Blue Line/Southwest Transitway

[GrandeWest_B35G]

3 minutes ago, DavidW said:

A pedestrian at grade level crossing of the CN main line would never, ever, ever be allowed.

In Winnipeg, or anywhere? There's one in Biggar, SK.

[DavidW]

13 minutes ago, Imgursdownvote4love said:

In Winnipeg, or anywhere? There's one in Biggar, SK.

"New York is big, but this is Biggar!"

There are, no doubt, hundreds of level crossings of the CN main line in rural Canada.  The use rate of a level crossing in a large population centre like Winnipeg would just create too many incidents.  The particular section of track we are discussing also sees, in addition to through-trains, a lot of local train traffic among Winnipeg's various freight yards. Heavy train traffic plus heavy pedestrian/cycling traffic (including people rushing to catch buses) would, I expect, raise serious safety concerns at CN and elsewhere.  I would expect CN to just say "no".  (Given that such a crossing isn't under construction or in the plans, we can assume CN or someone else has already said "no".)

[LilZebra]

32 minutes ago, DavidW said:

A pedestrian at grade level crossing of the CN main line would never, ever, ever be allowed. The current proposal is a pedestrian/cycling tunnel under the main line north of Beaumont station.  The main proponent of the tunnel, last I knew, was one of the city's cycling lobbies. (This being Winnipeg I would guess the real estate developer is behind the scenes pulling the strings).

Personally I think the tunnel is a must, and I think the developer of the retail on the south side of Taylor should be required pay for it.

Dollar Tree and Giant Tiger, Sals might not have enough $ for a project like this. Maybe Manitoba Hydro (Prov. Gov't) can throw in some $, despite them leaving the ca. 1958 office building nearby. There's a Sushi restaurant in that strip mall that could lend some $.

My point being that there is not enough large businesses to pay 100% (combined) whatever the cost of this needed underpass would be.

If we could time travel back to 1968 we could ask A&P to donate to hazy "future" rapid transit pedestrian underpass, as their store was located at the future Videon Cable-tv > Long & McQuade Music Store

[DavidW]

7 minutes ago, LilZebra said:

Dollar Tree and Giant Tiger, Sals might not have enough $ for a project like this. Maybe Manitoba Hydro (Prov. Gov't) can throw in some $, despite them leaving the ca. 1958 office building nearby. There's a Sushi restaurant in that strip mall that could lend some $.

My point being that there is not enough large businesses to pay 100% (combined) whatever the cost of this needed underpass would be.

If we could time travel back to 1968 we could ask A&P to donate to a future rapid transit pedestrian underpass, as their store was located at the future Videon Cable-tv > Long & McQuade Music Store

The property developer of the retail park on Taylor is Shindico. (They could pay for it with money they find in their couch cushions...)

[LilZebra]

On 3/16/2019 at 10:01 PM, car4041 said:

 

At the downtown end, moving the 66 (and 65) back onto Donald eliminates the 99, which is a good thing. I love the idea of extending the 160 north through the Exchange as well.

Operating on Smith / Donald St. only north of Broadway.

3 minutes ago, DavidW said:

The property developer of the retail park on Taylor is Shindico. (They could pay for it with money they find in their couch cushions...)

Oh, I thought we were talking about Ft. Rouge  or Jubilee Station where people also want an underground passageway.

Yeah, why aren't these things planned for and constructed in advance? I know, I know... "Made in Manitoba rapid transit". We're not worthy of nicer things because we're not Ont.

40 minutes ago, Imgursdownvote4love said:

That bus's range was 101-135 iirc. They renumbered it to 136.

I still see 806 which was the bus behind 112 that day.

On 3/16/2019 at 10:01 PM, car4041 said:

I do agree with Wpgtransit11-25 that moving the 60 from Graham down to York/St. Mary seems weird and inconvenient for most riders. If it has to be moved south of Graham, I'd rather see it on Broadway, which desperately needs improved transit service.

