Released January 28, 1998
The transportation needs of an urban area are constantly changing. As the population increases and transforms demographically, technological change continues at an ever accelerating rate, and new economic development takes place. The City of Winnipeg and its surrounding municipalities are undergoing such changes, but in a different way from other cities in Canada, for a number of reasons that are characteristically Manitoban. A transportation plan must reflect these distinct characteristics and also meet the challenges that all urbanized areas face. It must reflect the values of this community and its economic potential while recognizing the global nature of today's society.
The last comprehensive transportation plan for this urban area was developed almost 20 years ago (in 1980) as the transportation component of the first version of Plan Winnipeg. The needs of the next millennium now require a fresh look at all aspects of urban transportation for this community.
TransPlan 2010 was initiated by the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba to develop a transportation plan for the Winnipeg Region. The Winnipeg Region, as it will be called in this report, consists of the City of Winnipeg, the adjacent 13 rural municipalities and the towns of Stonewall and Selkirk, and is often referred to as the Capital Region by the Province.
The need for a revised transportation and related land-use plan for the City of Winnipeg was identified in Plan Winnipeg...Toward 2010 (referred to hereinafter as Plan Winnipeg) as approved by the City of Winnipeg (By-law No. 5915/92) and the Province in 1993. It states, in Chapter 5C, as a matter of principle:
The City seeks to provide effective regional service and facilities, and to reduce the demand for expansion of these services and facilities...An efficient regional transportation system is vital to the continued well-being of the City. Winnipeg currently has an extensive system of regional streets, bridges and transit routes that serve its citizens. It is essential that the City continue its commitment through comprehensive transportation planning, to providing cost-effective and efficient mobility for people and goods in an environmentally-responsible manner. The approach must integrate the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars, transit vehicles, and trucks.
To achieve this objective, it is necessary to protect our investment in the existing infrastructure through effective maintenance practices and to implement improvements which are cost effective.
Following the statement of principle, Plan Winnipeg establishes three basic priorities and a series of related initiatives that are designed to accomplish the above. The three basic priorities are:
5C-01 Maintain Existing Infrastructure The City shall maintain the existing capacity of regional street, bridge, and public transit systems as its highest priority item for expenditure of funds when developing the yearly and five year transportation capital program.
5C-02 Commit to Transit System Improvements The City shall commit to transit system improvements as a second priority in those areas where transit is considered to have a potential advantage over the private automobile, namely, within the Downtown, at major access points to the Downtown, along the major radial regional street system, and in areas of concentrated employment.
5C-03 Commit to Regional Street System Improvements The City shall commit to regional street system improvements, as a third priority, in those areas of Winnipeg where the private automobile is deemed to the the most effective mode of travel, namely, along the major crosstown and circumferential regional street system.The related initiatives are:
5C-04 Integrated Land Use, Urban Design and Transportation Planning;The transportation section of Chapter 5C of Plan Winnipeg...Toward 2010 can be found in Appendix A.5C-05 Consolidate Municipal and Provincial Transportation Policy;
5C-06 Encourage the Completion of the Perimeter Highway;
5C-07 Encourage Environmentally Responsible Transportation Measures.
5C-08 Provide Mobility for the Physically Handicapped;
5C-09 Prepare Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Plan; and
5C-10 Prepare a Comprehensive Transportation Study;
Initiative 5C-10 in Plan Winnipeg directed the City to prepare a comprehensive transportation study. It states that the study should be "consistent with the policies outlined in this plan" and utilize "an interdisciplinary planning approach." The Province later joined with the City to fund and broaden the study to develop a transportation plan that could serve the needs of not just the City of Winnipeg but also the entire Winnipeg Region. In a letter of January 1993 the Province requested that the following areas be examined within the scope of the TransPlan 2010 study:
- renewing emphasis on infrastructure;
- approaches to financing transportation infrastructure within the context of government restraint;
- opportunities for inter-modal links; and
- coordination of transportation planning and development functions among government, regulatory and private institutions within the Winnipeg Region.
The mandate of TransPlan 2010, therefore, was developed to encompass both a review of the principles established by Plan Winnipeg and consideration of the broader initiatives requested by the Province.
To direct the study, the City and Province appointed an independent committee, the TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, made up of five individuals who served in an unpaid, voluntary capacity. All are long-time residents of the City of Winnipeg, and among them the backgrounds cover: transport law, university transportation studies, business, organized labour, and the non-profit sector. They are: Q.C., partner in the law firm of Taylor McCaffrey (Chair); , Director of the Transport Institute, University of Manitoba; , owner of Peguis Publishers; Al Cerilli, retired Regional Vice President of Railway Transport and General Workers (now part of the Canadian Auto Workers Union); and , Executive Director, United Way of Winnipeg. The Chair of the Steering Committee was appointed in mid-1993, and the other four members were appointed in September 1994.
The Steering Committee was supported throughout the process by City of Winnipeg Streets and Transportation Department staff; , Manager of Transportation Planning, and , Transportation Systems Planner, acted as Executive Director and Assistant Executive Director, respectively. The Committee also received assistance from an advisory committee, representing a cross-section of groups, organizations and the community-at-large (see Appendix B), and an inter-governmental committee, the City-Province Management Team (see Appendix B). The Committee also retained the services of a community consultant, /, and a transportation consultant, .
The Steering Committee held its first meeting in September 1994 and soon thereafter announced that the TransPlan process should proceed as follows:
The structuring and empowering of the Steering Committee in this manner marked a clear departure from the standard transportation plan review process. Normally, the process is either conducted, or at the very least directed, from within government, with consultation occurring only with specific interest groups. The public may be asked to comment, but often not until recommendations have been developed and a report published. TransPlan 2010 was directed by a body independent of government, which made community involvement a prime focus of its process.
This report documents the findings of three years of concentrated work by the Steering Committee. It is unique in its reflection of the voice of the public. It is not just a report describing how a technical/professional analysis is used to develop transportation solutions. It does contain these elements, but it also reflects the direction given by the people of the Winnipeg Region on the approach they believe is needed for planning, programming and implementing urban transportation in the Region for the next 15 to 20 years.
TransPlan 2010 is unique in its community-involvement component. Historically in Winnipeg most transportation planning had been done by technical experts. More recently, the public had occasionally been asked for its views on work that had already been completed, and on a few occasions had been given the opportunity to choose among various options. The approach taken by the TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, however, was significantly different from these earlier approaches. The Committee asked the public, early in the process, to articulate their values and goals and to translate them into a transportation plan that they believed was appropriate for the community. Technical advice, as well as the Steering Committee's own thoughts, were added to the process only after the community had provided their perspective. The community-involvement component of the TransPlan 2010 process is shown in Figure 2.1.
The Steering Committee was determined that the community was truly represented and that as many voices as possible were heard. A number o different tools were used to make this happen, as illustrated in Table 2.1.
Among the tools shown in Table 2.1, the community workshops and newsletters were a part of each phase of the TransPlan 2010 community-involvement process. The other tools were utilized selectively as required. Individuals, groups and organizations were encouraged to present their views to the Steering Committee in public presentations held in 1995 and 1996 and in writing at any time and also could present their concerns on a telephone "hot line."
