Winnipeg and Artic Buses

[Wpgtransit11-25]

There’s still a large amount of artic buses parked on the fence and on the training island I’m willing to bet that because ATU1505 is refusing OT and that’s causing a backlog of buses waiting to get fixed.

[matt548]

#372 is on the 59

[Viafreak]

On 7/25/2019 at 12:45 AM, Wpgtransit11-25 said:

There’s still a large amount of artic buses parked on the fence and on the training island I’m willing to bet that because ATU1505 is refusing OT and that’s causing a backlog of buses waiting to get fixed.

Noticed that today that 372 was in the midst of the artic buses along the fence.

[DavidW]

5 minutes ago, Viafreak said:

Noticed that today that 372 was in the midst of the artic buses along the fence.

The area along the fence (beside McDonald's) is I believe called "track 37" (Fort Rouge Garage has 36 tracks) and being parked there doesn't automatically mean out of service. Buses awaiting maintenance should have a bright red tag attached to the driver's windshield wiper. Do all the buses on Track 37 have red tags?

[LilZebra]

I spotted 371 on the 54 today.

[Viafreak]

372 was on the 160 on Tuesday afternoon.

[matt548]

#985 is back as well 

[armorand]

An artic on the 60 (not the 160) on a weekday, without U of M classes or anything?

Seems like a weird shift to sign a 60-footer on, for. They sometimes do it in Calgary on regular routes for crushloads, but does the 60 really have a crushload to begin with? Especially with 160/162/170 and other buses operating so much down Pembina and in between Downtown?

[trebor204]

There were 3 60 foot buses in a row tonight (2 60s and 1 160) heading towards the UofM,

[vivablue5215]

It's funny cause of all the Pembina routes, I believe the 162/170 is the one in most need of artics. Unfortunately I don't think the landing pads in St. Norbert support artics.

[armorand]

2 hours ago, trebor204 said:

There were 3 60 foot buses in a row tonight (2 60s and 1 160) heading towards the UofM,

I know the 160 and 170 is usually overcrowded as hell, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the artics on rapid transit, versus the 60 itself? Just seems weird, like throwing an artic on the 24 all night, when the crowded 11s are running standing loads sometimes all the way to Whytewold...

7 minutes ago, vivablue5215 said:

It's funny cause of all the Pembina routes, I believe the 162/170 is the one in most need of artics. Unfortunately I don't think the landing pads in St. Norbert support artics.

Definitely agreed on 160 and 170. Even if St Norbert doesnt have artic pads, then why not use the 91 for the St Norbert section and focus all of the artics on Pembina service north of the Perimetre? Or actually use the 60ft buses on the entire route, and spare a couple of extra 40 footers on other needs throughout the city? Use a 40 footer on St Norbert if needed, and maybe an 11 in between Polo and Downtown to reduce the crushloads on Portage?

Just doesnt seem to make much sense. Granted Winnipegs had issues for decades, as I used to see living there for a good 90-95% of my life, but usually when a route has sardine/standing loads, its increasing capacity, frequency or both that resolves it - instead of putting extra capacity on a route that doesnt have the passengers needed, or using multiple (packed) 40 footers to do the job of one 60ft artic.

Theres also the fact that the 60 is bypassing rapid transit and hurting the whole purpose of it by utilizing the streets instead of the SWRTC with its near-empty artics... but I'll keep my posts somewhat... shorter, than a University thesis on it.

[DavidW]

15 hours ago, armorand said:

An artic on the 60 (not the 160) on a weekday, without U of M classes or anything?

Seems like a weird shift to sign a 60-footer on, for. They sometimes do it in Calgary on regular routes for crushloads, but does the 60 really have a crushload to begin with? Especially with 160/162/170 and other buses operating so much down Pembina and in between Downtown?

I assume Winnipeg Transit has a rational reason for assigning artic's where they do (although I haven't figured their reasoning out yet). I still contend that Winnipeg Transit misuses artics.  The answer to overcrowding on a low frequency route is higher frequency.  The answer to overcrowding on a high frequency route is bigger vehicles. If the 60 is overcrowded running every 22 minutes then the frequency should be increased.  On the other hand, if the 21 is overcrowded running every 10 or 12 minutes then artics should be deployed.

