Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Taylorover9001

Custom Transit Routes

Recommended Posts

Alright, here it is. As requested by @armorand, what could aptly be described as the “Retail Express” despite running local along the length of its route. It would run from Pacific Terminal to the Lindenwoods commercial area, providing service to Portage Place, Polo Park, the Superstore at Grant and Kenaston, the Outlet Mall and the Seasons along the way.

ECE28995-5AE8-465D-A50A-CF4CE2AFD156.thumb.jpeg.1a3cba305ca0d69357f0e68b6eb93758.jpeg 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2020 at 1:29 PM, SirAndrew710 said:

Alright, here it is. As requested by @armorand, what could aptly be described as the “Retail Express” despite running local along the length of its route. It would run from Pacific Terminal to the Lindenwoods commercial area, providing service to Portage Place, Polo Park, the Superstore at Grant and Kenaston, the Outlet Mall and the Seasons along the way.

ECE28995-5AE8-465D-A50A-CF4CE2AFD156.thumb.jpeg.1a3cba305ca0d69357f0e68b6eb93758.jpeg 

Theres not much retail destinations south of IKEA that would invoke ridership from north of the Assiniboine River (minus Grant/Kenaston apartments needing a Wal-Mart run) - but the big three are: Seasons/IKEA, Polo Park, and downtown Winnipeg. Along with boosting capacity along Portage to Polo Park, by going south to Seasons, it would boost mall traffic & also boost ridership as a result. 

So theoretically it would: reduce crushloads on Portage, cover the large retail destinations, help out people in apartments along Kenaston, and encourage employers to locate closer to it (if they haven't already) and be able to get all sorts of employees, without need for parking.

And this isn't including the coming redevelopment of Kapyong Barracks as well. Once that's fully underway, this routes success is sealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, armorand said:

Theres not much retail destinations south of IKEA that would invoke ridership from north of the Assiniboine River (minus Grant/Kenaston apartments needing a Wal-Mart run) - but the big three are: Seasons/IKEA, Polo Park, and downtown Winnipeg. Along with boosting capacity along Portage to Polo Park, by going south to Seasons, it would boost mall traffic & also boost ridership as a result. 

So theoretically it would: reduce crushloads on Portage, cover the large retail destinations, help out people in apartments along Kenaston, and encourage employers to locate closer to it (if they haven't already) and be able to get all sorts of employees, without need for parking.

And this isn't including the coming redevelopment of Kapyong Barracks as well. Once that's fully underway, this routes success is sealed.

Lowe’s might bring ridership from north of the Assiniboine, and as you mentioned, apartments and single-family dwellings along Kenaston, plus possibly people transferring from the Charleswood routes, could bring ridership to and from Safeway, Wal-Mart and Canadian Tire. It would definitely be an improvement on an at-times-once-hourly 74 (I would imagine a 10-minute rush-hour headway - 15-20 minutes otherwise, maybe half an hour evenings and Sundays, but no more than that at any time), plus it would provide residents of the residential areas south of Grant with a one-seat ride to downtown and allow the 74 to serve its purpose as a university route and give people only looking to travel as far as the Outlet Mall, the Seasons or even Wal-Mart another option.

While this is unimportant, I renumbered this the “61” in keeping with the “route numbers ending in 1” motif seen on the 11 and its sister express routes, with the “Pembina/Transcona Super Express” from last week renumbered “64” because it originates in Zone 6 and terminates in Zone 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Figured I’d put my money where my mouth is. After the Phase 2 route network was announced, one of the first things I did was change the modified 47 so that it accessed the U of M via the 60’s route rather than that of the 160. However, as @LilZebra and @Viafreak pointed out, there is demand for a route running straight down Main from north of Portage to south of Graham. As such, I created this. With the 26 terminating right at Main and the 68’s inbound terminal being moved to Garry and Portage, I connected those two routes so that they run straight down Main/Queen Elizabeth between Logan and Stradbrook, similar in length to the Main Street segment of the new 47. This would provide a connection between City Hall and Union Station without inconveniencing the people who take the 47 to/from downtown.

88E7D65F-D764-4E4B-9C2D-60F0FE3B648A.thumb.jpeg.87f3a1b3b8a900751e808e79a2abe681.jpeg
You may notice on the map that it doesn’t run between Polo Park and RRC like the current 26. You’ll see why next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the BLUE line opening this weekend, I decided to consider what rapid transit might look like if it came to the western part of the city. Here’s what I came up with:

E160D533-0A13-449C-A9CA-D7D54193EB3C.thumb.jpeg.0521d3a7994f26c6c9fa3abeeb5abeff.jpeg

GREEN

This would be the spine of the network. Long story short, it would be a 22 with a slightly longer express section, operating express from U of W to Cavalier and local from Cavalier to Unicity. What would make it rapid is that there would be 24/7 bus-only lanes on Portage.