The consultation process began in December 1994 with a telephone survey undertaken by Western Opinion Research. It was designed generally to identify public concerns, values, aspirations and priorities, and specifically to establish:
The survey polled 1,004 individuals in the Winnipeg Region who were selected at random from the telephone directory; each respondent was asked 40 questions.
As part of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the three priorities for future spending identified in Plan Winnipeg (Section 1.1), and the results indicated that:
The most important tools used in Phase I of the community-involvement process were the five community workshops. (For a description of the community workshop process see Appendix C.) The Five workshops were held from February to April 1995, each in a different area of Winnipeg. Workshop sites were chosen to represent different areas of the Region. The workshops were advertised in each area by various means. Each workshop began with a discussion about what the participants liked and did not like about the current transportation system. The participants then began identifying future transportation needs and priorities.
The information gathered from the workshops was complemented in May and June of 1995 by eight written submissions, a number of letters and 15 presentations to the Steering Committee from a variety of individuals, groups and organizations, made in a public forum.
What emerged from the workshops, submissions, letters and presentations was a clear indication that areas of concern were:
In addition, a number of themes were synthesized from Phase I of the community-involvement process. The participants established that a transportation plan for the Winnipeg Region should:
Related to the issues and themes that emerged from Phase I of the community- involvement process were three areas that were constantly reiterated in later stages of TransPlan 2010:
Phase I of the community-involvement process was documented in a TransPlan 2010 report published in June 1995 entitled What We Heard from the Public.
Phase IIA began in September 1995 with an open house, which offered the public an opportunity to see the results of the Phase I activities and to get information on travel and demographic trends in the Winnipeg Region. In October, five community workshops were held, four in the City of Winnipeg and one in the Rural Municipality of East St. Paul. The goal of these workshops was to formulate a transportation plan for the future based on those characteristics of the existing system that participants thought should be kept and improved and those they felt should be significantly changed or deleted. Workshop participants produced a series of sketches of possible future urban transportation systems for the Winnipeg Region.
The issues and themes generated by the public in Phase I as well as the priorities and images that emerged in Phase IIA were utilized by the transportation planning consultant to structure a model, or visual representation, of the complex entity that is a transportation system. The TransPlanning Model, as it came to be known, was meant to provide the public with a framework and language that would assist them in refining the many images that were generated from Phase IIA into a comprehensive scenario (see Figure 2.2).
Developing a new regional transportation plan for such a geographic setting is a complex process. The future is always difficult to predict, for it is dependent on so many unknowns. The challenge is to establish a plan that is based on what is known but is flexible enough to be adjusted effectively to unknowable events.
Formal planning began in various forms immediatly after the Second World War and evolved into the present Plan Winnipeg process. They all assumed the type of residential development that now characterizes the Winnipeg Region and in turn established the dominance of the automobile as the major mode for the Region. None of these plans, however, dealt with both the City and the surrounding municipalities.
As described in Chapter 1 of this document, the City and the Province initiated TransPlan 2010 to develop a transportation plan that could serve the needs of the entire Winnipeg Region. The Winnipeg Region (see Figure 3.1) consists of the City of Winnipeg and the following towns and municipalities: Cartier, St. Clements, East St. Paul, St. Francis Xavier, Headingley, Town of Selkirk, MacDonald, Springfield, Richot, Town of Stonewall, Rockwood, Tache, Rosser, West St. Paul and St. Andrews. The existing major road network in the Region is depicted in Figure 3.2.
While other cities in the country are dealing with rapidly growing populations, Winnipeg is a low-growth region. According to Statistics Canada, the Winnipeg Region has a population of approximately 706,000 and, of that number, 618,000 live in the City of Winnipeg. While the population of the City of Winnipeg increased by only 0.3% between 1991 and 1996, the Region population outside the City increased by 10%. The Winnipeg Region accounts for 63% of the total population of the Province (see Figure 3.3). In no other province is such a high proportion of the population concentrated in one large urban area.
Based on national and provincial trends, the Winnipeg Region population is expected to increase by approximatley 70,000 (or 10%) to 776,000 by 2010. This projection is based on the following assumptions:
This low-growth projection means, among other things, that the property tax base will not increase significantly. On the other hand, unlike cities such as Toronto and Vancouver, low growth means more manageable and predictable commuter travel patterns, resulting in less demand for immediate major system improvements to alleviate severe peak-hour traffic congestion.
Over 345,000 people are employed in the Winnipeg Region, more than 90% of whome are employed within the City of Winnipeg. The major employment concentrations in the City of Winnipeg are illustrated in Figure 3.4. The downtown area contains the highest percentage of employees (almost 27%), followed by the area immediately east and south of the Winnipeg International Airport (approximately 6%).
Owing to changin economic conditions, and streamlined and improved production technologies, the percentage of the workforce employed in the large industrial parks has been decreasing in recent years, while the percentage in the downtown area has been relatively stable. Recent trends indicate that a majority of new jobs are being generated by small business and the transportation industry, a trend that is expected to continue in the future. It would appear, therefore, that the new jobs being created are and will continue to be distributed throughout the City. While unforeseen circumstances may occur in the future, there are no new large concentrations of employement forecast for the Region.
There is a close, almost symbiotic, relationship between transportation planning and land-use planning. In rapidly growing communities there may be a substantial opportunity to direct land use to support transportation facilities and systems. In slow-growth communities such as the Winnipeg Region, opportunities to alter established land-use patterns are minimal, and, thus, there are limited opportunities, for example, to reduce our dependency on automobiles. If this reduction is considered important in an overall transportation plan, it will have to be accomplished primarily through means other than land-use planning. The community perspective on this issue was to support the City initiative known as CentrePlan, a spinn-off of the Plan Winnipeg process, which developed recommendations for downtown Winnipeg in 1994-95. Included in its recommendations was the position that zoning and land-use controls should be relaxed to permit more mixed-use development and promote downtown revitalization.
Although Winnipeg has been identified as a low-growth city in many respects, it is not so in terms of automobile use for commuting and other travel. In fact, the increase in automobile use in Winnipeg has been consistent with that in most other North American cities. While the population of Winnipeg grew by only 36% between 1962 and 1992, automobile registrations more than doubled, from 128,000 in 1962 to 264,000 in 1992, and the actual use of automobiles has been increasing even faster than registration of vehicles has. The number of vehicles crossing the Red and Assiniboine Rivers per day in Winnipeg increased by almost 130% between 1962 (259,000) and 1992 (590,000) (see Figure 3.5).
Some of the largest percentage increases in traffic have been noted on the routes leading into and out of the City. As is shown in Figure 3.6, the morning peak hour ("rush hour") traffic counts on the routes approaching the City increased by 140% between 1976 and 1992–from 3,700 to 9,000 vehicles. This is not surprising, considering that most of the people living in the faster-growing municipalities surrounding Winnipeg work in the City (see Figure 3.7).
