Winnipeg Transit and area

[ygk]

- Beaver Bus Line's has been running Selkirk runs for decades. Just wondering, why doesn't Winnipeg Transit ever put their terminus on their maps, or like Edmonton/ETS, maybe even put the BBL route on the map like StAT and Strathcona County? I've just been wondering about this for awhile now, because you can see the stop at the U of W, but yet, theres not even a hint of it anywhere else on Winnipeg Transit signs, stops and especially maps.

Probably because you can transfer interchangably between ETS, Strathcona and StAT. Don't think Winnipeg Transit has any such agreement with BBL.

[car4041]

Winnipeg Transit website has a new system map, dated 2014-06-25.

Errors aside, I'm just happy that they've made it available as a single map rather than a dozen pieces like it was before.

The Transitway inset is full of bizarre errors. The errors are on the Transitway map and the route list to the left, but the route list to the right is correct. (I don't know why they have two lists in the first place -- they both give the same info, or at least they would if the errors were fixed.)

- Like ygk said, it shows the 60 entering the Transitway at Warsaw

- It has the 170 on Pembina between Jubilee and Warsaw

- Osborne Village Express is called 183 rather than 185

- Waverley Heights Express is called 182 rather than 163 and is extended much farther west than it actually goes

- Richmond West Express is called 163 rather than 183 and the South Pointe branch is not shown

- 137 Super Express is not shown at all

It almost seems like the inset is based on an earlier service plan or something.

Also, the "Express Routes" box still lists the 37, 61, 62, 63, 80, and 81.

[car4041]

They have posted a new version of the map with most, but not all, of the errors mentioned above fixed. (The revised map is still dated 2014-06-25, but it was definitely posted later than that.)

[ShermanOaks]

They have posted a new version of the map with most, but not all, of the errors mentioned above fixed. (The revised map is still dated 2014-06-25, but it was definitely posted later than that.)

What else did they miss?

[Express691]

So apparently you guys passed a bylaw which bans singing on transit buses.

Those who do will face a $100 fine.

[armorand]

So apparently you guys passed a bylaw which bans singing on transit buses.

Those who do will face a $100 fine.

In the same document, that highly annoyed me, I noticed that it classified the Transitway for use's beyond Winnipeg Transit, with the approval of the director. Examples include Beaver Bus Lines, "interurban lines", "commuter services", etc. Open's up doors for regional transit.

[DavidW]

In the same document, that highly annoyed me, I noticed that it classified the Transitway for use's beyond Winnipeg Transit, with the approval of the director. Examples include Beaver Bus Lines, "interurban lines", "commuter services", etc. Open's up doors for regional transit.

Why would that annoy you? While currently there are no prospective other users of the Southwest Transitway it is conceivable that some day in the future metropolitan Winnipeg might have multiple transit services. Personally I think if Beaver was interested in growing their business maybe they should extend some of their trips via the busway to the U of M. That is certainly the case with facilities like the El Monte busway in Los Angeles, which is used by several carriers besides Metro. Even Greyhound trips heading east to Vegas use the El Monte for the first part of their trip.

It's my view that the more various carriers can cooperate and coordinate, the more useful the system is to users. I think the competition is the car, and the more places and times one can travel, the less one needs to use a private vehicle.

What else did they miss?

I can start this discussion...

On the RT map (left sidebar) it shows the 180 and 181 branching from Pembina on McGillivray which is incorrect. The 180 and 181 branch off from Pembina Highway onto Clarence Avenue.

The legend for the RT map, under "LOCAL ON-STREET ROUTES" lists the "99 Osborne Village - Downtown" which isn't depicted on the RT map. That's probably also an incorrect text for the now two-branch 99.

In the same box, under "FEEDER ROUTES" it lists the 91, 95, 84 and 86, which are also not depicted on the RT map.

In the red box on the right side of the map, titled "DOWNTOWN ROUTES" it lists "70 Richmond". It probably shouldn't be listed in this box but in any case it should be 170.

In the blue box on the right side of the map, titled "TRANSITWAY ROUTES" it lists "70 Richmond (Evenings, Sundays)" which should be 170 (and probably included immediately below the 162).

