Custom Transit Routes

[Taylorover9001]

Has anybody come up with their own custom Winnipeg Transit routes? I know I have, and I'd be interested to know what kinds of routes you've come up with. It doesn't matter if it's something you seriously want or think should happen, or is less serious and more of a fantasy. You don't need to share a map or anything else, just a description of it. I've come up with a bunch of routes, and I'll share 2 of them right now.

37 Northeast Super Express

This route would connect the U of M with Kildonan Place and Transcona (peak hours only), via Bishop Grandin and Lagimodiere. The express portion would be on Bishop Grandin, Lagimodiere and Regent (Lagimodiere to Plessis). In Transcona, it would follow the same routing as the 46.

 

94 Des Meurons

This route is a bit less serious and more fantasy-like. Don't take it too seriously. This route would connect Kingston Crescent to Kildonan Place, via Des Meurons. It's a local route, and I made a map, which I'll let do the talking.

[tctf101]

I’ve done many custom winnipeg transit routes including a route from st. Vital centre to polo park as well as made some designs on what current routes could be changed into like extending the 16 west to brookside 

[wt_enthusiast_photos]

On 1/8/2020 at 2:29 AM, Taylorover9001 said:

 

why not call it the Southeast Super Express....

[Taylorover9001]

9 minutes ago, bus is coming 1965 said:

why not call it the Southeast Super Express....

Uh because it goes to Kildonan Place/Transcona? I would consider that to be northeast Winnipeg. I don't think Winnipeg Transit will ever run buses on Springfield or Gunn. It would be a super express along Bishop Grandin and an express along Lagmodiere.

[wt_enthusiast_photos]

15 hours ago, Taylorover9001 said:

Uh because it goes to Kildonan Place/Transcona? I would consider that to be northeast Winnipeg. I don't think Winnipeg Transit will ever run buses on Springfield or Gunn. It would be a super express along Bishop Grandin and an express along Lagmodiere.

Most of the route is In the south and east of the town. 

[Taylorover9001]

4 hours ago, bus is coming 1965 said:

Most of the route is In the south and east of the town. 

The 36 Northwest Super Express is partially in the southwest part of the city, and I don't see you complaining about that. The whole point of the 37 Northeast Super Express would be to transport people from the U of M to the northeast, and vice versa. I might even have it be non-stop on Bishop Grandin, meaning you would not be able to get off along that part of the southeast anyways.

[Wpgtransit11-25]

8 minutes ago, Taylorover9001 said:

The 36 Northwest Super Express is partially in the southwest part of the city, and I don't see you complaining about that. The whole point of the 37 Northeast Super Express would be to transport people from the U of M to the northeast, and vice versa. I might even have it be non-stop on Bishop Grandin, meaning you would not be able to get off along that part of the southeast anyways.

Most of the route is in south east it’s not really a north east super express. Even transit would consider this a southeast super express as it’s main goal is to transport between u of Manitoba and Kildonan place if it goes towards Say glenway or a park and ride along north lag north of Concordia then I say it’s a northeast but otherwise it’s a southeast super express. Even so I would add a branch that goes to sage creek as a park and ride at the tims in sage creek 

[Taylorover9001]

Fine, here's a modified version of the 37 

[tctf101]

Here’s a few ideas for the St. Vital area including a revision of the original route 52 design which can pretty much replace the 96 as well as extending the 93 west to plaza drive which could make the 16 end at St. Vital centre and get rid of the 101 

[SirAndrew710]

I drew up a few while waiting for my verification period to conclude. Here‘s two of them:

27 Ellice Express:

This would run in concert with a re-routed 14 that would follow St. James Street to Polo Park (an idea which I’ve seen thrown around on here a few times and seems like a genius idea, as the current 14 goes literally nowhere). One branch would originate at Polo Park and provide Berry Street and Silver Avenue residents with a one-seat ride downtown, while the other would originate at the Grace and help the 21 and 24 out, in addition to serving that new residential development where St. James Collegiate used to be. Both branches would also help the 14 out. To make room for the 14 and 27 at Polo Park Terminal, the 20 and 24/95 stops would be removed, with the 20 stopping on Portage (as it does not terminate at the mall), the 24 using the 26 stop (as the short-turned 24 and the 26 do not operate at the same time) and the 95 using the 79 stop (as the 95 does not run to the mall when the 79’s in operation).

