TransPlan 2010 is a long range transportation and land use planning study designed to supplement "Plan Winnipeg...Towards 2010". The TransPlan 2010 study is examining all transportation modes and will provide recommendations to the City of Winnipeg and Province of Manitoba on what may be an appropriate direction for the City and Province to follow in serving travel requirements. The TransPlan 2010 process incorporates direct input provided by the public through a series of workshops, open houses and presentations.
One component of the public consultation process allowed the public to examine and recommend alternative future transportation scenarios. To assist the public in illustrating their scenario, a "TransPlanning" model was developed utilizing two axis, travel behaviour and transportation infrastructure. The travel behaviour axis provided options ranging from car dependence to alternative modes. The infrastructure axis provided options ranging from the existing roadway system to alternative infrastructure systems.
Following a series of public workshops, over 20 alternative scenarios were reviewed and an Emerging Scenario was developed which incorporated the various transportation components identified by the public. The Emerging Scenario is illustrated on Figure 1 within the overall TransPlanning model.
In examining the lower right quadrant (alternative modes/alternative infrastructure system), there was strong support for the two items noted in the Emerging Scenario among workshop participants. The first item (minor modifications for alternative modes) was included in all the scenarios developed at the workshops. The second item (major modifications for alternative modes) was included in 75% of the scenarios.
The third item (new alternative system infrastructure, e.g. rail rapid transit) was included in 20% of the scenarios, although in some of these cases it was noted that rail transit should be preserved as a long term option. This view seemed to reflect a belief that rapid transit could, in some circumstances, be a cost-effective means of reducing auto dependence and generally improving the quality and performance of the transportation system.
The issue became a question of balance between the high capacity and cost of a rapid transit system and the relatively limited growth and traffic congestion expected over the TransPlan time horizon. One possible response was to protect the rapid transit option against the contingency of higher than expected growth in the longer term. Accordingly, the Emerging Scenario excluded the rapid transit option.
A discussion paper on the rapid transit option — with specific attention to system cost and capacity in relation to probable travel demand was undertaken as part of the analysis of the Emerging Scenario in Phase III of TransPlan 2010. The results of the review of alternative transit technologies is presented in this report.
Key urban transit system definitions are provided below:
The growth of light rapid transit infrastructure have been substantial over the past ten years. The present route kilometres of LRT systems in Canada and the U.S. is expected to double within the next 10 to 20 years. Many metropolitan areas in Canada (e.g. Calgary, Vancouver) and the U.S. (e.g. Los Angeles, St. Louis) are considering the addition or expansion of light rail and commuter rail systems to link suburbs with the central business district. The increase in rail rapid transit in the U.S. is in part influenced by the availability of federal funding and a need to improve air quality standards as part of the ISTEA program to maintain future federal funding.
The growth of rapid transit (rail or busway) systems in Canada has slowed down in recent years due to funding restrictions and reductions by some provincial governments.
Lower fuel, maintenance and operational costs also encouraging some to introduce self-propelled (DLRT) vehicles on existing railway tracks (e.g. Calgary, Folsum, CA).
Some U.S. cities (Washington, D.C., Columbus, OH) are converting exclusive busways to HOV lanes because of the limited use of busway during off-peak hours.
Public transport in Canada and the United States has declined since the 1950's, as summarized in Table 1. Though overall transit ridership has declined, in recent years some U.S. cities have experienced an increase in ridership (2-6%) on heavy rail, light rail and commuter rail transit systems1.
1Transit Blossoms in '96, Jack R. Glistrap, APTA.| Year | Canada | United States | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total (millions) | Per Capita | Total (millions) | Per Capita | |
| 1950 | 1,396 | 246 | 14,245 | 147 |
| 1960 | 973 | 135 | 7,821 | 62 |
| 1970 | 980 | 100 | 6,182 | 41 |
| 1980 | 1,315 | 97 | 6,682 | 39 |
| 1990 | 1,519 | 104 | 6,683 | 38 |
| 1991 | 1,450 | 96 | 6,689 | 36 |
| 1992 | 1,402 | 88 | 6,645 | 35 |
| 1993 | 1,377 | 85 | 6,539 | 34 |
| 1994 | 1,345 | 83 | 6,650 | 34 |
Source: John Pucher and Anthony Perl, "Transit in Trouble: The Policy Challenge posed by Canada's Changing Urban Mobility" Canada's Public Policy, Volume XXI, Number 3
Winnipeg Transit has experienced a similar decline in both ridership and mode split, which is forecast to continue. Yearly ridership grew from 56 M in 1962 to a high of 67 M in 1975, but has since been declined to 39.9 M in 1995.
The comparative analysis of alternative transit technologies is based on the operational (capacity) and cost considerations of systems in operation in Canada and the United States.
Transit cost and operational data was obtained from transit agencies and from a literature search. The following six transit technologies were compared:
Physical factors are important determinants for choosing a specific transit mode. The expansion of an existing transit system or introducing a new system has a direct relationship to suburban growth and population density. Recent studies show that commuter rail, light rail or busway serves distinctly different markets and land use patterns.