14B5BB62-B5F2-4548-AEF1-E59AAFC16E71.thumb.png.072ff18fc43ac6faa28277554f9dc3d6.png

11 Portage

Because the GREEN line would already serve as an express route, I decided to have Portage Ave local service provided by the 11 rather than the 21. This would serve both RT stations as well as the stops in between and terminate at either Rouge or Lumsden.

FC71EFD6-A841-4681-B10D-3D1AFFDA6F85.thumb.jpeg.d9d200914b8bd5dd8464fca31277e58e.jpeg

I also drew up eight feeders to accompany this. I’ll post three today and the other five tomorrow.

220 Empress

This would connect the terminal on the west side of Polo Park to the airport. The service it would provide would most definitely be an improvement on the 20, with higher frequencies and longer running hours. The 20 Academy would continue to exist but terminate at Polo Park.

3A1CC878-B834-4264-AF27-0DCC22ED417D.thumb.jpeg.998c7972a4a555860050955b19944d35.jpeg

224 Ness

I think replacing the 162 with the 91 and 662 and forcing passengers to transfer to the BLUE line is a stupid idea, seeing as that route’s a cash cow, but if the 162 would be lost with Phase 2, the 24 would have to go with the GREEN RT network. This would be the same thing as the short-turn 24 that runs evenings and Sundays.

E5F7568C-9A26-4F58-A160-7FD25FEAA6AF.thumb.jpeg.c777bdbce3d75ef39e19fbc3e7dd29cf.jpeg

226 Berry

On 4/4/2020 at 11:30 AM, SirAndrew710 said:

You may notice on the map that it doesn’t run between Polo Park and RRC like the current 26. You’ll see why next week.

And this is why. This would connect Polo Park with RRC via the current 26 route. I initially intended for it to terminate at Berry Station, but after realizing that there’s nowhere to turn a bus around in the area of Portage and Berry, I kept the connection with Polo Park.

3B225E9B-7B3C-41E2-9956-270FC7669C41.thumb.jpeg.984910197a53582325f94e800329280f.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SirAndrew710 said:

With the BLUE line opening this weekend, I decided to consider what rapid transit might look like if it came to the western part of the city. Here’s what I came up with:

E160D533-0A13-449C-A9CA-D7D54193EB3C.thumb.jpeg.0521d3a7994f26c6c9fa3abeeb5abeff.jpeg

GREEN

This would be the spine of the network. Long story short, it would be a 22 with a slightly longer express section, operating express from U of W to Cavalier and local from Cavalier to Unicity. What would make it rapid is that there would be 24/7 bus-only lanes on Portage.

14B5BB62-B5F2-4548-AEF1-E59AAFC16E71.thumb.png.072ff18fc43ac6faa28277554f9dc3d6.png

11 Portage

Because the GREEN line would already serve as an express route, I decided to have Portage Ave local service provided by the 11 rather than the 21. This would serve both RT stations as well as the stops in between and terminate at either Rouge or Lumsden.

FC71EFD6-A841-4681-B10D-3D1AFFDA6F85.thumb.jpeg.d9d200914b8bd5dd8464fca31277e58e.jpeg

I also drew up eight feeders to accompany this. I’ll post three today and the other five tomorrow.

220 Empress

This would connect the terminal on the west side of Polo Park to the airport. The service it would provide would most definitely be an improvement on the 20, with higher frequencies and longer running hours. The 20 Academy would continue to exist but terminate at Polo Park.

3A1CC878-B834-4264-AF27-0DCC22ED417D.thumb.jpeg.998c7972a4a555860050955b19944d35.jpeg

224 Ness

I think replacing the 162 with the 91 and 662 and forcing passengers to transfer to the BLUE line is a stupid idea, seeing as that route’s a cash cow, but if the 162 would be lost with Phase 2, the 24 would have to go with the GREEN RT network. This would be the same thing as the short-turn 24 that runs evenings and Sundays.

E5F7568C-9A26-4F58-A160-7FD25FEAA6AF.thumb.jpeg.c777bdbce3d75ef39e19fbc3e7dd29cf.jpeg

226 Berry

And this is why. This would connect Polo Park with RRC via the current 26 route. I initially intended for it to terminate at Berry Station, but after realizing that there’s nowhere to turn a bus around in the area of Portage and Berry, I kept the connection with Polo Park.

3B225E9B-7B3C-41E2-9956-270FC7669C41.thumb.jpeg.984910197a53582325f94e800329280f.jpeg

If Portage RT comes to fruition, the TMP says it will be an extension of BLUE. GREEN will run down St Mary’s/Main St. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought GREEN was supposed to be the Eastern Corridor (Transcona RT)? I do like these hypothetical routes. IMHO, RED would be a more suitable color for the Transcona RT based on the history of Transcona due to the CN rail heritage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Viafreak said:

I thought GREEN was supposed to be the Eastern Corridor (Transcona RT)? I do like these hypothetical routes. IMHO, RED would be a more suitable color for the Transcona RT based on the history of Transcona due to the CN rail heritage.

