SirAndrew710

The 85 does connect with the other 44 at Concordia and Louelda. I was wondering whether terminating the 85 at Margaret Loop would be an option, though from what I found, it takes more time to take the 18 from Margaret to City Hall than it does to take the 11 from Henderson & Sutton to the same destination (but does the 18 stop as much along Main?). I think the 32 observes more express stops than the 40 and 41 as well. I wonder whether it would use Portage or Graham, seeing as every route serving the northeast except the 11, its sister express routes and the 43 uses Graham. Either way, it would probably access Gateway from the south off of either Talbot or Chalmers. Options could include NB Henderson-EB Talbot-NB Gateway when headed outbound and SB Gateway-WB Talbot-SB Brazier-WB Midwinter-SB Henderson when headed inbound.

And yet right now, Gateway has no service as all except for the 11, 44, 85 and 90 using short segments. You’d think if there was demand for a bus on Gateway, forget master plans and future RT corridors, you’d think there would be a bus running straight up Gateway from Elmwood to All Seasons right now, but there isn’t.

Diamond lanes are as easy as installing signs and traffic-light synchronization could probably be handled on a computer. Already, it’s easy to not get caught at a red light anywhere between Moray and Ferry as most of the traffic lights on Portage will not change unless a driver drives right up to the stop line and/or a pedestrian presses the button. Closing non-signalized intersections or even converting them to right-in-right-out will anger a lot of drivers (as if Winnipeg drivers aren’t angry enough already).

To me, the idea of building a rapid transitway between Raleigh and Gateway and possibly moving resources away from Henderson sounds a lot like building a rapid transitway along a hydro right-of-way in the middle of nowhere and moving resources away from Pembina (which I thought was a bad idea before I realized just how high the ratio of U of M passengers to non-U of M passengers on those routes really is). The big difference is that, as I just mentioned, most of the people who took the 160 used it to go all the way to/from the U of M, which the BLUE line still serves, while most of the people who take the 11 use it to get to and from neighborhoods, some of which such a corridor would not serve. The only people I could possibly see using such a corridor are Donwood/Rothesay branch passengers and 77/85/90 transfer passengers. Who might not make up half of who takes the 11 to/from Henderson.

There is, but there’s already a bike path there. Even then, I think they have no intent on building another busway. If you look at the map, Route A (21/BLUE) will run on Portage, Route B (32/54) will run on Main and St. Mary’s and Route C (46/66/98) will run on Regent and Grant, which kinda goes counter to the point of rapid transit.

I’m guessing the D30LFs have gotten shields since I was last on one? Seeing as they’re still out and about? I remember in the fall, there was one 21 that could be counted on to be really late (half an hour even) every day. Unfortunately, that was the one I was counting on to get me to university classes. The one eleven minutes later did get me there on time, but it was cutting it close.

36 desperately needs them as well when classes are in session. The 40-footers on that route always carry a crushload past Corydon (and yet they still take on a pile more passengers at Grant - thank goodness that’s where I get off when I’m on there!) and even the 60-footers get pretty busy. Hopefully we order more soon. Looking at TransSee, it’s 40-footers only on 35, 54 and 59 this afternoon.

A bus driver told me once that the Portage Avenue diamond lanes once stretched all the way down Portage (the parking lanes and light standard placement are a legacy of this). The rush hour congestion on Portage is worse heading eastbound at the PM rush, so the bus lane in that direction may need to be reopened in that direction for RT on Portage to work. As well, I find it interesting to see that the TMP shows no service on Graham at all.

With Phase 2 of the Southwest Rapid Transit Corridor finally open, I guess all eyes are on the Transit Master Plan, which was technically implemented in part with the opening of Phase 2. Eight years came and went between the opening of Phase 1 and the opening of Phase 2. Will we see an implementation of this plan, or a variation on it, in the next ten years?

I have noticed that they’ve been near-impossible to find outside of rush hour since the XD60s entered service. In fact, I haven’t ridden a D60LF since November.