Then take the 160 which won't be using the SWBRT infrastructure come Spring 2020.

[DavidW]

6 minutes ago, LilZebra said:

Oh, I thought we were talking about Ft. Rouge  or Jubilee Station where people also want an underground passageway.

Yeah, why aren't these things planned for and constructed in advance? I know, I know... "Made in Manitoba rapid transit". We're not worthy of nicer things because we're not Ont.

No. In the area of Beaumont station.

The story I was told was that there was a caveat on the original construction of the rail line that if the City ever wanted a pedestrian bridge in the area the railway company would be obligated to provide it at their cost. Alas, the original rail line was constructed in 1889 by the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Railway Company (subsidiary of the Northern Pacific Railway in the U.S.) and when Canadian National Railway was approached to fulfill the terms of the agreement they declined claiming it no longer applied (or it didn't apply to them).

[LilZebra]

In other cities when they do rapid transit nowadays, there are YouTube videos, with aninmated flyovers, detaililng the routing, the equipment (LRT, subway), what buildings are nearby, Park & Ride, etc...

In Winnipeg, the mantra seems to be, "trust us to build this BRT, which is what we've always wanted since Unicity gov't (1972-73). And hey, we'll let you know what its gonna look like on the day that it opens. Because if you only knew how bad we designed it, most of you (maybe except the cyclists) would be opposed to it."

I stayed away from the Open Houses because I can't get teenager like excited over a Bus. So apart from viewing the very general maps online, I don't know much detail about the whole project ... "until it opens", which is sad.... Because I've waited all of my life for "rapid transit" (trains) and only got buses on a "road to nowhere" route.

Q: What is this 'Southpark Station' all about? Is it inside Univ. Crescent or somewhere else? Why does the Univ. of Man. need 3 (!) stations dedicated to itself?

[Wpgtransit11-25]

4 minutes ago, LilZebra said:

Q: What is this 'Southpark Station' all about? Is it inside Univ. Crescent or somewhere else? Why does the Univ. of Man. need 3 (!) stations dedicated to itself?

That’s the station beside giant tiger and Safeway on south park drive. The other stops I assume will be on university crescent the stadium station I want to assume will be used on event days with blue line service bypassing it on its way in to campus. Now Markham station will be used by blue line service traveling to st Norbert and to meet up with the feeder routes. 

[DavidW]

15 minutes ago, LilZebra said:

Q: What is this 'Southpark Station' all about? Is it inside Univ. Crescent or somewhere else? Why does the Univ. of Man. need 3 (!) stations dedicated to itself?

It's on Southpark Drive at Pembina Highway.  About two or three blocks north of Victoria Hospital.  As for the UofM, there is a regular-use Stadium station to be built on Bohemir Trail at the west side of University Crescent (at the intersection of University Crescent and Dysart Road) and the University of Manitoba station on Dafoe Road between Gillson Street and Service Street 7 South (already in service), but since buses will be operating on street between the two stations the on-street stops should continue in use.  The two stations are a 1.28 km apart on foot (according to google maps) and, next to downtown, the UofM is the busiest transit destination in the city. Two stops only, at the extreme ends of campus, would not be adequate service.

[MMP15]

3 hours ago, DavidW said:

A pedestrian at grade level crossing of the CN main line would never, ever, ever be allowed. The current proposal is a pedestrian/cycling tunnel under the main line north of Beaumont station.  The main proponent of the tunnel, last I knew, was one of the city's cycling lobbies. (This being Winnipeg I would guess the real estate developer is behind the scenes pulling the strings).

Personally I think the tunnel is a must, and I think the developer of the retail on the south side of Taylor should be required pay for it.

Tunnels are magnitudes safer than at-grade crossings, however I believe the city would be more inclined to build an at-grade crossing, as it is cheaper. Our city hall’s philosophy seems to be money first, safety second.

Also, for crossings like this are they regulated/need to be approved by Transport Canada? Or is it just the city and CN that would need to come to an agreement?