While the increase in automobile ownership and use has come a significant decrease in transit ridership in the past 35 years. The percentage of people using the transit system to get to work in the morning hour declined from 28% in 1962 to 20% in 1992 (see Figure 3.8). Of the over 100,000 morning peak-hour work trips in 1992, 60% were made by automobile drivers, 20% by bus passengers, 12% by vehicle passengers, 7% by pedestrians, and less than 1% by cyclists.
One measure of congestion on the street system is indicated by the capacity of the signalized intersections to accommodate traffic. In 1962, only about 10% (or 30 of the 304) of signalized intersections were operating above capacity during peak hours; in 1992, 29% (or 156 of the 533) of signalized intersectios were operating above capacity during peak hours (see Figure 3.9).
Given these historical trends, some of the questions that must be considered when developing a transportation plan for the Region are:
While past trends cannot wholly predict future trends, they can provide valuable information and a starting point from which to develop projections.
Based on traffic-count and demographic data spanning more than 30 years, automobile use is expected to increase, but at a slower rate than in the past, particularly during the morning peak hour. The rate of growth from 1962 to 1984 was about 3% per year, the rate has dropped to less than 1% per year (see Figure 3.10, which shows the morning peak-hour traffic crossing the Red and Assiniboine Rivers). In addition, (as shown in Figure 3.11) the peak periods of traffic are not increasing substantially but are spreading over a longer period of time, and the non-peak traffic is increasing. Reasons for the peak spreading may include: increases in service-industry employment; more part-time employment; and, increase in home workplaces. Demographic trends that suggest that future growth in automobile use may be slower than in the past include:
The aging population represents a smaller work force and a resulting decrease in peak-hour travel, but will likely cause an increase in off-peak travel.
...Many concerns about the existing decision-making process were raised during the public consultation process. The public understands that decision-making is an ongoing process subject to different interests and constraints. But it considers the process to be inefficient with little direction, coordination or long-term planning; decisions appear appear to be based almost primarily on funding considerations. The public believes that governments use community consultation as a public relations exercise to sell its agenda or release the vitriol of objectors. There is no sense of a rational approach to setting priorities. Current funding decisions are making the situation worse. And the public does not believe that the necessary political will exists to change the structures of decision-making in order to deal with the source of the problems.
The Steering Committee concurs with the public view and has established a number of principles as a basis for improved future decision-making. There must be:
The current system used to administer transportation within the Winnipeg Region involves several level of government. Each has its own plans and priorities, and these often conflict. Yet, streets and highways do not stop at government imposed decision-making boundaries. Instead, urban transportation is multi-faceted and requires that the governmental structural impediment be understood and, whenever possible, streamlined. Otherwise, the transportation system will continue to suffer from splintered decision-making; a lack of shared strategic plans and priorities; conflict between municipalities and the Province; and, discrepancies in priorities.
There must be a shared vision for the future of a regional urban transportation system, and that vision must encompass community consultation throughout the process. The frequent role of the public, either to comment on finished products or mobilize to oppose proposals, must change, especially now, when there are limited financial resources. There must be greater attempts to forge consensus among the different levels of government and the public in order to establish priorities that have a level of support that will make implementation more likely. Currently, other than in the electoral process, there is no mechanism that involves the public on an ongoing basis, and there is no regional vision among the levels of government for urban transportation. But the Steering Committee found that the community does have a shared vision for the future of urban transportation; this was reflected in the Emerging Scenario.
The public recognizes the fact that the long-term future of the City and the Region will be affected by the future transportation plan. Through its active participation in TransPlan 2010, the public has indicated that it wishes to be part of the process, that the time for short-term decisions based n shifting priorities and immediate funding requirements must end, and that a long-term planning process be instituted that will help build a collective vision for the future. As well, it is essential that some form of consensus building mechanism be put in place to create a vision for transportation issues within the Region. The Manitoba Round Table on Sustainable Development is an example of a group of individuals asked by the Province to provide input on important policy issues related to the environment. Recently, a subcommittee of the Round Table convince the provincial government to reconsider a portion of the proposed Sustainable Development Act. Another example of community involvement is the "citizen jury" concept, which is used in some areas of the United States, including Minnesota, to facilitate consensus building. These juries are chosen from a cross-section of the public and are asked to evaluate a major issue or project to determine its viability based on a number of criteria or principles.
It is interesting to note that different levels of government appear to be able to share a vision on a project-by-project basis. For example, the Airport Vicinity Development Advisory Committee (AVDAC) included interests not only among the City of Winnipeg, but also the R.M. of Rosser, the Province of Manitoba, and key businesses and community groups. This process resulted in a by-law to control development around the Winnipeg International Airport to ensure the retention of its 24-hour operating status. It is being examined in Ottawa and Toronto as a model for promoting compatible development around their airports. The public-consultation process in ADVAC was also a precursor to TransPlan 2010's public consultation process.
Decision-making in the future must be better coordinated among government departments and agencies, and between the different levels of government. The current system results in piece-meal decisions about regional transportation and often inconsistent and conflicting interests on such issues as urban and suburban development and zoning restrictions. Fostering better coordination and integration of activities appears more likely for specific projects than for overlapping policy issues. For example, a number of years ago the City did not consider construction of the Charleswood Bridge an immediate priority. At the same time, the Province indicated that is was willing to allocate funds, provided they be used for the Charleswood Bridge. The Province had a particular reason for its position, but its priority was not the same as that of the City, and the City was required to change its priorities in order to benefit from provincial funds.
The Steering Committee does not believe that the principles outlined in Section 4.0 can effectively be applied under the current system.
An improved decision-making model is required. There are two options: increase government cooperation (i.e, between the City of Winnipeg, the Regional municipalities, and the Province of Manitoba); or, create an independent agency with responsibility for all urban transportation matters in the Winnipeg Region.
The Province and municipalities, including the City of Winnipeg, must commit to a new regional transportation plan, based upon the TransPlan 2010 recommendations, as a component of their municipal/district development plans. The Province would thereafter empower the municipalities to raise additional revenues and/or provide them with additional funding to permit implementation of the regional transportation plan. The Province would establish the following requirements before new revenue-generating powers would be created and/or additional funds generated:
In order to oversee the process, the Province would establish a new body, the InterGovernmental Coordinating Committee, which would be composed of elected officials, senior administrators from the two levels of government and selected individuals from the Winnipeg Region. Among the Committee's tasks would be the streamlining of the decision-making processes among the levels of government. The recommended timeframe to establish the Committee structure and implement these improvements to the current system is shown in Figure 4.1.
The concept of creating an independent transportation agency for the Winnipeg urban area is not new. The idea was first proposed in the report entitled Traffic, Transit, and Parking prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates in 1959. However, this report was superseded with the establishment of the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg (Metro) in 1960. Metro was given jurisdiction over transportation planning matters within the "old" City of Winnipeg and its then surrounding cities, towns and municipalities. This same jurisdiction exists today under the unified City of Winnipeg, which replaced Metro in 1972.
Under Option 2, the Province would create by statute a new agency, the Winnipeg Region Transportation Agency, which would have jurisdiction over urban transportation within the Winnipeg Region and would be given the responsibility to implement the TransPlan 2010 recommendations.