LRT and busways, with its closely spaced stations, attract more riders per station when located in a denser residential area close to the CBD2. Commuter rail and heavy rail depend more heavily on park-and-ride lots at stations in low-density suburban areas farther from the CBD. Table 2 summarizes the minimum city and CBD sizes and densities to support a particular rapid transit mode. Comparable Winnipeg data is included in the table.
| Transit Modes | Peak Headway (Minutes) | Minimum Urban Density | Minimum Residential Density (Dwelling Units/Hectare)** | Minimum CBD Development (100,000 sq. m. Gross Floor Area) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Busway | 30 | 75,000 | 36 | 20 |
| Light Rail | 5 | 1,000,000 | 22 | 30 |
| Rapid Rail | 5 | 1,000,000 | 20 | 50 |
| Commuter | 45 | 1,000,000 | 75 | 75 |
| Winnipeg | -- | 630,000 | 6.5 | 42 |
Source: "Transportation Demand Management Study," Draft Final Report, City of Edmonton. "Public Transportation," George E.Gray, 1992
** Gross hectares (Not net residential hectares which excludes roadways, school and park sites)
Note: Numbers in table have been converted from imperial to metric and rounded off in the process.
2 Judy S. Davis and Samuel Seskin, "Effects of Urban Density on Rail Transit".
Transit system capacity (passengers per hour) and vehicle capacity (passengers per vehicle or train unit) is summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
| Mode | Headway (seconds) | Units/hr | Passengers/hr |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Bus (on street | 30–300 | 12–120 | 1,000–10,000 |
| Articulated Bus (on-street) | 30–300 | 12–120 | 1,200–13,000 |
| Busway | 7.5–30 | 120–480 | 10,000–40,000 |
| Street Car | 40–90 | 40–90 | 5,500–12,500 |
| LRT (off-street) | 90–120 | 30–40 | 19,500–25,500 |
| Heavy Rail Transit | 120 | 30 | 30,000–62,000 |
| Commuter Rail | 180 | 20 | 12,000–27,500 |
| ALRT | 180–300 | 12–20 | 3,600–6,000 |
| DLRT | 900 | 4 | 2,750 |
Sources: "Canadian Transit Handbook, Second Edition", "Canadian Urban Transit Association", and the "Roads and Transportation Association of Canada", Canada 1985.
"Transportation Planning Handbook," Institute of Transportation Engineer, Washington, D.C. 1992.
BC Transit, 1996
Table 3 notes system capacities for typical headways operated by North American transit agencies. The range of headways results in an overlap of system capacities, without a clear-cut break point between some alternative transit modes. However, it is clear that rail systems have higher system capacities than on-street bus service.
Hourly 1995 ridership data for Winnipeg Transit examined for two conditions at Corydon/Osborne (along the route of the Southwest Transit Corridor), and on a city wide basis. The Corydon/Osborne location has approximately 725 riders per hour in the peak direction, well within the capacity range of on-street bus service. On a city-wide basis, approximately 22,000 passengers are carried in the peak hour, equivalent to the capacity of a single rail line or busway.
| Mode | Number of Seats | Standees | Total Capacity | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Bus | 19–31 | 14–22 | 33–55 | Overland ELF/Orion |
| Standard Bus | 48-52 | 32–33 | 80–85 | Flyer/GMC/MCI |
| ELF Bus | 39 | 41 | 80 | Flyer ELF |
| Articulated Bus | 66–73 | 34–37 | 100–110 | A.M. General-MAN Bus |
| Street Car | 59 | 40–80 | 99–139 | PCC Cars |
| LRT | 256 | 392 | 648 | DU-WAG 4-car trains |
| HRT | 252 | 438–678 | 690–930 | TTC 4-car trains |
| Commuter Rail | 440 | 80–480 | 520–920 | 4-car trains |
| ALRT | 140 | 160 | 300 | BC SkyTrain 4-car trains |
| DLRT | 296 | 400 | 696 | Siemens Regio Sprinter 4-car train |
ELF = Low Floor Buses
Sources: "Transportation Planning HandBook,"
Winnipeg Transit, 1996.
Institution of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1992.
BC Transit, 1996.
D. Richards, Transport Concepts, Ottawa, ON, 1996.
Table 4 summarizes the range of vehicle (or train) capacity for various technologies. Bus capacities are based on a single vehicle. Rail capacities are based on typical unit operations. Cost comparisons are provided in section 4.4.
Table 5 provides a range of technical, operational, and system characteristics of alternative transit modes. Regular bus service refers to buses operating along fixed routes on fixed schedule.
