Jump to content

ConnorsCompShow

Member
  • Posts

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ConnorsCompShow

  1. Quite interesting how only now they're entertaining taking the new route 662 "95" past the current Shaftesbury loop to Outlet Collection and just accepting that train delays will be a fact of life for it. You could probably staple that onto the current 95 without too much trouble so long as you axe the entire Polo Park zig-zagging too. They really should have done that after making route 74 its own route, and they absolutely should have gone after it first in the "service rationalization" round they did. I was also reading up on one of the Q&A documents summarizing questions asked during the Zoom sessions (https://winnipegtransit.com/assets/2773/WTMP_Zoom_Webinar_Q_A_report_Oct.24_28_FINAL.pdf) and I couldn't help but notice that someone had asked a question about running a Perimeter "super express" feeder. Apparently that thought has crossed their minds too (along with mine), but "Winnipeg Transit is limited to providing service to and from places within city limits" is quite the cop-out, and dare I say it, a crock (see: the proposed B summer service to Birds Hill - whose limits is it in, again?). The safety and construction costs do make sense, though an alternative would be to just pull in to the nearest major terminal/landmark. So for example say you're coming up north towards Wilkes, go right in and do a quick loop around Couture/McKellar or continue on to Dale towards Roblin, then head back out onto the Perimeter and then a right onto Portage and observe just the Unicity stops, then go back out, and then a little later on go in through Pipeline towards Garden City, observe Garden City Centre, then back out via McPhillips, so on so forth. Unfortunately, that would mean that pretty much the whole northwest corner is effectively a dead zone, and the southwest corner too aside from Oak Bluff. Realistically, the only locations that would work with that sort of an idea would be: Ridgewood West/Park West shops Unicity Amber Trails/Garden City Centre (large gap between these and Unicity...) Riverbend Glenway Loop Kil-Cona Park Redonda Loop or South Transcona (maybe) Tinkertown Bonavista/Sage Creek Aldgate Rd (could just go in through St. Mary's/Anne's, turn on Aldgate, and out the other end) Richmond West/Lakes Prairie Pointe Oak Bluff aaaand that's about it. The inner circuit idea would definitely be a better one as far as practicality and I'm glad that they've preserved it, even going as far as leaving today's 75/WTMP "M" unchanged, though I would much rather see 75/M get extended to use all of Bishop Grandin and all of Lagimodiere (and squeak Q out a bit further to Bishop) so it at least offers that U of M and/or Kildonan Place opportunity to those in Island Lakes and Sage Creek that come out to Bishop through their feeders. Still no elaboration on how exactly they're going to make this Jubilee expansion work, which they apparently want to do as part of this SWRT3 proposal across the Red to St. Vital Centre. I think a bigger priority as far as legalizing crossing the CN line would be a Beaumont connection to Taylor. That one's the more frustrating of the two since you have a considerable distance either way (go out to Pembina and then back in either on foot or on wheels, or go all the way out to Waverley then back in through Hurst). Jubilee used to be a major inconvenience but ever since SWRT2, it's a lot more manageable. Even on the east side of Pembina, you can take a shortcut up the hill by the waterworks shack and you're golden. Overall though, all this for...diamond lanes, mostly? I dunno. Certainly seems like there's a lot to be desired yet (especially when it pertains to areas like the Brewery District and the St. James Industrial area). It's certainly a solid concept as far as the 80% of the non-rapid bits of it go, but there seems to be some degree of BRT creep at play with the "rapid" bits. Especially with the way the economy is right now, fully separated and dedicated transitways would be a great job generator to get jobs in the hands of the people who through no fault of their own are in need of one. I also have to wonder how challenging this would be to run operationally as far as actually spitting a schedule out, even if they really want to tell people "don't worry about it!". People are certainly going to be worrying about it if it's -25 C outdoors. I suspect it'll probably pass through IRPW mostly unscathed, though EPC and especially Council at large will be the wildcards.
  2. That usually means either one of two things, the first being they need to kick the can down the road another 30 days to put finishing touches on it, or the second being that they'll show up with documents at the time of IRPW.
