There hasn't been any new thread's lately so I thought I might as well start one, post your Urban Issues/Planning/Development related Papers or rants.

Here is my critique on Transplan 2010, Winnipeg's comprehensive transportation plan made by the Steering Committee.

TransPlan 2010: Planning for A Better Future?

Introduction
In the mid-nineties City of Winnipeg officials realized that their last comprehensive transportation plan was nearly 20 years old and no longer could adequately serve the city’s needs. It was decided by both city officials and the provincial government that a new transportation plan called TransPlan 2010 was to be initiated and conducted by what is now known as the Steering Committee, a group of professionals and businessmen who were all long time residents of the city.
The contents of TransPlan 2010 are composed mainly of recommendations on such major transportation issues as roadways, transit, cycling, Transportation Demand Management, downtown revitalization and land use based on trends in transportation and population, public hearings and the expertise of those on the Steering Committee. It was expected that the City follow these recommendations as they provided the best possible solution for Winnipeg and if they were not implemented the city would suffer even more than it is now. But are these recommendations really positive for Winnipeg, do they really bring the best transportation and land use solutions to the table or are they just continuing the cycle of decline that Winnipeg seems to be stuck in. Due to space constraints, this paper will deal only with the four major aspects of TransPlan 2010, roadways, transit, downtown revitalization and land use.
Roadways
Winnipeg is a city that is deeply entrenched in using the automobile as the primary transportation factor and therefore, the most important aspect of TransPlan 2010 are the recommendations regarding roadway infrastructure. Due to this fact, the importance of roadway construction and infrastructure on the future development of the city cannot be downplayed and a certain amount of caution must be employed to avoid causing a situation in the long run that will cause the city more harm than good.
The Steering Committee in TransPlan 2010 concluded after its studies and public hearings it made three major recommendations that the City of Winnipeg must follow in order to prevent future congestion. The first and most important recommendation is the “rehabilitation and preventive maintenance of the existing major transportation infrastructure should receive.”1 There is an ongoing problem that Winnipeg is facing concerning the maintenance, or lack thereof of existing infrastructure and the ever increasing infrastructure deficit which in 1998 stood at $63 million. To ensure that maintenance is not differed by the City, a reliable source of funding is required that is also greater than its current level. The Steering Committee recommends that an annual budget for maintenance be maintained despite budgetary shortcomings, user fees and re-allocated existing fuel tax revenue instead of increased property taxes is the primary source for increased income for major streets and highways and regardless of the decision making process chose, new methods to fund regional projects be examined and considered.
The second recommendation to be met according to the Steering Committee is the construction of the “Inner Ring Route” which would act as a circumferential route much like the existing Perimeter Highway but inside of Winnipeg city limits. The reasons put forth for the construction are primarily that the despite the “increased in suburb to suburb travel demand deriving from continued peripheral residential growth and decentralization of employment, the development routes connecting these area’s has been relatively

1. Steering Committee, TransPlan 2010, (Winnipeg, TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, 1998), p.72

limited.2 In addition they also stated that “due to the discontinuous suburb-to-suburb connections, drivers are choosing to pass through the downtown area on the radial system.”3 To relieve downtown congestion severe land use conflicts would incur due to the relatively high densities present in the area and without any action, congestion would continue to grow to intolerable levels. The construction of the Inner Ring Route would “directly benefit the suburb-to-suburb traffic, and the resulting off-loading of this traffic would indirectly benefit downtown Winnipeg.”4
TransPlan 2010’s third recommendation concerns the major radial routes in the city and highways leading from surrounding municipalities to facilitate easier and faster access to the downtown area and help the revitalization process. Inside the city limits, TransPlan calls for the extension of radials to provide a connection with the Inner Ring Route, major intersection improvements and additional extensions to meet with new “travel demand associated with specific new residential and employment areas.”5
One of the areas that TransPlan 2010 correctly identifies needs immediate attention is the inadequate infrastructure that plagues the city’s roads and bridges. As stated earlier, the estimated maintenance deficit in 1998 alone for the City of Winnipeg was a whopping $63 million. What this number essentially means that $63 million dollars worth of repair are being deferred simply because there is no money. This deference of maintenance has severe financial implications as “deterioration will reach a point where
streets can no longer be repaired or rehabilitated but will require a much more costly total

