit.

A commitment to high speedtransit requires the operation ofbuses in congestion-free corridors.

Recommendations:

That opportunities forexpanded express services beidentified and, where feasible,implemented.

That the feasibility of On-Street Rapid Bus be studied and,where feasible, implemented.

That the City determine theconditions and time frames forproceeding with a buswaysystem with particular referenceto the Southwest TransitCorridor as the first stage in itsdevelopment.

That efforts be made toidentify alternative mechanismsto fund high speed transit —including dedicated revenuestreams, public-privatepartnerships, the granting ofdevelopment rights on City-owned land adjacent to thecorridor, and partnerships withsenior levels of government.

1.6.5.Making a Commitment to Affordable High Speed Transit

14


The annual transit operatingbudget contains the following majorcomponents:

Regular Transit Operating Costs

Handi-Transit Operating Costs

Debt Costs and Contributions tothe Bus Replacement Reserve

A number of factors must beconsidered within these operatingcosts. Despite an expandedgeographical area, regular transitoperating costs in the past 20years have remained stable bycontrolling the amount of serviceprovided and the close supervisionof input costs.

Between 1982 and 1999, thenumber of bus hours operated persquare kilometre of service area hasdecreased from 6,003 to 4,730, a21% reduction in real servicelevels. At the same time, between1980 and 1999, the Handi-Transitbudget has more than tripled from 2%to 7% of total Transit system costs.

The creation of the Transit BusReplacement Reserve in 1994, tobegin paying cash for new buses,has also driven Transit system costsupward. The short-term impact hasbeen increased costs, since boththe new bus replacement reservecosts and the debt cost incurred onpast bus purchases, must beincluded in the budget. Althoughthis “pay-as-you-go” policy createsshort term financial pain, it is a verybeneficial long term policy.

Between 1980 and 1999, the totalTransit Operating Budget hasdecreased from 13.9% of the totalCity’s tax supported expenditures to13.4%. Within the Transit budget,there have been some considerablevariations as follows (measured as aproportion of total City taxsupported expenditures):

• Regular TransitOperating Costs -16%

• Handi-TransitOperating Costs +200%

• Debt and Bus Replacement Reserve +100%

Transit Revenues

The operation of transit service isfunded from three major sourceseach year: system generatedrevenues derived from passengerfares, advertising on buses, shelters

and benches; a Province ofManitoba operating grant; and a Cityof Winnipeg operating grant.

During the latter part of the 1990s,the proportion of total revenuesaccounted by system generatedrevenues has increased, while theproportion borne by governmentgrants has decreased.

Revenue/Cost Ratio for RegularTransit

During the 1990s, annual transitfare increases increased therevenue/cost ratio of regular transit(from 47% to 67% between 1980and 1999), and reduced therequirement for public funding of theservice. As a result, the cost to theuser for riding regular transit hasincreased at a rate much greaterthan that of inflation.

15

1.7.Funding Of The Transit System

1.7.1.Historical Funding of Transit Operations


1980

1985

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

System Generated Revenues/Operations Costs

Revenue/Cost Ratio for Regular TransitOn Operations Costs Exclusive of Debt Service andBus Replacement Costs

47%

55%

59%

60%

58%

60%

63%

58%

61%

64%

65%

67%

During the past two decades, anumber of inter-related factors havecombined to create significantfinancial pressures on the funding oftransit service in Winnipeg. Theseinclude:

Decentralized developmentrequiring more dispersed serviceand resulting in lost ridership;

No concurrent investment madein the transit system to keep itcompetitive with the automobile;

A continual demand forincreased Handi-Transit servicelevels;

The transition from debtfinancing to “pay-as-you-go”financing of bus replacements;

Government initiatives to reducegeneral taxation levels, reducinglevels of funding from the City andfrom the Province.

It is important that the City’s publictransportation policy be usedstrategically to help achieve broaderobjectives (such as the economicdevelopment of downtown) and tomake Winnipeg a more livable city.To do this, it is essential thatincreased ridership be attracted tothe system. Not only must theimprovements recommended in thisreport be implemented, but thefunding of transit must be arrangedin a manner that makes it possibleto achieve the intended goals.

1.7.3.Improving the Funding of Transit Operations

Major capital requirements fortransit are funded through the City’sCapital Estimates. The InnovativeTransit Program (which has been inplace since the early 1980s atannual levels of $500,000 to$600,000) is the main source offunding for making capitalimprovements to the transit system.Projects funded by the program fallinto two categories.

a) Improvements that providedirect benefits to passengersExamples include the TelebusSystem, heated passenger shelters,upgraded waiting areas at major busstops, new transit terminals at majoractivity centres, Park and Ride lots,the Transit web site, etc.

b) Improvements that increasethe productivity of servicedeliveryExamples include an AutomatedScheduling System, DiamondLanes, Transit Priority Signals, theHandi-Transit Trip ConfirmationSystem, the ComputerizedResponse System for managingcustomer complaints/commendations, etc.

In comparison to previous years,the 2000-2005 Capital Programincludes a reduction in the budgetedamounts for the Innovative TransitProgram. Such reductions wouldmake it impossible to implementmany of the recommendationscontained in this report.

Recommendation:

That the investment in theInnovative Transit Program beadequate to facilitate therecommendations of this report.

1.7.2.Funding of Transit Capital Requirements

16


• A Revised Approach forFunding Handi-Transit Service

Because of growth in the demandfor Handi-Transit service, anincreasing portion of the transitbudget is accounted for by Handi-Transit costs. Since 1992, theProvincial Transit Operating Granthas decreased by 6.4%, or 27%when adjusted for inflation. As aresult, the increased cost of Handi-Transit service has been largelyoffset by fare increases on bothregular transit and Handi-Transit andby increased funding by the City ofWinnipeg.

During the past decade, theProvincial government has adopteda policy of reducing the reliance oninstitutional care for the elderly andfor those with disabilities, andplacing an increased emphasis onhome care. This Provincial policyhas placed a significant increaseddemand on Handi-Transit service, inparticular to accommodate medicaland therapy trips.

The Canadian Charter of Rightsand Freedoms legislation requiresthat all individuals be treated equallyand that reasonable accommodationbe provided for those persons withspecial needs. The report of theTask Force Reviewing Handi-TransitIssues, adopted by Council onSeptember 21, 1994, defined thecharacteristics of a transportationservice for physically disabledpersons that is reasonablyequivalent to the service provided toable-bodied persons by the regularfixed route system. For the City andthe Province to meet this obligation,it is recommended that the followingapproach be used for the futurefunding of the Handi-Transit service:

Recommendations:

The City and the Provinceeach make annual dedicatedHandi-Transit Operations Grants

That a multi year agreementbe negotiated between the City and the Province to ensureconsistent, reliable Handi-Transitsystem funding.

17


• A Revised Approach for theFunding of Regular TransitService

Over the past decade, areinforcing spiral of fare increasesand service reductions hasdeveloped. While the revenue/costratio of regular transit has increasedto 67% (based on 1999 budgetdata), it has been accomplished atthe cost of reduced ridership.

Recommendation:That the following approachfor funding regular transit beadopted:

Service Level Policy:

a) The core operating budgetfor regular transit service bebased on the operation of 1.3million bus hours each year.This is the amount of servicerequired to operate currentlevels of service.

b) Within the core annualservice of 1.3 million bus hours,the Transit Department continueits practice of implementingrouting and frequencyimprovements by divertingresources from under-utilizedservices to more productiveones. It should be noted,however, that the scope forfunding service improvements inthis manner is limited.

c) The Transit operating budgetbe increased as necessary tofund service expansions requiredfor the introduction of service innew areas or for the expansionof the hours of operation inexisting areas.

Fare Policy:

a) Fare levels be based on arevenue/cost target of 66% forregular transit. The revenue partof the ratio would be based onsystem generated revenues(fares, advertising, and charterrevenue). The cost part of theratio would be based on theoperating costs of regulartransit, exclusive of debt servicecharges and the annualcontribution to the Transit BusReplacement Reserve. Thisapproach will moderatepressures for future fareincreases.

b) The existing arithmeticrelationships between the adultcash fare and all other farecategories be maintained.

Subsidy Policy:

a) The City provide a fixeddedicated annual grant forregular transit each yearcalculated as follows:

50% of Budgeted SharableDeficit

Plus 100% of CityContribution to the TransitBus Replacement Reserve

Plus 100% of City DebtService Costs for BusReplacement

where the Budgeted SharableDeficit is defined as:

Regular Transit Total Costs

Less City Contribution tothe Transit Bus ReplacementReserve

Less City Debt ServiceCosts for Bus Replacement

Less System GeneratedRevenues

b) The Province provide a fixeddedicated annual grant forregular transit each year equalto 50% of the BudgetedSharable Deficit (as definedabove)

c) The Province maintain itscurrent policy of providing aProvincial Support Grant tooffset the cost of the ProvincialPayroll Tax.

18


As the City develops andchanges, it must continuously reviewand reassess its key directions andpolicies. The Standing Committeeon Public Works should request

updates to this report as required toensure the policies, actions, andpriorities identified remain consistentwith the City’s overall directions andpolicies. 19

Despite stated City priorities forinvestment in the transportationsystem, very little investment in thetransit system has been madeduring the past several decades.Improved transit service is importantin the achievement of the City’surban development and quality oflife goals. If transit improvements areto be achieved, then newmechanisms for funding thedevelopment of the overall urbantransportation system need to beimplemented.

In the transition to new methods,the following fundamentals forfunding urban transportation mustapply:

Instruments be used that provideincentives to transportation users tomake environmentally sustainablechoices;

The burden of funding thetransportation system be shifted tothose who generate the greatestcosts (those who make extensiveuse of the system, who travel duringpeak periods, etc.);

Any growth in aggregate taxationbe minimized;

Funds raised for transportationpurposes be invested in accordancewith stated City priorities.

Recommendations:

That dedicated revenuestreams be established to fundtwo priorities for investment inthe transportation system:Maintenance of ExistingInfrastructure and Improvementsto the Transit System.

In particular, it isrecommended that negotiationsbe undertaken with theProvincial Government toidentify potential dedicatedrevenue streams. Theserevenues should be allocated asfollows:

• 80% of the funds to aRoadway and BridgeMaintenance Reserve to fundmajor repair and maintenanceof regional roadways andbridges (in support of the firstpriority of Plan Winnipeg).

• 20% of the funds to a PublicTransit Infrastructure Reserveto fund major improvementsto the transit system (insupport of the second priorityof Plan Winnipeg).

Since the transit system carries20% of peak period travel inWinnipeg, the same percentage ofthe generated funds should beallocated for major improvements inthe transit system, such as thephased construction of the buswayrapid transit network and itssubsequent maintenance.

Sources of dedicated fundingmight include:

A reallocation of a portion of theexisting provincial or federal gasolinetax

An auto registration tax

Revenues resulting from KyotoProtocol emissions trading

A transition to the use of dedicatedrevenue streams to fund the City’spriorities for investment in thetransportation system (maintenanceof existing infrastructure and transitimprovements) will requirenegotiation with Provincial andFederal Governments.

Recommendation:

The City initiate discussionswith the other levels ofgovernment consistent with theabove noted approach andrecommendations so that urbantransportation investments aremade in a more effective andsustainable manner.

1. Executive Summary1.7.4.A Revised Approach for Funding Major Transit Improvements

1.8. Review of Public Transportation Priorities

The urban travel market includesall trips made in Winnipeg.The market is a derived one: urbantravel is not a goal in itself, but aprerequisite activity to accomplishanother purpose (work, study,shop, etc.).

The size and nature of the marketare determined by population size,demographic characteristics,employment levels, land usepatterns, the characteristics of thetransportation system, user costs,weather, special events, andgeneral economic conditions. The urban travel market varies byseason, by day of the week, and byhour of the day.

Conceptually, the urban travelmarket is measured by the numberof person trips made in the urbanarea during a specified period oftime. Citizens and visitors, or users,employ a variety of transportationservices, or modes, to make persontrips for specific purposes throughthe urban transportation system.

It is important that, in any analysisof the urban travel market, adistinction between trips and usersbe drawn. Trips are used to measuretravel activity in the market. Thebehaviour of users determines thevolume and types of trips made.Users do not necessarily use thesame mode for all types of trips nordo they necessarily use the samemode at all times for a single trippurpose. This implies that, if certaintypes of travel behaviour are to beencouraged in pursuit of a vibrantand healthy city, then thecircumstances that determine thetravel choices made by users mustbe understood and influenced.

The City of Winnipeg is responsiblefor the planning, development,operation, and maintenance ofWinnipeg’s urban transportationsystem. Governed by current policyoutlined in Plan Winnipeg…Toward 2010, the TransitDepartment and the Public WorksDepartment are jointly charged withcarrying out the City’s responsibilitiesrelated to the movement of peopleand goods. Winnipeg’s fundamentalurban transportation objectives are:

To provide effective and efficientmobility for the movement ofpersons and goods which isaffordable and accessible.

To reduce traffic congestionthrough the provision of sufficientcapacity in the transportationinfrastructure.

To minimize the overallinvestment in transportationinfrastructure.

To reduce emissions of airpollutants (carbon dioxide, volatileorganic compounds, nitrous oxides,and chlorofluorocarbons) related tourban transportation.

