Custom Transit Routes

[SirAndrew710]

2 hours ago, Viafreak said:

I think having it go straight down McPhillips might be faster than going through the Maples and just have the 71 serve the Maples.

The 71 doesn’t serve the Maples. Are you thinking of the 17 or 77 (which have similar numbers and run into the Maples from Garden City) or 33 (runs into the Maples off McPhillips)?

I drew up a map for what I had been thinking, which could possibly serve as a sister route to what I had already posted. Looking at schedules for the existing routes that serve these areas, the Maples one would be about five minutes quicker than the McPhillips one, but those schedules are impossible anyway (make every stop and you’ll run five minutes late, don’t stop at all and you’ll run five minutes early) and driving directions say that the Maples would be about three minutes longer.

[Viafreak]

19 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

The 71 doesn’t serve the Maples. Are you thinking of the 17 or 77 (which have similar numbers and run into the Maples from Garden City) or 33 (runs into the Maples off McPhillips)?

I was thinking of the 77. What I meant was instead of 71 going all the way to Arlington/Portage, have your proposed 72 serve that area and also replace 77 Polo Park service from Garden City. That would let the 71 serve Amber Trails/Maples instead of 77. I have taken the 77 from Henderson to Polo Park and does seem a lot slower than if I was to go through downtown because of the service in Amber Trails/Maples.

 

[Isaac Williams]

I respect the discussions going on here, but it does seem kinda silly, considering the changes coming in the Transit Master Plan (assuming it does get implemented, of course). Maybe some discussions could be done on that, and how it could be better (like what changes you'd make to proposed routes, or routes you'd add)?

[SirAndrew710]

23 minutes ago, Isaac Williams said:

I respect the discussions going on here, but it does seem kinda silly, considering the changes coming in the Transit Master Plan (assuming it does get implemented, of course). Maybe some discussions could be done on that, and how it could be better (like what changes you'd make to proposed routes, or routes you'd add)?

Firstly, welcome to the board.

Secondly, the intended purpose of this thread is basically to present and discuss completely fantastical routes, though I would be lying if I said that I wouldn’t like to see at least some of them implemented. That being said, I have created another thread for discussion of the Transit Master Plan (“What’s Next for Winnipeg Transit?”), though we’re basically sitting here twiddling our thumbs waiting for the city to release something.

1 hour ago, Viafreak said:

I was thinking of the 77. What I meant was instead of 71 going all the way to Arlington/Portage, have your proposed 72 serve that area and also replace 77 Polo Park service from Garden City. That would let the 71 serve Amber Trails/Maples instead of 77. I have taken the 77 from Henderson to Polo Park and does seem a lot slower than if I was to go through downtown because of the service in Amber Trails/Maples.

Speaking of the TMP, I did see that Route W, which would replace the 77 between KP and RRC, would not serve as much of the Maples as the current route. With regards to the 71, I’ve never ridden it myself but know that a lot of people take it all the way to/from Arlington & Portage, so replacing it with something might not be the best idea, seeing as my proposed 72 doesn’t run anywhere near Portage, though connections with both 19s and the 33 would be available for passengers looking to go downtown. I also know from riding the 77 that a lot of people take it between Garden City and the Maples, but those people would still have the 17. For whatever reason, the section of the 77 between Garden City and RRC doesn’t feel too long to me despite that bus going every which way through the Maples, Meadows West and Tyndall Park.

[Isaac Williams]

32 minutes ago, SirAndrew710 said:

Speaking of the TMP, I did see that Route W, which would replace the 77 between KP and RRC, would not serve as much of the Maples as the current route.

Well the W (and other letter-routes) is supposed to travel in a straight(ish) path, and the connector/community routes are meant to connect people to/from W and the communities and such. If W takes you to where you're going, great, if not, then take another bus. That's basically what the TMP is about, with the Spine & Feeder system.