My own custom East Transitway spine Route is RED, though it could be an extension of BLUE too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MMP15 said:

If Portage RT comes to fruition, the TMP says it will be an extension of BLUE. GREEN will run down St Mary’s/Main St. 

1 hour ago, Viafreak said:

I thought GREEN was supposed to be the Eastern Corridor (Transcona RT)? I do like these hypothetical routes.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

98F9EB17-E9AB-41D0-9BA6-9A816FB29BE5.thumb.jpeg.d35cc19843616a8d55ea85d7a89feba3.jpeg

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.

1B2520AC-CAD1-482D-B684-CC861414FEE0.thumb.jpeg.c32fc816b7f7107ae14597f556265981.jpeg
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…

0BDE8D39-B03F-4453-98E9-58F97E3F6ABD.thumb.jpeg.88eb6eb317db160994b64d3f2f6f4064.jpeg

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.

2ED8BEAC-B54B-4761-B7D9-83C06A9D3E22.thumb.jpeg.191f7a0cd7adc1b34dc553f495bef075.jpeg

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.

88820739-FF4E-4F3A-8BFF-00B0CDEAF622.thumb.jpeg.ea846ebadb8e1853dcdb4d6546ce912f.jpeg

I also designed some stops for the St. James area.

12D9771A-31AB-4087-8BC3-45C25A96BC3D.thumb.jpeg.069bad06975c99b8a8a8443bdfa1a4c4.jpegF301E353-D56F-4B6A-9BD0-005BE243E4A4.thumb.jpeg.6c27bac525999bdd852392aea927b311.jpeg3067427E-F8CC-487A-8D32-99A8E598AD52.thumb.jpeg.0ef18256d41670fbede5d6ff943f212b.jpeg969B6F93-6AE3-4119-89E6-5B9B3A88AB6F.thumb.jpeg.c327b68340fde5820eb2fd6300daf5e9.jpegA70DA33F-58E1-4931-B42B-88058FC18C2A.thumb.jpeg.a141e7056614f43e71e411f097e04699.jpeg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SirAndrew710 said:

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.

98F9EB17-E9AB-41D0-9BA6-9A816FB29BE5.thumb.jpeg.d35cc19843616a8d55ea85d7a89feba3.jpeg

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.

1B2520AC-CAD1-482D-B684-CC861414FEE0.thumb.jpeg.c32fc816b7f7107ae14597f556265981.jpeg
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…

0BDE8D39-B03F-4453-98E9-58F97E3F6ABD.thumb.jpeg.88eb6eb317db160994b64d3f2f6f4064.jpeg

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.

2ED8BEAC-B54B-4761-B7D9-83C06A9D3E22.thumb.jpeg.191f7a0cd7adc1b34dc553f495bef075.jpeg

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.

88820739-FF4E-4F3A-8BFF-00B0CDEAF622.thumb.jpeg.ea846ebadb8e1853dcdb4d6546ce912f.jpeg

I also designed some stops for the St. James area.

12D9771A-31AB-4087-8BC3-45C25A96BC3D.thumb.jpeg.069bad06975c99b8a8a8443bdfa1a4c4.jpegF301E353-D56F-4B6A-9BD0-005BE243E4A4.thumb.jpeg.6c27bac525999bdd852392aea927b311.jpeg3067427E-F8CC-487A-8D32-99A8E598AD52.thumb.jpeg.0ef18256d41670fbede5d6ff943f212b.jpeg969B6F93-6AE3-4119-89E6-5B9B3A88AB6F.thumb.jpeg.c327b68340fde5820eb2fd6300daf5e9.jpegA70DA33F-58E1-4931-B42B-88058FC18C2A.thumb.jpeg.a141e7056614f43e71e411f097e04699.jpeg

I really like the idea of different coloured stops for different parts of the city (BLUE, GREEN, RED).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

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.

1B2520AC-CAD1-482D-B684-CC861414FEE0.thumb.jpeg.c32fc816b7f7107ae14597f556265981.jpeg

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MMP15 said:

I really like the idea of different coloured stops for different parts of the city (BLUE, GREEN, RED).

Might be more difficult for the northeast corner as there are plans for two distinct RT routes (Eastern and Northeast corridors) there. Granted the Northeast corridor only exists on the TMP. I wonder if there's a Winnipeg RT thread. If not, there should be one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Viafreak said:

Might be more difficult for the northeast corner as there are plans for two distinct RT routes (Eastern and Northeast corridors) there. Granted the Northeast corridor only exists on the TMP.