To reduce energy use related tourban transportation.

To complement and support theobjectives in Plan Winnipeg.

Within this framework, the historical role of publictransit in Winnipeg has been:

To provide transportation forthose who do not have access toother modes.

To provide a level of serviceduring weekday peak periods thatminimizes the City’s investment inroadway and bridge capacity.

To reduce pollution created bythe urban transportation system

To reduce energy used for urbantransportation.

20

2.The Role of Public Transit in Winnipeg2.1.The Urban Travel Market and Winnipeg’s Urban Transportation System

The transportation system isdesigned to accommodate peaktravel demands. Peak travel islargely determined by patternedtrips to work and post-secondaryinstitutions. To monitor this, the City of Winnipeg conductsperiodic origin-destination surveysof these types of trips.

The accompanying graph shows the distribution of city-wide peak period work and post-secondary trips amongst the major modes for each year during which a survey has been conducted.

As Winnipeg expanded inpopulation and geographic area,the number of trips made in thework and post-secondary sector ofthe travel market grew until the late1980’s. Since then, the amount oftravel has levelled off. Changes inthe demographic profile ofWinnipeg account for most of thischange. In the early 1990’s,however, the economic recessionwas an important factor in thedecline in traffic levels. Between1962 and 1992, transit’s share ofthese trips declined from 28% to20% of the total.

While transit’s share of the city-wide work and post-secondary tripmarket is currently 20%, it is higherin areas where employment orstudent populations areconcentrated. For example, thetransit market share is 35% indowntown, 32% at the University of Manitoba, 56% at the Universityof Winnipeg, 35% at Red RiverCollege, 25% at St. BonifaceCollege, and 22% at the HealthSciences Centre.

While the City’s periodic origin-destination surveys provide anoverall measure of the proportion ofwork and post-secondary tripsaccounted by the major modes onan average autumn weekday, theyprovide little information abouttransportation users or about overallpatterns of travel behaviour amongstWinnipeggers.

The Transit Department conductssurveys every other year to measuregeneral travel behaviours, reasonsfor use/non-use of transit, andattitudes about publictransportation. The followinginformation is based on the resultsof the most recent survey.

21

2.The Role of Public Transit in Winnipeg2.2.Use of Public Transit by Winnipeggers

AM Peak Hour Work and Post-Secondary Trips120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Other

Auto Pgr

Transit

Auto Driver

Th

ou

san

ds

of T

rip

s

1962 1971 1976 1981 1986 1992

Intensity of Transit Use byWinnipeggers

A high proportion of the populationmakes use of transit services inWinnipeg.

About 6 in 10 people report thatthey use transit at least occasionally.

About 4 in 10 people make atleast one trip on transit each week.

About 3 in 10 people make veryregular use of the system (3 or moreone-way trips each week).

As suggested by this graph, one ofthe keys to increased ridership is thecreation of conditions thatencourages occasional and lightusers to travel more frequently onthe transit system.

Demographics and Transit Use

Transit ridership is significantlyaffected by the demographics ofthe population. The graph showsthe proportion of the population ineach age cohort that uses transitregularly (3 or more one-way tripseach week).

In most age categories, a higherproportion of women than of menuse transit regularly. As thepopulation ages, the proportion thatcontinues to use transit on someregular basis decreases. More thanhalf of teenagers and those in theirearly 20’s are regular users of transit.For men over 25, transit usedeclines with age. For women over25, about a third are regular users.

Young people are obviously animportant transit market. Inparticular, those aged 15 to 24years are the most intensive usersof transit service. In the mid-1980’s,the population of this age group inWinnipeg was about 108,000.Since then, it has declined to about86,000. This shift of the “babyboom” population from an agegroup that uses transit extensivelyto one that uses transit much lessfrequently is a major reason thattransit ridership declinedsignificantly in the decade between1986 and 1995.

Population forecasts for Winnipegproject that the size of this agecohort will increase to about 105,000by 2011. This change will likely resultin some growth in ridership over thenext decade or so. If ridership ratescan be increased amongst those intheir late 20’s, in particular, then thereis good potential to improveaggregate ridership levels over thenext several years.

22

2.The Role of Public Transit in WinnipegTransit Use by Winnipeggers

Never UseTransit

Occasional(<1 trip/week)

Light(1-2 trips/week)

Moderate(3-6 trips/week)

Heavy(>6 trips/week)

% o

f P

op

ula

tio

n 1

5 Ye

ars

and

Ove

r 19%

39%

22%

8%

12%

Regular Transit Users

Ag

e C

ateg

ory

Female

Male

15-19

20-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

Overall

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

% of Age-Gender Cohort That Are Regular Users

50%58%

45%49%

27%24%

28%21%

31%20%

29%16%

16%33%

28%33%

While growth in the youngercohorts of the population will havepositive impacts on ridership, oldercohorts will continue to account forthe largest part of Winnipeg’spopulation. In particular, those aged45 - 64 will be the fastest growingpart of the population over the nextdecade. While older citizens do notuse transit as intensively as youngerpeople, a high proportion areoccasional and light users of theservice. As this group ages,accessibility to transit will becomeincreasingly important.

Travel Behaviours ofWinnipeggers

Urban travellers do not necessarilyuse the same mode for all types oftrips nor do they necessarily use thesame mode at all times for a singletrip purpose. The accompanyinggraph shows the patterns of modechoice made by Winnipeggers (aged15 years and greater) for work,education, and other (shopping,personal business, medical,recreation) trips.

23

2.The Role of Public Transit in WinnipegThe population’s travel behaviours can be summarized as follows:

About 14% of Winnipeggers arecompletely dependent on transit fortheir travel. These persons usetransit to make all their trips for allpurposes.

About 11% of citizens use transitto make all their work/schooltrips. A portion of this group usestransit only to make work/schooltrips; they do not use transit forother purposes. Others in this groupuse transit to make all theirwork/school trips and some of theirother trips.

About 22% of Winnipeggersreport that they use transit to makesome of their trips. On certain days,they drive, walk, or cycle; on otherdays, they use transit to make theirtrips.

About half of the populationreports that they rarely use transit.While they do not normally usetransit to make any type of trip, theymight use it when their cars areunavailable or are being repaired.

Travel Behaviours of Winnipeggers(15 Years and Over)

Uses Transitfor all trips

Uses Transit forall work/schooltrips

Uses Transitfor some trips

Rarely usesTransit

22%

53%

14%

11%

Type of Traveller

A relatively small proportion of thepopulation (14%) is completelydependent on transit for their travel.With ever-increasing auto ownershiplevels, this suggests that mosttransit users have a choice as towhether they use the transit systemor not. If transit service does notmeet their needs, then most haveaccess to alternative means oftransportation.

In addition, a substantial proportionof the population uses transit tomake only some of their trips. If infrequent users can be persuadedto use the system more often, thenthere is high potential to significantlyincrease overall ridership levels.

2.4.Interaction Between Land Use Planning and Transportation Planning

2.3.Trends in Annual Ridership

24

2.The Role of Public Transit in Winnipeg

Two measures of transit ridershipare used. Revenue-passengersmeasure the number of passengerspaying cash, ticket, or pass fareswhen boarding the transit system. Itis a measure of the number of paidfares and does not include thenumber of transferring passengers.Boardings measure the number ofpassengers paying a transit fare orpresenting a transfer slip whenboarding the transit system. Whileannual transit ridership in Winnipeghas stabilized since 1995, asignificant decline was experiencedbetween 1987 and 1995.

A portion of the ridership loss isexplained by the demographicchanges discussed above. Asimportant a factor, however, hasbeen the impact of decisions madewith respect to land use and urbanform during the past severaldecades in Winnipeg.

Consequently, an understanding ofthe interaction between land useplanning and transportation planningis fundamentally important in thedevelopment of a future role forpublic transit in Winnipeg.

Annual Transit Ridership 1982-1998

Mill

ion

s

RevenuePassengers

Boardings

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Year

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Urban transportation is a complexissue that involves public and privateinterests.

The City plays a major public rolein the supply of infrastructure(streets, bridges, lanes, sidewalks,parking facilities, traffic controldevices, buses, and cycle paths)and in the supply of services(public transit, Handi-Transit, trafficoperations, and the regulation of on-street parking and loading, privateapproaches, truck routes, andsigns).

The private sector also plays animportant role in the supply ofinfrastructure (off-street parkingfacilities, terminals) and in thesupply of services (taxis, couriers,delivery services, charter busservices).

The demand for urban travel ispredominantly influenced by landuse patterns, the nature of the localeconomy, workforce and schoolparticipation rates, and thedemographic characteristics of thepopulation. The choices of travelmode made by the city’s residentsare affected by trip lengths, theperceived quality of available traveloptions, auto availability, and directuser costs.

Because of the interrelationshipamongst land use patterns,transportation supply, and modechoice, the City directly influencesthe demand for urbantransportation:

Land use decisions determinethe density of the city and theproximity of residences toemployment and major activitycentres. These, in turn, affect theamount of travel and average triplengths.

The City’s decisions about thenature and mix of transportationinfrastructure and services to supplydirectly determine the relative qualityof service of the major modes oftravel. This, in turn, influences themode choices made by residents.

A complicating characteristic ofurban transportation is thatexternalities are significant. That is,users of urban transportation do notdirectly pay for all of the costsincurred by their travel. Asexamples, users do not directly payfor the capital costs of urbantransportation infrastructure, for theoperations and maintenance oftransportation facilities, for air, waterand noise pollution created byvehicular transport, for ambulanceand health system costs resultingfrom accidents, or for the costs oftraffic policing.

Because these external costs areborne by the general populationrather than by users, they distort thechoices made by individual travelers.This results in aggregate travelbehaviours that have implicationsbeyond the transportation sector.

During the past few decades, thedeveloped area of the city hasexpanded at a rate much greaterthan that of population growth. Thisgrowth accommodated an increaseddemand for suburban single familyhousing as the “Baby Boom”generation moved through the familyformation stage of the life cycle.

As part of this decentralization,the City made large investments inroad widenings and new roads,bridges and underpasses toaccommodate increased travelactivity and longer trip lengths.Because no concurrent parallelinvestments were made to improvepublic transit and because theexternalities described above haveunderpriced automobile use, theproportion of urban travel made byautomobile has dramaticallyincreased.

These land use and transportationdecisions have had profoundimpacts. The expansion of roadwayand bridge capacity has made itvery easy to get around the city bycar. In comparison to other majorCanadian cities, traffic congestion isnot a major problem in Winnipeg.While this is often touted as anadvantage of living in Winnipeg,there have been other importantimpacts:

The expansion of the roadwayand bridge network has stimulatedfurther decentralization ofresidences, employment, andcommercial activity in Winnipeg. Thishas increased the geographic areato which municipal services must bedelivered. Because the populationand the assessment base have notkept pace with growth in servicearea, the City’s financial capacity todeliver municipal services hasdiminished.

The new roads, bridges, andunderpasses have been financedthrough debt. Annual debt chargesare a significant burden and furtherconstrain the City’s capacity todeliver municipal services (includingalternative modes of transportation).

25


The decentralization of the citymade possible by the expandedtransportation infrastructure has hada negative impact on inner cityneighborhoods and the downtown.

The increasing proportion of tripsmade by automobile has decreasedthe number of pedestrians on citysidewalks and degraded thepedestrian environment. This, inturn, has reduced informalsurveillance, increased concernsabout personal safety, anddecreased the viability of street-frontretail businesses.

Traffic levels have increased inlocal residential areas.

The large investment in newroads, bridges, and underpasseshas diverted funds required formaintenance of existinginfrastructure.

Air, water, and noise pollutionlevels resulting from urbantransportation have increased.

These impacts illustrate thattransportation decisions affect manyaspects of urban life. Consequently,it is important that urbantransportation policy in general, andpublic transportation policy inparticular, be developed within thebroader context of major issues ofconcern to Council and citizens.These include more efficient servicedelivery, affordable municipalgovernment, infrastructure renewal,public safety, economicdevelopment, downtownrevitalization, renewal of olderneighbourhoods, and environmentalstewardship.

Winnipeg is expected to grow at avery moderate rate over the nextseveral years. As the demographicprofile of the population ages,housing, employment, and lifestyleneeds will differ from those of therecent past. As concerns aboutgreenhouse gas emissions grow,municipal governments will berequired to play an important role inthe implementation of policies thatmeet the country’s commitments inthe Kyoto Protocol.

The City’s urban transportationpolicies and practices, therefore,must be supportive of broaderinitiatives to improve the quality oflife in Winnipeg, to meet the needsof citizens, and to honour globalcommitments.

26


2.5.Focusing on Public Transit’s Strengths

27


The traditional benefits of publictransit are well recognized. Publictransit:

provides transportation for thosewho do not have access to othermodes,

provides a level of service duringweekday peak periods thatminimizes required investment inroadway and bridge capacity, and

reduces traffic congestion, airpollution, and the use of fossil fuels.

However, public transit providesother potential benefits that are notas well understood:

Public transit is space-efficient.Less land is required to move asmall number of transit vehicles thanto move a large number ofautomobiles carrying the samenumber of people. Land notrequired for transportation can befreed up for other active uses or forpublic open space.