81 Headingley/Headingley Super Express

I’ve seen a route to Headingley mentioned on the “History of WT” thread, and this one would be similar. With the Iceplex already out there and a new power center under development, I’m sure this would be well-ridden, if only on the “Portage” branch and only that far. Weekdays until 7 PM, this would operate as a super-express route all the way downtown, which would provide Headingley residents a quick ride downtown and help to ease the loads on the 21 and 22. It would only operate as far as Unicity at other times, though perhaps timed connections with the 11/21 or 24 could be scheduled in.

[LilZebra]

81 Headingley SuperExpress...

I would eliminate all stops in between Unicity and downtown, except for the ones at  Unicity, Polo, Arlington, Sherbrook/Maryland... then go local from there.

The other issue is that you say that service would be curtailed at 7 pm. Not sure what the oerating hours of the Iceplex are, and most people using that facility (players,, staff, spectators) would get a car ride, but suppose IF some wanted to take the bus, would they get stranded after 7 pm if the event didn't end until after that time?

[SirAndrew710]

3 hours ago, LilZebra said:

I would eliminate all stops in between Unicity and downtown, except for the ones at  Unicity, Polo, Arlington, Sherbrook/Maryland... then go local from there.

In the form I suggested, it wouldn’t stop between Polo and Maryland, so no Arlington (or Valour, as a matter of fact). I do believe the other stops I’ve suggested (Berry, Whytewold, Ronald/Woodhaven and Cavalier/Rouge) should stay so that people looking to go to the Iceplex can a connect with this bus there.

3 hours ago, LilZebra said:

The other issue is that you say that service would be curtailed at 7 pm. Not sure what the oerating hours of the Iceplex are, and most people using that facility (players,, staff, spectators) would get a car ride, but suppose IF some wanted to take the bus, would they get stranded after 7 pm if the event didn't end until after that time?

Service would not be curtailed at 7 PM.  After that time, it would still run, but just wouldn’t go past Unicity, similar to how the 24 doesn’t go past Polo after 7. I apologize if this wasn't clear in my original post.

[SirAndrew710]

I had been asked by @bus is coming 1965 to draw up a route connecting Bridgwater with the U of M, so here it is. This would serve Victoria Hospital and the portion of Waverley Heights that will lose service after the 51 is replaced by the 676 and rerouted into Bridgwater. It would also serve the northern portion of Bridgwater Forest, as the southern portion will be served by the 676, and provide expanded service to the Bridgwater Trails area that the 86 does not and the 676 will not serve, as requested by @bus is coming 1965 himself.

[SirAndrew710]

I’ve been asked to share more routes, and I mention on my bio that I modify existing routes in addition to drawing up new ones, so here are two routes I’ve modified to provide additional service to the St. Vital area.

12 Southdale/William

Because Route 12 is numbered like a route that should travel straight through Downtown, and because portions of St. Vital are underserved, I drew up this extension. It would provide service to the West Exchange and the northern part of St. B., follow the length of Archibald and provide service to southwestern Windsor Park and Southdale Centre before splitting into two branches. One branch would serve the western portion of Southdale and Royalwood before terminating at St. Vital Centre, while the other would serve the eastern portion of Southdale and Southland Park before terminating at Paterson.

50 Archibald

To allow for all-day service to Sage Creek, I added a second branch to the 50. This one would stay on Archibald rather than turning on Marion and follow the Autumnwood branch of the 19, but when the 19 would turn onto Betournay, this would instead follow the current route (which conveniently picks up at this point) the rest of the way to Sage Creek. The new branch would alternate with the current route at rush hour, while mid-day, evening and weekend service would be provided solely by the new branch.

[LilZebra]

My question to @SirAndrew710 is...how do you have access to WT's route mapping software, or do you really do a great job at "guessing" the exact font size, placement (ems) between each graphical element? I know that if I were to try and create similar, I'd use freeware software such as Inkscape (can't afford Adobe stuff). And not knowing the distances between elements, unless I meticulously measured every little line thickness, and greyscale number (although this could be achieved via scanning and usinmg RGB values) it'd look more like a rough draft than anything else I could consider publish quality.

Just wondering.

If this software or a template  / stylesheet is freely available, could you please share the URL so that more of us could design these fantasy routes?