In the same blue box "TRANSITWAY ROUTES" it list the "60 Pembina" which isn't a Transitway route.

In the same blue box the 137 is missing.

On the main map there is a box for "Corydon & Cambridge" with an "18", a "78" and a park-and-ride "car" logo. Is there a park-and ride at Corydon & Cambridge?

[armorand]

Why would that annoy you? While currently there are no prospective other users of the Southwest Transitway it is conceivable that some day in the future metropolitan Winnipeg might have multiple transit services. Personally I think if Beaver was interested in growing their business maybe they should extend some of their trips via the busway to the U of M. That is certainly the case with facilities like the El Monte busway in Los Angeles, which is used by several carriers besides Metro. Even Greyhound trips heading east to Vegas use the El Monte for the first part of their trip.

It's my view that the more various carriers can cooperate and coordinate, the more useful the system is to users. I think the competition is the car, and the more places and times one can travel, the less one needs to use a private vehicle.

I meant the transit by-law annoyed me, not the prospect of multi-use of the Transitway! I should have clarified it alot more, my apologies.

As for Beaver, thats a great idea! I wonder why they haven't thought of that already, considering all of their latest purchases (coaches and Orions). Rush hour service to the U of M via Main/Transitway, and midday/Saturday short-routes to its current U of W terminus. How would the frequency be, though... or how about real-time systems and displays? Let's say I went to Burger King at Confusion Corner (as a tourist), then across the street to Osborne station, and waited for a BBL bus on its current frequencies, without any real-time info or even a schedule. How will it be integrated to our city and system?

[ShermanOaks]

Why would that annoy you? While currently there are no prospective other users of the Southwest Transitway it is conceivable that some day in the future metropolitan Winnipeg might have multiple transit services. Personally I think if Beaver was interested in growing their business maybe they should extend some of their trips via the busway to the U of M. That is certainly the case with facilities like the El Monte busway in Los Angeles, which is used by several carriers besides Metro. Even Greyhound trips heading east to Vegas use the El Monte for the first part of their trip.

It's my view that the more various carriers can cooperate and coordinate, the more useful the system is to users. I think the competition is the car, and the more places and times one can travel, the less one needs to use a private vehicle.

I can start this discussion...

On the RT map (left sidebar) it shows the 180 and 181 branching from Pembina on McGillivray which is incorrect. The 180 and 181 branch off from Pembina Highway onto Clarence Avenue.

The legend for the RT map, under "LOCAL ON-STREET ROUTES" lists the "99 Osborne Village - Downtown" which isn't depicted on the RT map. That's probably also an incorrect text for the now two-branch 99.

In the same box, under "FEEDER ROUTES" it lists the 91, 95, 84 and 86, which are also not depicted on the RT map.

In the red box on the right side of the map, titled "DOWNTOWN ROUTES" it lists "70 Richmond". It probably shouldn't be listed in this box but in any case it should be 170.

In the blue box on the right side of the map, titled "TRANSITWAY ROUTES" it lists "70 Richmond (Evenings, Sundays)" which should be 170 (and probably included immediately below the 162).

In the same blue box "TRANSITWAY ROUTES" it list the "60 Pembina" which isn't a Transitway route.

In the same blue box the 137 is missing.

On the main map there is a box for "Corydon & Cambridge" with an "18", a "78" and a park-and-ride "car" logo. Is there a park-and ride at Corydon & Cambridge?

Thanks David.

Thanks David. We'll get those fixed.

I meant the transit by-law annoyed me, not the prospect of multi-use of the Transitway! I should have clarified it alot more, my apologies.

As for Beaver, thats a great idea! I wonder why they haven't thought of that already, considering all of their latest purchases (coaches and Orions). Rush hour service to the U of M via Main/Transitway, and midday/Saturday short-routes to its current U of W terminus. How would the frequency be, though... or how about real-time systems and displays? Let's say I went to Burger King at Confusion Corner (as a tourist), then across the street to Osborne station, and waited for a BBL bus on its current frequencies, without any real-time info or even a schedule. How will it be integrated to our city and system?