Public transit is cost-efficient.Since transit is more frugal withresources such as land and energy, itis often more cost effective to meet amobility need with transit rather thanthrough road widening or extensions.More compact higher densitydevelopment provides a significantcost saving for transit as well asother services such as sewer andwater, roads, utilities, emergencyservices, and public schools. Otherbenefits resulting from increaseddevelopment densities includeprotection of land devoted toagriculture, protection of sensitiveareas, and increased opportunitiesfor cycling and walking.

Public transit enhances publicsafety. Transit use encourages, andbenefits from, greater pedestrianactivity, greater public presence onthe sidewalks, and greater informalsurveillance and personal safety inpublic spaces.

Improved public transit isessential for the economicdevelopment and revitalization ofdowntown. Better transit expandsthe market for downtownbusinesses and expands access tolabour for downtown employers.Transit infrastructure in thedowntown requires less space andis less intrusive than automobileinfrastructure. Streets can be mademore pedestrian friendly. The needfor monthly parking can be reduced.Surface parking can be freed up formore valuable uses. High transit useincreases the level of pedestrianactivity which, in turn, makes streetssafer and makes street levelbusinesses more viable. A revitalizeddowntown has positive impacts onsurrounding inner cityneighbourhoods.

In short, good transit helps achievesustainable development and animproved urban environment. Inmany cases, the quality of theenvironment, the quality of life, theeconomic competitiveness, thehealth of the central businessdistrict, and the vitality of thecommunity in transit-oriented urbanareas are higher than those inautomobile-oriented cities.

Because these benefits areconsistent with the priorities ofCouncil and Plan Winnipeg, theWorking Group recommends that, inaddition to the traditional goals,public transportation policies andpractises be used strategically tohelp achieve broader objectives tomake Winnipeg a more livable city.

In practice, these benefits can beachieved only if additional ridershipcan be attracted to the system. To attract increased ridership,supportive conditions for publictransit must be created and transitimprovements must be focused inthose areas that generate thegreatest benefits.

Urban Form

There is a strong positiverelationship between urban densityand the level of transit ridership.Higher residential and employmentdensities make it feasible to operatefrequent transit service throughout theday. Higher levels of transit service, inturn, attract higher transit use. Thespatial location of land uses is alsoimportant. Developments (residential,commercial, or employment) isolatedfrom existing built-up areas areexpensive for transit to serve withfrequent service throughout the day.Because it is responsible for land useplanning within its boundaries, theCity can directly influence, over time,urban form.

Nature of TransportationInfrastructure Investment Madeby the City

The types of transportationinvestments made by governmentdirectly affect the quality of servicethat can be provided by the variousmodes. During the past two decades,significant investment has been madein the expansion of road and bridgecapacity in Winnipeg. During thesame time period, there has beenminimal investment in transitimprovements that would maketransit travel times competitive withthose by automobile. In combinationwith the decentralization of the city,transit has become a less attractivemode of travel. The City can directlyinfluence the nature of infrastructureinvestment through the transportationframework adopted in Plan Winnipegand in the capital spending decisionsit makes each year.

Parking Policy

The availability and cost of monthlyparking, particularly in thedowntown, has a significant impacton mode choice. During the pasttwo decades, the number of parkingspaces in the downtown hasincreased significantly and has beenassociated with lower transit modesplits for downtown work trips.While the City cannot directly controlthe amount of long term parkingprovided by private interests, it canuse zoning regulations to influencethe location, nature, and amount ofparking built by developers.

Transit Fares

The rate of change in transit fares,in comparison to increases in thegeneral cost of living and to the costof auto operation and parking, doesaffect transit ridership. During the1990’s, transit fares increased at arate much higher than that of theConsumer Price Index for Winnipegand much higher than that for autooperating costs. Some transit users,such as students and those onlimited incomes, are more sensitiveto fare increases than are otherusers. Transit fare levels are affectedby the costs of transit servicedelivery, the level of Provincialgrants, and Council targets for themill rate.

There are many factors that affect the level of transit ridership. Some are controllable and can be influenced bypolicies and actions taken by the City. There are other factors, however, that are not controllable.

3.1.Controllable Factors

28

3. Factors Affecting Ridership

29


Attribute Service is of High Quality When . . .

Coverage The walk to and from transit stops is a reasonable distance.The route network operates in very close proximity to major destinations.

Comfort The waiting areas at bus stops are clean, attractive, well-lit and accessible.Transit shelters are placed at busy and/or exposed stops.Transit shelters are well-maintained.Modern accessible buses in good repair are used to provide service.Bus interiors and exteriors are clean and well-maintained.Buses are operated safely.

Travel Time Buses operate at frequent intervals.Routes are direct.Buses are not delayed by traffic and parked cars.Transit priority measures are used to speed up bus service.Travel by transit is as fast as travel by car.

Reliability All scheduled trips are operated.Vehicle breakdowns are minimized.The service operates on time.Transfer connections are made.Transit priority measures are used to eliminate schedule delays.

Convenience Route, schedule, and fare information is readily available.Information posted at transit stops is current and easy to understand.The need to transfer is minimized.Transfers can be made at the same stop or the same intersection.Fares are reasonable.Fare options are easy to understand and flexible.

Accessibility A network of well-maintained sidewalks provides access to transit stops.Stop platforms and shelters are well designed and maintained in good repair.Accessible buses are used to provide service.Service schedules identify the trips operated by accessible buses.High quality snow removal on sidewalks allows wheelchair access to regular transit.

Courtesy Passengers are treated politely and respectfully by transit staff.Staff provide reliable information to customers.Complaints are investigated promptly and corrective action is taken.

Transit Service Quality

The quality of transit service delivery directly affects ridership levels. Service must be delivered with the followingattributes if existing ridership is to be retained and new users are to be attracted to the system.

3.2.Uncontrollable Factors

30

Demographics

Transit is used most extensively bythose who are young and those whoare old. Since the mid-1980’s, thedemographics in Winnipeg haveworked against transit. A significantportion of the population movedfrom an age group that uses transitmost to an age group that usestransit least. Population forecasts forWinnipeg for the next 15 yearssuggest that this trend will reverse;the number of young people in thepopulation will increase moderately.In addition, the number of elderly willincrease substantially.

Employment Levels in the LocalEconomy

When employment levels are high,there is more urban travel than whenemployment is low. As the size ofthe urban travel market increases,transit ridership grows (althoughtransit’s market share might notgrow at the same time). Wheneconomic activity decreases, entrylevel employees are usually the firstones to lose jobs. Because a highproportion of entry level workers aretransit users, a downturn in theeconomy has a negative impact ontransit ridership.

Nature of Employment

Changes in the types of work(part-time jobs with variable shifts,contract work, home-based work,etc.) have decreased the amount ofpatterned work travel. Many of thesework trips occur at locations or attimes that are difficult to serve bypublic transit.

Automobile Operating Costs

When making mode choices,urban travelers often compare onlythe out-of-pocket costs ofautomobile operation (fuel, routinemaintenance, and insurance) to thecosts of using transit. During thepast decade, these costs haveincreased at a rate much less thanthat of transit fare increases.

Parking Availability and Costs

Only about a third of workers paytheir own parking costs in Winnipeg.Free parking spaces or directlysubsidized parking is often providedas an employee benefit. As acompetitive measure, mostshopping areas provide free orsubsidized parking to theircustomers.


While an understanding of all thefactors affecting transit ridership isimportant, it is necessary to focuson those factors that are controllableand that can be influenced by Citypolicies and practices. To attain thebenefits identified above, theWorking Group recommends that astrategy to increase public transit’sshare of the urban travel marketinclude the following components:

Recommendation:

That conditions supportive ofincreased transit use be createdas part of the ongoing physicaland economic development ofWinnipeg.

That specific improvementsto transit service be focusedwhere the potential to attractnew ridership is highest. Priority for improvementshould be for trips made:

• To, from, and within thedowntown;

• Along the major radial travelcorridors of the City;

• To and from major centres ofemployment, education, healthcare, and shopping.

31

4. Increasing Transit Ridership

4.1.Developing Supportive Conditions

City Council and the City’sadministration need to continue tocollaborate with developers, thebusiness community, and the publicto create conditions that supportincreased transit use and that makeWinnipeg a more livable city. Thedevelopment of these supportiveconditions requires that:

a) The current update to PlanWinnipeg include a transportationframework that contributes to therevitalization of downtown,supports the renewal of olderneighbourhoods, improves publicsafety, and gives priority totransportation investments thatare financially and environmen-tally sustainable.

While the current version of PlanWinnipeg is consistent, in general,with this condition, Winnipeg’stransportation system has developed,during the past two decades, in amanner that is inconsistent with thisvision. Improved public transit has animportant role to play if several of thebroader goals of Council are to be

achieved. The City’s transportationframework is being reviewed as partof the current update of PlanWinnipeg. It is important that thepriorities for investment specified inthe revised transportation frameworkbe consistent with and be supportiveof these other important urbanobjectives.

b) Land use planning be morefully integrated withtransportation planning.

As part of development planning,transit operating requirements(collector roadways, turnaroundloops, sidewalks, pedestrianwalkways, bus stop areas) must beincluded, denser development andmajor activity centres should belocated in close proximity to transitservice (especially to future rapidtransit corridors), all developmentmust be located within a reasonablewalking distance of existing orplanned transit service, and newdevelopment should be contiguousto existing services.

c) Pedestrian facilities beimproved.

Transit users are pedestrians at thestart and end of their trips.Sidewalks and pedestrian walkwaysshould be located and designed toencourage walking trips and toshorten walking distances to transitstops. Comfortable and safe waitingareas should be provided for transitpassengers. Where warranted,protected walkways and protectedtransit waiting areas should beprovided.

d) Transit be more fullyintegrated in the downtown, atmajor activity centres, and onneighbourhood main streets.

In these areas, transit plays a keyrole. Sufficient space must beprovided on sidewalks at transitstops to accommodate waitingpassengers, passing pedestrians,and waiting amenities. Waiting areasmust be integrated into existing andfuture developments. Transit routesmust operate in very close proximityto the major destinations. Trafficoperations and on-street parkingmust be arranged to ensure thattransit vehicles operate on scheduleand at reasonable speeds. In thedowntown, convenient shuttleservice must provide an efficientinternal transportation link.

e) Individual and group modes oftravel be more fully integrated.

Urban transportation can beimproved by more fully integratingthe various modes of transportation.The linking of existing cycle pathswith new ones adjacent to majorroadways and transit corridors canprovide an improved network forcyclists. The construction of parkand ride sites in suburban areas caneffectively integrate automobile andtransit use. The creation of a multi-modal terminal can integrate intercitymodes with local transportation.

f) Further growth in the supply oflong term parking in thedowntown should be minimized.

Transit use is inversely related tothe supply of long-term parking inthe downtown. Despite provisions inPlan Winnipeg to limit the downtownparking supply, the number ofmonthly parking spaces hasincreased significantly since 1981.While there are legitimate needs forshort-term parking in the downtownto support downtown businesses,further growth in the supply of long-term parking in the downtownshould be minimized.

32


4.2.Improving Transit Service in Winnipeg

33


While it is important for Councilto implement transit supportivepolicies that create an environmentfor increased transit ridership, it isessential that improvements bemade to transit service to keepexisting customers and to attractnew riders.

To provide real benefits topassengers, transit improvementsmust be focused on the followingfundamentals:

a) Improving Speed andReliability

The key to increasing transit’sshare of urban travel is to makesignificant improvements in thespeed and reliability of transitservice. When transit travel timesare made competitive withautomobile travel times in majortravel corridors, significant modalshifts can be attained.

Reliable service means that busesarrive at stops on schedule (whichminimizes waiting times forpassengers) and that consistentrunning times are operated alongthe route from one day to the next(which makes connections morereliable for transferring passengers).

Improvements in speed andreliability attract ridership andincrease passenger revenue. At thesame time, higher operating speedsresult in reduced running times andpotential savings in operating costs.Initiatives that attract ridership andcontrol costs concurrently, therefore,are essential to implement. Suchmeasures as on-street trafficpriorities for transit and high speedtransit are particularly important.

b) Improving Comfort,Convenience, Safety, andAccessibility

Transit travel includes the walk tothe bus stop at the start of the trip,the wait at the bus stop, the ride onthe bus, and the walk from the busstop at the end of the trip.Improving each part of transit travelis important. In particular:

The regular transit system mustbe made more accessible. Inaddition to low-floor buses,accessible paths must be providedto and from bus stops. Such pathsmust be of good design and must bemaintained in a manner that permitsunimpeded use during all seasons.

Safe, well-lit, attractive, andcomfortable waiting areas must beprovided for passengers. Majorstops must include heated shelters,benches, transit signs with postedroute and schedule information,planters, public telephones,newspaper boxes, and otheramenities.

An up-to-date, modern fleet ofaccessible buses is required. It isessential that the fleet be renewedwith 30 new low-floor buses eachyear to provide improvedaccessibility for an aging population.

The route structure must becontinually adapted to reflectchanges in land use andemployment, to deliver passengersin close proximity to theirdestinations, to reduce the numberof transfers, and to improveintegration with other modes.