[jhood135]

The routes I’ve seen proposed on here are definitely interesting, but I do think the Transit Master Plan should be taken into consideration when we design fantasy routes (I’ve done a couple LRT fantasy maps, and revised and redone as I’ve learned more).

Winnipeg Transit seems to be moving towards a route system that is A) more direct, so fewer turns and more straight lines, and B ) with almost no branches and weekday-based route extensions.

Starting with A, this makes sense to me as a bus that winds through all these different neighbourhoods takes a very long time, significantly longer than driving, and actually acts as a large deterrent for non-transit users to make the switch. Even though it adds service to many areas, ridership remains low because it can take up to 4x longer than driving. Transit has also highlighted turning as one of the biggest delays for buses. If a bus is turning left onto Graham, and has two wait two minutes for traffic to pass, then it becomes two minutes late. The more turns, the bigger the delay - hence why the TMP is proposing to use Portage instead of Graham, there are fewer turns.

Second is the branching and limited service. If you’re new to the transit system, it can actually be relatively confusing when a bus takes several branches to figure out which one will take you where you need to go, as it can be hard to find a reference to where the bus turns off. They used the Route 16 with five different branches heading southbound as an example of why the branch system should be phased out at a Canadian Transit Conference, and many other cities couldn’t believe how common branching is on our system. Branching is also a common reason for delays or buses not showing up, as a bus that runs down a high density corridor suddenly shows up in a low density neighbourhood, and when it’s late, they often cut the trip short to put it back on schedule, leaving people in the low density neighbourhoods waiting up to an hour for another bus with no explanation. Having a direct route down the high density corridor and feeders in the low density neighbourhoods actually enables buses to be on time more often as there are fewer turns, and the routes are simpler and shorter, so headways can also be improved.

I’m hoping at least some of that gobbledygook makes sense...!

[SirAndrew710]

10 hours ago, LilZebra said:

My question to @SirAndrew710 is...how do you have access to WT's route mapping software, or do you really do a great job at "guessing" the exact font size, placement (ems) between each graphical element? I know that if I were to try and create similar, I'd use freeware software such as Inkscape (can't afford Adobe stuff). And not knowing the distances between elements, unless I meticulously measured every little line thickness, and greyscale number (although this could be achieved via scanning and usinmg RGB values) it'd look more like a rough draft than anything else I could consider publish quality.

Just wondering.

If this software or a template  / stylesheet is freely available, could you please share the URL so that more of us could design these fantasy routes?

I don’t have access to WT’s software. I use an app on my iPad called “You Doodle Plus” to make the maps. The process of making them really is a lot of guesswork. For the most part, the colors are easy enough, seeing as it’s usually in black and white, though if you look at the Route 674 map above, the Blue Line is in a different shade of blue than the legend shows. while I have played around with the font size to guess. For instance, on that Route 50 map above, you may notice that my edits are in a different (and perhaps slightly larger) font than the original. It’s easy to notice on the existing routes that I’ve modified which part of the route is the original and which part of the route I’ve modified. For the templates I use for new routes, what I do is I take an existing map, literally cover everything in white paint (to give myself a blank canvas of sorts) and start working. I crop the legend and the compass out of existing maps and paste them onto the new ones. Hope this helps.

[SirAndrew710]

Recently, I’ve taken a look at the proposed changes to the southwestern route network. I haven’t looked at the BLUE Line and the feeders yet (though I did create an additional feeder, which I posted last week). These are just the Pembina Highway routes, I’ll post three today and the rest tomorrow.

13 McLeod/Taylor

This is the only new route I created (the rest are modified versions of current, upcoming or previous routes). Going northeast from downtown, this would help the 11 out, as well as providing McLeod Ave a one-seat ride to downtown and serving the Harbour View South area. It would serve Kildonan Place before terminating at Crossroads Station and serve almost every retail development in northeast Winnipeg. Going southwest, it would provide service to Osborne Village and north Pembina before going all the way down Taylor and serve the residential developments at Seasons, Cabela’s and IKEA before terminating at Outlet Collection. This route would follow the 74’s current routing through Seasons, make its way to Outlet Collection (at which point the driver would change the sign and take their layover) and then follow the 84’s current routing through Seasons before returning to Shaftesbury and Taylor. I would assume ridership would be fairly low past Confusion Corner, but passengers would benefit from a one-seat ride from downtown to Seasons and perhaps more-frequent service than the 74 provides.

