What’s Next for Winnipeg Transit?

[ConnorsCompShow]

1 hour ago, Isaac Williams said:

I saw new traffic lights partially installed on Fermor, somewhere east of Royal Mint Dr (Here?). I think a new road might be built south of there, but I don't know. Additionally, I believe Royal Mint Drive goes all the way to Fermor, yes?

That's eventually going to be the new connection to Dawson Rd S (there's signage the other way for the small bit connected to Niakwa Rd which is apparently now Dawson Rd N). And yes, Royal Mint was extended out to Fermor to replace the loss of that section of Dawson. There is one other complication, and it's that you can't turn left onto it from WB Fermor as it's configured in a right-in-right-out layout, which would still be potentially fatal for that section of the proposed P.

33 minutes ago, Isaac Williams said:

The Street View imagery on Fermor is 2 years out of date, and 4 years out of date on Royal Mint Dr. A lot can happen in just 2 years.

Don't even get me started on how horrendously slow Google is with getting fresh imagery. People used to mock Apple for their half-baked Maps when they first launched it, but they've seriously caught up and leapfrogged Google, at least locally. Their images are from either late March or early April of this year.

At least with Street View any average Joe with one of those 360-degree GoPros can take matters into their own hands.

[Isaac Williams]

11 minutes ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

There is one other complication, and it's that you can't turn left onto it from WB Fermor as it's configured in a right-in-right-out layout, which would still be potentially fatal for that section of the proposed P.

Who's to say a bus-only left turn lane can't be built?

[ConnorsCompShow]

On 10/9/2020 at 9:14 PM, Isaac Williams said:

Who's to say a bus-only left turn lane can't be built?

That's a possibility, but I'm sure drivers would groan if they had to put up with more DCZ shenanigans on that stretch for a third year. Much more expensive than a $30 "except buses" sign.

Anyway, I really don't like how ERT/"RED" has fallen to the bottom of the priorities list at all. The Louise Bridge is a figuratively ticking time bomb, and if it goes off by either being condemned beyond repair the next time it has to get looked at or worse, we're massively screwed without an impetus to get it replaced otherwise. I also really don't like the thought of a Lagimodiere overpass over top of another Lagimodiere overpass over the CN mainline. The way it should be is a dedicated elevated platform past Union Station, around Shaw Park (whose future is quite uncertain with baseball boy Katz giving thought to moving the Goldeyes to Ottawa), through far north St Boniface, then run at ground level pretty much next to the CN tracks, run underneath the existing overpass, then follow CEMR after (stop short at Regent and you have a "stage 1"). Over by Panet, the CN track could be shifted south a bit to allow sufficient space without having to get Princess Auto to give up some of their space, just like how Letellier was shifted a bit west south of Bishop Grandin.

That they want to extend the existing BLUE/future "A" to St Vital Centre with a dedicated bridge is an alright idea, but you're running right through the U of M's agriculture fields, and I don't exactly feel like they would be in favor of that one, and that's before we even get to the idea of financing it. The investment priorities diagram also points out a Jubilee Station expansion as "key infrastructure" - but how? An underpass over the CN yard to Pembina? Making it more like Fort Rouge Station by stapling a terminal loop onto it?

There are many good things but there are a lot of moonshot ideas in this one, which I fear might sink the whole thing once it comes time for IRPW, EPC, and ultimately council to have a look at it. They have a Kevin O'Leary mindset: how am I (the city) going to make money?

[SirAndrew710]

I have noticed that the long-term (and in some cases the short-term) map do include buses running along not-yet-existent right-of-way. I was wondering how they’d terminate the 435 and 531 at Nairn & Watt, but my guess is they’d more likely interline those two routes. Same thing with Route C at Sturgeon & Ness - how would they turn those buses around, especially if that route uses artics? As well, I see that the hypothetical 60 is listed as stopping at Booth and Moray, so is WT’s plan to have it run in a giant circle, like the final incarnation of the 94?

[armorand]

On 10/12/2020 at 7:50 PM, SirAndrew710 said:

I have noticed that the long-term (and in some cases the short-term) map do include buses running along not-yet-existent right-of-way. I was wondering how they’d terminate the 435 and 531 at Nairn & Watt, but my guess is they’d more likely interline those two routes. Same thing with Route C at Sturgeon & Ness - how would they turn those buses around, especially if that route uses artics? As well, I see that the hypothetical 60 is listed as stopping at Booth and Moray, so is WT’s plan to have it run in a giant circle, like the final incarnation of the 94?

Extension to CentrePort Canada would work. Otherwise? Only other *decent* looping infrastructure around there would be Sturgeon Creek Collegiate, the industrial park & maybe School Road. But thats about it. Everything else around the Heritage neighborhood can barely fit a 40 ft bus without smashing cars or pissing off the NIMBY's, let alone an artic.

[SirAndrew710]

19 hours ago, armorand said:

Extension to CentrePort Canada would work. Otherwise? Only other *decent* looping infrastructure around there would be Sturgeon Creek Collegiate, the industrial park & maybe School Road. But thats about it. Everything else around the Heritage neighborhood can barely fit a 40 ft bus without smashing cars or pissing off the NIMBY's, let alone an artic.