[Taylorover9001]

On 4/23/2019 at 12:21 PM, DavidW said:

A pedestrian at grade level crossing of the CN main line would never, ever, ever be allowed. The current proposal is a pedestrian/cycling tunnel under the main line north of Beaumont station.  The main proponent of the tunnel, last I knew, was one of the city's cycling lobbies. (This being Winnipeg I would guess the real estate developer is behind the scenes pulling the strings).

Personally I think the tunnel is a must, and I think the developer of the retail on the south side of Taylor should be required pay for it.

Pedestrian crossings already exist on the main lines, they're called sidewalks. Having fencing (though I don't want it) and gates would certainly help prevent people from crossing as a train is approaching. It's not fool proof, but it would help, and it would be a magnitude cheaper.

[armorand]

On 4/23/2019 at 11:20 AM, Imgursdownvote4love said:

That bus's range was 101-135 iirc. They renumbered it to 136.

Yeah, the picture of the engagement wrap on the D40LFR is why I asked, I didn't know it was going to be put onto a D40LF as a final decision (considering what happened a few years ago). Quote below with it, for reference. 

 

On 3/18/2019 at 12:20 PM, DavidW said:

And it looks like the engagement will be held on board a bus...

 

 

2 hours ago, Taylorover9001 said:

Pedestrian crossings already exist on the main lines, they're called sidewalks. Having fencing (though I don't want it) and gates would certainly help prevent people from crossing as a train is approaching. It's not fool proof, but it would help, and it would be a magnitude cheaper.

Calgary and Edmonton both have them for theirs, although over the CN yard at Fort Rouge... that's the thing. I still don't see why though, the City of Winnipeg can't build some sort of pedestrian overpass over the yard - Heritage station in Calgary as an example, high enough clearance, costed a few million but it works and is very well used!

[Viafreak]

With regards to the pedestrian crossing over the Fort Rouge Yard, where would it go? Most of the SWBRT Phase 1 is very close to the edge of the yard. Not to mention that it appears that there is no room on the west side of the yard to end the bridge. Fort Rouge Yard also has lots of equipment requiring excess height (doublestack containers and VIA Rail dome cars) that would hinder building a bridge as well as the track layout of the yard. Due to the nature of the Fort Rouge Yard, the bridge would have to be approved by VIA, CN and BNSF. Needless to say that it wouldn't happen for those reasons.

[Taylorover9001]

10 hours ago, Viafreak said:

With regards to the pedestrian crossing over the Fort Rouge Yard, where would it go? Most of the SWBRT Phase 1 is very close to the edge of the yard. Not to mention that it appears that there is no room on the west side of the yard to end the bridge. Fort Rouge Yard also has lots of equipment requiring excess height (doublestack containers and VIA Rail dome cars) that would hinder building a bridge as well as the track layout of the yard. Due to the nature of the Fort Rouge Yard, the bridge would have to be approved by VIA, CN and BNSF. Needless to say that it wouldn't happen for those reasons.

Near Jubilee Station, there are lights that go over the tracks, use that as a height reference point.

[DavidW]

A few recent photographs...

   Busway underpass of Portage Junction (CN), 22 April 2019.

 

   Beaumont Station, 22 April 2019.

 

   Chancellor Station, 27 April 2019.

 

   Plaza Station, 27 April 2019.

 

   Overpass over Letellier Sub (and two spurs) south of Clarence Avenue, 27 July 2019.

 

[LilZebra]

Overpass over Letellier Sub. Is that a ramp or am I seeing things? Looks like quite the steep grade there.

Hope all these Stations have heated shelter components in ALL of them. No excuses this time.

Re: Beaumont Stn. when we get an LRT / subway, WT can tap into the Manitoba Hydro power poles directly from there, eh.

[Wpgtransit11-25]

8 hours ago, LilZebra said:

Overpass over Letellier Sub. Is that a ramp or am I seeing things? Looks like quite the steep grade there.