The fare structure must providecustomers with affordable andflexible fare options with convenientmethods of payment.

c) Improving User Information

One of the barriers to transit use isthe lack of easily accessed userinformation about routes, schedules,and fares. It is important thatexisting information sources (maps,timetables) be improved, that routeand schedule information be postedat more transit stops, that theTelebus system be improved, andthat new information technology beused to provide transit information ininnovative ways.

d) Improving Productivity

Improvements in productivity resultin better service at lower cost. Inparticular, the application of newtechnology in the areas of customerinformation, automated vehiclelocation, radio communications,service monitoring, fare payment,equipment maintenance, and servicelogistics, and the operation of transitservice at higher speeds provideopportunities to realize realproductivity gains.

34


The Working Group recommendsthat the City implement the transitimprovements outlined in thissection. While each has a directimpact on one or more of the fourtransit fundamentals outlined on theprevious page, the initiatives arecentered on the following themes:

35

5. Recommended Improvements

Making Ongoing Improvements to Service

Making the Service Easier to Use

Making the Service More Affordable

Making the Service More Productive

Making a Commitment to Affordable High Speed Transit

There are a number of land usechanges in the city to which thetransit network needs to beadapted. New or expanded serviceneeds to be developed for anumber of growing residential andindustrial/commercial areas. Theresidential areas include DakotaCrossing, Lakes of River ParkSouth, Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods,Crestview, Richmond West,Royalwood, Amber Trails, andTyndall Park. The industrial andcommercial areas include ScurfieldIndustrial Park, the Kenaston-McGillivray-Lowson area,St. Boniface Industrial Park,Terracon Place, the St. Jamescommercial area, and theBrookside-Inkster area.

In addition, there are a number ofareas in the city in which existingroutes need to be reorganized toprovide better service. Theseinclude routes that operate in thearea bounded by Portage,Balmoral, the CPR Mainline, andKing Edward/Century, routes thatoperate to the University ofManitoba, and routes that operate in Transcona-LakesideMeadows-Mission Gardens.

Recommendation:

The Transit Department is tocontinue its ongoing program tofacilitate route networkimprovements.

5.1.Making Ongoing Improvements to Service

5.1.1.Route Network Improvements

To improve accessibility to transitservice, the City is committed to theconversion of the regular transit fleetto low-floor buses as part of theregular bus replacement plan. As of1999, about 23% of the fleet iscomposed of low-floor buses. At thecurrent replacement rate of 30buses per year, the fleet will becompletely converted by 2013. Dueto budget constraints and lengthylead times for the delivery of newvehicles, the number of replacementbuses acquired between 1994 and1999 was significantly less than thatrequired. As a consequence,maintenance costs increased. In the

future, it is important that buses bereplaced on a regular basis tominimize overall life-cycle costs. To ensure the timely delivery ofreplacement buses at the lowestcost, it is recommended that theTransit Department continue itspractice of issuing multi-yeartenders. The next bus replacementtender should be issued for the2000 - 2002 budget years. Thecurrent bus replacement planassumes an average life of 18 yearsper bus. As maintenance experienceis gained with recently-acquired low-floor buses, this assumption willneed to be re-assessed.

Recommendation:

The Transit Department is tocontinue its program of regularbus replacements.

36

5.1.2.Regular Bus Replacement

5.1.3.Assignment of Low-Floor Buses to the Same Service Each Day

In 1995, Winnipeg Transit started agradual conversion of its fleet fromhigh floor buses to low-floor ones.This conversion is required so thatpassenger needs can be met asWinnipeg’s population ages. The low-floor buses provide easieraccess for a wide range ofpassengers. These include personswho have difficulty walking orclimbing steps, those who usewheelchairs, those who carrypackages, those who areaccompanied by young children,and persons who transport childrenin carriages.

To date, the low-floor buses havebeen operated on all routes in thetransit system to provide anopportunity for all passengers tobecome familiar with their features.Now that there is a significantproportion of the fleet that is low-floor, it is important to implement aplan to assign buses to the sameservice each day, to communicatethis plan to the public, and tospecify trips operated by low-floorbuses in transit scheduleinformation.

To provide opportunities forHandi-Transit registrants to usefixed route service, it is particularlyimportant that low-floor buses beassigned to routes that serve majortrip origins and destinations ofHandi-Transit users.

Recommendation:

The Transit Departmentdevelop and implement a plan todispatch low-floor buses to thesame service each day.


During the past seven years, anumber of major bus stops havebeen upgraded to provide safe, well-lit, attractive, and comfortablewaiting areas. These stops havebeen upgraded as single projectsfunded by the Innovative TransitProgram, as part of larger projects(such as the Graham Mall,PortageScape, North Mainredevelopment, Main-NorwoodBridges), or as part of theconstruction of exclusive transitterminals at shopping centres andpost-secondary institutions. It isimportant that this program becontinued at major stops yet to beupgraded in the downtown, at majoractivity centres, and along majorneighbourhood main streets. In thelatter case, it is important that transitstops be upgraded as general

streetscaping initiatives areundertaken in establishedcommercial areas (such as wasdone in the Osborne Village and onCorydon Avenue).

Recommendation:

The Transit Department is tocontinue its program ofupgrading major bus stops.

5.1.4.Upgrades of Major Stops

37


5.1.5.More Transit Shelters

In Winnipeg’s climate, it isimportant that adequate protectionfrom the elements be provided at asmany bus stops as possible. Thereare approximately 600 transitshelters for the 4,300 bus stops inthe city. About 400 of the sheltersare owned and maintained by theTransit Department; the other 200are owned and maintained byMediacom in exchange for

advertising rights. Approximately 10to 15 new shelters are acquiredeach year through the InnovativeTransit Program. While the Cityshould continue to acquire newshelters in this manner, it isimportant that the TransitDepartment investigate furtheropportunities to partner with privateinterests to increase the number oftransit shelters.

Recommendation:

The Transit department is tocontinue its program of addingmore transit shelters.

Over the past decade, exclusivetransit terminals have been built inpartnership with private interests atPolo Park, Garden City ShoppingCentre, Kildonan Place, St. VitalCentre, the University of Manitoba,and Red River College. Theseterminals permit transit service to beprovided in close proximity to themajor entrances of these activitycentres and to be operated in

isolation from surrounding trafficcongestion on the parking lots andinternal streets of these complexes.The transit terminal at Garden City isin a state of poor repair and needsto be replaced with one thatprovides better access/egress forbuses. In addition, new terminals arerequired to be built at UnicityShopping Centre and at theUniversity of Winnipeg.

Recommendation:

The Transit Department is tocontinue its program of buildingnew transit terminals at majorsites.

5.1.6.New Transit Terminals

38


5.2.Making Transit Service Easier to Use

For many people, transit service is not perceived as convenient to use. To eliminate this barrier, it is essential that thesystem be made easier to use. In particular, it is recommended that the following be implemented:

5.2.1.Non-Traditional Service Delivery (eg. DART)

Since 1996, the TransitDepartment has tested a newconcept of service delivery in lowdensity areas during periods of lowdemand. Regular fixed route servicehas been replaced by a flexible dial-a-ride service (DART) that operateson demand when and whererequired. The major benefits to usersare more direct travel, greatlyreduced walking distances, and amore secure ride. Experience todate has shown that the service

works best during evenings andSundays/Holidays when mostpassengers are making outboundtrips to their homes. There areseveral areas of low residentialdensity for which this approach toservice delivery (or variations of it)should be considered. Such areasas Westwood, St. Charles,Crestview, North Kildonan, AllSeasons Estates, and the Pulberry-River Road area are potentialcandidates for this type of service.

Recommendation:

Further explore non-traditional service deliveryopportunities (eg. DART).

5.2.2.Park and Ride

Six Park and Ride sites have beenfunded through the InnovativeTransit Program in various parts ofthe city: Main & Jefferson,Charleswood Centre, SouthdaleCentre, Kildonan Place, Grant &Cambridge, and St. Mary’s & Vista.At each of these sites, an agreementhas been entered into with a privatesector partner. The parking lotowner makes available a number ofparking spaces (usually 20 to 30adjacent to an express bus stop) foruse by transit passengers between6:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekdays.The private partner agrees tomaintain the parking lot, to clear thelot of snow during the winter, and toadminister the issuance of Park andRide tags to passengers. The TransitDepartment is responsible for

upgrading the adjacent bus stop(illuminated signage, bus stopplatform improvements, route andschedule information, benches, andwaste receptacles) and for installingsigns on the parking lot that identifythe designated parking spaces. Theintegration of the two major urbantravel modes (automobile andtransit) is an effective way toincrease transit ridership. The Parkand Ride program should beexpanded, particularly in the PortageAvenue, Pembina Highway, andHenderson Highway corridors.

Recommendation:

Expand the park and rideprogram.

5.2.3.Bike Racks on Buses

To promote further integration oftravel modes (cycling and transit), apilot test of bike racks on buses isbeing carried out on the 18 NorthMain - Corydon route that servesdowntown, Kildonan Park and

Assiniboine Park. The results of thistest should be assessed todetermine the warrant for furtherexpansion of this concept.

Recommendation:

Consider expanding the “bikeracks on buses” program.

39


5.2.4.Map and Timetable Improvements

Comprehensible route andschedule information is critical toattract additional ridership. Specificinitiatives to be undertaken includean updated design of papertimetables and the system routemap, the creation of special purpose

route maps for specific marketsegments (a tourist map, forexample), and wider distribution ofroute maps. Sponsorshipopportunities for these widely usedmaterials also need to be exploredto minimize costs.

Recommendation:

Continue to improve map andtimetable information.

5.2.5.Posted Information at Bus Stops

During the past decade, routeand schedule information has beenposted at many major bus stops.This initiative has reduced theuncertainty about expected busarrivals at stops and, as a result, hasbeen very well received bypassengers. This program should beexpanded.

Recommendation:

Continue expansion ofprogram to place information atbus stops.

40


5.2.6.Transit Day Pass

The current transit fare structureoffers single ride cash fares, singleride tickets, a 5-day weekday pass,a 7-day super pass, and a monthly

pass. For added convenience, thefeasibility of a Day Pass needs to beassessed. This fare medium shouldbe targeted primarily at tourists.

Recommendation:

Assess the Potential for aTransit “Day Pass”.

5.2.7.Internet Web Site

The Transit Department hasrecently developed a web site fromwhich passengers are able to viewand print route maps, timetables,and stop-specific schedules. Accessto the internet is growing at a rapidrate. It is important that the transitweb site be continually improved toprovide convenient access to transitservice information.

Recommendation:

Further develop the TransitWeb Site.

5.2.8.Improved Telebus System

The Telebus system is anautomated telephone informationservice that announces busdeparture times for any bus stop inthe system. During the busiestmonths, more than 30,000 calls arereceived each day on Telebus. Theoriginal system was supplied in1986 by a commercial vendor. InNovember 1999, this system wasreplaced with an updated onedeveloped in-house by transit staff.In addition to providing thedeparture times for the next two orthree buses at the time of the call,the new system also enables callers

to obtain information for departuretimes up to one week in advance.With new technology now in placefor Telebus, it is possible to add newfeatures to the system. It isimportant that the capabilities ofTelebus be expanded to provideimproved transit information (eg. realtime schedule information, fareinformation) to customers.

Recommendations:

Expand the features of theTelebus System

41


5.2.10.Automated Next Stop Displays on Buses

An impediment to transit use isthe uncertainty many people haveabout where and when to alightfrom a bus. For new users,unfamiliarity with the transit networkmakes it difficult to know preciselywhen the bus arrives at thedestination bus stop. On buses withstanding loads or during inclementweather when the bus windows arefogged, this uncertainty isexperienced by all passengers.

The implementation of automaticvehicle location technology (seebelow) permits the name of the nextstop to be displayed to passengerson an on board display as a busprogresses along its route. Thistechnology, common in Europeantransit systems, reduces uncertaintyfor users and permits occasionaland regular passengers alike to usetransit with confidence.

Recommendation:

Implement Automated NextStop Displays on Buses.

5.2.11.Real Time Schedule Displays

Another application madepossible by automatic vehiclelocation is the display of real timeschedule information at bus stopsand at activity centres. When serviceis delayed, the schedule times ofexpected bus arrivals are updatedautomatically and displayed onmonitors that can be seen by

waiting passengers. During the nextfew years, developments in wirelesstechnology will simplify the designand reduce the implementationcosts of this type of system. Realtime schedule displays provide morereliable information to customersand reduce the uncertaintyassociated with using public transit.

Recommendation:

Explore Real-Time ScheduleDisplays at Bus Stops andActivity Centres.

42

5.2.9.Automated Trip Planning Service

This is a computer applicationthat automatically finds the bestpath through the transit networkbetween a specified trip origin andtrip destination. Initially, thisapplication should be used by staff

working at the Transit InformationService to assist passengers plantheir trips. After testing by TransitInformation staff, this service shouldbe incorporated into the Transitinternet web site.

Recommendation:

Investigate Automated TripPlanning for Transit’s Web Site.


The transit service is funded fromthree major sources each year.These include system generatedrevenues (primarily fares), aprovincial grant, and a grant fromthe City’s general revenue fund.

Because of a change in thefunding formula for transit, theProvince reduced its grant by 2 %in 1993, by a further 2% in 1994and froze it at that level for 1995. In1996, this grant was reduced by afurther 2% (in line with reductions inprovincial grants to municipalities,schools, health care and post-secondary education) and hasremained at that level for 1997,1998, and 1999.