2. Steering Committee, TransPlan 2010, (Winnipeg, TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, 1998), p.74
3. Committee, p.75
4. Committee, p.75
5. Committee, p.82

resurface it to extend its life)”6 With more money available from different sources, the city would have more financial resources available to close this infrastructure deficit and in the long run not only improve the general condition of the streets but also save money on maintenance.
All these recommended goals however have a fundamental flaw that in the long-term nullifies and undermines their effect on the Winnipeg Region’s transportation improvements and land use. This flaw is that these recommendations are based on “projected rates of growth and development….the great majority of home/work travel will continue to involve existing low-density development areas.” 7 There are negative implications when roadways are planned and constructed based on current low-density developments, the first being improvements in roadway capacity bring congestion levels down for only a short time and not in the long term. This occurs because people from different other areas of the city are choosing to commute on the improved route due to its decreased travel times. As more and more people continue to flock to the route, traffic levels rise more dramatically than anticipated and the improved portion or the approaches to this roadway become clogged. Winnipeg has a prime example of this, the Norwood Bridge and its approaches. After improving the capacity of the Norwood Bridge traffic over the bridge flowed quite quickly and as a result more people who would have taken different routes into the downtown. The end result was that although traffic moves smoothly over the bridge, the unimproved approaches to the bridge have become clogged and the shorter travel time that was planned by the bridge improvement has been eliminated.

6. Steering Committee, TransPlan 2010, (Winnipeg, TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, 1998), p.39
7. Committee, p.88

These improvements in turn have an effect on transit ridership and the actual amount of travel time. Due to the fact that “those who have the choice, such factors such as cost, convenience and travel time influence their selection of travel modes,”8 so it is a no-brainer that the car will be chosen over mass transit if congestion and travel times along with their frustrations are reduced.
The second negative implication that planning roadways based on present low density development patterns is that these roads promote more low-density developments. Such extensions from already existing radials further towards the Perimeter Highway reduce travel time to the fringe. This leads in-turn “to an increase in the economic viability of sprawl and leap frog development”9 and makes it easier for developers to pass by in-fill developments. These low density developments are costly ventures for the city in the long run in a number of way. Firstly, the cost for basic services such as library, recreation and trash collection cost more due to longer travel times over a larger area to serve the same population in a higher density development.
Thirdly, rapid low-density development tends to draw the middle class and their jobs out of the inner city creating an area dominant by only low-income classes. This then leads to a general decline of the area where businesses and even more residents flee leaving only the poorest of the poor left and the only ones with jobs are those who are in crime. The best North American example occurred in the South Bronx when it “...turned first into a jungle and then into resembling a post-war saturation bombing victim, as
Queens and Long Island expanded.”10

8. Automobile Manufactures Association, Future Highways and Urban Growth, (New Haven, Wilbur Smith and Associates, 1961), p. 129.
9. Christopher, Leo, Bridge Madness, (Winnipeg: Winnipeg Real Estate News, 1998), p.2
10. Christopher, Leo, The North American Growth Fixation and the Inner City: Roads of Excess, (World Transport Policy and Practice, 1998) p.25

The final consequence of low-density development is that “the automobile has become inextricably interwoven into the suburban pattern of growth as patrons and employees of outlying industrial plants and shopping centre’s become almost entirely dependant on private automobile transportation.” 11 What this means is that the city requires more even more new roadway’s to satisfy increasing auto demand because land use patterns dictate it necessary. These new roads in turn create more incentive for people to move out to new low-density developments and the cycle of increasingly lower densities being built further and further away from the downtown and their associated problems continue.
In a slow growth city such as Winnipeg this becomes quite a problem, especially when there is large growth in the city’s infrastructure while its population remains steady. For example, in 1980 there were 2,058 land kilometers of residential streets. In 1988, there were almost 4,600 land kilometers of residential streets. Today the number stands at just over 5,000.12 An even more alarming statistic is “The volume of streets in Winnipeg has grown by 145% in 22 years. Yet the population, according to Statistics Canada, in the same time has grown just under 10%.13 Essentially, this means that the city’s tax base has remained relatively stable while the road maintenance budget has skyrocketed. The result is what Winnipeg experiencing, a severe infrastructure deficit with only the most distressed streets being repaired.
In addition, these developments affect transit as “level of transit service is closely