Why would a transit by-law annoy you? Just like every other Canadian city, it's meant as a tool to insure your safety while using the system. I am curious, please explain in detail?

[armorand]

Thanks David.

Why would a transit by-law annoy you? Just like every other Canadian city, it's meant as a tool to insure your safety while using the system. I am curious, please explain in detail?

There were some very good points in there, plus enacting it is a good step, along with the fines that will hopefully go toward providing more bus service, or funding more operators. But some of the things mentioned, including no food/drinks (I usually eat and drink on my way to work/home/etc, saves alot of time), no singing and particularly the 90-minute bus shelter rule (which will force Winnipegs homeless to just *move* to another spot, most likely a 24-hour business such as McDonalds)... although it's good that they'll force the homeless (sometimes still drunk and agressive) out of bus shelters, I've noticed that Winnipeg as a city and across departments, does very little toward our homeless issues. The transit issue for me mostly, would be not being able to chow down some poutine and guzzle a fruit smoothie on my 21/22/26 to work, or my trips on the 14 or 19 to Downtown, or my friends when my time is stretched. The singing is absurd! Not that I can sing anyways...

But the shelter rule, although I do agree with it, is another problem the City of Winnipeg just tries to "move" or hide away. Just like rapid transit, just like *funding* transit, and especially just like the decay of our infastructure because Sam Katz can't spend $300million from new expressways and roads, towards fixing our existing ones and providing transit service to a degree that our current road system could handle, forcing cars off the road and therefore preventing any more wear and tear on already battered streets.

I'd go into detail about the homelessness issue, but CPTDB isn't a place for that!

[ShermanOaks]

There were some very good points in there, plus enacting it is a good step, along with the fines that will hopefully go toward providing more bus service, or funding more operators. But some of the things mentioned, including no food/drinks (I usually eat and drink on my way to work/home/etc, saves alot of time), no singing and particularly the 90-minute bus shelter rule (which will force Winnipegs homeless to just *move* to another spot, most likely a 24-hour business such as McDonalds)... although it's good that they'll force the homeless (sometimes still drunk and agressive) out of bus shelters, I've noticed that Winnipeg as a city and across departments, does very little toward our homeless issues. The transit issue for me mostly, would be not being able to chow down some poutine and guzzle a fruit smoothie on my 21/22/26 to work, or my trips on the 14 or 19 to Downtown, or my friends when my time is stretched. The singing is absurd! Not that I can sing anyways...

But the shelter rule, although I do agree with it, is another problem the City of Winnipeg just tries to "move" or hide away. Just like rapid transit, just like *funding* transit, and especially just like the decay of our infastructure because Sam Katz can't spend $300million from new expressways and roads, towards fixing our existing ones and providing transit service to a degree that our current road system could handle, forcing cars off the road and therefore preventing any more wear and tear on already battered streets.

I'd go into detail about the homelessness issue, but CPTDB isn't a place for that!

Oh I see.

Have you read the by-law in detail?

[DavidW]

There is a new-new map on the website, encoded with the date "2014-07-10T11:56:43". Can anyone spot errors remaining in this latest version?

[trebor204]

Since they updating the system map online. Maybe they might bring back the paper maps. (See Page 84 of this thread)

[DavidW]

Since they updating the system map online. Maybe they might bring back the paper maps. (See Page 84 of this thread)

I gather from some of the things that I've been told that a printed-on-paper map is very unlikely to appear. I suppose Transit has very limited resources for that sort of thing and I've been told several times that most of the public can't read a map anyway. I think they're also trying to be "internet age" modern and go electronic as much as possible.

Personally I really, really miss the paper map. But I'm not fond of this map. I would prefer a line colouring/style taxonomy that reflects service span (categories scaling from peak-only up to seven-days/week x 18 hours/day) and service frequency (again categories scaling from peak-only all the way up to a "Frequent Transit Network" [definition pending]*). This new map uses red (to or through downtown), black (expresses (peak-only and all-day weekday)), brown (3 crosstowns and the Arlington), green (not-to-downtown/suburban feeders), and blue (the busway itself but not the busway routes), and only three line types: medium-solid for almost everything, fat-solid for the transitway itself (but not the busway routes), and dashed for the Turnbull Drive weekday peak extension and the Corydon weekend extension to Assiniboine Park. The frequency table is also missing.