Under Transit's current thinking there is no circumstances ever when frequency should be improved.  So long as they stick to this we're never going to get improvements to the crappy frequency on so many routes, we're never going to get a reliable, usable, decent frequency core service. We're never going to get good service, period.

[matt548]

I agree with this, if the 60 is hogging all the artics, there are none left for the routes that actually need them like the 35, 36, 54 and 59

[wt_enthusiast_photos]

3 hours ago, matt548 said:

I agree with this, if the 60 is hogging all the artics, there are none left for the routes that actually need them like the 35, 36, 54 and 59

Does the 35 really need the artics?

[Wpgtransit11-25]

2 hours ago, bus is coming 1965 said:

Does the 35 really need the artics?

They do the 35 does need it. Well as we get in more of the 371-399 we should still have enough for the 60,160 and the 36,54,59 and 72 

[LilZebra]

5 hours ago, Wpgtransit11-25 said:

They do the 35 does need it. Well as we get in more of the 371-399 we should still have enough for the ... and 72 

Wpgtransit11-25, you must be jesting. 

[LilZebra]

On 8/7/2019 at 10:48 PM, armorand said:

Definitely agreed on 160 and 170. Even if St Norbert doesn't have artic pads, then why not use the 91 for the St Norbert section and focus all of the artics on Pembina service north of the Perimetre? Or actually use the 60ft buses on the entire route, and spare a couple of extra 40 footers on other needs throughout the city? Use a 40 footer on St Norbert if needed, and maybe an 11 in between Polo and Downtown to reduce the crushloads on Portage?

Turnbull Loop does not have a heated transit shelter. How could they (WT) do that to people, especially in -40 C Winter here? If there is, it isn't shown in WT's own photo of the site. I was expecting a lit "blue sign" at that spot, since it's the terminus of the "rt" route of the 162/170. Then again, how many passengers use Stop # 60699?

That stretch of road looks long enough for 2 artics. at least. Maybe 3.

Photos (source WT) show Turnbull Dr. loop and Des Trappists bus stops. In any other big city you'd have semi-rural areas with a commuter rail stations with a platform that you'd have to climb some stairs to reach. But not here, oh no. Here (Winnipeg vicinity) you just get a roadside stop with a simple metalic sign. Nothing to do there, except maybe collect your postal mail while you wait for your DIESEL BUS. (sigh).

[MMP15]

56 minutes ago, LilZebra said:

Turnbull Loop does not have a heated transit shelter. How could they (WT) do that to people, especially in -40 C Winter here? If there is, it isn't shown in WT's own photo of the site. I was expecting a lit "blue sign" at that spot, since it's the terminus of the "rt" route of the 162/170. Then again, how many passengers use Stop # 60699?

That stretch of road looks long enough for 2 artics. at least. Maybe 3.

Photos (source WT) show Turnbull Dr. loop and Des Trappists bus stops. In any other big city you'd have semi-rural areas with a commuter rail stations with a platform that you'd have to climb some stairs to reach. But not here, oh no. Here (Winnipeg vicinity) you just get a roadside stop with a simple metalic sign. Nothing to do there, except maybe collect your postal mail while you wait for your DIESEL BUS. (sigh).

When 137/162/170 are replaced with the BLUE line in Spring 2020, Turnbull Drive service will be eliminated. The BLUE line will terminate at a new RT Station at Pembina/Rue Des Trappistes. Route 691 will service St Norbert. 

[trebor204]

Just  saw 374 and maybe 373 (did not see the number) go down Academy ‘out of service’

[armorand]

The 72, with an artic? Might as well start giving the 82 weekday 5 minute service, and force the 11 and 47 riders to start sitting on the roof... 

Seriously though, why does the 72 even need an artic? I realize its the only feeder that goes to the U of M, or that even goes to Waverley West, but does it really need an artic for that, when the answer is more frequent bus service? Or maybe having another weekday feeder route between Waverley West and the U of M, to also help increase service but also actually serve Waverley West, instead of forcing everyone west of Waverley to either take cabs or have a 2 hour bus ride to the U of M?