11. Automobile Manufactures Association, Future Highways and Urban Growth, (New Haven, Wilbur Smith and Associates), p. 119.
12. Meaghan Ketcheson, The State We’re In, CBC Manitoba, October 11, 2002
(http://winnipeg.cb...1016portmain.html#)
13. Ketcheson , (http://winnipeg.cb...1016portmain.html#)

related to residential density”14 as “higher residential and employment densities make it feasible to operate frequent transit service through the day.”15 Since suburbs are low-density and built mainly for the automobile, transit use is severely low and as a result requires heavy subsidization through non-fare-box resources. As more lines are put in service through these developments, more and more subsidization is required to upkeep these lines and as a result it becomes harder for transit to maintain the current level of service on its existing budget. Eventually transit will have to raise its fares to cover increased operating costs that in-turn causes people who have an alternative mode of transport to change from transit to other modes. With a decrease in ridership come a decrease in fare-box recovery and the need for more money to further upkeep service levels thus beginning a cycle of decline in transit service.
These recommendations essentially reinforce what is Winnipeg is currently experiencing, the rapid expansion of development on the fringes. For the reasons mentioned above, it is viewed that these roadway recommendations are in fact negative for the City of Winnipeg.
Transit
Recent studies have indicated that “travel demand in the Region will continue to increase”16 and that transit ridership’s decline will continue. The Steering Committee recognized the transit service in Winnipeg had one major purpose, to provide transportation to those who have no other alternative transportation. It considered transit’s function as a way to “reduce dependence on the private automobile to be

14. Winnipeg Transit, Planning and Building Transit-Friendly Residential Subdivision, (Winnipeg Transit, 1990), p.6
15. Transit, p.6
16. Steering Committee, TransPlan 2010, (Winnipeg, TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, 1998), p.89

desirable in theory.”17 This second conclusion was based on the fact that even in high-growth areas (such as Calgary and Vancouver) automobiles were preferred over rapid transit and “estimated levels of traffic congestion are expected to be manageable through strategic improvements to the conventional network of major streets and highways.”18
With these functions in mind, the Steering Committee recommended that improvements to transit service be concentrated primarily along existing radial routes within the proposed Inner Ring Route. It also called for improvements in the riding experience including real time bus arrival times at bus stops and better passenger waiting and traveling comfort. Its second recommendation was to make bus service to suburban and ex-urban areas easier to use with conveniently located transfer stations at places such as malls, emphasize high-quality transit downtown service through such means as HOV lanes and to capture off-peak travel to retail and service commercial destinations.
Its last major recommendation was to defer the implementation of dedicated bus-only roadways such as the Southwest Transit Corridor for consideration beyond the timeframe of TransPlan 2010. However, it also stated that the rights-of-way for these bus-only roadways be protected for the eventual construction of a downtown-orientated bus rapid transit service.
On a minor note, the Steering Committee also states that Transportation Demand Management measures such as shuttle-to-transit service and downtown parking management can help to increase transit ridership but only on a small scale.

17. Steering Committee, TransPlan 2010, (Winnipeg, TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, 1998), p.88
18. Committee, p. 88

Of the recommendations made to the city there are a few benefits to the city’s transit service and those who currently use it. One of the major positives in these recommendations is the continued commitment to provide transit for those who have no other alternative for transportation than transit. The question of how to maintain and increase service to benefit those who do not have alternate transportation is not answered in TransPlan 2010 but the fact that the need for transit is required shows why transit service must be improved or at the very least, kept at its present service level.
Another positive about TransPlan 2010 transit recommendations are the general improvements to comfort level for transit riders which in the long run may make transit a more attractive mode of transportation to those who have no preference between cars and transit.
The recommended transit improvements proposed are unfortunately simply band-aid solutions for a cut that requires stitching. Today’s transit woes are the result of the flourishing car-orientated low-density developments that are neither physically designed for transit nor dense enough to support transit in an economically efficient manner. As stated earlier, this requires more non-fare-box funding and further tightens the transit budget for the whole city causing a cycle of decline in transit service and ridership. This in turn causes people with alternative transportation, to turn away from transit and more likely than not turn to the automobile for their transportation needs. As a result, the only people left riding the bus are those who are of a low-income class who have no other transportation alternative. There is an emerging perception that buses are “a means of travel for those who have no other choice….and you will take it [the bus] if you absolutely have to, but you would rather not since it reflects on your social standing.”19