* I think several systems that use the FTN concept use [minimum] six days/week times [minimum] 12 hours/day at 15 minute minimum wait between scheduled services, but the definition varies from place to place.

[ygk]

There is a new-new map on the website, encoded with the date "2014-07-10T11:56:43". Can anyone spot errors remaining in this latest version?

Beside the DART routes box, It says to see other side for maps. What other side?

I also think the Transitway Routes listing is largely redundant with the legend providing the same info.

[Mark Walton]

On 7/11/2014 at 5:44 PM, ShermanOaks said:

Oh I see.

Have you read the by-law in detail?

You can read it here, starting at page 8 of the 22-page PDF file (or may be 9 of 23, depending on how the file loads), Attachment A. If it doesn't open right away, scroll down in the small window above to "Reports, then click "1. Transit Bylaw". You can drag the surrounding text boxes aside.

Another oddity: the proposed bylaw requires people to wear shirts fully covering their torsos "above and below the waist" aboard buses, but apparently not shoes (7(3)). When I lived there, 1967-73, in the summer I'd fairly often see mostly teenagers riding buses barefoot - and sometimes did it myself! No one ever said anything about it.

[armorand]

Took the last 1:38 trip (again) on a Route 14 heading for Ferry Road on either a 600s or 800s D40LFR, didn't get a fleet number as it was pouring rain and I just wanted to get onboard. Wrote down the passenger count:

10 - YMCA

8 - Balmoral (U of W)

7 - Toronto

6 - Sherburn

5- Dominion

4 - Erin

3 - Valour

*tracks*

4 - Empress

*2 am* (looked at timing console, driver was -15 minutes behind)

3 - St. Matthews/Ferry (where I got off)

Continued Observations: sharp drop-off in passengers beyond Banning or Arlington, people keep getting onboard at WB Ellice/Empress and ride the bus to Sals and back downtown just because.

New observations: drunks sit down the entire ride from Downtown to Ferry and BACK again. It appeared that half of the bus I was on was intoxicated. The ones who rode to Ferry and back were rowdy and annoyed the driver. The rest kept to themselves.

37 (amount of seats on an D40LFR if I am correct), divided by the passengers:

27% filled, YMCA

22%, Balmoral

19%, Toronto

16%, Sherburn

14%, Dominion

11%, Erin

8%, Valour

11%, Empress

8%, St. Matthews/Ferry

I can't sleep at all tonight... thus why I'm doing math. I'll attempt an 24 tomorrow night, from Unicity to Polo Park, including the Empress/Eastway loop.

[123456789]

D40LF/R have 38 seats

[T6H-5307N]

D40LF/R have 38 seats

Depends on the configuration; 37 is probably more common on newer units due to operators specifying rear facing wheelchair positions. In any case, this is a little bit redundant as it doesn't alter the percent values very much!

[123456789]

I counted are seats and it's 38

[T6H-5307N]

I counted are seats and it's 38

*our

My point is that you are entirely missing the point of his original calculations

[123456789]

Oh haha my bad

[armorand]

*our

My point is that you are entirely missing the point of his original calculations

Speaking of my calculations! What percentage is needed to maintain routes across the system? Or bus service late at night? Is 25% fair?

[DavidW]

Winnipeg Free Press article on Saturday revealing the Mayor's approval of an independent regional transit authority to replace Winnipeg Transit.

End of line for Winnipeg Transit?

Mayor, planners suggest separate authority

Winnipeg Free Press

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscribe...p-4716972c.html

Sat Feb 9 2008

So apparently this idea of some sort of regional transit is still floating around.