I suppose that are could just have regular stops then? Like they did with the 676? Speaking of which, that route would also cross the BLUE and GREEN lines. I don't know, there's just something appealing about signs that are only black, white, and one other colour...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Viafreak said:

Might be more difficult for the northeast corner as there are plans for two distinct RT routes (Eastern and Northeast corridors) there. Granted the Northeast corridor only exists on the TMP. I wonder if there's a Winnipeg RT thread. If not, there should be one.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

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.

That's interesting. There is enough room between Gateway/Raleigh for a busway due to the fact that it was a CPR Right of Way for almost 130 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Viafreak said:

That's interesting. There is enough room between Gateway/Raleigh for a busway due to the fact that it was a CPR Right of Way for almost 130 years.

Yeah, but who would actually ride it? The notion of building an RT line in the Gateway/Raleigh corridor was a great example of putting RT where it's convenient to build rather than where it's actually needed, and I'm glad they've dropped it. The major demand corridors in the NE are Henderson and Nairn/Regent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, car4041 said:

Yeah, but who would actually ride it? The notion of building an RT line in the Gateway/Raleigh corridor was a great example of putting RT where it's convenient to build rather than where it's actually needed, and I'm glad they've dropped it. The major demand corridors in the NE are Henderson and Nairn/Regent.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

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.

Agreed. The fact that the Blue line has a massive transit destination at its outer end makes the details of the routing a little less important, since there are so many end-to-end riders. As you say, Gateway is not comparable. And if there really was a demand for fast north-south travel in that corridor, an express bus on Gateway Rd would be able to handle it just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, car4041 said:

Agreed. The fact that the Blue line has a massive transit destination at its outer end makes the details of the routing a little less important, since there are so many end-to-end riders. As you say, Gateway is not comparable. And if there really was a demand for fast north-south travel in that corridor, an express bus on Gateway Rd would be able to handle it just fine.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirAndrew710 said:

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.

I think the 85 would get more ridership if the western terminal was a mainline RT route. Currently the 85 meets routes heading to downtown near both of its terminals (11 at Henderson and the 43, 44, 45 and 47 at KP). Normally that would make for a busy feeder route, but in my experience of riding the 85, the demand is low west of Raleigh. If I had to guess why that would be, the 11 is very slow at getting to downtown - it seems to stop at every cross street along Henderson. Whereas the 43, 45 and 47 are not as often but get to downtown a lot faster. The 44 is a little tricky as to connecting to the 85 as only one leg of it (London) connects to the 85 before reaching KP through a maze! Currently express service does reach All Seasons via the 40 and 41 by means of Henderson. The service does seem to be a lot faster than the 11. Not sure exactly how it would reach Gateway from Portage Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Viafreak said:

I think the 85 would get more ridership if the western terminal was a mainline RT route. Currently the 85 meets routes heading to downtown near both of its terminals (11 at Henderson and the 43, 44, 45 and 47 at KP). Normally that would make for a busy feeder route, but in my experience of riding the 85, the demand is low west of Raleigh (most of the time, I am the only passenger). If I had to guess why that would be, the 11 is very slow at getting to downtown - it seems to stop at every cross street along Henderson. Whereas the 43, 45 and 47 are not as often but get to downtown a lot faster. The 44 is a little tricky as to connecting to the 85 as only one leg of it (London) connects to the 85 before reaching KP through a maze! Currently express service does reach All Seasons via the 40 and 41 by means of Henderson. The service does seem to be a lot faster than the 11.

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.

16 minutes ago, Viafreak said:

Not sure exactly how it would reach Gateway from Portage Avenue/

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s another map which I actually drew up before I came up with my idea for a Western RT Corridor and has been sitting in my photo album for three weeks waiting to be posted. I’m surprised that connections between much of the city and the airport are as poor as they are. If someone wants to travel from the northwest to the airport, the best option they have is to take the 77 to either Wellington or Sargent and switch to a 15 or 20, though that route’s 40-minute off-peak headways and limited evening and weekend service mean that’s not always an option. As such, I created this. From Garden City, it would travel straight south on McPhillips all the way to Logan, then zigzag to Wellington and follow that to the airport. The reason for the Valour-Sargent-Empress dogleg is because Wellington does not cross the CP tracks.

646D09AA-CF03-455A-9FB6-1F7A71F0479D.thumb.jpeg.f42c6754ac1d2ef20fee3034aa9a2b4a.jpeg

In retrospect, it might have been a better idea to have it run through the Maples and access the airport via Keewatin, Logan or Notre Dame, Route 90 and Wellington.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirAndrew710 said:

In retrospect, it might have been a better idea to have it run through the Maples and access the airport via Keewatin, Logan or Notre Dame, Route 90 and Wellington.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...