Granted Winnipeg Transit barely has the money to do anything, but I'm honestly just starting to blame the City of Winnipeg at this point, to be honest. Its like City Hall is corrupt or something... and seeing Winnipeg go down the tubes to even the likes of Regina and Saskatoon, its a sad sight to see.

[wt_enthusiast_photos]

32 minutes ago, armorand said:

The 72, with an artic? Might as well start giving the 82 weekday 5 minute service, and force the 11 and 47 riders to start sitting on the roof... 

Seriously though, why does the 72 even need an artic? I realize its the only feeder that goes to the U of M, or that even goes to Waverley West, but does it really need an artic for that, when the answer is more frequent bus service? Or maybe having another weekday feeder route between Waverley West and the U of M, to also help increase service but also actually serve Waverley West, instead of forcing everyone west of Waverley to either take cabs or have a 2 hour bus ride to the U of M?

Granted Winnipeg Transit barely has the money to do anything, but I'm honestly just starting to blame the City of Winnipeg at this point, to be honest. Its like City Hall is corrupt or something... and seeing Winnipeg go down the tubes to even the likes of Regina and Saskatoon, its a sad sight to see.

72 is very very very busy I always see them leaving the uofm full load right to the front doors 

[Wpgtransit11-25]

35 minutes ago, armorand said:

The 72, with an artic? Might as well start giving the 82 weekday 5 minute service, and force the 11 and 47 riders to start sitting on the roof... 

Seriously though, why does the 72 even need an artic? I realize its the only feeder that goes to the U of M, or that even goes to Waverley West, but does it really need an artic for that, when the answer is more frequent bus service? Or maybe having another weekday feeder route between Waverley West and the U of M, to also help increase service but also actually serve Waverley West, instead of forcing everyone west of Waverley to either take cabs or have a 2 hour bus ride to the U of M?

Granted Winnipeg Transit barely has the money to do anything, but I'm honestly just starting to blame the City of Winnipeg at this point, to be honest. Its like City Hall is corrupt or something... and seeing Winnipeg go down the tubes to even the likes of Regina and Saskatoon, its a sad sight to see.

They do there busy asf during the school year even summer time they need them idk if u been on the 72 it’s busy asf during the day and with it becoming the 672 it will need it now that it is gonna be a route that ends at 1 am it will need it. 

[Viafreak]

21 hours ago, MMP15 said:

When 137/162/170 are replaced with the BLUE line in Spring 2020, Turnbull Drive service will be eliminated. The BLUE line will terminate at a new RT Station at Pembina/Rue Des Trappistes. Route 691 will service St Norbert. 

Glad to hear that. Can't imagine there being much ridership on that portion of the 162/170 route. The Turnbull service is only four buses a day each way (7 of the 162 and 1 170 bus). The 137 doesn't serve Turnbull.

[vivablue5215]

72 I can accept it needing artics. From data I received a couple years back, 72's one of the busiest bus routes for riders leaving and departing U of M (busier than the 60, 160, or even 162/170), and buses leave almost every 5-10 minutes during peak hours in the Fall/Winter period.

[armorand]

1 hour ago, vivablue5215 said:

72 I can accept it needing artics. From data I received a couple years back, 72's one of the busiest bus routes for riders leaving and departing U of M (busier than the 60, 160, or even 162/170), and buses leave almost every 5-10 minutes during peak hours in the Fall/Winter period.

I agree, it does get busy and i can't deny that, but artics though? I just think it would be better, if another route would be implemented, that covers the area east of Pembina (that the 72 already covers), but that then goes directly to Waverley West. It would boost service west of Waverley, along with provide relief for the 72, and also could be used by students to get to employment areas/groceries. Just seems like the better idea, thats in better interests for Winnipeg Transit. That, or if WT can't financially afford it, pressure the U of M to provide a wider campus shuttle service, or maybe a service to Pembina and back? It might help out the situation, and be financially viable enough to run their own private transit service...