The new Agency could be similar to the Montreal Transportation Agency, which was created in 1996. Its mandate includes:
The Agency would not be responsible for: defining, constructing, operating, repairing and maintaining local or residential municipal streets; motor vehicle registration; vehicle safety regulation; recreational bicycle facilities; land-use planning and control. The legislation should also include a mechanism for the appointment of a board of directors to oversee the operation of the Agency.
The government would use their respective procedures to review the two proposed options. In so doing, they should ensure that public consultation takes place, through hearings and/or presentations.
In determining the appropriate level of accountability for a new decision-making framework whether it be based on Option 1 or Option 2 described above, we must reiterate the fact that the City has not followed the principles and priorities set forth in its own document, Plan Winnipeg, and TransPlan 2010 must include measures to ensure implementation of its recommendations. Whether the new decision-making entity turns out to be an inter-governmental coordinating committee or a regional transportation agency, there are certain steps that should be taken to ensure greater accountability than has been the case in the past. This will be even more important if the new funding scheme involves dedicated user fees.
Even though decision-making under Option 1 would remain within government bodies, the structure crosses jurisdictional boundaries, and the focus would be activities financed through dedicated funds. The source and amount of revenues should be come more transparent, as should the expenditures. With a firm and easily-read budget available, it would be possible to produce an annual report. The coordinating committee could then encourage community involvement, for example by holding an annual public meeting to discuss the report and issues relating to it.
Under Option 2, the situation would be somewhat different, as the Agency would be a semi-autonomous body. The enabling legislation would specify the powers of the Agency, but the Agency would not likely have the power to implement new user fees or raise existing ones, except for transit fees. It would in this way have significantly less power than other existing bodies, such as crown corporations or airport authorities. Nevertheless, it would have responsibility over very significant matters relating to urban transportation within the Winnipeg Region and it must be governed in a manner that fosters accountability.
The enabling legislation must include a mechanism for the appointment of a board of directors to oversee the operation of the Agency, which would include the following criteria:
There might also be a requirement for annual public meetings to review the audited financial statements of the Agency, the previous year's decisions and the business plan for the next year.
There are a number of points that should be emphasized in setting up a new decision-making process, whether it is based upon Option 1 or Option 2;
Regarding decision-making process, the Steering Committee recommends that:
An improved decision-making model be established for urban transportation in the Winnipeg Region. This model should bring a Regional focus to decisions that transcend existing jurisdictional boundaries, reflect a shared vision of the future priorities, and include a mechanism that promotes community involvement and better coordinates and integrates the activities related to urban transportation within government departments and among all levels of government.
The new decision-making model be in the form of an inter-governmental coordinating committee, (Option 1: the Committee), or a regional transportation agency (Option 2: the Agency). The TransPlan 2010 recommendations will provide the initial direction for urban transportation decisions, irrespective of the model chosen.
4.8.3 If the governments commit to proceed with Option 1 (the Committee), the Province empower the municipalities (including the City) to raise additional revenues and/or provide them with additional funding to permit the implementation of the regional transportation plan. All such revenues should be committed to a dedicated fund to implement the TransPlan 2010 recommendations related to maintenance, repairs, rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing infrastructure and may not be used for any other purpose. In addition, there must be a sufficient timeframe to establish the Committee and implement the improvements.
4.8.4 As well, if the governments commit to proceed with Option 1 (the Committee), the Province create a monitoring body that includes members of the community. The monitoring body would issue a report annually to the governments and public on the status of progress toward creation of the Committee based on the principles set forth in TransPlan 2010 and the implementation of the Committee's initiatives on the regional transportation plan within the timeframe set forth in this report. The governments would continue the activities of the Committee if the monitoring body determined that sufficient progress being achieved. However, if, in the view of the monitoring body, sufficient progress was not being made by the Committee within an initial 3-year period, the Province would introduce the necessary legislation to create the Agency.
4.8.5 Legislation to create the Agency include the areas for which the Agency would be delegated decision-making authority:
4.8.6 The legislation creating the Agency specify designated sources of revenue for use by the Agency in carrying out its responsibilities.
4.8.7 The Agency be governed by a board of directors, which would be ratified by the governments; whose members could not be elected officials or government employees in transportation-related departments and must reside within the Winnipeg Region; and must include board community representation;
4.8.8 Specific measures to ensure accountability be implemented under either Option 1 (the Committee) or Option 2 (the Agency). These would include:
With respect to funding, the Steering Committee recommends that:
4.9.1 The decision-making model that is established, whether it be Option 1 (the Committee), or Option 2 (the Agency), initiate a budgetary process embodying greater efficiencies in planning and more transparency in decision-making, including a computer-based decision support model that permits project analysis and selection options.
4.9.2 An annual budget for street- and highway- system major repair and maintenance be established, and not be reduced to meet other budgetary shortfalls.
4.9.3 User fees re-allocated existing fuel tax revenue, rather than increased property taxes, be the primary sources for increased revenue for street- and highway-system major repair and maintenance within the Winnipeg Region, except for minor streets. Responsibility for minor streets, including revenue generation and expenditures, should remain within the municipalities.
4.9.4 Regardless of the decision-making option chosen, the Province:
4.9.5 Regardless of the decision-making option chosen, new methods to fund major regional transportation projects be examined.
The Emerging Scenario developed in the community-involvement process of TransPlan 2010 stressed the importance of a balanced approach between iifrastructure maintenance, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) initiatives, and a mix of automobile and transit-oriented infrastructure improvements. Although there was support for retaining the option of rapid transit, in the event of substantial growth in population and travel demand in the longer term, new or alternative infrastructure systems (e.g., freeways) were not otherwise widely supported.
The Emerging Scenario is generally consistent with the balanced- transportation approach developed in Plan Winnipeg 1980-1986 and reinforced in Plan Winnipeg — Toward 2010 (1992-93). Both emphasize maintenance of the system, improvement of bus transit services between downtown and the suburbs, and suburb-to-suburb roadway improvements. To the extent that there are distinctions apparent between the Plan Winnipeg approach and the community-based scenario that has emerged in TransPlan 2020, the differences primarily involve program details rather than principles and priorities.
During the community-involvement stage of TransPlan 2010, the public identified a requirement for improved ranking and control of infrastructure spending, and for correspondingly greater emphasis on infrastructure maintenance and transporation demand management. Although the suggested shift in emphasis is consistent with public concern about municipal tax levels, it seems also to reflect a belief in the community that present levels of traffic congestion and transportation service are manageable. That being the case, and given the Winnipeg Region population and employment trends, it would be appropriate to program new transporation infrastructure on an as-required basis to maintain current levels of service.