19.Sigurd Grava, Urban Transportation Systems: Choices for Communities, (Toronto, Mc-Graw-Hill, 2003), p.349

The recommended improvements do nothing to stop or even slow down this cycle and in fact continue to support this trend on numerous levels. The negative perception of transit can begin to be reversed with the implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit as the middle class will see it as a quicker and easier way to get to the downtown area. A bus-only corridor also promotes mixed-use higher density developments along the line that would further lead to an increase in ridership. However The Steering Committee as stated earlier made the recommendation to postpone the Southwest Transit Corridor (the first phase of the project) to beyond the 2010 timeline allowing the negative perceptions to continue and hinder transit ridership growth.
One of the most shocking was the fact that as stated earlier was the Committee’s lack of support for transit being a viable alternative to reduce use of the automobile. By ignoring transit as an alternative, all of the focus is centered into costly road improvements that inevitably lead to only higher congestion and maintenance levels as well as the growth of the infrastructure deficit in the long run. Transit however, has proven to require much less land than automobiles carrying the same amount of people.
“Average auto occupancy levels in Winnipeg mean that 100 cars and 550 meters of traffic lane are needed to accommodate 120 people. Only 2 buses and 25 meters of land can do the same job.”20
According to Sigurd Grava there are two basic approaches to transit systems, “
The first is to accept the currently prevailing role of bus service as a secondary service that has to be kept going at a base level so that an elementary level of mobility is available to all residents. The second approach would be bolder,


20. Winnipeg Transit, Planning and Building Transit-Friendly Residential Subdivision, (Winnipeg Transit, 1990), p.3

involving constructive steps to bring bus service to a higher level of responsiveness and convenience. 21

It would appear then that the Steering Committee is choosing to continue the first option while ignoring the savings in land and road maintenance along with the reduction in environmental pollution. This solution also further dampens encouragement for in-fill developments and or higher mixed use developments allowing low density developments to flourish. This in turn kills transit as the suburbs continue to drain the resources and riders from existing transit service.
Downtown Revitalization
The downtown area of Winnipeg has experienced a decline similar to many North American cities where large fringe developments took enterprises from the downtown and slow growth rates ensured that these vacancies were never filled. This in turn attracted the many social problems associated with low-income areas and businesses were forced to flee the downtown area due to declining patronage or face dismal business prospects in the downtown. What was once an area filled with pedestrians has become a vast ocean of relatively empty sidewalks and auto-dominated transportation systems. Portage Avenue (from Main Street to Memorial Ave.) was considered only 15 to 20 years ago to be a “grand boulevard” but through the downtown’s steady decline it has come to be seen as a thoroughfare that must be traveled as quickly as possible.
The main culprit in the decay of commercial businesses in the downtown area and particularly Portage Avenue was pedestrians, or the lack thereof. The many street front businesses that once occupied Portage Avenue went out of business or were moved inside Portage Place away from the ever increasing decay. This however only exacerbated the

21.Sigurd Grava, Urban Transportation Systems: Choices for Communities, (Toronto, Mc-Graw-Hill, 2003), p.352

problem as there were hardly any attractions to keep people on the street and support existing businesses. The Steering Committee saw that the “street scene” on Portage Avenue and the downtown was dead and believed “that the downtown area, and especially Portage Ave., must become a destination again, and that it requires more pedestrian traffic.”22 The Commission proceeded to make a series of recommendations, particularly the improvement of pedestrian facilities.
The first recommendation is to widen the sidewalks on Portage Avenue from Main St. to Spence St. at selected locations to “enhance pedestrian activity and allow for more “passenger-friendly” transit stops”23 and to allow metered parking along Portage Ave. to give pedestrians a feeling of protection. The Steering Committee also recommended that the concrete barriers at Main and Portage Ave. East be taken down and the three remaining barriers removed when existing contracts expire. Further recommendations include the completion of the protected walkway system to encourage more pedestrian activity during adverse weather and the business day and a shuttle bus service operating throughout the day providing frequent service to all areas of the downtown and centre-ville de Saint Boniface. The Steering Committee also states that increased pedestrian activity can be encouraged by locating government offices downtown, encouraging the establishment of new businesses and creating residential areas from renovated commercial dwellings or new developments.
While these recommendations address the problem head on and are generally positive they must be taken with a grain of salt as pedestrians will not solve the problem alone though they are a significant factor. For these recommendations to be successful