That map says that route would terminate right at the intersection. I was thinking they’d use the parking lot of the strip mall at the northwest corner, but I’d imagine that the turnaround would be difficult with artics (it might be a little tight). And the use of the term “high-capacity transit service” on that map in reference to rapid routes (such as Route C) leads me to believe that route would use them.

[armorand]

22 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

That map says that route would terminate right at the intersection. I was thinking they’d use the parking lot of the strip mall at the northwest corner, but I’d imagine that the turnaround would be difficult with artics (it might be a little tight). And the use of the term “high-capacity transit service” on that map in reference to rapid routes (such as Route C) leads me to believe that route would use them.

Short-turning the route at Sturgeon and turning it into the 24/25 would take care of alot of capacity issues between Sturgeon Road and Polo Park... same with frequencies on Sunday evenings (they're still every 60 mins, right?)

[Isaac Williams]

15 minutes ago, armorand said:

Short-turning the route at Sturgeon and turning it into the 24/25 would take care of alot of capacity issues between Sturgeon Road and Polo Park... same with frequencies on Sunday evenings (they're still every 60 mins, right?)

The current 24/25 (and almost every other current route, besides the 6xx feeders) don't exist in the Transit Master Plan. Route Q is what you're looking for. (And yes, the 24 is a ridiculous 60 minutes on Sunday mornings and evenings, 30 minutes on Sunday mid-day).

https://winnipegtransit.com/assets/2714/WTMP_SystemMap_ShortTerm_2020-08-21.pdf
https://winnipegtransit.com/assets/2713/WTMP_SystemMap_LongTerm_2020-08-21.pdf

[armorand]

6 hours ago, Isaac Williams said:

The current 24/25 (and almost every other current route, besides the 6xx feeders) don't exist in the Transit Master Plan. Route Q is what you're looking for. (And yes, the 24 is a ridiculous 60 minutes on Sunday mornings and evenings, 30 minutes on Sunday mid-day).

https://winnipegtransit.com/assets/2714/WTMP_SystemMap_ShortTerm_2020-08-21.pdf
https://winnipegtransit.com/assets/2713/WTMP_SystemMap_LongTerm_2020-08-21.pdf

Sorry, hard habits to break. Winnipeg born and raised, will probably never memorize or refer to the letter routes for as long as I live lol, just too used to the 11, 21, 66, etc.

[Isaac Williams]

I'm Winnipeg born and raised too, of course (why else would I be here?). I already have some of the TMP memorized. I'm nowhere near having the whole thing down, but I have some at least.

[MMP15]

9 hours ago, Isaac Williams said:

I'm Winnipeg born and raised too, of course (why else would I be here?). I already have some of the TMP memorized. I'm nowhere near having the whole thing down, but I have some at least.

Considering this could just be a document and might never get fully implemented (bits and pieces will over time, but it would take more coordination that WT could ever handle to switch over the whole network, I’m gonna hold off memorizing the TMP for a while.

That being said, seeing as it will at least be a guiding document, I would strongly suggest you sign up for the zoom session next Saturday (under the Engage tab on the TMP website). Anyone who is on this form would have valid concerns/suggestions to amend the plan. At the present time, this session looks like the best way to provide feedback. 
 

Finally, looking at the TMP Phase 3 booklet (under Documents tab on TMP site), it references a connector route running through Sage Creek in the short term, before route P can be created. However, the short term map does not include this route. Odd. 

[Isaac Williams]

32 minutes ago, MMP15 said:

That being said, seeing as it will at least be a guiding document, I would strongly suggest you sign up for the zoom session next Saturday (under the Engage tab on the TMP website). Anyone who is on this form would have valid concerns/suggestions to amend the plan. At the present time, this session looks like the best way to provide feedback. 

I would've preferred to attend an in-person event, rather than a glorified webcam conversation. I still might try it, but I don't know.

[SirAndrew710]

3 hours ago, MMP15 said:

Finally, looking at the TMP Phase 3 booklet (under Documents tab on TMP site), it references a connector route running through Sage Creek in the short term, before route P can be created. However, the short term map does not include this route. Odd. 

I was wondering if the route in question was Route 535, which appears on both the short-term and long-term maps, but that one’s a community route rather than a connector route.

[SirAndrew710]

WT has posted a link to a survey about the TMP to their website. I’ll post it here, but the questions are exclusively about rapid transit and accessibility and not at all about the proposed network as a whole. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XPZH6SS

It looks like they’ve scheduled another Zoom meeting for Wednesday night, as well, though I won’t participate in this afternoon’s meeting and probably won’t participate in that one, either.

[ConnorsCompShow]

https://www.morguardretailleasing.com/images/documents/Crossroads_Station_Shopping_Centre,_Winnipeg,_MB_.pdf

I happened across this rather interesting nugget while researching some local trivia about the city apparently owning a slice of land in behind the Superstore and Home Depot at the Crossroads Station labelled as "transit corridor city ownership". And before someone asks, I definitely don't think it's got to do with the way they send 45/87/92 around the back of the Walmart side, that's very firmly Morguard's.