During this same period, Councilhas placed priority on reducing thelevel of property taxation. To reducethe level of general revenue fundsupport required for transit, servicelevels were reduced permanently in1994 and fare increases have been

implemented annually throughoutthe past decade. As shown in thegraph below, the portion of transitoperating costs covered by systemgenerated revenues (primarily fares)for the regular transit system hasincreased above the 65% level.

43

5.2.12.New Fare Collection System

The existing fare collection systemuses technology that is manydecades old. While the currentequipment is very reliable and doesnot require much maintenance, newdevelopments in smart cardtechnology will make it possible toprovide more convenient farepayment options for passengers in

the future. While the technology andits associated institutionalarrangements are not expected tomature for a number of years, it isimportant that the TransitDepartment monitor developmentsin this field and plan for a transitionto a new system as the technologybecomes proven.

Recommendation:

Implement a New FareCollection System.

5.3.Making the Service More Affordable

5.3.1.Relationship Between Fares and the Funding of the Transit Service


1980

1985

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%



47%

55%

59%

60%

58%

60%

63%

58%

61%

64%

65%

67%

12

In 1995, a new transit farestructure was implemented thatincluded the introduction ofdiscounted tickets, weekly passes,the “power hour” transfer, and a setof defined ratios between the adultcash fare and all other farecategories. At that time, the reducedfares (for which children, high schoolstudents, and senior citizens areeligible) were set at a value of 60%of the corresponding adult fares.

In 1998, the reduced cash farecategory was eliminated. The otherreduced fare categories (tickets,weekly pass, and monthly pass)were maintained at prices that were

60% of the corresponding adultfares. The intent of this strategy wasto generate sufficient revenues tomeet budgeted targets for the levelof property tax support for theTransit Department without raisingfares by a higher amount for allpassengers. Because the proportionof children, high school, and seniorcitizen passengers paying cash wasquite low and because the otherreduced fare categories were stillavailable for these passengers touse, the judgement was that this“deep discounting” strategy wouldgenerate the required revenues and,at the same time, impact the leastnumber of passengers.

It was estimated that, comparedto a 5-cent increase in the reducedcash fare, this strategy wouldgenerate an additional $700,000 inrevenue in 1998 and would result inabout a 3% reduction in reducedridership. In fact, ridership declinedby almost 7% and only an additionalrevenue of $25,000 in excess ofwhat a 5-cent increase wasprojected to generate was realized.Fortunately, the Transit Departmentwas able to make sufficientoperational economies so that, atyear end, there was a smalloperating surplus for 1998.

Since the 1980’s, the rate of transitfare increases has been much greaterthan that for the consumer priceindex in Winnipeg, and much greaterthan the rate of increase inautomobile operating costs. This isillustrated in the accompanying chart.

While small increases in faresappear not to have significantimpacts on some ridership groups,the effect of the cumulativeincreases in fares over the pastseveral years seems to havereduced ridership levels amongstcertain groups of passengers, suchas young people and those onlimited incomes. These financialrelationships have a direct impact onthe affordability of transit service forcertain segments of the population.This is discussed more fully in thesections that follow.

44

Comparison of Monthly Price Indexes Winnipeg:1982-1998

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Pri

ce In

dex

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Auto Operating Costs

Consumer Price Index

Transit Fares

(January 1992=100)


5.3.2.Level of Discount for the Reduced Cash Fare

5.3.3.Fares for Post-Secondary Students

Over 40% of students at themajor post-secondary institutionsride transit. They pay regular adultfares and generate approximately$6.3 million in fare revenues eachyear. On a number of occasions,student associations have requestedthat the City introduce discountedtransit rates for post-secondarystudents as they struggle to covertuition and living costs.

In 1996-97, the TransitDepartment worked with theUniversity of Manitoba and theUniversity of Winnipeg studentassociations, and the Universityadministrations, to develop aproposal that would providediscounted transit fares to students,maintain existing transit revenues,and generate some surplus funds toimprove transit service to theuniversities. The proposal requiredthat a mandatory TransportationLevy be paid by all students as partof their student fees. The value ofthe levy was approximately 50% ofthe equivalent cost of using an adultmonthly bus pass for the eight

month school year. In the end, thestudent associations decidedagainst a mandatory fee and did notput the proposal to a studentreferendum.

Because the proportion of post-secondary students already usingtransit is quite high, it is unlikely thata discount would attract sufficientnew users and new revenue tooffset the loss of existing revenuesresulting from the fare discount.Therefore, a discount to post-

secondary students would mean anet revenue loss to transit. While themagnitude of the loss would dependon the value of the discount, itwould not be reasonable tocompensate this shortfall with anincrease in fares for otherpassengers, or a reduction in transitservice levels.

45

After much consideration, it wasthe decision of Council to reinstatethe reduced cash fare at a value of80% of the adult cash fare for 1999.The other reduced fare categorieswere maintained at a value of 60%of the corresponding adult fares. Itwas expected that this changewould increase reduced ridership by3% in 1999 and would result inapproximately the same passengerrevenue had only the single cashfare ($1.55 in 1999) beenmaintained.

Preliminary results for 1999indicate that the 3% ridershipincrease amongst the reducedcategories of passengers is unlikelyto be realized. Because of theresulting impact on the transitbudget and because of Council’sgoal to contain the level of propertytaxation in 2000 and in subsequentyears, it is difficult to recommend atthis time that the level of thereduced cash fare be reinstated to60% of the adult cash fare.

Recommendation:

Because of the budgetaryimpact, the level of the reducedcash fare not be further reducedand be maintained at 80% of theadult cash fare.


The Working Group considered anoption that would involve acontribution from the studentassociations, at a lesser amountthan that proposed in 1996-97. If allstudents were to pay a small transitlevy as part of their student fees,discounted fares could be providedfor students who are transit users.While the estimates would varyslightly for each institution, a 20%fare discount would require a levy ofabout $50 for the academic year foreach registered student.

This option was reviewed withrepresentatives of the studentassociations of the University ofManitoba, the University ofWinnipeg, and Red River College.For the following reasons, none ofthe student associations is preparedto support this approach:

a) The net reduction in transit faresfor a full academic year (20%discount less the value of the levy)would amount to only a $40 to $50savings for each student that usestransit. When compared toescalating tuition costs, this is notviewed as a significant saving bystudents.

b) Not only would a mandatorylevy effectively reduce the value ofthe fare discount for students whoare transit users, it would increasethe student fees of those who arenot transit users. Consequently, theconcept of a mandatory fee will notfind support amongst students atthe three post-secondaryinstitutions.

Despite concerted efforts in 1996-97 and in 1999, it has not beenpossible to identify an arrangement toprovide discounted transit fares topost-secondary students withoutrealizing a revenue loss for the transitsystem. While discounted fares willresult in some increased ridership, thehigher use is unlikely to be sufficientto compensate for the loss ofrevenue due to discounted fares.Consequently, the implementation ofdiscounted fares for post-secondarystudents will require increasedoperating grants to transit by the Cityand/or the Province.

Because the financial difficultiesfaced by students are real andbecause post-secondary studentsconstitute a significant segment oftransit ridership in Winnipeg, it isrecommended that a discountedpost-secondary pass beimplemented for students attendingthe University of Manitoba, theUniversity of Winnipeg, and RedRiver College. It is estimated that theimplementation of such a pass on atrial basis for the 2000-2001academic year at a 20% discountfrom the regular monthly pass ratewould require an annual increase inthe transit grant of $700,000.

Recommendation:

That a post-secondarypass, discounted at a value of 20% from the equivalent costof regular monthly passes, be implemented for studentsattending the University ofManitoba, University ofWinnipeg, and Red River College during the 2000-2001academic year.

46


Many employers offer free orsubsidized parking as a benefit totheir employees. This access to freeor inexpensive parking reducescommuting costs for automobileusers and provides a disincentive totransit use. In several jurisdictions,employer-sponsored bus passprograms have been implementedto reduce commuting costs fortransit users, to reduce the demandfor parking, to provide a moreequitable benefit program toemployees, and to make thepurchase of transit passes moreconvenient. The nature of theseprograms vary. In some instances,employers provide a direct subsidyto employees for the purchase of

bus passes. In others, employeesare able to buy annual passesthrough a payroll deduction plan.

It is recommended that anappropriate program be developedfor Winnipeg, including identificationof potential employer participants,the design, production, anddistribution of informational andpromotional materials, and thedevelopment of an administrativesystem to support the program.It is important that this program becoordinated with related initiatives,such as the Green CommutingProject being undertaken byResource Conservation Manitoba

and efforts by the Federation ofCanadian Municipalities and theCanadian Urban Transit Associationto persuade the FederalGovernment to treat employer-paidtransit passes as a non-taxablebenefit for employees.

Recommendation:

That an Employer-sponsoredTransit Fare Program beinvestigated for Winnipeg(preferably in conjunction with a decision by the FederalGovernment to treatemployer-paid transit passes as a non-taxable benefit).

5.3.4.Employer-Sponsored Fare Program

47


5.4.Making the Service More Productive

5.4.1.Transit Priority Measures

The transit system must attractpassengers while, at the same time,control operating costs. In mostinstances, one of these goals can beattained only at the expense of theother. Attracting ridership, forexample, requires some combinationof service expansion or farereductions. This often worsens thefinancial performance of the transitsystem, however. Improving thefinancial performance of the system,on the other hand, usually requiressome combination of service cuts orfare increases. The result is often adecline in ridership that ultimatelyleads to a downward spiral ofdeteriorating service and increasingfares.

There are very few techniques thattransit systems can use to attractridership and control costsconcurrently. One of thetechniques that can be used,however, is transit priority.

The implementation of transitpriority has two major impacts:

1.Bus running times are reduced;this improves the speed of transitservice.

2.On-time performance of buses isimproved; this improves thereliability of transit service.

Improvements in speed andreliability make transit travel morecompetitive with automobile traveland attract ridership. If busrunning times can be decreased byusing transit priority measures toattain higher operating speeds, thenfewer buses are required to providethe same service frequency on theroute. In other words, the sameservice level can be provided at alower cost. Alternatively, the samenumber of buses can be used toprovide more frequent service.

In most instances, isolated prioritymeasures have only a limited impacton transit performance. If severaltransit priority initiatives can bearranged such that buses operatingon a common routing can takeadvantage of the combinedmeasures, then the potential impacton speed and reliability is muchgreater. For a particular routingpattern, therefore, it is important thatbuses have access to a series oftransit priority measures.

Transit priority measures have thegreatest impact on those streets onwhich a large number of routesoperate. Because transit vehiclescarry a very large proportion of theperson-movements on such streets,and because buses carry morepeople than other vehicles in relationto their use of road space, theefficiency of the overalltransportation system is improvedby providing priority to transit. Forthese reasons, transit prioritymeasures are usually implementedin central business districts and in

other congested areas, such asshopping centres, medical centres,and universities.

There are different types of prioritymeasures and several have beenimplemented in Winnipeg during thepast few years. The different typesinclude turn prohibition exemptionsfor buses, pulling away priority(where general traffic must yield tobuses merging left or pulling out of abus bay), transit-only signals(Kildonan Place, St. Vital Centre),transit-actuated signals (Osborne &River, Portage & Vaughan,Provencher & Tache, St. Mary’s &Enfield), queue bypass lanes(Pembina & University Crescent),diamond lanes (Main Street,Osborne Street), transit only streets(Graham Transit Mall), and reservedright-of-ways (busways, forexample).

Because the priority measuresimplemented to date in Winnipeghave worked successfully and enjoypublic support, it is recommendedthat further measures beimplemented to improve the speedand reliability of transit service. Notethat this recommendation isconsistent with currenttransportation engineering practiceto give precedence to the efficientmovement of people and goodsover the efficient movement ofvehicles in the operation of thetransportation system.

Recommendation:

That further transit prioritymeasures be implemented toimprove the speed and reliabilityof transit service.

48


5.4.3.Upgrade of the Radio System and Automatic Vehicle Location

The existing two-way radiosystem was installed in the transitfleet in 1982 and is approaching theend of its useful life. The system isessential to manage on-streetoperations each day and is animportant safety feature for thepublic, passengers, and busoperators. The system needs to bereplaced with a more up-to-dateone that includes an automaticvehicle location (AVL) capability. AVLuses global positioning satellites totrack the position of all buses on thestreet system. This improves the

capabilities of the Transit ControlCentre to monitor the operation ofservice and to provide moreresponsive service in cases of trafficdelays, passenger overloads, andinclement weather. Equally asimportant, AVL is a building blocksystem required for the provision ofreal-time information directly topassengers at activity centres, atbus stops, and on board transitvehicles. See the previousdiscussion (5.2.10 and 5.2.11) about real time schedule displaysand automated next stop displayson buses.

Recommendation:

That the existing two-waybus radio system be replacedwith one that includes automaticvehicle location (AVL) capability.

49

5.4.2.Increased Promotion of Transit Services

Transit service can be made moreproductive if additional passengerscan be attracted to existing capacity.While aggregate ridership levels arerelatively stable over time, the levelof customer “churn” (the number ofnew customers starting to use thesystem vs. the number of existingcustomers terminating their use oftransit) is quite high. If ridership is tobe increased, then new customersneed to be recruited in greaternumber to replace the ones thatleave. Therefore, it is essential thatthe transit system inform potentialcustomers of the types of servicesavailable and the benefits of usingtransit.