22. Steering Committee, TransPlan 2010, (Winnipeg, TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, 1998), p.115
23. Committee p. 118

there must be a large proportion of stores on the street rather than clumped together in a mall off the street. Downtown malls, such as City Place and Winnipeg Square siphon people off the street and concentrate their activities to one area thereby minimizing the effects of pedestrians. Currently, Portage Place is one of these culprits though it doesn’t need to be as it was designed with store fronts facing Portage Ave. If these store fronts were opened up the street would liven up considerably as no longer would people be forced to go inside the mall to access store fronts. People are now free to walk on the streets and enter whatever store and this increased pedestrian traffic would lead to sidewalk vendors creating a vibrant street scene. Also, these pedestrians, no longer constrained are free to roam around and the chance of other store front businesses receiving the pedestrians business also improve. The important focus of this is to make the street an attraction and make it interesting so that people will want to go to it rather than simply by-pass it. Similarly, there must be zoning changes particularly high rises to include commercial enterprises on the street level and create diversity in the area. This can certainly be applied to Portage and Main, even if the barriers were removed would people be inclined to go to the intersection just for the sake of it. The answer in most cases is no as there are no attractions or reason to go to the intersection other than one’s workplace is located nearby or in one of the towers.
The Steering Committee leaves an important element out of the loop, that being the effect of the city wide transit and how it interacts with the downtown and its revitalization process. According to Winnipeg Transit,
Improved public transit is essential for the economic development and revitalization of downtown. Better transit expands the market for downtown businesses and expands access to labour for downtown employers. Transit infrastructure requires less space and is less intrusive than automobile infrastructure. Streets can be made more pedestrian friendly. The need for monthly parking can be reduced. Surface parking can be freed up for more valuable uses. High transit use increases the level of pedestrian activity which, in turn, makes streets safer and makes street level businesses more viable. 24

It is clear then how that improved public transit helps bring more pedestrians onto the street and produces many other beneficial effects to the downtown. Once again, land use continues to be the stranglehold particularly on the transit issue and development in the downtown. As discussed before, transit does not fare well with low-density and the continued growth continues to take away potential development from the downtown. In order to help revitalize downtown, the issue of getting pedestrians back on the street must coincide with land use changes that help support the downtown rather than make it compete for business.
Land Use
In transportation planning perhaps there is no closer relationship than land use and transportation as the type of land use pattern affect what type of transportation is built and the type of transportation often dictates land use patterns. This is due to the fact that

“land use patterns determine the density of the city in general and the proximity of residents to employment and major activity centres. These, in turn, affect the amount of travel and average trip lengths. The city’s decision about the nature and mix of transportation infrastructure and services supplied directly affect the transportation mode made by residents…” 25

and by what type of development can be made.

24. Winnipeg Transit, Direction to the Future: The Guide to a Better Transit for Winnipeg, (Winnipeg, Winnipeg Transit, 2000) p.26
25. Winnipeg Transit, Direction to the Future: The Guide to a Better Transit for Winnipeg, (Winnipeg, Winnipeg Transit, 2000) p.24
The Steering Committee recommended that land use policy and controls be adjusted to encourage more compact urban form, higher density residential development and mixed use residential and employment areas in part by discouraging further decentralization of employment from the downtown. It also stated that municipal policy and programs within the developed area of Winnipeg create further initiatives that promote “downtown revitalization, inner city renewal, and infill development of vacant and under-utilized lands by using wherever feasible.”26 In addition, the Committee recommends that public-sector office space and related institutional facilities be moved downtown if feasible and limiting public-sector financial support or other concessions to projects that are not designed to minimize dependence on the automobile and is built within the developed area of the city. These recommendations are quite beneficial to the city as they are designed to slow down the growth of low-density developments at the fringe and concentrate all construction within the built up portion of the city. However, it does not completely ban low-density developments but merely limits them allowing those who want to live in the suburbs and who can afford to do so making it a “best of both worlds” type of scenario.
However, these recommendations put forth on land use to limit outward growth are severely undermined by the very recommendations on roadways and transit that the Steering Committee put out this very same publication. The policy of creating an Inner Ring Route, extending radials into area’s that are not built up and not creating a BRT only encourages the segregated, auto dependent, low-density developments that they seek to limit with various policy controls. If these land use recommendations are to be of any