Hope all these Stations have heated shelter components in ALL of them. No excuses this time.

Re: Beaumont Stn. when we get an LRT / subway, WT can tap into the Manitoba Hydro power poles directly from there, eh.

They all are heated but the heat is more to keep the windows clear in the winter 

[LilZebra]

OK, so let's move on (pardon the pun). Continuing on from the discussion about improving the routing of the 95, let's work on improving the 65 Grant Express and 66 Grant routes.

Do they really need to go all the way downtown once Phase II is opened? No, I don't think so. Ideally, would have been nice to have an underground Stafford Stn. at Pembina, but this is I guess "the cards we're dealt". So:

65 Grant Express Beaumont Stn.
65 Grant Express Charleswood (or list a Loop in the Charleswood are)

66 Grant Beaumont Stn.
66 Grant Charleswood

No more 66 Grant Unicity. If you want to go there, you'll need a feeder bus going over the Perim. Hwy. bridge.

Passengers wanting to continue onto Polo Park would transfer to a 74 Kenaston at Kenaston and Grant.

Heated Transit shelter will be located on the SE or NE corner of Grant @ Kenaston.

This enables shorter routes. Enables straight lining of the 65 and 66. Enables the Grant routes to terminate outside of downtown, meaning fewer buses entering the downtown area and causing unnecessary road wear & tear. Emphasizes "rail-like" transit. Gets passengers used to train <> bus transfers. Increases passenger volume to the BLUE "rt" route, thereby making the case for rail-transit conversion ASAP.

Also the BLUE route destination signs should read:

(whatever) Balmoral Stn.

(whatever) University of Manitoba Stn.

(whatever) St. Norbert Stn.

Rather than the amgiguous destination of "Downtown" as they do now, make it more "rail-like". Specify exactly where that bus (future train) is going.

On the TTC subway, they have the exact Station terminus on the rollsign, not "Downtown".

[MMP15]

4 hours ago, LilZebra said:

OK, so let's move on (pardon the pun). Continuing on from the discussion about improving the routing of the 95, let's work on improving the 65 Grant Express and 66 Grant routes.

Do they really need to go all the way downtown once Phase II is opened? No, I don't think so. Ideally, would have been nice to have an underground Stafford Stn. at Pembina, but this is I guess "the cards we're dealt". So:

65 Grant Express Beaumont Stn.
65 Grant Express Charleswood (or list a Loop in the Charleswood are)

66 Grant Beaumont Stn.
66 Grant Charleswood

No more 66 Grant Unicity. If you want to go there, you'll need a feeder bus going over the Perim. Hwy. bridge.

Passengers wanting to continue onto Polo Park would transfer to a 74 Kenaston at Kenaston and Grant.

Heated Transit shelter will be located on the SE or NE corner of Grant @ Kenaston.

This enables shorter routes. Enables straight lining of the 65 and 66. Enables the Grant routes to terminate outside of downtown, meaning fewer buses entering the downtown area and causing unnecessary road wear & tear. Emphasizes "rail-like" transit. Gets passengers used to train <> bus transfers. Increases passenger volume to the BLUE "rt" route, thereby making the case for rail-transit conversion ASAP.

Also the BLUE route destination signs should read:

(whatever) Balmoral Stn.

(whatever) University of Manitoba Stn.

(whatever) St. Norbert Stn.

Rather than the amgiguous destination of "Downtown" as they do now, make it more "rail-like". Specify exactly where that bus (future train) is going.

On the TTC subway, they have the exact Station terminus on the rollsign, not "Downtown".

How would grant east of Waverley/Cambridge be serviced if this were implemented?

[LilZebra]

Can't these buses go down Harrow or Stafford and then on Pembina Hwy. and then to Beaumont? I mean, that's why I don't like these ambiguous maps WT is providing. I know there's going to be several feeders serving this Stn., so why not the Grant routes too?