47 Pembina/Transcona

Combining these two routes seems like a smart idea. Taking service away from The Bay, Bell MTS Place, etc. does not. Therefore, I would combine the 47 with the regular 60 (rather than the 160) to maintain that service.

60 Pembina

This route would continue to exist in a radically different form. In addition to the southward extension that WT has already proposed, I would have it absorb the 99’s current routing up Donald to City Hall, which would allow the 65 and 66 to retain its current terminal at Memorial and York rather than do that Transitway/Main/Broadway/Donald or Smith dogleg that WT has proposed.

Route 160 would remain in its current form, though I would imagine it would operate on greatly reduced hours (including no Sunday service) and allow the BLUE Line and revised Routes 47 and 60 to do that work.

[SirAndrew710]

Continuing from yesterday’s post, here are a couple more current and former Pembina Hwy routes I’ve modified:

62 Richmond Express/70 Richmond

One of the most questionable decisions WT made, in my opinion, was getting rid of the 162 and 170. These two routes must be revenue machines with the ridership they get. As such, I would bring back modified versions of these routes, maintaining the current terminal at Balmoral while otherwise bringing back the previous Donald/Smith routing, shortening the route and possibly making the schedules easier to keep than they currently are. I would also bring back the 37 Richmond Super Express, with the same modifications made, though let the BLUE Line and feeders handle Richmond West. The 91 would still only run at night, with the current setup re: the 70 remaining, though I would still replace the 109 with extended 91 service.

I would imagine that on Sundays, the 70 would alternate with the 47 and 60 proposed above for a 10-minute headway along Pembina. (On Saturdays, the 62 couldn’t fill this role, owing to its express section, and so a 7-minute headway would be provided courtesy of the 47, 60 and 160. I’d assume it would still be the same un-co-ordinated mess of buses on weekdays that currently exists).

65 Grant Express/66 Grant

As mentioned in yesterday’s post, both routes would follow their existing route to Memorial and York rather than dogleg from Union Station to City Hall/RRC. I would reinstate Route 65 service to Unicity, in addition to the extended service to Ridgewood West proposed in the RT document, which would allow the headways on this (busy) route to be reduced from 15-20 minutes to 10. The 66 would remain unchanged from its current form.

I understand that the TMP calls for the elimination of branching, however, I have no idea when (or even if) that plan will be implemented, and so I do not consider it when I draw up these routes. On the other hand, Stage 2 of the SWRTC project will be implemented imminently, and so I consider that when I draw up routes for the southwestern part of the city.

Edited February 8, 2020 by SirAndrew710
Because for whatever reason, it took me a full week to realize I had omitted a label from two of the maps. ??‍♂️

[SirAndrew710]

Inspired by a discussion I had with @armorand a while back with regards to bring up Route 82 ridership, I decided to take a look at ways to change it. Seeing as Route 98’s ridership base seems to be the people who use it to get across the Moray Bridge, I decided to tack some of that route onto the 82. I would also have the 11/21/22’s St. Charles service absorbed by the 82 if WT goes ahead and reroutes those three routes to Westport and the Iceplex.

I would also reroute the 98 so that it travels eastbound along Portage from Moray to Polo Park, similar to a now-former branch of the 79. In addition to providing a link from South Charleswood to Polo, it would give the 21 some much-needed help along the section of the route. Due to capacity issues at Polo Park Terminal and because there’s been talk of a residential development going up on the former Target site, I would terminate this bus on the north side of the mall.

These changes would mean no more interlining and potentially no more 40-foot buses on the 82. That route really doesn’t need them.

[armorand]

The 66/79 ridership would be decimated with the routes as proposed, BUT if the 67 came back with a Portage branch, it would help out on weekdays considerably. 

As for the 82, I mentioned westbound expansion out to Assiniboia Downs, but East? The only eastern expansion I can imagine, is either to a) Sturgeon, or b) CentrePort Canada. I'd suggest Silver Avenue, if it ever gets fully expanded... but realistically, 82 expansions would be best to either the new employment areas north of Sask, or to schools in the area. 

It might be best in that scenario, to let the 98 continue its current routing, but to expand the 82 considerably, on both ends - while the 67 Portage gets brought back to life. Considering Winnipeg Transits reluctance to do, well, any other sort of meaningful changes... thats the best bet we could get, that would increase ridership on the 82 (and potentially 98), while allowing Portage (up to Whytewold) to have some considerabe relief, in terms of overcrowding.