  3. Think I just saw a glimpse of 444 in BG.
  4. I was wondering why that one looked like it was damn near brand new for its age the other day.
  5. Funny coincidence, 662 is running 662 today.
  6. Seen this slid into my Google stories list today, New Flyer announced that they've got a new order of 32 XD40s. Assuming nothing drastic, 436-467. https://www.chrisd.ca/2021/01/18/winnipeg-transit-xcelsior-buses-new-flyer/
  7. Here's some observations from today's IRPW: Sharma grilled Greg pretty good at IRPW about the state of Transit Plus after he said that in their opinion, TP/HT drivers are being treated with dignity and respect by their employers (despite hearing from a few people, including a TP/HT driver who was apparently suspended). Chambers had asked whether or not there was a breakdown somewhere between scheduling, dispatch, and services tendered, in particular that the services tendered part may not be always reflecting back to the scheduling/dispatching part of the equation. From Transit's POV, as long as the rubber is on the road for a certain amount of hours, within those hours it's on the vendors to hand out trip requests to their drivers and to insert breaks. They also cast doubt on it being a problem of a lack of resources in response to Chambers' follow-up. The route 10 changes got approved. They needed more time to hear back from the advisory committee about an emergency distress signals proposal that first appeared a few months back in one of the community committees. Item 4 was their catch-all; they started with electric buses, the aim is to try both those as well as fuel-cell ones and the dialogue was pushed by Bjorn more towards the generic "ZEB"/"ZEV" concept as opposed to battery-electric specifically. The funding plans for ZEVs will be thrown in with the WTMP in March. Should funding be approved, and should other government levels cooperate, the earliest the new set of rubber could hit the road for the new trial is 2022. This spring, "on-request transit" becomes a thing for a 12-month pilot, and the biggest change will be how rides are booked: through an application or through a web browser, "or by talking to someone at 311 directly" (in essence, RIP the current DART lines, funneling everyone through 311/online is the idea here it seems). Their main worry with the current DART system is that if for some reason it got really popular in a hurry, drivers would be bogged down with taking calls and it would degrade service. They also believe that the current lack of an online or an ARM app is the main reason why people may not know the concept of DART is a thing (which I could absolutely see if you don't already live in a DART area and don't ever come across one of those signs). They plan to mount a tablet in the driver's area to view incoming requests that come in from the new system. All 3 of the current DARTs will be converted over to start off. The app will be bilingual, service hours remain unchanged, no new 30ft purchases to go along with it. They want to have a minimum 5 minute buffer for requests to let requesters get their affairs in order and walk to what they call a "virtual stop", and users would get given a 2 minute warning notification when a bus is almost there. Navigo "bookings" won't be integrated into the pilot but it's something that's being explored. Greg added on to Craig's bit about ORT and brought up they're going to review the practicality and possibility of using different types of vehicles totally, such as a community shuttle/TP/HT style bus which would alleviate noise worries. Craig also said that in theory, they could even flag certain users with mobility impairments that would cap the amount of walking to their "virtual stop" to something like 15m instead of the usual 200m/150m/whatever it is. One other thing in there, there were some Sage Creek-specific suggestions from the residents' association for tweaks to improve service in the area, and it was ingested into the WTMP process, so that'll show up in the final WTMP draft in March.
  8. As does MBLL's DrinkSense one, as well as the one Reliance Superior has (had?) which is funny since it's all images of the exact same guy over and over again down the whole length.
  9. New ad wrap.. 348 on 47 a few days ago on Christmas Eve. This wasn't one of the ones that had wraps before there were rumors of a ban on full wraps some months back.
  10. They are, 5 cents extra. Paper passes I'll go find out about some time this week.
  11. Damn. Hopefully they come out alright. The hook came out to it around 4 in the morning. Front end's busted up good and something on the roof's cracked. From the sounds of the CBC article it looks like someone noticed something was horribly wrong and might've tried to get the thing stopped, but by that point they were nearly out of stopping room.
  12. 826 crashed into some guy's house near Henderson. https://globalnews.ca/news/7529890/winnipeg-transit-bus-crash/
  13. Spotted a sign bug after the service change, route 48 now says "Kildare" instead of "North Transcona". Either a bug or the operator on the last run accidentally hit the one for the blue snow plan. Saw a 90 a bit further up that still had an NT sign, so I'm leaning towards bug. That sure won't confuse people for a 46 if it's at a distance.
  14. How'd they get that 671/672 extension past IRPW without actually presenting it at IRPW? At least I don't think they did, did they? Also they fixed that one issue about the Grace Hospital 11/21/22 stops going 60 minutes between service right after the express cutoff. What happened previously was you had a route 11 Westwood run around 7:20 that would act like a 22 Westwood and skip the Booth/Grace/Sturgeon part.
  15. https://www.morguardretailleasing.com/images/documents/Crossroads_Station_Shopping_Centre,_Winnipeg,_MB_.pdf I happened across this rather interesting nugget while researching some local trivia about the city apparently owning a slice of land in behind the Superstore and Home Depot at the Crossroads Station labelled as "transit corridor city ownership". And before someone asks, I definitely don't think it's got to do with the way they send 45/87/92 around the back of the Walmart side, that's very firmly Morguard's. Certainly an oddity given the recent approach of BRT creep beyond downtown.
  16. I mean, nobody's at university, nobody can really go to Outlet Collection except to eat, and nobody can really go to Polo Park except to eat as well. I could see that working without too much trouble. Speaking of which, at the next IRPW tomorrow Transit's proposing a 74-style sidestep for 676 on Bison to make it go around the Appleford Gate roundabout and back, set for the spring schedule. Yes, Transit themselves with that idea, not Janice Lukes. A little surprising seeing as they kind of shot down Shawn Nason's 47 Kildare idea and wanted to defer it into the TMP process, but this is apparently a cost-neutral tweak since they'll just shave a minute off of relief instead.