Rehabilitation and preventative maintenance of the existing major transportation infrastructure (streets, highways and bridges) should receive the highest priority, and dedicated funding sources should be established for this purpose (as discussed in Section 4.9). Based on cost estimates prepared by the city and provincial administrations, it is recommended that the ongoing annual funding for the purpose of such maintenance be increased (see Table 5.1).
| Current Average Annual City & Provincial Funding | Total Recommended Average Annual Funding | Ongoing Average Annual Additional Funding Required | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | $34–39 million | $63 million | $24–29 million |
| Major Streets | $10 million | $25 million | $15 million |
| Major Bridges | $14 million | $19 million | $5 million |
| Provincial Highways & Bridges | $10–15 million | $19 million | $4–9 million |
The amounts identified in Table 5.1 should be adjusted periodically to reflect updated estimates based on age, condition and the gradual increase in the inventory of system infrastructure. This is considered to be the minimum commitment required to ensure cost-effective maintenance of the major roadway system serving Winnipeg and the Region. Any lesser commitment would result in deferral of appropriate maintenance and would lead inevitably to:
The Emerging Scenario identified a need to seriously examine efficient ways and means of reducing dependence on automobile travel, provided that the emphasis was on incentive rather than regulatory measures.
Transportation demand management (TDM) measures are to transporation planning what demand-side management techniques are to economic policy and environmental planning. In order to minimize public-sector infrastruture cost implications, the emphasis of TDM measures is on the consumer-driven aspects of choice between alternate modes of travel. The common primary objective of TDM measures is to reduce the dependence of the travelling public on automobiles, and in particular reduce the frequency of single-occupant automobile trips. In addition, there are certain measures (e.g., encouraging home-based employment) that may address the broader objective of greatly reducing travel demand.
In the view of the Steering Committee, the most significant potential benefit of TDM measures is to reduce growth of travel demand and congestion, thereby enabling deferral of major improvements or alternative systems (e.g., rapid-transit). To the extent that TDM measures tend to focus on reducing single-occupant automobile use, which is a contributing factor to environmental degradation, the shift to other, more environmentally friendly, modes of travel is a second potential benefit.
To date, there has been relatively little research or application of TDM measures in the Winnipeg Region and, accordingly, there is limited information on which to base specific program recommendations or estimates of potential benefits. A review of TDM experience elsewhere is difficult to relate to Winnipeg circumstances. TDM efforts to reduce congestion, for example, are a more urgent consideration in communities where massive investments in roadway and freeway infrastructure have been unable to reduce traffic gridlock. The significance of environmental benefits tends to be viewed much more positively in centres where air quality is a major concern.
The Steering Commitee recommends that TDM measures considered for application in the Winnipeg Region:
It is further recommended that the Committee or Agency develop TDM initiatives that support the above criteria. Examples that could be considered are:
TransPlan 2010 community input respecting the public transit system has generally confirmed the appropriateness of the "balanced" approach developed in Plan Winnipeg, that is, improvement of bus-transit services for radial travel between Downtown (Winnipeg) and the suburbs, and street-system improvements for suburb-to-suburb travel. Many of the comments from the public stressed the importance of the "public service" function of the transit system, that is the assurance of reasonable accessibility for those whose use of private automobiles is restricted by age, health, or income. Other comments favoured the use of public transit as an alternative to dependence on the private automobile. This view emphasized the potential environmental benefits of public-transit use and the assumption that transit can compete effectively with the private automobile. Still other comments questioned the appropriateness of the present level of government subsidy to the public transit system.
The Steering Committee believes that the public-service function of transit is entirely consistent with the goals and principles of TransPlan 2010 and should continue to be an integral feature of community transportation planning and programs. Although delivery of such services must be cost-effective, full cost recovery on the basis of fares will not be feasible, and public-operating subsidy at a level similar to that of today ($40 million annually) will likely be necessary.
The Committee considers the improvement of transit services to reduce dependence on the private automobile desirable in theory. However, even in high-growth urban areas such as Calgary and Vancouver, where substantial costs are being incurred from providing faster and more convenient light-rail transit (LRT) services, it has proven difficult to substantially shift travel patterns away from dependence on the automobile. In the Winnipeg Region:
Accordingly, there should be a balance between funding of transit-oriented and automobile-oriented infrastructure improvements. The funding balance should consider the preference for automobiles implicit in the present split between bus ridership and automobile use. Consideration should also be given to:
It is anticipated that travel demand in the Region will continue to increase. However, unless recent trends can be reversed, transit ridership will continue to decline. Approximately 20% of all trips in the weekday morning peak hour are currently made by transit — approximately 25,000 bus-passenger trips out of a total of over 120,000 trips. By 2010, it is estimated that growth in travel demand will result in 130,000 trips in a typical weekday morning peak hour, an increase of 10,000 trips. Therefore, just to maintain the present 20% share of peak-hour travel, approximately 2 000 additional bus passengers would have to be attracted and accommodated in the morning peak hour.
Some portion of the additional transit ridership is expected to result from implementation of TDM (Travel Demand Management) programs (Section 5.4). The remainder will follow more directly from improvements in transit service.
Plan Winnipeg (see Appendix A) suggested such service improvements as the development of a system of downtown-oriented transit corridors (serving southwest, northwest, northeast, east and southeast Winnipeg respectively), each of which would entail acquisition and development of right-of-way to provide a two-lane roadway dedicated for bus use.
Most of these improvements have been subject only to conceptual planning and preliminary cost-benefit analysis. However, preliminary design studies have been undertaken for the Southwest Transit Corridor, a facility that would link Downtown Winnipeg with the University of Manitoba, primarily utilizing leased rights-of-way from CN Rail. The cost of development of the Southwest Transit Corridor is estimated to be $80 million. The benefits to southwest Winnipeg would include a reduction in on-the-bus travel time and a modest improvement in traffic capacity on Pembina Highway. These benefits translate into faster service for transit riders and the offer of a more competitive transit alternative for automobile users. To the extent that automobile dependence might be reduced, there should be some related environmental benefits (subject to allowance for any negative effects of the bus corridor on adjacent land use). However, the potential for a significant reduction in automobile dependence for any trip is uncertain. Automobile use would continue to offer greater flexibility in response to the increasing incidence of "linked," or multiple-destination, peak-hour trips (e.g., work-to-shop-to-home, as opposed to work-to-home).
Given the substantial cost and uncertain benefit of the transit corridor program, and the forecast traffic levels can be adequately managed through strategic investment in the major road and highway system (see Section 5.2.3), investments in transit infrastructure should be strategically selected and staged. Investments during the timeframe of TransPlan 2010 should be confined initially to improvement of existing bus-transit service. An example of such an improvement would be the use of emerging communications technology to provide information to passengers on the expected actual (vs. normally scheduled) time of bus arrivals at particular stops. This would require tracking of bus locations using transponders and processing of this data for interactive access from video screens installed at major stops or transfer terminals, or even from home televisions. Such a system would be comparable, albeit on a more detailed level, to the airport arrivals/departures information currently available on cable television.
Within the area bounded by the proposed Inner Ring Route, transit improvements should emphasize frequent and convenient bus service. The improved service area would affect most present transit users and fall comfortably within the 35-minute transit travel time threshold, which, according to Winnipeg Transit, appears to be the effective limit for bus competition with use of the private automobile. This service would rely principally on buses utilizing the existing major radial street system that serve Downtown Winnipeg.