While standard user informationsuch as maps and timetables arenecessary, they are not sufficient toattract new customers to thesystem. This is particularly true forspecial service for special events orfor more complex services likeDART. Due to budget constraints,there have been no funds for servicepromotion included in the operatingbudget of the Transit Department forthe past several years. It isrecommended that sufficient fundsbe provided in the transit operatingbudget so that more effectivepromotion initiatives can beundertaken.

Recommendation:

That sufficient funds beprovided in the transit operatingbudget so that additionaleffective promotion initiativescan be undertaken.


5.4.5.Alternative Fuels

In recent years, there has been asignificant amount of research andtesting in alternative fuels for transitbuses. The various alternativesinclude methanol, compressednatural gas, electric battery power,clean diesel technology, andhydrogen fuel cells. Recent buspurchases by the TransitDepartment have specified cleandiesel technology for the engines.Used with low sulphur fuel, thisoption currently provides the best

combination of reliability, cost-effective operation, and emissionsreductions. The most promisingtechnology, however, is thehydrogen fuel cell. When it movesfrom the prototype to the productionstage, its cost will becomeaffordable. Within the next decade, itshould be feasible to convert to thislow-emissions technology.

Recommendation:

That when technologicallypractical and economicallyfeasible, Winnipeg Transitconsider converting to hydrogenon a phased-in-basis.

5.4.4.Replacement of North Garage

The transit garage located at Main& Carruthers needs to be replacedby a more modern facility by 2010.Since the St. James Garage wasclosed in 1994, the two remaininggarages (Fort Rouge Garage andNorth Garage) have been operatingat full capacity to accommodate thecurrent fleet of 535 buses. Althoughthe situation is manageable, someoperational difficulties are created bythe current arrangement. Forexample, there is little space

available to store new buses for pre-servicing prior to the scrappingof older buses. The parking of busesin their proper tracks in the garagescan also be difficult at peak times.While the most cost-effective size ofthe replacement garage needs to bedetermined, it is also important thatalternative sites be assessed tominimize the aggregate operationalcosts of bus pull-out and pull-indistances to route terminals.

Recommendation:

That the transit garagelocated at Main & Carruthers bereplaced by a more modernfacility by 2010.

50


5.5.Making a Commitment to Affordable High Speed Transit

If additional ridership is to beattracted to public transit, thenmeasures must be taken to improvethe performance of the transitsystem. Improved performance(faster speeds, improved reliability,more accessible system, improveduser information, improved waitingfacilities, etc.) is essential to maketransit a competitive and attractiveoption for urban travel.

Public transit is an important partof Winnipeg’s transportation system.About 20% of all work trips in thecity are made by transit. For worktrips made to the downtown, thetransit mode split is 35%. For certaintypes of trips, transit should be thetravel mode of choice. These includetrips to downtown, trips along themajor radial regional streets, andtrips to concentrated areas ofemployment, shopping, andeducation. It is important that transitimprovements be focused so thattransit’s share of these types of tripsis increased.

The key to improving transitperformance in Winnipeg is speed.As the built-up city has expanded,transit service, in comparison toautomobile travel, has becomeincreasingly uncompetitive in termsof door-to-door travel time.Research conducted by the TransitDepartment shows that, for thosetrips that can be made by transit in35 minutes or less (including walk,wait, and in-vehicle time), the transitmode split is quite high. For tripsthat take longer than 35 minutes bytransit, the transit mode split ismuch lower. The problem is that, asthe city has spread outgeographically, overall trip lengthshave increased and the proportionof the total trips that transit(operating in mixed traffic) canservice in 35 minutes or less hasdecreased markedly. In fact, lessthan half of the current populationis located within 35 minutes ofdowntown by transit.

Higher speeds and servicereliability are the base upon whichimproved transit performance mustbe built. Other factors, such as highquality user information, comfortableand attractive waiting areas, andmodern accessible buses are alsovery important. However, the impactof these latter attributes is limited ifthe base of speed and reliabilitydoes not exist.

A commitment to high speedtransit requires the operation ofbuses in congestion-free corridors.In ascending order of effectiveness,it includes the followingcomponents:

Expanded express services.

On-street rapid bus services toimprove the speed, on-timeperformance, and comfort ofmainline transit routes.

Rapid transit in selected radialcorridors to make transit travelcompetitive with automobile travel.

51


5.5.2.On-Street Rapid Bus

In those travel corridors in whichno rights-of-way exist for rapidtransit and on those streets onwhich high volumes of busesoperate, On-Street Rapid Busservices offer the potential toimprove transit travel times. On-Street Rapid Bus servicesinclude an integrated system of buspriority measures (diamond lanes,transit signal priorities, queuejumpers, etc.), upgraded bus stops,

and real-time passenger informationdisplays to improve the speed, on-time performance, and comfort ofmainline on-street transit service.While individual examples of thesefeatures have been usedsuccessfully in Winnipeg, they havenot yet been applied to a completeroute in a major corridor. Thefeasibility of On-Street Rapid Busneeds to be studied and, wherefeasible, implemented.

Recommendation:

That the feasibility of On-Street Rapid Bus be studiedand, where feasible,implemented.

5.5.1.Expansion of Express Services

During weekday peak periods, anextensive network of 17 expressroutes operates in the major travelcorridors of the city. Limited expressservices operate on Portage Avenueand Pembina Highway during off-peak periods. In comparison toroutes that operate locally, expressroutes provide some time savings topassengers. Because they share theroadway with other vehicles,however, express services aresubject to traffic delays and are notcompetitive with travel times byautomobile. There is scope,however, to expand the network ofexpress services, particularly duringthe day on weekdays andSaturdays. Opportunities forexpanded express services need tobe identified and, where feasible,implemented.

Recommendation:

That opportunities forexpanded express services beidentified and, where feasible,implemented.

52


5.5.3.Rapid Transit

To significantly reduce transit traveltimes, rapid transit is needed inheavily travelled corridors. Expressservices operated in mixed traffic,while helpful in improving transitspeeds, do not provide sufficient timesavings to make transit travelcompetitive with auto travel.

In cities of Winnipeg’s size, the twomost common rapid technologiesused are busway systems (Ottawa isa good example) or Light RapidTransit (LRT) systems (Calgary is agood example).

A busway system is a dedicatedseries of roadways for the exclusiveuse of buses. The buses can be ofany type (diesel, natural gas, trolley,etc.) or size (standard or articulated).Buses can circulate in residential areason the regular street system, thenoperate at very high speeds on thebusway into the downtown. Buswayspermit the design of very flexibletransit services that minimize the needfor passengers to transfer betweenvehicles. Consequently, busways workwell in corridors that have relatively lowpopulation densities.

LRT is a rail-based system that usesdedicated rail vehicles on the track.LRT is usually supplemented by anextensive feeder bus network. LRTsystems work well in corridors thathave a high population density wheremost passengers live within convenientwalking distance of an LRT station.

Busway and LRT systems havesimilar passenger carrying capacities(up to 10,000 passengers per hourper direction). While the operatingcosts of the two systems are aboutthe same, the capital costs of abusway system are about one-quarterof those of an LRT system.

Compared to LRT systems,busways are more flexible. A buswaycan be built in stages as fundingpermits. Each stage can be usedimmediately to improve transit travelspeeds. A complete LRT line, on theother hand, must be built before it canbe put into service. A majoradvantage of busways is that theexisting fleet can be used to providethe service. LRT systems require theacquisition of a new set of specializedvehicles and the construction of aspecial facility to store and maintainthe rail cars.

Compared to busways, LRT systemsare more effective in serving existinghigh density neighbourhoods in thecentral part of the city, and inencouraging higher density developmentin the major radial corridors.

For the major corridors in Winnipeg,the busway system is the best initialchoice for rapid transit. Busways canbe converted to LRT shoulddevelopment densities increase in thetransit corridors to levels that result inhigh volumes of passengers beingresident or employed withinconvenient walking distance of therapid transit stations.

While the first priority for rapid transitin Winnipeg is the Southwest TransitCorridor between the downtown andthe University of Manitoba, a city widebusway network would include theEastern Corridor (to Transcona), theSoutheastern Corridor (to WindsorPark and Southdale), theNortheastern Corridor (to Elmwood,East Kildonan, and North Kildonan),the Northwest Corridor (to InksterIndustrial Park and the Maples), and abusway link between Grant andPortage Avenues in the CNR OakPoint subdivision that parallelsKenaston Boulevard.

While the Southwest Transit Corridorhas been considered forimplementation on several occasionsby previous Councils, it has alwaysbeen deferred so that othertransportation projects (mainly newroads and bridges) could proceed. Aspart of its long term financial plan,Council is committed to decreasingthe City’s debt from levelsaccumulated by previous projects.Consequently, the funding of theSouthwest Transit Corridor by the Cityremains problematic.

In addition to the obvioustransportation and environmentalbenefits, it is well recognized,however, that rapid transit can have avery positive impact on therevitalization of downtown and cancreate opportunities for renewal inestablished neighbourhoods along itsroute. For this reason, it is importantthat efforts be made to identifyalternative mechanisms to fund thisimportant undertaking. Such optionspotentially include dedicated revenuestreams, public-private partnerships,the granting of development rights oncity-owned land adjacent to thecorridor, and partnerships with seniorlevels of government.

Recommendations:

That the City determine theconditions and time frames forproceeding with a buswaysystem with particular referenceto the Southwest TransitCorridor as the first stage in itsdevelopment.

53


Category Ongoing 2000 - 2001 2002 - 2005 After 2005

Developing Improved Land Plan WinnipegSupportive Use Planning Update

Conditions forTransit Improved Pedestrian Review of Downtown

Facilities Parking Policy

Federal TaxRegulations for Employer

Subsidized TransitPasses

Making Ongoing Network Garden City Terminal U of W TerminalImprovements to Improvements

ServiceRegular Bus Unicity TerminalReplacement

Assignment of Low Multi-Year BusFloor Buses Tender for

to Same Service 2000 - 2002Each Day

Bus Stop Upgrades

More Transit Shelters

Making Transit Non-Traditional Bike Racks on Buses Next Stop Displays Real TimeService Easier Service Delivery On Board Buses Schedule Displays

to UsePark and Ride Transit Day Pass New Fare

Collection SystemInternet Web Site

Map and TimetableImproved Telebus

ImprovementsSystem

More Posted Info Automated Tripat Stops Planning Service

Making the Service Post-SecondaryMore Affordable Fare Discounts

Employer SponsoredFare Program

Making the Service Transit Priority Upgrade of North GarageMore Productive Measures Radio System Replacement

Increased Promotion Automatic Vehicle AlternativeLocation Fuels

Making a Expansion of Express On-Street SouthwestCommitment to Services Rapid Bus Transit Corridor

High Speed Transit

54

6. A Multi-YearTransit Improvement Plan

7.1.Funding of Transit Operations

7.1.1.Transit Operating Costs

The annual transit operatingbudget can be classified into thefollowing major components:

a) Regular Transit OperatingCosts

These include the costs incurredfor the daily operation of regulartransit service.

b) Handi-Transit Operating Costs

These include the costs incurredfor the daily operation of Handi-Transit service.

c) Debt Costs

These include the annual interestand principal charges resulting fromlong term debt incurred for capitalprojects (primarily bus replacementsfor the regular system).

d) Contributions to the BusReplacement Reserve

In 1994, Council approved thecreation of a Transit BusReplacement Reserve to replacedebt financing of bus replacementsfor the regular system with a “pay-as-you-go” approach.Annual contributions are made tothis reserve from the operatingbudget of the Transit Department tocover the City’s share of busreplacement costs. Since 1994, thecontribution to the reserve has beenincreased each year to ensure thatdebt financing of bus replacementsis completely eliminated by 2000.

A number of observations should benoted:

a) Stability in Regular TransitOperating Costs

Of the major types of operatingcosts, the most stable have beenthose incurred to operate regulartransit service. During the past twodecades, these costs have beencontained by the deliberate control ofthe amount of service operated and byclose supervision of input costs. Asthe geographical area of Winnipeg hasexpanded, new service has been"funded" in newly developing areas byoffsetting reductions in service in themore established parts of the city.

Even though the geographical arearequired to be covered by the regulartransit system has increasedsignificantly during the past 20 years,the number of annual bus hoursoperated has decreased from1,397,000 in 1982 to 1,290,000 in1998 (a reduction of 8%). In fact, thenumber of bus hours operated per

square kilometre of service area hasdecreased from 6,003 in 1982 to4,730 in 1998. This represents a 21%decrease in real service levels.

Over time, the effect has been tostretch a reduced number of bus hoursover a larger service area. In theabsence of any major investment toimprove transit operating speeds (and,as a result, productivity), the servicehas become less competitive in termsof door-to-door travel times. Asdiscussed earlier in this report, theimpact on ridership levels has beennegative.