Certainly an oddity given the recent approach of BRT creep beyond downtown.

[MMP15]

So the TMP is slated for rollout in 2022, assuming it is approved by council. Why wait so long to change the network? Infrastructure obviously takes more time to implement, but the short term network should be able to be implemented in a matter of weeks/months. Not years. So why stall?

[car4041]

14 hours ago, MMP15 said:

So the TMP is slated for rollout in 2022, assuming it is approved by council. Why wait so long to change the network? Infrastructure obviously takes more time to implement, but the short term network should be able to be implemented in a matter of weeks/months. Not years. So why stall?

In a few days it'll be 2021, so 2022 is practically next year. In what universe could that be called stalling?? Remember that the master plan is just a sketch of what the ideal network would look like. All the nitty-gritty details of scheduling would happen after council approves the plan in Spring 2021. And even the short-term network has infrastructure implications, such as relocating bus stops.

Where are you seeing 2022 for the rollout?  In the master plan document from October, it says that the short-term plan "will be implemented over the next three to seven years" (p. 20).

[MMP15]

31 minutes ago, car4041 said:

In a few days it'll be 2021, so 2022 is practically next year. In what universe could that be called stalling?? Remember that the master plan is just a sketch of what the ideal network would look like. All the nitty-gritty details of scheduling would happen after council approves the plan in Spring 2021. And even the short-term network has infrastructure implications, such as relocating bus stops.

Where are you seeing 2022 for the rollout?  In the master plan document from October, it says that the short-term plan "will be implemented over the next three to seven years" (p. 20).

2022 is listed in the zoom Q and A summary document. They also stated that implementation would happen gradually over multiple years, so only one section of the city would switch over at a time (with routes that span multiple sections being switched earlier - like the 47 was modified when the 600 routes were implemented). After each section they would refine before implementing another section.

New bus stops in the SW sometimes did require upgraded infrastructure (ex. transfer points heated shelters), but were often just a matter of putting up a sign (like St Norbert “station”).

[Isaac Williams]

I want to see it happen as much as anyone else, but if they rush it, they're gonna screw it up. Let them take their time, so hopefully they get things (mostly) right before it's implemented.

[SirAndrew710]

The southwestern route network was introduced at an IRPW meeting on November 4, 2019, and implemented five months later. According to the City’s 2021 meeting schedule, the only meeting scheduled in the spring thus far is on April 16th. Five months from there would take us to the fall change, but by that point, the COVID vaccine(s) should be widely available and so the universities would likely be back to in-person classes - they probably wouldn’t want to change anything too significantly at that time as a result, which would make the Spring 2022 change the most likely time for implementation of at least some of the plan. That would buy them about a year to put the finishing touches on their plan, allowing for a smooth implementation. Of course, this is Winnipeg Transit, so I’m counting on them to mess something up anyway, but here’s hoping I’m wrong.

[Isaac Williams]

33 minutes ago, SirAndrew710 said:

The southwestern route network was introduced at an IRPW meeting on November 4, 2019, and implemented five months later. According to the City’s 2021 meeting schedule, the only meeting scheduled in the spring thus far is on April 16th. Five months from there would take us to the fall change, but by that point, the COVID vaccine(s) should be widely available and so the universities would likely be back to in-person classes - they probably wouldn’t want to change anything too significantly at that time as a result, which would make the Spring 2022 change the most likely time for implementation of at least some of the plan. That would buy them about a year to put the finishing touches on their plan, allowing for a smooth implementation. Of course, this is Winnipeg Transit, so I’m counting on them to mess something up anyway, but here’s hoping I’m wrong.

I believe the first draft of the SW route network was actually made in March 2019, before being modified significantly, and then was more or less finalized around October or November.

[SirAndrew710]

12 minutes ago, Isaac Williams said:

I believe the first draft of the SW route network was actually made in March 2019, before being modified significantly, and then was more or less finalized around October or November.

That was a similar process to what we’re seeing right now with the TMP - an early draft was circulated among the public, WT gathered responses to it and made changes as they saw fit before presenting it to council. Likewise, we’ve seen two draft versions of the TMP now - they released one, took in public opinion, made changes and have now presented another. That’s why I’m likening the TMP presentation scheduled for the spring to the introduction of the final version of the SW route network.

[SirAndrew710]

The agenda for the next IRPW meeting is out, but this document, which contains next to no information, is all that is up with regards to TMP.

[ConnorsCompShow]

That usually means either one of two things, the first being they need to kick the can down the road another 30 days to put finishing touches on it, or the second being that they'll show up with documents at the time of IRPW.

[SirAndrew710]

As was noted in the main WT thread, the final version of the TMP is out. This news article pretty much sums up what's in it. It looks like they decided to go with color-coded names for the rapid routes (BLUE, ORANGE and ROSE). I do notice some changes from the previous draft in the eastern part of the city compared to the last draft, but no changes in the St. James area and few in the area covered by the Phase 2 route network.