  17. What's really BS is that the province told Canad Inns that they couldn't run that drive-thru Christmas light show at the Ex grounds yet they're totally fine with letting Transit run as-is. Pardon my French, but I have a very hard time believing those lying sacks of shit at the provincial government saying it's all a-okay to have people from totally different households in a 40 or 60 ft box when the reality on the ground reveals that Transit keeps getting hit and then listed on the exposures list of theirs damn near constantly now. As DJ Khaled would say, another one. Another one. Another one. As it stands I've used my November pass a grand total of twice, once for lunch towards an A&W, and twice on the way back from it. If things keep going the way they are I'm not even gonna bother with a December pass.
  18. It's definitely not a school charter, that much we know. You don't even have to look at the school list to know that nothing goes down Shorehill. The question is then who would have the pockets to buy that charter, and what for? In other words, what's the common denominator of the people that do use it?
  19. I just had a listen through of the IRPW session and it appears Transit is objecting to the proposed 47 Kildare modification for a few reasons: It looks like they want to defer routing changes into the TMP from this point forward, or at least put a freeze on it until it's finalized. Headways would be cut in half on Regent and access would be lost to the casino's park and ride. Transcona Blvd isn't totally straight which means that branch would run a longer distance (plus some minutes of run time), and to avoid bunching up, they'd have to boost Edmund Gale idle time (which is already pretty high post-SWRT2). Ultimately, not cost neutral. The DART proposal was also strongly suggested to get kicked into TMP though Jeff Browaty said that it's well warranted for it to happen sooner rather than later, especially when quoting that if TMP got approved it'd get set in motion no earlier than 3 or 4 years from now. They are totally right about run time though, I would really hate to be crawling along at 50 when it could be (and really should be) 60. Many drivers do do 60 anyway, but it's known as a frequent cop hideout spot.
  20. That's a possibility, but I'm sure drivers would groan if they had to put up with more DCZ shenanigans on that stretch for a third year. Much more expensive than a $30 "except buses" sign. Anyway, I really don't like how ERT/"RED" has fallen to the bottom of the priorities list at all. The Louise Bridge is a figuratively ticking time bomb, and if it goes off by either being condemned beyond repair the next time it has to get looked at or worse, we're massively screwed without an impetus to get it replaced otherwise. I also really don't like the thought of a Lagimodiere overpass over top of another Lagimodiere overpass over the CN mainline. The way it should be is a dedicated elevated platform past Union Station, around Shaw Park (whose future is quite uncertain with baseball boy Katz giving thought to moving the Goldeyes to Ottawa), through far north St Boniface, then run at ground level pretty much next to the CN tracks, run underneath the existing overpass, then follow CEMR after (stop short at Regent and you have a "stage 1"). Over by Panet, the CN track could be shifted south a bit to allow sufficient space without having to get Princess Auto to give up some of their space, just like how Letellier was shifted a bit west south of Bishop Grandin. That they want to extend the existing BLUE/future "A" to St Vital Centre with a dedicated bridge is an alright idea, but you're running right through the U of M's agriculture fields, and I don't exactly feel like they would be in favor of that one, and that's before we even get to the idea of financing it. The investment priorities diagram also points out a Jubilee Station expansion as "key infrastructure" - but how? An underpass over the CN yard to Pembina? Making it more like Fort Rouge Station by stapling a terminal loop onto it? There are many good things but there are a lot of moonshot ideas in this one, which I fear might sink the whole thing once it comes time for IRPW, EPC, and ultimately council to have a look at it. They have a Kevin O'Leary mindset: how am I (the city) going to make money?
  21. It wouldn't even be that far back if I'm reading armorand right, it'd be re-establishing Filbert Loop. In fairness, the 44 is quite the mess of a route. If it were up to me, I would softly vote no on that 47 proposal and instead hand that area over to route 89 to give it a new market; axe the Kildare-Day zig-zag and Regent service duplication totally.
  22. That's eventually going to be the new connection to Dawson Rd S (there's signage the other way for the small bit connected to Niakwa Rd which is apparently now Dawson Rd N). And yes, Royal Mint was extended out to Fermor to replace the loss of that section of Dawson. There is one other complication, and it's that you can't turn left onto it from WB Fermor as it's configured in a right-in-right-out layout, which would still be potentially fatal for that section of the proposed P. Don't even get me started on how horrendously slow Google is with getting fresh imagery. People used to mock Apple for their half-baked Maps when they first launched it, but they've seriously caught up and leapfrogged Google, at least locally. Their images are from either late March or early April of this year. At least with Street View any average Joe with one of those 360-degree GoPros can take matters into their own hands.
  23. Whew, that's a lot to unpack. I already spotted one potentially fatal issue with P, that being that Dawson Rd was shut down west of Royal Mint Dr.
  24. http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/dmis/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=20447&SectionId=&InitUrl= Up at the next IRPW meeting agenda that got put up today are two very interesting proposals: a Transcona-area DART, and a suggestion to looking into realigning 47 Kildare to utilize Transcona Blvd and a bit of Peguis. I would be ecstatic to have even just a DART on weekends. That would not only put a kibosh on moving to Island Lakes, but it'd be a great way to use some cellular airtime.
  25. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-transit-driver-dead-pedestrian-crash-1.5735112 Sad news...an operator just fresh off a shift got killed by NG.
×
×
  • Create New...