But then again, a 11/21 Grace Hospital - Downtown short-run every 15-30 minutes between 0600-2100, would just solve that problem considerably, especially because I know for a fact, that those built up areas of Portage Avenue east of Ronald, are more than capable of a D60LF, which if used - meant that Winnipeg Transit would maybe need just three buses, at the absolute worst of times,  and only two when its quiet (middays and weekends), every 20-30 minutes.

[SirAndrew710]

The current service between St. James and Charleswood is awful. I took the 98 to the Safeway on Grant once, and from when I left, it was quicker to make the long walk across the bridge, as it would’ve been a good 20 minutes until a 66 came and even longer until the 98 came back. That’s what I had in mind with these two routes, improving service between these two parts of town. With regards to ridership on the current routes, it’s not like it’s all that high to begin with, especially on the 66. I was on one on Thursday morning at around 10:30 (boarded at Stafford, rode to the end of the route), and there was no-one else but me on board between Shelmerdine and Unicity. That’s the emptiest I’ve ever seen it, but whenever I’m on there, few passengers stay on past Laxdal. Which surprises me considering how high Route 65 ridership is. With regards to the 82, I’ve wondered if creating a 94-esque two-way loop by providing service the length of Hamilton would be an option, though it wouldn’t be needed. West of Cavalier, the 24 rarely makes those stops, while east of Cavalier, the 83 never makes them (in fact, when I’m on there, it almost never stops between Unicity and Quail Ridge). Not to mention “Grace Hospital… via Assiniboine” would be a lot of info to fit onto particularly the rear sign.

[ConnorsCompShow]

I like the idea of flipping the 98 to go east instead of west. The one change I'd make is to have it go left on St. James and then have it share the route 12 terminal, which is still close enough to that proposed residential bit. Only issue is that pesky no left turn sign, but that's easily solvable with the addition of an except buses sign underneath it. If I still lived on Portage, I would definitely consider using it over a regular 11/21 to bypass the Tylehurst and south side loop crowds.

[SirAndrew710]

16 hours ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

I like the idea of flipping the 98 to go east instead of west. The one change I'd make is to have it go left on St. James and then have it share the route 12 terminal, which is still close enough to that proposed residential bit. Only issue is that pesky no left turn sign, but that's easily solvable with the addition of an except buses sign underneath it. If I still lived on Portage, I would definitely consider using it over a regular 11/21 to bypass the Tylehurst and south side loop crowds.

Maybe have it take EB Portage-around Empress-WB Westway-SB Empress-WB Portage-NB St. James to that terminal?

[SirAndrew710]

Recently, I’ve taken a look at service to St. B and how to expand fixed-route service in that part of town. With that, I present three route ideas.

10 St. Boniface/Wolseley

I restructured this existing route significantly on both ends. On the Wolseley end, it currently terminates in the middle of literal nowhere, so I drew up an extension of the current route via Wolseley, Dominion, Portage and St. James to the terminal on the west side of Polo Park. On the St. B end, I greatly restructured it to cover a wider area, similar to the 56, with service to Provencher, the university, the cathedral, the hospital and the Goulet/Marion business section and a terminal at Youville and Goulet.

51

This bus would connect the U of M with north St. Boniface, via St. Mary’s, with a rush-hour only extension to Sherbrook Terminal. I would assume U of M students living in St. B and St. Vital would make up this route’s ridership base, which would provide students with a one-seat ride from St. B, Norwood or St. Vital to the U of M and provide the 75 with some much-needed help as students would be able to take this route all the way to the university rather than be forced to transfer from the 14 to the 75 at Bishop. Buses traveling to St. B only would terminate at southbound St. Joseph at Aubert and return to U of M via southbound St. Joseph, eastbound La Verendrye, northbound Langevin to eastbound Aubert, while buses coming from U of W would follow northbound St. Joseph all the way to Aubert, observing the northbound stop at that intersection, before turning east.

56 Des Meurons

This revision to the existing route would travel the length of Des Meurons before making its way onto St. Anne’s. Traveling south, buses would provide service to portions of South St. Vital currently only served by rush-hour express routes. The route would terminate at St. Vital Centre.

With this re-alignment, some portions of St. B would lose service that they currently receive, but all are within 400 meters of either one of the re-aligned routes, the 14 or 19, or both.