Beyond the Inner Ring Route, transit service would be maintained generally at a level equivalent to that currently being provided and would be oriented primarily to the public-service function. Routes would be extended as required to service new development. However, service would not be as frequent as inside the Inner Ring Route, and access to service would continue to be limited by the greater walking distance to bus stops that is characteristic of low-density residential and employment development.
A major level of system improvement would be the development of strategically located major transfer stations to attract more suburban and ex-urban transit riders. These stations would be located along or near the Inner Ring Route, offering immediate access to the improved system of Downtown radial bus routes as well as to a system of crosstown routes designed to take advantage of the proposed Inner Ring Route development of dedicated Downtown-oriented transit corridors beyond the TransPlan 2010 timeframe. Stations would feature convenient facilities for transfer from other modes of travel (e.g., pedestrian or bicycle access, bicycle storage, Park & Ride lots, Kiss & Ride drop-off locations) and, wherever feasible, would serve as a terminal for existing suburban transit service.
Transfer station locations would also be selected and/or developed to maximize convenience for "linked" trips. Versions of such stations have already been successfully developed at the Polo Park and Kildonan Place Shopping Centres. A third facility is planned during expansion of the St. Vital Centre. Locations such as these cater to the convenience of transit passengers and automobile users alike and encourage private-sector participation in station development. Alternatively, where sites at existing major retail centres are not available, transfer station development could be extended to public/private partnerships providing convenience-level retail and services (e.g., daycare centres, coffee shops, newsstands, drycleaning outlets, drug stores). Variations of the concept (e.g., small Park & Ride facilities) could also be located at a number of sites along radial transit routes both inside and outside the Inner Ring Route.
Nine potential major transfer station locations of the type described above are shown on Map 6. Two other locations that are variations of the transfer station concept are also shown: at the University of Manitoba and at Winnipeg International Airport. More detailed planning studies would be required to identify and rank specific sites and development concepts, to explore potential public/private partnership arrangements, and to develop cost estimates. Six- to 8-bay bus transfer facilities of the type developed at Polo Park and Kildonan Place, where existing shopping centres offer the necessary space, parking and convenience facilities, could be developed for less than $0.5 million. Stations that required land and other amenities would be more costly but could be developed as public/private partnerships.
To further complement the suggested service area improvements within the Inner Ring Route and the development of transfer stations to encourage greater suburban use of transit service, supplementary transit service could be developed in the Downtown (Winnipeg) area. Section 6.5.1 of this report includes recommendations for development of a shuttle service that would facilitate access to the full variety of Downtown services and facilities.
With regard to improvements to the transit system, the Steering Committee recommends that:
5.5.3.1 Transit service improvements be concentrate primarily along existing radial routes within the proposed Inner Ring Route and such improvements be coordinated with ongoing maintenance of the associated network of major radial roadways serving the Downtown area. Such improvements would include:
5.5.3.2 Implementation of dedicated bus-only roadways such as the Southwest Transit Corridor be deferred for consideration beyond the timeframe of TransPlan 2010.
5.5.3.3 Rights-of-way (primarily existing rail lines) be protected for the potential long-term development of a system of Downtown-oriented dedicated busways or rail transit corridors serving southwest, northwest, northeast, east and southeast Winnipeg respectively (see Map 6).
5.5.3.4 Bus service to suburban and ex-urban areas emphasize development of conveniently located and comfortable transfer stations, which would:
5.5.3.5 based on the criterion outlined above, detailed planning and design studies be undertaken to support a program of major transit transfer stations at strategic locations along or immediately accessible to the proposed Inner Ring Route, as conceptually illustrated on Map 6. In determining these locations, consideration should be given to linking with the protected rights-of-way for potential development of downtown-oriented transit corridors. Such strategic locations include:
5.5.3.6 Development of the transfer station concept also extends to an examination of sites on the University of Manitoba campus and at Winnipeg International Airport (Map 6).
The Downtown area of the City of Winnipeg (identified here as "downtown") has been in decline for many years. There are many reasons for this, related to economic and social factors as well as to the pattern of development in the City. This decline is of particular concern to the different levels of government and to the business community located within the area, and there is a series of efforts underway to attempt to revitalize the area, most notably under: CentrePlan; the 3-level government agreement called the Winnipeg Development Agreement; the Downtown and Exchange District BIZ's; and the Portage Avenue Property-Owners Association. The Steering Committee recognizes the efforts of these groups to regain the vitality of the downtown as the commercial, social and symbolic centre of Winnipeg.
The downtown street system often is required to accommodate a significant percentage of suburb-to-suburban automobile trips, because of the discontinuous nature of suburb-to-suburb connections. Construction of an inner ring route system (see Section 5.2.3), which would off-load suburb-to-suburb trips that currently utilize the downtown street system as through routes, particularly Portage Ave. and Main St., would allow for the qualities that many people associate with successful downtowns (e.g. a safe and attractive pedestrian environment, on-street parking).
Portage Ave. and the Portage-and-Main Intersection
Portage Ave. is a major carrier of cars, buses and trucks. The section between Main St. and Memorial Blvd. is also the site of many store closings, a fact that has not only an important commercial effect but also a major psychological effect on Winnipeggers. With its steady decline over the past 15 to 20 years, Portage Ave. has moved from its earlier status as a "grand boulevard" to that of a thoroughfare. For many, istead of a destination, it is an area that must be crossed as quickly as possible on the way to another location. The concrete barriers at Portage and Main ensure that traffic is not impeded by pedestrians, however the Committee acknowledges that the closing was a negotiated term of agreement to develop the Trizec complex. The prohibition of parking on Portage Ave. from Memorial Blvd. to Main St. has certainly improved manoeuvrability for buses but has further reduced the "people presence".
The Steering Committee believes that the downtown area, and especially Portage Ave., must become a destination again, and that it requires more pedestrian traffic. This could be accomplished through physical changes such as selected sidewalk widenings and reinstatement of on-street parking. As well, one or more of the following could result in increased pedestrian activity: encouraging government to locate offices downtown; encouraging the establishment of new businesses; and instituting zoning changes that would create new residential areas from renovated old commercial dwellings. These proposals would be facilitated by the implementation of the Ring and Loop Route improvements and the downtown street system improvements (Ellice Ave. and York/St. Mary extension) described in Section 5.2. In the short term, until those improvements are completed, a higher level of traffic congestion and slower traffic movement may result.
Travel within DowntownThe Steering Committee also believes that more environmentally appropriate means of travel (i.e., other than the private automobile) for trips made within the downtown could be facilitated.
The current 99 Downtown Flyer, operated by Winnipeg Transit, provides service within downtown but with limited operating hours. A distinctive, more extensive, more frequent and longer operating (e.g., from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) service could cater specifically to intra-downtown travellers. Downtown employees, shoppers, visitors and residents, whether bus riders or automobile users, would be able to travel conveniently between office, shopping, dining, hotel, cultural and entertainment facilities. Both transit and automobile users, once in the downtown, would be encouraged to use a wider-variety of facilities and services. Automobile users would be able to leave their cars parked throughout the day. Bus users would not be limited by infrequent off-peak bus service or by the partial downtown coverage provided by present bus routes.
