Transit Vs Road Widening: Compare & Contrast
Serendipity offers Winnipeg a Robert Frost chance to chose a better road
Serendipity Strikes Winnipeg
I love serendipity! Things lining up to clearly show the path forward is a truly a wonderful moment. On June 11th, Winnipeg City Council will have a transportation serendipity moment that it would be wise to pay attention to!
On the 11th, the SPC on Public Works meeting will have two reports on the same agenda that could not be better timed! The first report is the approval of the Primary Transit Network, slated to be implemented on June 29, 2025. The PTN will set in place the framework for transforming public transit for Winnipeg for a generation (or more!). The first huge and significant step towards implementing the Winnipeg Transit Master Plan that was approved by City Council back in 2021.
Four items later in the agenda is the report on the Preliminary Design Study for Route 90, between Ness & Taylor. This report in the long awaited look at the redesign of Kenaston (Rt 90), including the St James Bridge. The preliminary design considers widening Kenaston to 3 lanes in each direction, adding a multi-use pathway along each side, and rehabilitating the St James Bridge. As part of the project, the intent is to also upgrade the combined sewers under the roadway. (I wrote another piece about Winnipeg’s delightful combined sewers: Water, Water, Everywhere.)
Interestingly the three intervening reports on the agenda are: the Active Transportation Advisory Committee, the Road Safety Action Plan, and the Annual Report on Snow Clearing. So, maybe that serendipity extends beyond the Primary Transit Network & Kenaston widening reports! They do seem to all go together, and are complementary and supportive of each other. But let’s stick with PTN & Kenaston.
The Primary Transit Network is huge!
Winnipeg Transit is taking the bold step of essentially taking the transit network we have now, all 87 routes, and starting over. Over time, as the city has grown, Transit has added routes and expanded service on an as needed ad-hoc basis. Routes don’t get people efficiently from point A to B, they often pass through downtown unnecessarily, and are needlessly circuitous. The result is a transit system that is disjointed and not serving residents particularly well.
The Winnipeg Transit Master Plan importantly recognizes that “routes that try to do everything often fail at doing any one thing well”. Hence, starting over, for the first time in over 100 years. As I said, huge and bold! The network will convert to a “spine and feeder” system, with a lot more straight routes in the spine. The PTN will also provide consistent service where busses will come every 5-15 minutes. It will be a system that is designed around people and where they want to get to. Efficiently and effectively.
Of note, particularly when contrasting the PTN to the Kenaston Widening report, is this is being accomplished with minor cost. Implementing the PTN next year will have a total cost of $1M. No additional operating cost, just $1M of cost for some traffic signal upgrades. Significantly improving the travel time for a huge number of people for basically no cost. The PTN also sets up the ability to expand and grow, improving the service for more people over time.
Kenaston Konundrum
Kenaston widening, by contrast, provides the exact opposite to the PTN.
The Primary Transit Network will benefit the entire city of Winnipeg. Kenaston widening is 3km long. Improved transit service improves the travel time of everyone, whether you use it or not. Kenaston widening will only save those who drive it 13 seconds of travel time. The PTN will cost $1M to implement. Widening of Kenaston will cost at least $250M. The Primary Transit Network will be in place June 29, 2025. Kenaston Widening, if everything goes well, will have 2 years of construction to open in 2029. Transit will grow and expand over time, continuing to add value. Kenaston Widening will depreciate over time with decreasing value. (The saved travel time of 13 seconds only gets worse as time goes on.)
The Route 90 Preliminary Design Study is ostensibly a cost benefit analysis of the project. The intent is to look at the whole project, and see if it worth it. When it costs of $737M, when you include the financing and interest costs, it had better be worth it. Dear Winnipeg did an amazing analysis of the Cost Benefit Analysis of the Kenaston Widening that I encourage you to read. He really digs into it to expose the dubiousness of the assumptions to come up with the marginal benefits that the report purports.
Repair vs Widening
It is the widening of Kenaston that is the issue here. There is no question that Kenaston needs a rebuild. Maintenance of that roadway has been neglected for a long time. Plus, rebuilding the roadway provides the opportunity to upgrade the utilities that are under it. Thankfully, the costs for those items are separated out in the BCA. Widening takes up 36% of the cost, repairing the existing road and bridge comes to 42% of the project cost, and the upgraded utilities is 22% of the total cost.
Compare and Contrast
The real contrast between these two reports is one of vision.
City Council has clearly been identified transit as a pillar its vision of the future. Endorsing the Transit Master Plan set a path in that direction and the Primary Transit Network is the most important step on that path. It leads to a more affordable city, both for City Hall and for residents. It leads a more sustainable city, with a lower environmental footprint and lower greenhouse gas emissions. It is a bold step towards that city that works for everyone, it clearly moves the City towards its own Vision statement:
“A vibrant, healthy, and inclusive city for all City of Winnipeg employees, its residents, and visitors”
The widening of Kenaston, in contrast, is a “vision” embedded in the past. It reinforces the car-dependent nature of the city. Widening Kenaston further entrenches the City, and its residents, to a costly and unsustainable way of getting around. There is nothing bold about widening Kenaston. It is merely continuing along the same old road, furthering the infrastructure deficit and indebtedness. The widening of Kenaston is the veritable definition of throwing good money after bad.
We know we need to do better. Everyone knows it. The City of Winnipeg is failing at fulfilling its vision. City Council, with every investment in the status quo, is ignoring all of its own plans for the future. Widening Kenaston is blindly continuing down the path already taken and proven to be a dead end.
One common argument we hear for road construction, beyond the fallacy that it will solve congestion, is one of economic stimulus. We will no doubt hear the same argument for the widening of Kenaston. As a matter of fact, the Cost Benefit Analysis identifies the economic return for the project. It states the “Internal Rate of Return” on the project is 1.4%. Yup, 1.4% rate of return. So, based on their calculation, for every dollar invested in the Kenaston Widening project you get 1.014 dollars back. GICs right now will give you a 5% return.
Road construction, when it comes to municipal infrastructure, is one of the worst returns on investment. The Conference Board of Canada has identified the ROI of road construction at $1.30. For every dollar invested in road construction you can expect $1.30 of economic value back. That is a far sight better than the 1.4 cents we get on Kenaston.
Contrast that to the ROI for transit. The Canadian Urban Transit Association has calculated the ROI of transit at $3.37, the American Public Transportation Association has pegged the ROI of transit at $3.70.
Vision (please!!!!)
By every measure, be it vision, economic, environmental, social, the widening of Kenaston is the wrong road to take. That 13 seconds a driver might save comes at too high a cost for the rest of the city. In 2050, when that driver will only be 11 seconds faster because of $737M spent on them, it will be too late to realize how bad an investment this project is.
It isn’t often that serendipity brings us reports back to back at the same Council meeting. Two reports that so clearly contrast paths and choices. We must lift our gaze to a vision of the future, rather than stare down at the path dependency of the past. That is what leadership looks like.