Based on existing Council approvedguidelines for walking distance totransit service, there are severaldeveloping areas within the city forwhich service expansion will bewarranted during the next few years.Given the degree of rationalization ofthe regular transit network that hasalready taken place, remainingopportunities for service reductions inthe established network are limited. 55

7. Funding of the Transit System

1975

-199

9

RegularTransit

Handi-Transit

DebtCharges

BusReplacementReserve

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80

Annual Transit ExpendituresBy Major Category

1975

1980

1985

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Annual Expenditures ($ Millions)

The accompanying graph shows trends in these expenditures between 1975 and 1999.

b) Increased Handi-Transit Costs

Since its inception in 1977, thedemand for Handi-Transit servicehas increased as the population hasaged and as the proportion of thepopulation with physical disabilitieshas grown. Because of the natureof the demand (individual doorstep-to-doorstep trips), passenger loadson Handi-Transit vehicles, incomparison to those on regulartransit, are quite small (typically 1 to4 persons). Consequently, the mosteffective method of service deliveryis the provision of "shared taxi"service in small, wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Because thereis a competitive market of supplierscapable of providing this type ofservice, an initial expansion ofHandi-Transit service wasimplemented through contracting in1988. In 1996-97, the delivery of allHandi-Transit service wascontracted out. While theconversion to contract operation hasreduced the unit cost per passengertrip, growth in demand hasincreased aggregate Handi-Transitcosts. Between 1980 and 1999,the proportion of the transitoperating budget accounted byHandi-Transit costs has more thantripled from 2% to 7%.

c) Cash Financing of Transit BusReplacement

The cost of transit busreplacement is shared on a 50-50basis between the Province ofManitoba and the City of Winnipeg.Until 1994, the City completely debtfinanced its share of busreplacement costs each year.Because bus replacement is arecurring requirement of knownmagnitude each year, it is morecost-effective to pay cash forreplacement buses. In 1994,therefore, Council approved thecreation of a Transit BusReplacement Reserve. Annualcontributions are made to thisreserve from the transit operatingbudget. The annual contributionhas increased from $1.059 million in1994 to $4.260 million in 1999. By2000, the conversion to "pay-as-you-go" will be complete.

While this strategy will minimizebus replacement costs over the longterm, the short term impact on thetransit operating budget has beensignificant. In addition to theincreased contributions from theoperating budget to pay for newbuses, there are significant interestand principal payments required toservice the debt incurred for busespurchased in the past.

56

Bus ReplacementsBase Contribution to Bus Replacement Reserve VSDebt Financing Requirements

$6

$5

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0

(In

Mill

ion

s)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Contribution to BusReplacement Reserve

Debt Financing


57

7. Funding of the Transit SystemThe accompanying chart shows

the magnitude of the aggregate busreplacement costs (contributions tothe bus replacement reserve plusdebt servicing costs) for the years1990 to 2005. As shown in thegraph, aggregate costs will peak in2001. Debt servicing costs will startto decline at the same time and willbe completely eliminated by 2019.

d) Transit Share of the City’sTax-Supported Expenditures

In aggregate, the proportion of theCity’s annual tax-supportedexpenditures accounted by the transitoperating budget has declined duringthe past two decades. Amongst themajor components of the transitbudget, however, there are significantvariations.

The proportion of the City’s tax-supported expenditures accountedby Handi-Transit, debt servicing, andbus replacement has increased. Incomparison, there has been asignificant reduction in theproportion accounted by regulartransit service.

Bus Replacements Costs$12

$10

$8

$6

$4

$2

$0

Mill

ion

)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Debt Charges

Financed by Reserve

Transit Budget Component Proportion of City’sTax-Supported Expenditures

1980 1999 % Change

Regular Transit Operating Costs 12.8% 10.8% -16%

Handi-Transit Operating Costs 0.3% 0.9% +200%

Debt Costs and Contributions to 0.8% 1.6% +100%Transit Bus Replacement Reserve

Total Transit Operating Budget 13.9% 13.4% -4%

1975

-199

9

RegularTransit

0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0% 17.5%

Proportion of Total City Tax-Supported Expenditures

% of Total City Tax-Supported ExpendituresAccounted by Major Categories of Transit Expenditures

1975

1980

1985

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Handi-Transit

DebtCharges

BusReplacement

City’s TransitGrant

During the latter part of the1990's, the proportion of totalrevenues accounted by systemgenerated revenues has increased,while the proportion borne bygovernment grants has decreased.

This is illustrated in theaccompanying graph:

58

1980

-199

9

1980

1985

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100


Transit Operating Revenues% Distibution by Source

SystemGenerated

ProvincialGrant

City Grant

44%

52%

54%

54%

52%

52%

54%

49%

51%

52%

54%

55%

28%

24%

21%

21%

22%

21%

21%

20%

19%

18%

18%

18%

29%

25%

25%

25%

26%

26%

25%

31%

30%

28%

27%

30%

7.1.2.Transit Revenues

The operation of transit service isfunded from three major sourceseach year:

System Generated Revenuesincluding:

• Fare revenue from passengers

• Revenue generated by advertisingon board buses, on transit shelters,and on transit benches

• Revenue generated fromchartered bus operation

Province of ManitobaOperating Grant

City of Winnipeg OperatingGrant

1980

-199

9

1980

1985

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60


Transit Operating Revenues By Source

SystemGenerated

ProvincialGrant

City Grant


The following graph shows revenue trends between 1980 and 1999.

59

7.1.3.Revenue/Cost Ratio for Regular Transit

During the 1990's, transit fareincreases were implemented at least annually. This approachincreased the revenue/cost ratio ofregular transit and reduced therequirements for public funding ofthe service. As described previously,however, the major forces driving thefare increases have been growth inHandi-Transit costs and stepincreases in contributions to theTransit Bus Replacement Reserve.

During the same time period, theoperations costs of regular transitdid not change significantly and, infact, the amount of operated servicedecreased. Concurrently, the coststo the user of riding regular transithave increased at a rate muchhigher than that of inflation. Thecumulative impact of these forceson regular transit ridership has beennegative.

As shown in the graph above, theproportion of pure operations costs(exclusive of debt servicing andcontributions to the Transit BusReplacement Reserve) for regulartransit covered by fares increasedsteadily during the 1990's. Whileaccepted practice in the 1980's wasto cover approximately 55% of pure

operations costs by system-generated revenues, the proportionof costs covered by systemrevenues has increased to morethan 65% during the 1990's.The proportion borne by theProvincial grant and the City’s granthas declined.

1980

1985

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%



47%

55%

59%

60%

58%

60%

63%

58%

61%

64%

65%

67%


7.1.4.Benchmark Comparisons for Regular Transit Service

The Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) maintains a national transit statistical database that permitscomparison amongst urban transit operators along a number of dimensions. The following graphs compare regulartransit service in Winnipeg with that in other Canadian cities of similar or larger size for the most recent year for whichdata is available.

While Winnipeg’s regular transit operation compares favourably on indicators related to cost, it does not fare as wellon ridership and on the amount of service operated.

60


Winnipeg

1998 Municipal Cost per Capita

Quebec Hamilton Edmonton Ottawa

Calgary Toronto Vancouver Montreal

$150

$150

$50

$100

$35

$56$61 $62

$69 $73 $73

$121$126

Hamilton

1998 Transit Trips per Capita

Edmonton Quebec Ottawa Montreal

Winnipeg Vancouver Calgary Toronto

250

200

150

100

50

0

40

63 65 76 76 86107

163192

Winnipeg

1998 Total Direct Operating Cost perVehicle Hour

Hamilton Calgary Vancouver Montreal

Edmonton Ottawa Quebec Toronto

$120

$56.33

$65.00 $69.35 $72.12 $73.15 $77.81$83.63 $84.18

$95.48$100

$80

$60

$40

$20

$0

Hamilton

1998 Revenue Vehicle Hours per Capita

Winnipeg Ottawa Montreal

Calgary Edmonton Vancouver Toronto

4.00

1.27

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

1.68 2.09 2.16 2.23 2.37

2.68

3.34

Quebec

1998 Revenue to Cost Ratio

Hamilton Montreal Ottawa Toronto

Edmonton Vancouver Calgary Winnipeg

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

45%49% 50% 51% 52% 55%

59%63%

81%

61

7. Funding of the Transit System7.2.Funding of Transit Capital Requirements

Major capital requirements fortransit are funded through the City’sCapital Estimates. The capitalprogram includes provision forspecific projects, such asreplacement of the fare collection

system and the replacement oftransit buildings. It also includesfunding for two recurring programs:the Transit Bus ReplacementProgram and the Innovative TransitProgram.

7.2.1.Bus Replacement Program

As described previously, the costsof transit bus replacement areshared on a 50-50 basis betweenthe Province of Manitoba and theCity of Winnipeg. In 1994, theTransit Bus Replacement Reservewas established and, by 2000, theCity will fund its share of busreplacement costs completely fromthe reserve. While the Transit BusReplacement Program continues tobe funded through the capitalprogram, no debt financing will benecessary after 1999. Futurebudgets for bus replacement will bedetermined solely by prevailing busacquisition costs.

In comparison to previous years,the 2000-2005 Capital Programincludes a reduction in the budgetedamounts for the Innovative TransitProgram. Such reductions wouldmake it impossible to implement

many of the recommendationscontained in this report. The capitalbudget for the Innovative TransitProgram has typically been in therange of $500,000 to $600,000each year.

Recommendation:

That the investment in theInnovative Transit Program beadequate to facilitate therecommendations of this report.

7.2.2.Innovative Transit Program

62

The Innovative Transit Programhas been in place since the early1980's. Because it is the onlyavailable mechanism to fundimprovements to the transit system,it is a very important program. Infact, it is recommended as the

source of funding for many of theimprovements described earlier inthis report.

A global amount for the program isapproved by Council each year.Specific projects within each year’s

program require approval by the PolicyCommittee on Public Works. After thecapital budget is approved each year,the Transit Department submits areport to the Policy Committee onPublic Works that recommendsspecific projects for funding.

Projects funded by the program fall into two categories:

a) Improvements that provide direct benefits to passengers

Examples: Telebus System

Heated Passenger Shelters

Upgraded Waiting Areas at Major Bus Stops

eg. Osborne Junction, City Hall, Polo Park, University of Winnipeg,Airport, The Forks, Broadway & Osborne

New Transit Terminals at Major Activity Centres:

eg. Polo Park, Kildonan Place, St. Vital Centre, University of Manitoba, Red River College

Park and Ride Lots

Route and Schedule Information Kiosks at Major Bus Stops

Passenger Notice Boards on All Buses

Retrofitting Bus Stops for Accessible Low-Floor Routes

Route and Schedule Information on the Internet

b) Improvements that increase the productivity of service delivery

Examples: Automated Scheduling System

Diamond Lanes

Transit Priority Signals

Handi-Transit Trip Confirmation System

Computerized Response System for Passenger Complaints


7.3.Improving the Funding of Transit Operations

63


During the past two decades, anumber of interrelated factors havecombined to create significantfinancial pressures on the funding oftransit service in Winnipeg. Thesefactors include:

a) The decentralization of the cityhas required service to be providedover a more dispersed network. Forthe most part, service has beenfunded in new areas by reducingservice in more established parts ofthe city. A decline in both theaggregate amount of service and inthe density of service has hadnegative impacts on ridership andpassenger revenue.

b) As the city decentralized, noconcurrent investment was made inthe transit system to keep travel bytransit competitive with other modesin terms of travel time. The lack of"speed competitiveness" has madeit difficult to attract new users andnew passenger revenue to transit.

c) Primary cost pressures on thetransit operating budget include:

An increasing demand for Handi-Transit service that will continue overthe long term.

A series of significant cumulativeannual increases between 1994 and2000 to transition from debtfinancing to "pay-as-you-go"financing of bus replacements.

d) Government initiatives to reducegeneral taxation levels have resultedin reduced levels of funding, inparticular from the Province ofManitoba.

e) The reduced levels ofgovernment funding have resulted inreduced service levels and a seriesof transit fare increases implementedat a rate greater than inflation. Whilefare revenues have covered a higherproportion of operating costs inrecent years, this has had a negativeimpact on ridership levels.

It is important that the City’s publictransportation policy be usedstrategically to help achieve broaderobjectives (such as the economicdevelopment of downtown) and tomake Winnipeg a more livable city.To do this, it is essential thatincreased ridership be attracted tothe system. Not only must theimprovements recommended earlierin this report be implemented, butthe funding of transit must bearranged in a manner that makes itpossible to achieve the intendedgoals.

Therefore, it is recommended thata number of changes be made inthe funding of transit service.These are discussed in the followingsections.

Because of growth in the demandfor Handi-Transit service, anincreasing portion of the transitbudget is accounted by Handi-Transit costs. Since 1992, theprovincial Transit Operating Granthas decreased by 6.4%, or 27%when adjusted for inflation. As aresult, the increased cost of Handi-Transit service has been largelyoffset by fare increases on bothregular transit and Handi-Transit andby increased funding by the City ofWinnipeg.

During the past decade, theProvincial government has adopteda policy of reducing the reliance oninstitutional care for the elderly andfor those with disabilities, andplacing an increased emphasis onhome care. This Provincial policyhas placed a significant increaseddemand on Handi-Transit service, inparticular to accommodate medicaland therapy trips.