Looking at the maps on the TMP website, they only have the three RT corridors proposed - Gateway is just a regular route. Also, looking at that document, I’m guessing from the thinner lines on the map that Route A west of Polo, Route B north of Leila and Route C east of Stapon and between Osborne Station and the Grace will function as regular routes as well.

Taking the 691 from Chevrier is an option as well. Whyte Ridge residents are spoiled for choice now, especially with the 649 and 650 running twice as often as the 94.

It’s a similar story with Whyte Ridge, where depending on where you want to go and how you want to get there, you have to decide whether you want to get off at Seel or Chevrier.

Something I neglected to mention that probably should’ve been included on the map: the 282 would continue to loop behind Sobey’s both when headed in both directions (i.e. go into Unicity, loop behind Sobey’s, finish its trip to St. Charles, return to Unicity, loop behind Sobey’s again, finish its trip to Westwood/Superstore/Grace Hospital/Ronald Station).

I wouldn’t be surprised to see anything with a “Route 100” run card get anything but an XD60. Are there any others like that?

After it made the turn onto Stafford, it just said “Route 29” with no further information provided. “Route 29, to, Windermere, via, Misericordia Health Centre, and, Stafford” might have been a little better. I can’t imagine they changed it even with the extension to Beaumont.

There’s the answer to my question. I know that the exterior announcements have done weird things before. For instance, I was once on a 21 that said “Route 21, via, Polo Park, Downtown” or something like that.

Anything besides? I know the 162 and 170 said “via Victoria Hospital,” so I’d assume the BLUE buses to St. Norbert would be the same.

Do they not have enough XD60s in the garage to replace that one? Also, “Route BLUE.” I wonder what the exterior announcements say.

The 400s and the 1996 D30LFs are retired and the 500s are starting to go according to the wiki.

I’m surprised to see 700s on the crown jewels of the system on a Sunday, seeing as they’re some of the oldest buses we have now.

Here are the other five feeders that I drew up. 279 Roblin This would pretty much be the Moray branch of the 79, providing a connection between St. James and Charleswood. My guess is the library and NoFrills would be the main draws for St. James residents, though I could see Charleswood residents using it to connect with the spine. Buses would turn around in the Keg parking lot before laying over in the bus bay at southbound Moray at Portage. The current 79 (Kenaston branch) would continue to exist, while the 67 (like the 24 that goes downtown) would not. 282 Assiniboine In addition to absorbing the 82, this would fill a service gap in St. Charles created by the 11 serving Westwood and Crestview only and the spine terminating at Unicity. 283 Hamilton Due to differences in ridership patterns west and east of the Grace, I chose to split the 83 into two routes, both of which are identical to portions of the current route. The busier portion of the route would be handled by this… 293 Moray … while the quieter portion would be handled by this. Most of the people who take the 83 along this portion of the route are industrial workers, RRC students and Sturgeon students, so rush-hour-only service would be justified (I’d hate it, but I live close enough to Portage that I’d be able to live without all-day service). Buses would turn around via SB Whytewold-EB Portage-WB Assiniboine Crescent-NB Olive-EB Portage-NB Whytewold and lay over in the bus bay at NB Whytewold at Portage. 298 Rannock This would be the same as the current 98. Because it would operate at rush hour only, all buses would terminate at Unicity. This would complement and not replace the 279 at rush hour. I also designed some stops for the St. James area.

Who works on that time on a Sunday, let alone a stat, let alone when everything’s shut down due to COVID?

I’m gonna stay home too. Even without COVID, I’m not an early riser.

I did see that in the TMP, but decided to create a separate line and chose GREEN because it was literally the first color that came to mind. Even then, while there is a color code, the TMP routes’ official names will be letters instead of colors. With regards to these hypothetical feeders, all of them are based on current service, which, as a resident of the St. James area, I believe to be much better than what the TMP proposes.