The 697 Wildwood feeder takes Pembina > Windermere > Beaumont to get to and from Beaumont Stn. The Grant buses can use this routing too, except that the Grant buses would get to/from Pembina via Harrow or Stafford.

[Wpgtransit11-25]

The physical structure  at Beaumont station is going up at a fast pace from what I was told the 697,664, 684 and the 29 will have there layovers in the station itself like on the same platform as the blue line is there really enough room, cause at seal station there is a third platform where I assume the 94 will stop why not build a little loop or separate platform for the 697,664,684 and 29. Just curios 

[car4041]

On 5/12/2019 at 5:25 PM, LilZebra said:

OK, so let's move on (pardon the pun). Continuing on from the discussion about improving the routing of the 95, let's work on improving the 65 Grant Express and 66 Grant routes.

Do they really need to go all the way downtown once Phase II is opened? No, I don't think so. Ideally, would have been nice to have an underground Stafford Stn. at Pembina, but this is I guess "the cards we're dealt". So:

65 Grant Express Beaumont Stn.
65 Grant Express Charleswood (or list a Loop in the Charleswood are)

66 Grant Beaumont Stn.
66 Grant Charleswood

Setting aside the ridiculously indirect routing that this would impose on someone heading to downtown, which on its own is enough to make this proposal a non-starter, the fact remains that the 66 and 65 are not some piddly little neighbourhood feeders: they are mainline routes with decent frequency (on the 66) and high ridership. Forcing all those passengers to transfer onto the RT would overwhelm the capacity of the RT service.  If you empty out a 66 bus full of passengers at Beaumont Station every 10 minutes, you'll need a corresponding number of empty RT buses waiting there to pick everyone up. It's more logical just to continue routing the 66/65 into downtown -- especially if they use the Donald/Smith route, which services a different corridor from the RT.

Terminating the 66 at Beaumont would be like terminating the 75 at Chancellor station and forcing everyone to switch to the RT to continue to the U of M. Not gonna happen because the 75 buses are crammed completely full.

The situation is different with the 600-series feeder routes, which are not likely to be in even the same ballpark of ridership as the 66 or 75. In those cases it makes more sense to have passengers transfer onto the RT.

[armorand]

Winnipeg could've also decided to have LRT and spend actual money to have it built down Pembina, so it wouldnt be a problem... but otherwise, do agree. If anything, Route 65 should split off to either go Downtown via Grant or Portage, and the 66 frequency should be raised by also taking it to Unicity, cutting off the 98 feeder from going to Unicity, and adding a few short-turn routes from Dieppe, if not Polo.

Wouldn't do much late at night, but would be crucial during the day and rush hour especially.

[Viafreak]

Biked along part of the new Southwest Transitway Active Transportation path this afternoon between Parker and McGillivray stations. The transitway looks more and more ready for the start of operation next year. When I was near Parker Station, they were installing part of the station canopy. McGillivray is at the same stage as Parker. The road crossing the Transitway (Georgina) near Parker Station is open and the traffic lights controlling the Transitway are up. The bridge over Pembina is still under construction and the Transitway leading to it from Phase 1 hasn't been graded yet (there is still a huge dirt hill from all the excavating). I wonder if Transit will put up Watch for Deer signs near Parker Station as is a mini forest there. I saw a deer on one of the paths near Parker Station. It took off when I approached but still concerning for Transitway safety.

[DavidW]

The Blue Line station on South Park Drive at Pembina Highway looks more-or-less ready (assuming there's glass behind the plywood hoarding).

Westbound South Park at Pembina:

  31 May 2018

 

Eastbound South Park at Pembina:

  31 May 2019

 

The space that I thought was where the every-day Stadium Station was to be built hasn't seen any construction so far this summer.  I wonder if there even will be a pair of platforms here...

  24 May 2019

 

Coming up on a year since the renovated UofM Station opened and the signs still don't have their route number tiles...

  24 May 2019