From Table 5, it can be seen that as the "level of technology" increases, system capacity, operating speed, reliability and safety also increases. Frequency of access location however decreases, in part to take advantage of the higher speeds.
| Characteristics | Regular Bus | Busways | Street Car | LRT | Commuter Rail | HRT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Vehicle Passenger Capacity | 40–120 | 40–120 | 100–180 | 110–250 | 140–280 | 140–210 |
| 2. Vehicles/transit unit | 1 | 1 | 1–3 | 1–4 | 1–10 | 1–10 |
| 3. Transit Unit Passenger Capacity | 40–120 | 40–120 | 100–300 | 110–600 | 140–2400 | 140–1800 |
| 4. Maximum Speed (km/hr) | 40–80 | 70–90 | 60–70 | 60–100 | 80–100 | 80–130 |
| 5. Normal Operating Speed (km/hr) | 15–25 | 20–40 | 12–20 | 20–45 | 25–60 | 40–70 |
| 6. Operating Speed at Capacity (km/hr) | 6–15 | 15–30 | 5–13 | 15–40 | 24–55 | 38–65 |
| 7. Vehicle Control | Manual | Manual | Manual | Manual | Man/Auto | Man/Auto |
| 8. Reliability | Low-Med | High | Low-Med | High | Very High | Very High |
| 9. Safety | Medium | High | Medium | High | Very High | Very High |
| 10. Station Spacing (m) | 200–500 | 350–800 | 250–500 | 350–800 | 500–2000 | 1200–4500 |
"Public Transportation," George E. Gray, 1992. "1994 National Transit database Report," Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C.
Capital and operating cost information was reviewed for medium to large Canadian and US cities. Cost data has been updated to 1996 dollars based on the Canadian Consumer Price Index (CPI). Caution is advised in comparing the different modes based on their unit cost due to differences in reporting methods, variations in rail system (e.g. at-grade, below or above grade, grade separations, possible inclusion of right-of-way acquisition, vehicles or maintenance facilities, etc.).
Capital costs vary significantly between cities and is influenced by a variety of factors. Bus system capital expenses essentially comprise vehicles and maintenance facilities (road construction cost is not included). The cost of shelters and informational signs are relatively small compared to the total cost. Rapid transit capital costs contain two of the same elements as bus costs, but also include guideway, track, stations, power, signals and communications, and other capital expenses. Table 6 provides a range of rapid transit capital costs.
| Busway ($/km x 1 m) | LRT ($/km x 1 m) | CRT ($/km x 1 m) | HRT ($/km x 1 m) | ALRT ($/km x 1 m) | DLRT ($/km x 1 m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada/U.S. | 15–17 | 12–29 | 2.5–4** | 100–200 | 30–50 | 1–1.5** |
| Winnipeg | 5.5* | 23* |
Note: Vehicle cost not included.
* Based on the proposed Winnipeg Southwest Transit Corridor; costs were developed by Winnipeg Transit.
** Assumes that existing rail trackage can be used.
The variation in capital costs are due to:
By way of comparison, road construction costs for roadways (excluding right-of-way) can range from $2.0 M/km for a four lane divided arterial to $3.5 M/km for a four lane divided highway to $6.5 M/km for a four lane divided freeway.
Vehicle costs also vary depending on type, specification, and other amenities. Typical vehicle costs are summarized in Table 7.
| Vehicle Type | Capital Cost |
|---|---|
| Regular Bus | $250,000 |
| Trolley Bus | $310,000 |
| Articulated Bus | $560,000 |
| LRT Vehicle | $2,800,000 |
| CRT Vehicle | $2,000,000 |
| HRT Vehicle | $1,900,000 |
| ALRT Vehicle | $2,600,000 |
| DLRT Vehicle | $2,000,000 |
* Some systems also require locomotives, at a cost of approximately $3,000,000 each.
Operating expenses vary significantly by mode of operation and within each mode for different operating systems. Table 8 compares operating costs for alternative transit modes for cities with populations greater than 600,000.
The US Federal Transit Agency (FTA) recently prepared cost summaries for the 30 largest U.S. transit agencies. In addition to the operating costs in the first two columns of Table 8 (the FTA data falls within the noted ranges), costs per revenue hour were also provided, and are known in the third column in Table 8. Comparable ALRT costs from Vancouver's SkyTrain are also provided.
| Operating Cost | |||
| Mode | $/Vehicle Revenue - Kilometres | $/Passenger | $/Vehicle Revenue - Hour |
| Bus (on-street) | 2.90 – 7.80 | 1.65 – 3.55 | 130 |
| Busway | 3.15 | 2.15 | - |
| LRT | 4.50–15.00 | 1.00–3.80 | 310 |
| CRT | 5.55–11.80 | 6.15–10.40 | 555 |
| HRT | 5.85–9.15 | 1.55–4.75 | 235 |
| ALRT | 8.00 | 5.00 | 325 |
The wide variation in operating cost is due to:
A comparative analysis of alternative transit methods is a complex process because of the wide variation in capital and operating costs and differences in cost allocation practices. The success and cost effectiveness of providing rapid transit service is highly influenced by the urban area configuration, downtown employment, availability of rights-of-way and suburban population density.
The level of transit demand in Winnipeg is well within the capacity limits of bus-based transit service, and well below the capacity of rail-based systems (see Section 4.2). However, if a rail-based system was to be examined, only LRT or DLRT need to be considered. The cost and capacity of other rail-based systems are beyond Winnipeg's needs.