The Canadian Charter of Rightsand Freedoms legislation requiresthat all individuals be treated equallyand that reasonable accommodationbe provided for those persons withspecial needs. The report of theTask Force Reviewing Handi-TransitIssues, adopted by Council onSeptember 21, 1994, defined thecharacteristics of a transportationservice for physically disabledpersons that is reasonablyequivalent to the service provided toable-bodied persons by the regularfixed route system. For the City andthe Province to meet this obligation,it is recommended that the followingapproach be used for the futurefunding of the Handi-Transit service:

Recommendations:

The City and the Provinceeach make annual dedicatedHandi-Transit Operations Grants

That a multi year agreementbe negotiated between the Cityand the Province to ensureconsistent, reliable Handi-Transitsystem funding.

7.3.1.A Revised Approach for Funding Handi-Transit Service

64


65

7.3.2.A Revised Approach for the Funding of Regular Transit Service

The City’s current budgetingpractice for the Transit Departmentis to identify a target for propertytax support for each budget year.The department is then required todevelop a budget that meets thattarget.

A preliminary estimate of therequired property tax support iscalculated from the following:

An estimate of system-generated revenues based onexisting fare levels

An estimate of the expectedProvincial Transit Operating Grant

An estimate of operatingexpenditures based on currentservice levels for both regulartransit and Handi-Transit

An estimate of Handi-Transitservice expansion costs during thebudget year

An estimate of the requiredcontribution to the Transit BusReplacement Reserve

If the preliminary estimate ofproperty tax support is higher thanthe target, then a number ofoptions are evaluated. Theseinclude:

Deferral of expenditures tofuture years

Expenditure reductions(primarily cuts to regular transitservice)

Fare increases

These options are thenconsidered by Council prior to afinal budget being set.

As explained previously, themajor factors affecting theoperating budget of the TransitDepartment in recent years havebeen the funding of Handi-Transitservice expansion, the transitionfrom debt financing to "pay-as-you-go" financing of transit busreplacement, and Council’s goal toreduce the level of propertytaxation.

Regular transit service hasabsorbed much of the impact ofthese forces. Over several years,a reinforcing spiral of fareincreases and service reductionshas developed. While therevenue/cost ratio of regular transithas increased to more than 65%,it has been accompanied at thecost of reduced ridership. Whenviewed in isolation, a highrevenue/cost ratio is acommendable objective. Only incities of high density and hightraffic congestion, however, aresuch high revenue/cost ratiossustainable. In comparison toother Canadian cities, therevenue/cost ratio in Winnipeg isquite high. To break the spiral, arevised approach to the funding ofregular transit is required so thatservice improvements can beimplemented and the need for fareincreases can be moderated.

Therefore, it is recommendedthat, in the development of thecurrent estimates for theTransit Department each year,the following approach beused for regular transit:

(See next page for details)


Recommendation:

That the following approach for funding regular transit be adopted:

Service Level Policy:

a) The core operating budget for regular transit service be based on the operation of 1.3 million bushours each year. This is the amount of service required to operate current levels of service.

b) Within the core annual service of 1.3 million bus hours, the Transit Department continue itspractice of implementing routing and frequency improvements by diverting resources from under-utilized services to more productive ones. It should be noted, however, that the scope for fundingservice improvements in this manner is limited.

c) The Transit operating budget be increased as necessary to fund service expansions required for theintroduction of service in new areas or for the expansion of the hours of operation in existing areas.

Fare Policy:

a) Fare levels be based on a revenue/cost target of 66% for regular transit. The revenue part of theratio would be based on system generated revenues (fares, advertising, and charter revenue). Thecost part of the ratio would be based on the operating costs of regular transit, exclusive of debtservice charges and the annual contribution to the Transit Bus Replacement Reserve. This approachwill moderate pressures for future fare increases.

b) The existing arithmetic relationships between the adult cash fare and all other fare categories bemaintained.

Subsidy Policy:

a) The City provide a fixed dedicated annual grant for regular transit each year calculated as follows:

50% of Budgeted Sharable Deficit

Plus 100% of City Contribution to the Transit Bus Replacement Reserve

Plus 100% of City Debt Service Costs for Bus Replacement

where the Budgeted Sharable Deficit is defined as:

Regular Transit Total Costs

Less City Contribution to the Transit Bus Replacement Reserve

Less City Debt Service Costs for Bus Replacement

Less System Generated Revenues

b) The Province provide a fixed dedicated annual grant for regular transit each year equal to 50% ofthe Budgeted Sharable Deficit (as defined above).

c) The Province maintain its current policy of providing a Provincial Support Grant to offset the costof the Provincial Payroll Tax.

66


7.3.3.Impacts

As an illustrative example, the1999 Current Estimates (see nexttable) would have been as shownhad the following assumptions infunding policies been implemented:

66% Revenue/Cost ratio

75% Provincial funding of the netannual cost of Handi Transit

50/50 Province and City funding of Regular Transit Service(as indicated on previous page)

67

Expenditures

Operations Cost $73,991,808 $6,259,204 $80,251,012 $80,251,012

Bus Reserve $4,260,000 $0 $4,260,000 $4,260,000

Debt for Buses $6,107,000 $0 $6,107,000 $6,107,000

Other Debt $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Total Cost $85,358,808 $6,259,204 $91,618,012 $91,618,012

RevenuesRevenue/Operating Cost Target 66% 10% 62% 63%

System Generated Revenue $48,834,593 $625,920 $49,460,514 $50,341,205 -$880,691

DeficitGross Deficit $36,524,215 $5,633,284 $42,157,498 $41,276,807 $880,691

Government GrantsProvincial Grant $13,078,607 $4,224,963 $17,303,570 $16,339,000 $964,570

City Grant $23,445,607 $1,408,321 $24,853,928 $24,937,807 -$83,879

Bus Reserve $4,260,000 $4,260,000

Bus Debt $6,107,000 $6,107,000

Operations $13,078,607 $13,078,607

Total Government Grants $36,524,215 $5,633,284 $42,157,498 $41,276,807 $880,691


Funding of Transit Operations 1999 Budget Year

Proposal Based On:R/C Target 66% for Regular Transit, 10% for Handi-Transit75% Provincial Cost Sharing on Handi-Transit50%-50% Cost Sharing of Regular Transit Gross Deficit less Bus Reserve and Bus Debt(assuming that the Province shares 50% of bus replacement costs as a capital grant)

Regular Handi Total Approved ChangeTransit Transit Budget

7.4.Funding Major Transit Improvements

Despite the priorities forinvestment in the transportationsystem outlined in Plan Winnipeg,very little new investment in thetransit system has been madeduring the past several decades.Improved transit service is importantif the urban development and qualityof life goals outlined in PlanWinnipeg are to be achieved.Transit improvements are onlyeffective if additional ridership canbe attracted to the system, however.Increased ridership requires acommitment to high speed transitsuch as expanded express services,on-street rapid bus services, and thedevelopment of a busway rapidtransit system.

If transit improvements are to beimplemented, then new mechanismsfor funding the development of theoverall urban transportation systemneed to be considered. InWinnipeg, capital investments instreets and bridges are funded by acombination of property taxsupported borrowing and Provincialgrants for specific projects.Investments in the transit system(primarily bus replacement) arefunded by the City and the Province.

Use of the urban transportationsystem results in a variety ofsignificant indirect costs. Examplesinclude emergency service andhealth care costs resulting fromtraffic accidents, court costs, trafficcongestion, pollution, and urbansprawl.

Because there is no directrelationship between the amount acitizen pays in property andprovincial taxes and his use of thetransportation system, and becauseindirect costs resulting from use ofthe urban transportation system arenot assigned to specifictransportation users, there is noclear relationship between thosewho benefit from the transportationsystem and those who pay for it. Asa result, the current methods usedto finance the urban transportationsystem are not equitable.

It is clear, however, that there arecertain indisputable facts:

Those who make extensive useof the transportation system createmore costs than those who makeless use of the transportationsystem.

Those who travel during peaktravel times create more costs thanthose who travel during off-peaktimes.

Those who travel in single-occupant vehicles create more coststhan those who travel in multi-occupant vehicles.

Those who travel by motorizedmeans create more costs than thosewho travel by non-motorized modes.

Clearly, more equitable methods tofund urban transportation arerequired. It is important that, in thetransition to new methods, thefollowing fundamentals apply:

Instruments be used that provideincentives to transportation users tomake environmentally sustainablechoices.

The burden of funding thetransportation system be shifted tothose who generate the greatestcosts (those who make extensiveuse of the system, who travel duringpeak periods, or who drive alone).

Any growth in aggregate taxationbe minimized.

Funds raised for transportationpurposes be invested in accordancewith the priorities outlined in PlanWinnipeg.

In other cities, new approaches arebeing used to fund transportationfacilities. In Vancouver, for example,the Greater VancouverTransportation Authority has beenestablished to develop and financeregional transportation includingroads, bridges, transit, demandmanagement, and air qualityprograms. The authority has accessto a variety of funding sourcesincluding gasoline taxes, parkingfees, hydro levies, non-residentialproperty taxes, transit fares, vehiclecharges, and property taxes on abenefiting area basis. A similarapproach is used in Montreal.

68


Because the transit system carries20% of peak period travel inWinnipeg, the same percentage ofthe generated funds should beallocated for major improvements inthe transit system such as thephased construction of the buswayrapid transit network and itssubsequent maintenance.

Recommendations:

That dedicated revenuestreams be established to fundtwo priorities for investment inthe transportation system:Maintenance of ExistingInfrastructure and Improvementsto the Transit System.

In particular, it isrecommended that negotiationsbe undertaken with theProvincial Government toidentify potential dedicatedrevenue streams. Theserevenues should be allocated asfollows:

• 80% of the funds to aRoadway and BridgeMaintenance Reserve to fundmajor repair and maintenanceof regional roadways andbridges (in support of the firstpriority of Plan Winnipeg).

• 20% of the funds to a PublicTransit Infrastructure Reserve tofund major improvements to thetransit system (in support of thesecond priority of PlanWinnipeg).

Sources of dedicated fundingmight include:

A reallocation of a portion of theexisting provincial or federal gasolinetax

An auto registration tax

Revenues resulting from KyotoProtocol emissions trading

A transition to the use of dedicatedrevenue streams to fund the City’spriorities for investment in thetransportation system (maintenanceof existing infrastructure and transitimprovements) will requirenegotiation with the Provincial andFederal Governments.

Recommendation:

The City initiate discussionswith the other levels ofgovernment consistent with theabove noted approach andrecommendations so that urbantransportation investments aremade in a more effective andsustainable manner.

69


Improved Land Use Planning n/a n/a

Improved Pedestrian Facilities Public Works Capital Program Partly

Plan Winnipeg Update n/a n/a

Review of Downtown n/a n/aParking Policy

Federal Tax Regulations n/a n/a

Network Improvements in Current Estimates YesExisting Service Area

Service Expansion Current Estimates No

Regular Bus Replacement Bus Replacement Reserve YesMulti-Year Bus Tender

Assignment of Low Floor Current Estimates YesBuses to the Same Service

Each Day

Bus Stop Upgrades Innovative Transit Program No

More Transit Shelters Innovative Transit Program No

Garden City Terminal Innovative Transit Program Yes

Unicity Terminal Innovative Transit Program Yes

U of W Terminal Innovative Transit Program No

Non-Traditional Service Current Estimates YesDelivery in Existing

Service Areas

Non-Traditional Service Current Estimates NoDelivery in New Areas

Park and Ride Innovative Transit Program Yes

Map and Timetable Current Estimates YesImprovements

More Posted Info at Bus Stops Current Estimates Yes

Bike Racks on Buses Innovative Transit Program No

Transit Day Pass Current Estimates No

70

8. Recommended Funding SourcesFor Improvements To Regular Transit

Recommendation:

The following table identifies the funding sources that are recommended to be used to implement thetransit improvements identified in this report.

Category Improvement Funding Source CurrentlyBudgeted?

Developing SupportiveConditions for Transit

Making OngoingImprovements toService

Making TransitEasier to Use

Category Improvement Funding Source CurrentlyBudgeted?

Internet Web Site Innovative Transit Program Yes

Improved Telebus System Innovative Transit Program Yes

Automated Trip Planning Service Innovative Transit Program No

Next Stop Displays on Capital Program NoBoard Buses

Real Time Schedule Displays Capital Program No

New Fare Collection System Capital Program No

Post-Secondary Fare Current Estimates NoDiscounts

Employer Sponsored Innovative Transit Program YesFare Program

Transit Priority Measures Innovative Transit Program No

Increased Promotion Current Estimates No

Upgrade of Radio Capital Program YesSystem and Automatic

Vehicle Location

North Garage Replacement Capital Program No

Alternative Fuels Bus Replacement Reserve No

Expansion of Express Services Current Estimates No

On-Street Rapid Bus Innovative Transit Program NoCapital Program

Transit Infrastructure Reserve

Busway Rapid Transit System Capital Program NoTransit Infrastructure ReservePublic-Private Partnerships

71

8. Recommended Funding SourcesFor Improvements To Regular Transit

Making TransitEasier to Use

Making the ServiceMore Affordable

Making the ServiceMore Productive

Making aCommitment to High Speed Transit

Documents

The Guide to Better FINAL Report - Winnipeg Transittraffic congestion, air pollution and use of fossil fuels. It can carry many passengers at a time - specifically during weekday rush