As illustrated in Figure 6.1, the shuttle concept could comprise a number of relatively short one-way loop routes with the following characteristics:
Service could be provided daily between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Subject to possible sponsorship arrangements, service on select routes could be extended to cater to seasonal demand (e.g., tourism), special events (e.g., festivals), or late-night shopping. The extended hours of operation would contribute significantly to Downtown safety and security; drivers would be able to communicate directly with emergency service providers.
Other features of such a service could include:
The additional cost of providing the downtown shuttle service could be offset by a combination of: fares, subsidy by Downtown business or promotional interests; replacing the Downtown Flyer service; and, possible related opportunities for simplification of existing conventional bus service.
Regarding Downtown Winnipeg, the Steering Committee recommends that:
6.5.1.1 The sidewalks on Portage Ave., from Main St. to Spence St. (University of Winnipeg) be widened at selected locations (especially at intersections) to enhance pedestrian activity and allow for more "passenger friendly" transit stops.
6.5.1.2 As part of the Portage Avenue sidewalk widening project, metered parking be permitted in the curb lane on Portage Ave. from Memorial Blvd. to Main St.
6.5.1.4 A shuttle-bus service be established, utilizing smaller buses and operating throughout the day, which could provide frequent service to all areas of Downtown Winnipeg and centre-ville de St. Boniface. (see Figure 6.1).
Centre-ville de Saint-Boniface (identified in this section as "centre-ville"), because of its proximity to downtown Winnipeg, is immediately affected by decisions involving traffic movement in that area. Blvd Provencher, the street that links centre-ville to downtown via the Provencher Bridge, is important to the commercial health of St. Boniface. There is great concern that the revitalization of centre-ville, which began several years ago, will be for naught if a new Provencher Bridge results in increased levels of traffic travelling through St. Boniface. There is related concern that existing commercial establishments on Boul. Provencher will re-locate, and new establishments will choose not to locate there. Furthermore, there is also concern that existing heavy-truck traffic is affecting the ability of commerce to develop and that a new bridge and access roadway system will result in even more such traffic.
For many years, opponents of the construction of a new bridge have stated that, rather than building a new bridge, the existing bridge should be maintained. The flood of 1997 and the resultant need to close the Provencher Bridge for repairs illustrated the importance of this crossing for centre-ville businesses, particularly those situated on or near blvd Provencher. It also further reinforced the decision by Winnipeg City Council to commence the initial steps of replacing the present bridge by including funds for a community-consultation process in the 1997 capital budget and in the 1998-99 component of the 1998 to 2002 Five-Year Capital Forecast.
The Steering Committee acknowledges the valid basis for concerns related to a new Provencher Bridge. However, if the Marion/Goulet-Dugald Connection is implemented (see Section 5.2.3), much of the traffic from east-central Winnipeg destined for downtown, including trucks, will utilize this route and its direct connections to the new Main St./Norwood Bridge, which would result in less through traffic of all types and enable prohibition of heavy trucks on blvd Provencher. This new route would also allow for the replacement of the Provencher Bridge with a new structure and recommended connection to downtown via York–St. Mary that is more compatible with the revitalization of centre-ville de Saint-Boniface.
The following excerpt is the full text of the portion of Chapter 5C in Plan Winnipeg...Toward 2010 that refers to transportation.
C. Regional Services and FacilitiesCertain regional services and facilities are essential to the quality of urban life and must be maintained at an appropriate level. Either lack of maintenance or increased demand may cause deficiencies. Steps must be taken to address both of these issues.
Our regional services and facilities represent a major investment of public funds. It is important that this investment be protected. The overall cost of orderly maintenance and reconstruction programs is less than deferral which eventually requires expensive catch-up work. Yet it is important also to address the need for increased demand. In order to reduce costs, the City should counter increased capacity needs through strategies that reduce demand.
TransportationAn efficient regional transportation system is vital to the continued well-being of the City. Winnipeg currently has an extensive system of regional streets, bridges and transit routes that serve its citizens. It is essential that the City continue its commitment, through comprehensive transportation planning, to providing cost-effective and efficient mobility for people and goods in an environmentally-responsible manner. The approach must integrate the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars, transit vehicles, and trucks.
To achieve this objective, it is necessary to protect our investment in the existing infrastructure through effective maintenance practices and to implement improvements which are cost-effective.
5C-01 Maintain Existing InfrastructureThe City shall maintain the existing capacity of regional street, bridge and public transit systems as its highest priority item for expenditure of funds when developing the yearly and five-year transportation capital programs.
5C-02 Commit to Transit System ImprovementsThe City shall commit to transit system improvements as a second priority in those areas where transit is considered to have a potential advantage over the private automobile, namely, within the Downtown, along the major radial regional street system, and in areas of concentrated employment, by:
The City shall commit to regional street system improvments, as a third priority, in those areas of Winnipeg where the private automobile is deemed to be the most effective mode of travel, namely, along the major crosstown and circumferential regional street system, by:
The City shall integrate land use, urban design, and transportation planning by:
Members of the TransPlan
2010 Advisory Committee (1995-96)
|
Bill Shead |
Chief Executive Officer |
Aboriginal Centre of Wininpeg |
|
Howard Skrypnyk |
Co-Chair |
Ad Hoc Committee on Bicycle
Facilities |
|
Hilda Hildabrand |
Chief Executive Officer |
Age & Opportunity Centre |
|
Dave Leitold |
General Manager, Passenger Sales |
Air Canada |
|
George Fraser |
Chair, Steering Committee |
Airport Vicinity
Development Plan |
|
Max Melnyk |
Citizen Representative |
Assiniboia Community
Committee |
|
Elaine Madison |
Executive Director |
Association of Consulting
Engineers of MB Inc. |
|
Jerry Hawryluk |
President |
Association of Manitoba
Land Surveyors |
|
Carol Stewart |
President |
Association of Professional
Engineers of MB |
|
Marion Hodgins |
President |
Building Owners and Managers
Association |
|
Jerry Kruk |
Presdient |
CAA Manitoba |
|
Paul Barfood |
Manager |
Canadian Airlines International |
|
Dan Kelly |
Associate Director Provincial
Affairs |
Canadian Federation of
Independent Business |
|
Bob Decicco |
Division Manager |
Canadian Pacific Ltd. |
|
Dave MacIntryre |
Manager Public Affairs |
Canadian National Railway |
|
Jonas Samons |
Vice President |
Canadian Manufacturers
Association |
