Jump to content

MMP15

Member
  • Content Count

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

853 profile views
  1. Yeahhhh... have you tried that when it's +30? It helps a bit, but is not the same as AC and is a big deterrent to taking transit in summer. I'd rather take a mode of transport that doesn't induce a noxious smell of heavy perspiration from other passengers (like a D40LFR or an XD40...)
  2. Reliable? For sure. But the lack of AC is brutal in summer. (All we all know WT will never retrofit them)
  3. Why couldn't it have been a D40LF instead of an XD40... All jokes aside, it's good to hear that everyone is in stable condition.
  4. I agree, but at least it's steady progress from the numerous years of only having 30 for the entire fleet. Last year was the first year that a route (BLUE) reliably almost always had a rack. Hopefully lines A, B, C, and D in the TMP will be able to always have racks from the get go. (Sidenote: tomorrow we will see if the plan passes IRPW) The next big issue is keeping the racks on in winter. Transit always cites garage space, but does their garage magically grow in spring/summer? There has to be a better solution that just taking them off in winter, whether it's running a reduced fleet wi
  5. The bike rack logo has made it's reappearance on navigo. They've been extra slow this year on actually putting them on. Only the 440-470s have them (about 5 in service), and a couple from last year's set of busses. Overall it's pretty lacklustre considering they have enough racks sitting there to put on the 2020 XD40s, 2021 XD40s, ALL the XD60s and the D40LFRs (units 140-169). On the plus side, this year when all racks are put on 135 busses should have bike racks. This represents just over 20% of the entire fleet.
  6. Andddd one of the councillors punted the voting portion IRPW meeting until Tuesday... here we go again! (This in an of itself is actually pretty reasonable, but it kinda fits in with the cities delay, delay, delay, delay, delay)
  7. Interesting. The 55 is particularly bad because the destination sign NIAKWA RD is wayyy North of St Anne's/Beliveau, potentially leading to a long walk (especially late at night when 55s end as St Anne's/Beliveau). With the 18/32 it's much easier to walk an extra couple blocks. At least with 14 BISHOP GRANDIN, the sign implies a shorter route than it actually is, which is better than a sign that implies a longer route that it actually is. Also, I really wish that they'd make the little "a" that denotes a timed transfer public. It would give a lot more peace of mind differentiating the dif
  8. Noticed today that the 14s that deadhead at St. Mary's and Dakota are now signed 14 Bishop Grandin instead of 14 Dunkirk. Does this mean that even though Navigo says that these busses last stop is St Mary's/Dakota, drivers will actually change to not in service at St Mary's/Bishop Grandin?
  9. In the long term plan Q is extended to Sage Creek.
  10. The next schedule change is out. Interesting/terrible to see that almost ALL of the SWT routes and feeder routes (except 690, 691, 694) number of runs are getting slashed by 17-30%.
  11. Have you heard of a potential revised timeline? Or just ASAP?
  12. Interesting that the winter snow plan codes are still programmed into busses when they took it down from the website. Maybe with the TMP the new winter snow plan could simply be primary network routes only?
  13. It’s great that the older busses are getting the vinyl seats! Some people don’t like them because they look dirtier quicker, but they’re easier to clean and you actually know what you’re sitting on before you sit down!
  14. I am a huge fan of this idea, but it kind of goes contrary to the direction that the TMP is going, as all express busses except the 36/236 (probably due to cost sharing with the u of m) will cease to exist. I also find it funny that some people (not you) think they want LRT, and then don’t realize that throws super express out the window too.
  15. Agreed. If you’re reading this I strongly suggest contacting your councillor directly, especially if they are on the IPRW committee. The vote was 4-0 unanimous to extend this and many other major issues - with NO directive in the motions to justify extensions! (Coun. Shama wants on demand service... but didn’t create a motion for it.) As luck would have it, my councillor is Chambers, so he’ll definitely be getting an earful from me in the coming week. Not just to bitch, but to step him through from the prospective of a citizen what these changes mean and how delaying passing this negative
×
×
  • Create New...