26. Steering Committee, TransPlan 2010, (Winnipeg, TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, 1998), p.89

use, transportation policies must reflect the change in development and focus on alternatives to the car such as bicycling, walking and vast improvements to the transit service to create a sustainable and pleasant urban environment.
Conclusion
The Steering Committee stated that TransPlan 2010 would be the guide to creating a better transportation guideline that would ultimately lead to a stronger Winnipeg. But do the recommendations put forth in TransPlan 2010 really make Winnipeg stronger, or does their plan just continue the cycle of decline the city is experiencing.
It was found that Land Use recommendations supported the encouragement of in-fill development and general development within the built-up area through various measures such as not providing funding for institutions and public that is being built near the edge of the built up area. Recommendations for downtown revitalization included making a more pedestrian friendly environment by sidewalk widening and the completion of the enclosed pedestrian network, encouraging more business growth, placing government offices in the downtown and creating a frequent transit service that would help move people around the downtown efficiently and quickly. It also recommended that further residential developments be constructed in old commercial buildings. Both of these areas are crucial in stemming the ever growing tide of sprawl and creating a tax-base that uses already existing infrastructure.
However, these positive recommendations were completely undermined or significantly dampened by the recommendations in the roadway, transit and downtown development concerning transit or the lack thereof. These recommendations basically reinforce the status quo of transportation systems; build more roads to handle more traffic for new car-orientated low-density developments which in time brings more traffic and requires more road improvement. With this type of development the cycle continues and the infrastructure deficit continues to grow but at an accelerated pace as each year passes. By considering that transit’s ability to reduce the dependence on the automobile as a desirable theory it recommends only the absolute necessity required to maintain the present level of service. By imposing only recommendations that will change cosmetics and not the real issue of land use, the current problems facing transit will continue and the chance of transit-related development which can help support transit is diminished.
Overall, despite good land use and downtown revitalization policies which help pave the way for a healthier and stronger city their effects are minimized or even killed by the general recommendations in roadways and transit. Therefore TransPlan 2010 and its recommendations are negative for this city based upon the recommendations of roadways and transit as they promote continued low-density segregated developments, the construction of more roadways and the continued role of transit as a secondary mode of transportation.









Bibliography
Automobile Manufactures Association, Future Highways and Urban Growth, New Haven, Wilbur Smith and Associates, 1961
Committee, Steering, TransPlan 2010, Winnipeg, TransPlan 2010 Steering Committee, 1998
Grava, Sigurd, Urban Transportation Systems: Choices for Communities, Toronto, Mc-Graw-Hill, 2003
Ketcheson, Meaghan, The State We’re In, CBC Manitoba, October 11, 2002
(http://winnipeg.cb...1016portmain.html#)
Leavitt, Helen, Superhighway—Superhoax, New York, N.Y, Ballantine Books, 1970.
Leo, Christopher, Bridge Madness, Winnipeg, Winnipeg Real Estate News, 1998
Leo, Christopher, “The North American Growth Fixation and the Inner City: Roads of Excess”, World Transport Policy and Practice, 1998
Squires, Gregory D., Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences & Policy Responses, The Urban Institute Press, Washington D.C., 2002
Shreibman, Lisa, “The Costs of Auto Dependency,” Planners Network, Fall 2002, (http://plannersnet...154/schreibman.htm)
Winnipeg Transit, Direction to the Future: The Guide to a Better Transit for Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Winnipeg Transit, 2000
Winnipeg Transit, Planning and Building Transit-Friendly Residential Subdivision, Winnipeg Transit, 1990