|
Steve Childerhouse |
Chairman |
CAPIT |
|
Janice Penner |
Chair |
CentrePlan Steering Committee |
|
A. L. Smith |
Wing Logistics Officer |
CFB Winnipeg |
|
Lance Norman |
Citizen Representative President |
City Centre Committee and Manitoba Chamber of Commerce |
|
Jeff Lowe |
Citizen Representative |
City Centre Community Committee |
|
Bill Carrol |
Commissioner of Works &
Operations |
City of Winnipeg |
|
Tom Yauk |
Commissioner of Planning &
Community Services |
City of Winnipeg |
|
Michael Deegan |
Manager Business Projects |
Canadian National North America |
|
Dean Cousins |
Executive Director |
Canadian National
Institute for the Blind |
|
Jacqueline Wasney |
President |
Consumers Association |
|
Elizabeth Fleming |
Chair, Urban and Regional Issues |
Council of Women of Winnipeg |
|
Harry Finnigan |
Executive Director |
Downtown Winnipeg BIZ |
|
Cam Neirinck |
Citizen Representative |
Elmwood/Kildonan Transcona
Community Committee |
|
Andre Dimitrigeic |
Co-ordinator |
Emergency Measures Organization |
|
Ron Hambley |
Executive Director |
Exchange District BIZ |
|
Hubert Mesmen |
Managing Partner |
Industry Trade & Tourism |
|
Bernard Foth |
Tourism Development Consultant |
Industry Trade & Tourism |
|
Dennis Cleve |
Managing Partner |
Industry Trade & Tourism |
|
Chris Lorenc |
President |
Infrastructure Council of
Manitoba (ICM) |
|
Roy Hartmann |
President |
Institute of Transportation
Engineers MB Section |
|
Tom Carter |
Director |
Institute of Urban Studies |
|
Terry Smythe |
Executive Director |
International Association of
Transport Regulators |
|
Arthur Hanson |
President and CEO |
International Institute for
Sustainable Development |
|
Leslie Jacobson |
President |
Keystone Agricultural Producers |
|
Bernice Marmel |
Citizen Representative |
Lord Selkirk - West Kildonan |
|
David Palubeskie |
|
Manitoba Association of
Canadian Institute of Planners |
|
Al Harris |
General Manager |
Manitoba Trucking Association |
|
Don Hester |
President |
Manitoba Association of
Landscape Architects |
|
David Simpson |
President |
Manitoba Association of
Architects |
|
Vivian Schultz |
VP of Recreation &
Transportation |
Manitoba Cycling Association |
|
Nick Carter |
Chairman |
Manitoba Eco-Network |
|
Rob Hilliard |
President |
Manitoba Federation of Labour |
|
Colleeen Munro |
President |
Manitoba Heavy Construction
Association |
|
Mike Basford |
Policy Consultant |
Manitoba Highways &
Transportation |
|
Andrew Horosko |
Deputy Minister |
Manitoba Highways &
Transportation |
|
Don Norquay |
Assistant Deputy Minister |
Manitoba Highways &
Transportation |
|
Leonard Sobie |
President |
Manitoba Home Builders
Association |
|
Les Parry |
Director of Marketing |
Manitoba Lotteries |
|
Jack Zacharias |
President |
Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation |
|
Ed Sawatzky |
Planning Coordinator |
Manitoba Rural Development |
|
Kathleen Henderson |
President |
Manitoba Safety Council |
|
Gordon Warren |
Board of Directors |
Manitoba Society of Seniors |
|
Peter Holle |
Provincial Director |
Manitoba Taxpayers Association |
|
S. Marcinyck |
General Manager -- Operations |
Manitoba Telephone System |
|
W. J. (Bill) Kinnear |
Deputy Minister |
Manitoba Urban Affairs |
|
David Borger |
President |
Manitoba Urban Development
Institute |
|
Arthur Dyck |
President |
MB Association of Urban
Municipalities |
|
Lloyd Terry |
Provincial Co-ordinator |
MB League of Persons with
Disabilities |
|
Theresa Ducharme |
President |
People in Equal Participation
Inc. |
|
Robert Kirkland |
Citizen Representative |
Riel Community Committee |
|
Glen Hewitt |
Citizen Representative |
Riel Community Committee |
|
David Dandeneau |
Citizen Representative |
Riel Community Committee |
|
Darren Lezubski |
Researcher/Planner |
Social Planning Council of
Winnipeg |
|
David Steen |
Executive Director |
Society for Manitobans with
Disabilities |
|
Toby Chase |
Manager of Planning |
The Forks North Portage
Partnership |
|
Penny McMillan |
Executive Director |
Tourism Winnipeg |
|
Gail Zahradnitzky |
Regional Director of Policy
& Coordination |
Transport Canada |
|
Andy Burgess |
President |
United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg |
|
Steve Coppinger |
Associate Vice President |
University of Winnipeg |
|
Ian Wight |
Professor |
Department of City Planning,
University of Manitoba |
|
John Callaghan |
Director Western Services |
Via Rail Canada Ltd. |
|
Fred Fulcher |
Executive Director |
Winnipeg Airport Authority Inc. |
|
Klaus Thiessen |
President & CEO |
Winnipeg 2000 |
|
Jake Enns |
Director |
Winnipeg Ambulance Service |
|
Shelly Morris |
President |
Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce |
|
Gervin Greasley |
President |
Winnipeg Construction
Association |
|
Barry Lough |
Chief |
Winnipeg Fire Department |
|
Warren Thompson |
Manager, Business Development |
Winnipeg International Airport |
|
Heather Grant |
President |
Winnipeg Labour Council |
|
David Cassels |
Chief of Police |
Winnipeg Police Service |
|
Peter Squire |
Director |
Winnipeg Real Estate Board |
|
Rick Borland |
Director |
Winnipeg Transit |
|
Gordon Johnstone |
General Manager |
Winnport Logistics Inc. |
All of the above are available through:
TransPlan 2010City of Winnipeg Documents
Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Documents
Province of Manitoba Documents
Other References
The City of Winnipeg has developed a computerized system of forecasting future traffic on the major street system, the Perimeter Highway and major highways leading into and out of the City. This modelling system (known as EMME) allows the City to look at various levels of development in terms of population and employment locations and densities; various transportation options, such as new roads and widened roads; and various travel behaviour scenarios, such as transit versus private auto use. The mode will predict future traffic on the road network given these future conditions. The model is calibrated for the 1996 a.m. peak hour road network and travel demand is based on the 1992 origin/destination survey. A similar model does not exist for the Region outside of Winnipeg.
Simulation ResultsA series of model runs were undertaken by the City of Winnipeg, Streets & Transportation Department for DS-Lea and TransPlan 2010. The following are the variables which were tried in the model.
1. Land Use
There were four different scenarios developed:
2. Transit Mode Share
As discussed in Section 3.5, one of the greatest uncertainties in predicting future travel is the future level of transit ridership. Rather than try to model transit ridership with mathematical formulae with limited variables and data, it was decided to assume different transit mode share levels. Three different transit mode splits were simulated:
These are hypothetical transit mode share projections to give an indication of how transit usage can affect congestion levels. The transit improvements mentioied are examples of how the increase in mode share might be achieved.
3. Road Networks
Two alternative road networks were compared:
To present the model output, maps have been designed which illustrate the levels of congestion in different colours. These maps are intended to give an indication of system-wide performance. Individual links are subject to a more detailed analysis. Three of these maps (Figures F.1 to F.3) are included in this Appendix.
Observations from the analysis include:
The table on the following page is taken from A Route to Our Future, Winnipeg Transit Strategic Plan, 1996, the strategic planning document prepared by Winnipeg Transit in 1996, and summarizes the specific future initiatives that they identified to "improve quality customer service".