[SirAndrew710]

I figured if they’re gonna get rid of the Spirits, I may as well use the single-digit numbers to make more through-downtown routes. A while back, there was a discussion about how a possible future route coming from Gateway Road might access downtown. I later remembered seeing a city council document showing a previous version of the 44 that followed Smith/King and Donald/Princess from Higgins to Broadway, so remembering that the pre-Phase 1 62 accessed downtown via Donald, I came up with this. I named the southern segment “South Pembina” because “Richmond” is already taken by the 662 and because the St. Norbert buses don’t enter Fort Richmond or Richmond West (while there is an area of northwestern St. Norbert called “Richmond Lakes,” I don’t know how well-known that one is). Due to the sheer length of this route, I created two maps.

[Isaac Williams]

15 minutes ago, SirAndrew710 said:

I later remembered seeing a city council document showing a previous version of the 44 that followed Smith/King and Donald/Princess from Higgins to Broadway

These would be it right here.

[car4041]

4 hours ago, Isaac Williams said:

These would be it right here.

Wow, the route made so much sense when it just looped around via London/Louelda.  Today's 44 is a bizarre mishmash of a route, and now I understand how it gradually turned into that through incremental changes to a route that was originally pretty logical.

[Isaac Williams]

2 hours ago, car4041 said:

Wow, the route made so much sense when it just looped around via London/Louelda.  Today's 44 is a bizarre mishmash of a route, and now I understand how it gradually turned into that through incremental changes to a route that was originally pretty logical.

Yeah, the modern 44 is a little bit of a mess, especially compared to how it was in the early-2000's, which was nice and clean. At least both branches go to/from the same destination, and don't drift too far apart, unlike the 16 which has the Southdale/Island Lakes and St. Vital/Plaza branches, which go to very different destinations.

[SirAndrew710]

12 minutes ago, Isaac Williams said:

Yeah, the modern 44 is a little bit of a mess, especially compared to how it was in the early-2000's, which was nice and clean. At least both branches go to/from the same destination, and don't drift too far apart, unlike the 16 which has the Southdale/Island Lakes and St. Vital/Plaza branches, which go to very different destinations.

It’s a similar story with the 66. At least if you’re on the wrong one, the 24 runs between Polo and Unicity pretty regularly.

[Isaac Williams]

In relation to the 16, I decided to split it into 2 routes. I didn't make any changes to the branches, just split them up. I extended the Island Lakes branch (51) into Sage Creek, and shortened the Plaza branch to St. Vital. The 93 can be extended to Plaza Drive, or a new 94 could go there.

 

[Isaac Williams]

Update: I decided to extend the 51 into Sage Creek. The post above is edited to include this version of the 51.

[Wpgtransit11-25]

14 minutes ago, Isaac Williams said:

Update: I decided to extend the 51 into Sage Creek. The post above is edited to include this version of the 51.

Why not run a route from Southdale via island lakes to sage creek and for st vital run 93 to plaza and make both south end 16 terminals at st vital and Southdale 

[Isaac Williams]

18 minutes ago, Wpgtransit11-25 said:

Why not run a route from Southdale via island lakes to sage creek and for st vital run 93 to plaza and make both south end 16 terminals at st vital and Southdale 

I suppose the 16 could end at St. Vital, and another route could go to Plaza Drive (maybe Plaza Station). But I disagree with having the 16 go to Southdale and St. Vital. It should do one or the other, but not both. I kinda like having the 51 go from Kingston Row to Sage Creek, sort of part of the spine & feeder system.

[MMP15]

2 minutes ago, Wpgtransit11-25 said:

Why not run a route from Southdale via island lakes to sage creek and for st vital run 93 to plaza and make both south end 16 terminals at st vital and Southdale 

Extending the 93 to Plaza Drive makes so much more sense than having the 16 run there.

Short Term Routing: Combine the Plaza portion of the 16 and the 93.

Long Term Routing: This would require transit only access to Plaza Drive from the Bishop Grandin ramp (as it was many years ago), as well as access to Plaza Station from Pembina.

[Wpgtransit11-25]

9 minutes ago, MMP15 said:

Extending the 93 to Plaza Drive makes so much more sense than having the 16 run there.

Short Term Routing: Combine the Plaza portion of the 16 and the 93.

Long Term Routing: This would require transit only access to Plaza Drive from the Bishop Grandin ramp (as it was many years ago), as well as access to Plaza Station from Pembina.