I was thinking today about what I would propose for a pilot and I came up with this:

East St. Paul [ESP] Pilot Commuter Transit Route

Morning route (24.2 km):

• From Glenway loop (Henderson Hwy and Glenway Ave)
• north on Henderson Highway to Hoddinott Road (3.8 km)
• east on Hoddinott Road to Birds Hill Road (3.0 km)
• south on Birds Hill Road to Highway 59 (1.1 km)
• south on Highway 59 to Pritchard Farm Road (0.9 km)
• west on Pritchard Farm Road to Henderson Highway (3.0 km)
• south on Henderson Highway, Disraeli Fwy and Main Street to Portage Avenue (11.1 km)
• west on Portage Avenue to Balmoral Station (1.3 km) (or some other downtown terminus)

Afternoon route (24.3 km):

• From Balmoral Station (or some other downtown terminal)
• via Balmoral St., Ellice Ave., Vaughan St., and Portage Ave. to Main Street (1.4 km)
• north on Main Street, Disraeli Fwy, and Henderson Hwy to Hoddinott Road (13 km)
• east on Hoddinott Road to Birds Hill Road (3.0 km)
• south on Birds Hill Road to Highway 59 (1.1 km)
• south on Highway 59 to Pritchard Farm Road (0.9 km)
• west on Pritchard Farm Road to Henderson Highway (3.0 km)
• south on Henderson Highway to Glenway loop (1.9 km)

By using Glenway loop and Downtown Winnipeg as the ends of the route it allows two-way travel without having to operate in service in the non-peak direction. Passengers who want to go to East St. Paul in the AM use the 11 Kildonan Glenway to get to Glenway loop. Likewise passengers leaving East St. Paul in the PM get as far as Glenway loop on the ESP service, where they can connect to Winnipeg Transit for travel elsewhere.

I would aim for a commuter pattern start-up. Something like three inbound trips in the AM peak and three outbound trips in the PM peak, weekdays only. Initially I wouldn't try to offer mid-day, evening, Saturday or Sunday service.

I can think of three basic approaches to fares.

[1]. No fare integration with Winnipeg Transit. If you're journey is only on the ESP service then you pay the one fare. If you are using both ESP and Winnipeg Transit in your journey, you have to pay the second fare on boarding the second carrier. In this case ESP service should be prohibited from carrying passengers who both board and exit in Winnipeg on the same trip. This is how fares work on the Beaver Bus Lines Selkirk service.

[2]. Complete fare integration with Winnipeg Transit. ESP charges the same fare as any other Winnipeg Transit route, and accepts Winnipeg Transit fare media (passes, tickets, transfers), and transfers issued on ESP buses are valid on Winnipeg Transit buses. This sort of approach requires a revenue-sharing arrangement, usually based on ridership proportions. It would also require ESP buses to be equipped with compatible fareboxes. There are models for this type of arrangement elsewhere but Winnipeg Transit has no experience with them. If fares were completely integrated the ESP buses could carry Winnipeg Transit passengers in Winnipeg, thus providing a little extra capacity on Henderson Highway in the peak direction.

[3]. Some fare integration. There are as many ways to provide partial fare integration as one can imagine or devise. Some require complex accounting while others provide a less exacting revenue division. Some examples:

Winnipeg fares (transfers, passes, tickets) could be valid when boarding ESP buses in Winnipeg, but not outside Winnipeg. Passengers who paid an ESP fare could buy a Winnipeg transfer for an extra cost. In this scenario boarding an ESP bus with a Winnipeg paid fare would probably require paying an extra surcharge. Since many passengers would need both a Winnipeg pass and an ESP pass, the ESP pass would be priced based on the cost of a daily AM trip.

Alternately, boarding in ESP (typically AM inbound) could require a double fare (e.g. a Winnipeg pass plus cash, or two tickets) but boarding in Winnipeg (typically PM outbound) requires a single fare (Winnipeg fare media accepted). This is effectively a fare zone, with ESP costing 1.5 times

the Winnipeg fare.

Or, it could be as simple as accepting each other's transfers, leaving ESP to set their own fares (and collect most of their revenue in the AM). Winnipeg would collect (and keep) ESP customers' PM fares.

Most of these schemes would require compatible electronic fareboxes on the ESP buses.

Where or how would you pilot a regional commuter service?

[armorand]

Spotted 991 on the 21 about an hour later.