Jump to content

MMP15

Member
  • Posts

    170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,058 profile views

MMP15's Achievements

  1. Has anyone ridden on request Transit? If so, what was your experience? Are the quoted times accurate?
  2. Damn, I wish they were to replace the D40LF. We need more artics
  3. The Winnipeg Transit On-Request app is now available on iOS. It will not be fully functional until the service rolls out. Three things are noteworthy: No more terminals to connect with the 16. Everyone will need to call or use the app/website. The app will only let you book immediate trips. (Not at a future time or date). This could be problematic for people that use 101 as their 2nd of 3 busses to get home, as you will have no idea when the bus will pick you up or drop you off until you book the trip. It is also in stark contrast to the current DART which asks that you “please call well in advance of your trip” One plus side - Plaza station is now included in zone 101.
  4. The short term route network is not meant to be stretched out and “long term”. It is merely meant to be the first step in the long term plan. And what gets implemented (if anything) may not be identical to the plan, but it will still follow the principles of the plan.
  5. The worrying part of that is that an election takes place in fall of 2022, so there's a chance the new administration will try to derail/water down the current plan. I'm not sure why they wouldn't aim to execute this in spring or summer of 2022.
  6. Seeings as valour fc had a game at IGF last night and the bombers will play there too, does anyone know what their plans are for the event day plan incorporating SWRT2?
  7. Hm good catch. However, I’m more curious to see if/when the short term plan comes to fruition before I really think about the long term plan… it’s coming up on a month since the plan was passed by council and no updates since (not even something small like “we will start in the 4XX area of the city, stay tuned for more updates/engagement/specific routing in the next X weeks”. I guess they are still on their victory lap…
  8. Is there any way you could post your website/file again in the future? It was very useful the last time you did!
  9. Do you know what was done to it? Full refurb, or just a paint job?
  10. It’s great that these are finally on all-day runs but the st norbert branch of the blue line really deserves all busses to be articulated
  11. Hopefully in the next week or two Transit updates their project page online with a timeline for the first phases of implementation. Also a reminder that the on request service pilot will be starting relatively soon. Transit stated this would start in spring, so that means the pilot will start before the end of June (within the next 2 months).
  12. All busses start on only rush hour runs when they first enter service, to help break them in, before the busses have to run continuously for 7-14 hours daily. In due time they should be on all day runs.
  13. I think it’s possible to interline the 690 with the 649. For the AM rush inbound (to Pembina) 649s would run every 7 minutes. Outbound busses would run 2 to 1 as 690 to 649. (For every three inbound 649s, 2 outbound 690s in a row and then 1 outbound 649.) This isn’t a novel idea as the southbound BLUE busses currently run 2 to 1 as St Norbert to U of M in rush hour. That would lead to a frequency of every 7-14 minutes on the 690 and every 21 minutes on the 649. I think this is more efficient then deadheading the 690 or running it both ways. This would also be a “service hour neutral” implementation, which the goal of the TMP.
  14. Yes, but less busses on Pembina will help reduce congestion and benefit drivers on Pembina. (This is a secondary benefit but one nonetheless. I strongly believe there will be a positive "ripple effect". The primary benefit would be for busses/cyclists/pedestrians utilizing the bridge.)
  15. The fact that councillors were questioning why the U of M - St Vital Bridge was a high priority in the TMP was a real head scratcher for me. They were thinking for the perspective of now the the SWT is built, other areas deserve the next transit infrastructure project. Transit planners were clearly thinking more logically, as their priorities reflect "what will positively impact the most people the soonest". Priority 1 - Downtown Infrastructure (St Mary's/Tache to Main Street/Higgins, RT Highline and Portage/Main to Portage/U of Winnipeg) Downtown is the #1 commuter destination in Winnipeg and causes delays on bus routes city wide. By doing this project, the benefits will be felt across the majority of the primary network. This will benefit transit users across the city. Priority 2A - Main (Higgins to Inkster) and Louise Bridge This benefits a lot of people North/East of Portage and Main. Makes sense. Personally it's an area of town that I avoid when possible due to safety concerns, and therefore the new infrastructure could add a bit of life to the area and make it safer/help people in poverty. Priority 2B Jubilee Station Upgrade - Connects 7 routes together instead of having 2 stops with 3 and 4 routes each. For councillors that seemed to latch on to accessibility not being emphasized enough in the plan, they didn't seem to realize that this project's main intent is accessibility. With a pedestrian bridge over the rail line, the current 10-15 minute walk between Jubilee Station and Pembina/Stafford is drastically shortened. Also councillor Mayes was all concerned about cost overruns stemming in part from unforeseen riverbank stabilization. (Newsflash: a railway is not the same as a riverbank. Thanks for playing though.) This project would benefit a lot of people, ranging from Southdale to HSC to Salter to Taylor. The infrastructure may be in the south end of the city, but the benefits are far from limited to the south. Blue Line Extension to St. Vital Centre (including new bridge over the Red River) - expensive but oh so necessary. The U of M is the #2 commuter destination in Winnipeg. A main cause of overcrowding on the route 75/M is people travelling from U of M to St Vital Centre. Lots of people use that parking lot as a park and ride, and as a transfer point to the 14/B and Dakota Routes. This bridge will improve the experience for all those users. The 75/M cannot support 60' busses due to the layout of bus stops on Bishop Grandin. If this project is done, people travelling to St Vital Centre can hop on frequent 60' busses, which will free up capacity for people travelling on the 40 footers on the 75/M to Southdale, Kildonan Place and beyond (Transcona, etc). The magnitude of the pressure that was on the 75/M in 2019 was one of the major reasons why route 47 was extended to the U of M. The problem is that it's slower to take the 47 to KP than the 75/M, so people probably would still gravitate to the 75. The bridge across the Red River addresses this and justifies 47 being dissolved into F (Pembina) and C (Rose Line). This bridge allows for this new route P, which will benefit South St Vital, Royalwood, Island Lakes, Sage Creek and Plessis Road. In case we forgot, the stadium traffic is still a bit of a mess with all it dumping out onto Pembina. This will alleviate congestion on Pembina, the main choke point to the Stadium for people travelling from anywhere in the city. Not to mention an AT bridge over the river for the stadium has been proposed for years, but not yet come to fruition. Priority 3 - Completing the Orange/Rose Lines. Makes sense that this is moved to last as these projects benefits are more limited to their immediate areas. (Full disclosure: As you and Isaac said in your posts above, my post is also biased as I live in the area of the U of M bridge.)
×
×
  • Create New...