Reason I would run the 16 to st vital

center and not plaza is u can run the route with fewer buses and ur not having so many branches 

[Isaac Williams]

Here's some updated maps, shortening the 16 to St. Vital and extending the 51 onto Kingston Crescent.

[MMP15]

27 minutes ago, Wpgtransit11-25 said:

Reason I would run the 16 to st vital

center and not plaza is u can run the route with fewer buses and ur not having so many branches 

So what would service st Amant/plaza then?

[Isaac Williams]

1 minute ago, MMP15 said:

So what would service st Amant/plaza then?

An extended 93, or a new route (94?)

[MMP15]

Just now, Isaac Williams said:

An extended 93, or a new route (94?)

My map another is my attempt at drawing up an extended 93.

Another option to serve plaza drive is to extend the 693 Northward from Pembina and Chancellor (not go into Markham Station anymore). Then the extended 93 could go to Pembina and/or SWT, but not have to worry about Plaza Drive. However, this would reduce Plaza Drive service to rush hour only.

[Viafreak]

21 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

I figured if they’re gonna get rid of the Spirits, I may as well use the single-digit numbers to make more through-downtown routes. A while back, there was a discussion about how a possible future route coming from Gateway Road might access downtown. I later remembered seeing a city council document showing a previous version of the 44 that followed Smith/King and Donald/Princess from Higgins to Broadway, so remembering that the pre-Phase 1 62 accessed downtown via Donald, I came up with this. I named the southern segment “South Pembina” because “Richmond” is already taken by the 662 and because the St. Norbert buses don’t enter Fort Richmond or Richmond West (while there is an area of northwestern St. Norbert called “Richmond Lakes,” I don’t know how well-known that one is). Due to the sheer length of this route, I created two maps.

Nice conceptual route. Looks like it would get rid of the 85 as well. Probably would be as long as the 11.

[Isaac Williams]

1 hour ago, Viafreak said:

Looks like it would get rid of the 85 as well.

Assuming those people don't want to go to Kildonan Place, or are okay with transferring in Downtown..

[SirAndrew710]

1 hour ago, Viafreak said:

Looks like it would get rid of the 85 as well.

Most of the rest of the 85 is duplicated with the 44 and 90, so it would make sense. I guess this could move the Louelda branch of the 44 back onto Grey as well.

25 minutes ago, Isaac Williams said:

Assuming those people don't want to go to Kildonan Place, or are okay with transferring in Downtown..

If they want to go to KP from Panet, take the 77. From Concordia, take the 90. From London, take the 44. From further north, take this and transfer to the 44 or 77 at McLeod or the 90 at Concordia.

Also, I drew up a new branch of the 66 which would use the Moray Bridge to access the Grace, providing additional service west of Kenaston when the Unicity branch is in operation (i.e. 10 minute headway, alternating Polo Park-Grace Hospital-Polo Park-Unicity) and replacing Dieppe Loop service when the Unicity branch isn’t (providing service to a destination of note while preserving connections with the 79 at William Clement and Roblin).

And yes, I intentionally used the pre-Phase 2 map.

[SirAndrew710]

Seeing as I’ve modified almost every route that runs to and from the Charleswood/Tuxedo area, I figured I’d try to make a network out of some of them. This is what I came up with.

The main route in and out of Charleswood would be an extended 18, which would provide high-frequency service between Charleswood, Tuxedo, River Heights, Little Italy, the Village and Downtown. Due to differences in branch lengths, buses would run between Unicity and Riverbend and between Westdale and Garden City. To offset the increase in service along Roblin, the Moray branch of the 67 and 79 would be reinstated, and to offset the increase of service to Unicity, every other 66 that runs to Charleswood would terminate at the Grace as outlined above. All rush-hour 66s would terminate at the Grace with service to/from Unicity provided by the 18, 98 and a second branch of the 65. While it does look like a lot of buses would flood in and out of Charleswood, they would follow three different paths to/from downtown.

[SirAndrew710]

Here’s another one of those single-digit mainline routes that I drew up. It would provide a direct connection between North Kildonan and the U of M. Given that the entire route would duplicate other routes, it would run at rush hour only, but I would imagine that demand would be fairly high at that time, as this would be the only U of M route that uses Portage Ave.