Campaign promises for quick, on-budget transit fix are misleading

Tom Brodbeck

WINNIPEG'S transit system needs fixing. But voters should be skeptical of municipal election candidates who promise to restore old routes, put hundreds of bus stops back where they used to be and somehow make everything better without spending substantially more money.

That's not a transit plan. It's wishful thinking.

Winnipeg's transit network underwent a massive overhaul last year, fundamentally changing how people get around the city.

The new system has some real advantages, depending on where you live and where you need to go. It also has some serious shortcomings, including reduced service and less convenient connections for many riders.

Transit has made some adjustments in response to public feedback, but there's still plenty of room for improvement. For many Winnipeggers, getting to work, school or an appointment has become more difficult than it used to be.

Those frustrations are legitimate. But the solution isn't necessarily to turn back the clock.

The new system was designed around a spine-and-feeder model. Instead of trying to provide a direct bus route from every neighbourhood to every destination, it uses primary routes to move large numbers of passengers along major corridors, with feeder routes connecting neighbourhoods to that network.

The primary routes include rapid transit lines, frequent express lines, frequent lines and direct lines. They're designed to run along relatively straight corridors, with fewer stops and more frequent service. The idea is straightforward: fewer stops and less circuitous routes allow buses to move faster, improve reliability and reduce waiting times.

Feeder routes, meanwhile, include community and connector buses, as well as on-request service. They bring passengers to the primary network, ideally without getting bogged down in congested areas that can make buses late.

There's a reasonable logic to this approach. A transit system that spends less time meandering through neighbourhoods and stopping every few blocks can move more people more efficiently. And frequent service on major corridors can make transit more useful for passengers who need to travel longer distances.

But that doesn't mean the system is working well for everyone.

Some passengers have lost convenient one-seat rides. Others face longer walks to bus stops, additional transfers or less frequent service in their neighbourhoods. A system can look more efficient on a map while becoming less convenient for the people who depend on it.

Those are real problems that need to be addressed. Transit planners should be listening to riders and making sensible changes where the network isn't meeting their needs.

But candidates promising to restore the old system need to explain what that would actually mean.

Reintroducing hundreds of former stops and routes wouldn't simply involve putting a few lines back on a map. It would require buses, drivers, operating money and a plan for how those routes would fit into the existing network.

Recreating the old system could also undermine some of the benefits the new one was designed to deliver, including faster travel times and more frequent service on primary corridors.

In other words, restoring the old network wholesale could leave the city paying for two competing approaches to transit while sacrificing some of the advantages of both.