Jump to content

MMP15

Member
  • Posts

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MMP15

  1. Has anyone heard any updates on the timeline for implementation of the short term route network of the winnipeg transit master plan?
  2. Has anyone ridden on request Transit? If so, what was your experience? Are the quoted times accurate?
  3. Damn, I wish they were to replace the D40LF. We need more artics
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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…
  9. Is there any way you could post your website/file again in the future? It was very useful the last time you did!
  10. Do you know what was done to it? Full refurb, or just a paint job?
  11. 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
  12. 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).
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.)
  16. 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.)
  17. The SW corner of the city is aligned with the TMP, however almost all routes have a (very positive!) short term change that will be made, in addition to discontinuing the 691 (let's start with that... and then go numerically). It is also worth noting that none of these plans are concrete and all are subject to change. As Issac said above, The 691 and 649 are largely redundant. By eliminating the 691, greater service frequency can be offered on the 649. This will have the side benefit of preventing "bus bunching" bulit into the schedule. (Instead of 1 route being every 20 minutes and the other being every 10 minutes, the combined route can now by every 6 minutes with the same number of busses). This is also why the 649 now terminates at Pembina/Chevrier instead of continuing to Windermere (service on Pembina was redundant with the 47/60 there). Also with the 649 terminating at Pembina/Chevrier, it will be easy to interline the 649 with the 690 (as the 691 currently does). With the 47 discontinued, Route I (Henderson - Ft Rouge Station) will be the closest thing to replace it. (No more downtown - U of M service on University Crescent.) Route 635 absorbed by route J. The new route 636 will help with fill in a connectivity gap from the Grant Park neighbourhood and Grant Park High School (high bus ridership there) to Lindenwoods when BLUE was implemented. The 84/86 offered one seat rides before, however without a significant walk the same trip currently requires 3 busses. It also allows the area to more easily access the Southbound A/D lines instead of having to go up to Osborne Station. Route 641 - moved to terminate at Seel Station. This is huge for not needing to pre-plan whether you want to take the 641/642. Now at one stop you can catch whatever comes first. Route 649 - as above, now terminates at Pembina/Chevrier. Conceptually, instead of building a new bus loop at the terminal, why wouldn't this new routing use EB Chevrier -> NB SWT -> EB Clarence -> SB Pembina -> WB Chevrier? The infrastructure currently exists to do this. Route 650 - extended to Fort Whyte Alive Route 662 (the southern one...) - no more jog up to Killarney. This means Baylor will lose service which it traditionally had for years with the 137/162/170/current 662. However this routing is much more efficient to connect with the BLUE line and is cheaper to run more frequently. Route 671 - extended to Bridgwater Centre via the west side of Waverley West. Route 672 - extended to Bridgwater Centre via the east side of Waverley West. Route 677 - now ends at Outlet Mall (no Kenaston rush hour service). This is either a mistake or a pretty significant case of "service rationalization". Route 694 - replaced by on demand service. For anyone who's still keeping track, this means the the 642, 676, 690 and 693 are the only current 600 series not being tweaked. Yes most of these changes are minor, and yes the spine and feeder concept has been implemented, but there are still changes that will occur. I agree. I think zone 2 will be the easiest to switch over first. (Ideally we would see something like that done by the January/April 2022 service change, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. Overall if you can't tell, I'm very excited about the plan. For context, I live south of Bishop Grandin between St Mary's and St Anne's in zone 5. Downtown 9-5 commuters are going to have a big adjustment by eliminating the express busses and being forced towards a two seat trip, however once if people can get past that initial shock I believe it truly will create a faster, more reliable, all-day frequent service. People that can see this are really going to have to advocate and be vocal about it, but Winnipegers are especially resistant to change. I also would have loved to see a few examples of specific travel times in the master plan, as they have the potential to be game changing. One big miss though is not planning a park and ride / more bike racks/lockers at St Vital Centre, which will be a busy hub with routes B, E, M and many of the 500 series routes going through there. What are your thoughts of the plan? Any obvious needed reworks/tweaks pop out at you? What are your thoughts of posts like this? Do you appreciate me pointing out little details like this? Or are these long bulleted posts just an eyesore, as anyone can view the network plan for themselves?
  18. The Transit Master Plan was passed by IRPW yesterday and EPC today. The next step is for it to pass council on April 29th. After that it's pretty vague when public consultation will occur for area specific implementation of the new network, and which areas will be changed first (if not the entire city all at once as Edmonton is currently in the process of doing). The only timeframe given right now is implementation in the next "2-5 years". Hopefully once the TMP passes council, the project page on Transit's website will by updated in May to identify next steps.
  19. 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...)
  20. Reliable? For sure. But the lack of AC is brutal in summer. (All we all know WT will never retrofit them)
  21. 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.
  22. 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 with racks (maybe only the XD60s), or taking the racks on/off constantly as busses are deployed, but keeping the mounts on the busses so that this can be done efficiently. Also for context, Metro Transit (in the twin cities in Minnesota) has 100% with racks. It's been that way for at least a decade. There are a LOT of lessons WT can learn from our close neighbours to the south... Bike and bus, OWL service, RT network, hi-freq network (at this rate we'll have ours in 25 years!), the list goes on and on.
  23. 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.
  24. 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)
  25. 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 difference between transfers that "are kinda close so they might be timed" and ones that actually are. It would also be good to know that the driver of the connecting bus has been instructed to wait X number of minutes in case the bus that is deadheading is late. (is there an internal guideline on this?)
×
×
  • Create New...