Winnipeg Transit and area

[DavidW]

I had been told at the time that the move to Hargrave farside was temporary for the construction of True North Square, but when it comes to Mark Chipman's influence over City Hall you never know what will happen. As the owner of TNSq (and owner of Brian Bowman) and an anti-transit owner of multiple car dealerships, not to mention holy sainted owner of The Jets, Mark kind-of runs this town...

[armorand]

1 hour ago, DavidW said:

I had been told at the time that the move to Hargrave farside was temporary for the construction of True North Square, but when it comes to Mark Chipman's influence over City Hall you never know what will happen. As the owner of TNSq (and owner of Brian Bowman) and an anti-transit owner of multiple car dealerships, not to mention holy sainted owner of The Jets, Mark kind-of runs this town...

It might also explain the lack of transit service to the MTS Iceplex & Assiniboia Downs... what better way to shut out your competition, than to cut transit service to other attractions and events inside Winnipeg, while guaranteeing yours gets all of the foot traffic, with most Winnipeg Transit routes converging right upon Graham Ave, or the MTS Centre? 

I wonder how much lost business the Iceplex and Assiniboia Downs have received, due to potential outside pressure on Winnipeg Transit... because before the Iceplex, nobody ever rode the 601/racetrack buses, and that could be seen as to why that bus service was cut. But with offices popping up, Westport, potential residential AND a hockey arena multiplex?!?! It might not make money, but at least it could breakeven at 22 passengers per hour, or whatever the number is for breakeven WT service - which for Route 82 to be expanded west of Unicity to cover that service, might actually make it breakeven.

[SirAndrew710]

45 minutes ago, armorand said:

It might also explain the lack of transit service to the MTS Iceplex & Assiniboia Downs... what better way to shut out your competition, than to cut transit service to other attractions and events inside Winnipeg, while guaranteeing yours gets all of the foot traffic, with most Winnipeg Transit routes converging right upon Graham Ave, or the MTS Centre? 

I wonder how much lost business the Iceplex and Assiniboia Downs have received, due to potential outside pressure on Winnipeg Transit... because before the Iceplex, nobody ever rode the 601/racetrack buses, and that could be seen as to why that bus service was cut. But with offices popping up, Westport, potential residential AND a hockey arena multiplex?!?! It might not make money, but at least it could breakeven at 22 passengers per hour, or whatever the number is for breakeven WT service - which for Route 82 to be expanded west of Unicity to cover that service, might actually make it breakeven.

I drew up a map for a possible future express service out there and posted it to the “Custom Routes” thread, I’ll post it again below. Non-existent fantasy routes aside, the current lack of service out there is a travesty. The only issues I see with an extended 82 are the current route’s 55-minute headways and lack of evening service. I know from experience (having done a work placement there in high school) that most of what goes on there takes place at night, and the people who would take the bus there wouldn’t have a way out. Perhaps extend the 11 when the 82 is not running?

[ConnorsCompShow]

On 1/21/2020 at 5:15 PM, ConnorsCompShow said:

511 ate shit past Club Regent.

 

On 1/21/2020 at 7:49 PM, ConnorsCompShow said:

Don't know exactly, but it was shut off entirely (back sign wasn't doing "STALLED" then the arrow animation, it was totally off and the hook wasn't in sight). It was a 46 Regent previously, and I guess control had a Kildare (I think?) or something else come by and retrieve the people that were on there since there was a bit of a crowd out there. This was around Owen.

Just saw it rolling around BG a moment ago.

[DavidW]

20 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

I drew up a map for a possible future express service out there and posted it to the “Custom Routes” thread, I’ll post it again below. Non-existent fantasy routes aside, the current lack of service out there is a travesty. The only issues I see with an extended 82 are the current route’s 55-minute headways and lack of evening service. I know from experience (having done a work placement there in high school) that most of what goes on there takes place at night, and the people who would take the bus there wouldn’t have a way out. Perhaps extend the 11 when the 82 is not running?

Of course any transit service outside Winnipeg City limits would have to be paid for by the municipality or municipalities served. Winnipeg Transit also currently has a policy of not doing any charters outside City limits or outside the Perimeter (whichever is greater). The Downs/Iceplex/Red River Ex, the small housing subdivision south of Portage and immediately west of the Perimeter, and the empty business park development immediately west of the RREx are all inside City limits. The Flying J and everything west of it. And everything west of the Perimeter and south of the Assiniboine River, are Headingley's transit responsibility. 

As I heard it the developer of the small neighbourhood alongside the Perimeter between Portage and the river asked for Winnipeg Transit service but Transit declined estimating ridership would be too small. 

If the business park west of RREx ever fills in, I was told Transit's initial service idea was to yank the "St. Charles" branch of Portage services out of the St. Charles neighbourhood and reroute it into the business park. 

The City of Winnipeg adopted a framework for providing city services outside City limits several years ago. I believe it requires any specific agreement to not cost City of Winnipeg taxpayers a single cent to deliver the external service.

A proposal for Transit to provide service to East St. Paul several years ago crashed and burned. The idea was to extend several Kildonan bus runs up Henderson and down Hodinot. It looked like it might work out when the cost was calculated only for the extra mileage outside City limits, but if you calculated the cost based on mileage from downtown to East St. Paul it was much pricier. City administration insisted on the higher pricetag.

So far none of the surrounding municipalities have been willing to pay for service.

[SirAndrew710]

3 hours ago, DavidW said:

Of course any transit service outside Winnipeg City limits would have to be paid for by the municipality or municipalities served. […]

So far none of the surrounding municipalities have been willing to pay for service.

My guess is that’s why the original route that went out there was discontinued in the first place?

3 hours ago, DavidW said:

As I heard it the developer of the small neighbourhood alongside the Perimeter between Portage and the river asked for Winnipeg Transit service but Transit declined estimating ridership would be too small. 

I never thought there was much to that development just from what I’ve seen zipping past there at high speeds on the 66, but looking at Google Maps, there isn’t too much less to it than there is to what’s springing up in Waverley West. Perhaps they could start by providing service to there via only the 22, with DART service providing connections with the 11 or 21 at Unicity when the 22 is not operating (I don’t know why they haven’t considered DART in other poorly-served neighborhoods - Waverley West in particular), then add fixed-route service via the 21, and maybe even the 11, depending on ridership numbers?

3 hours ago, DavidW said:

A proposal for Transit to provide service to East St. Paul several years ago crashed and burned. The idea was to extend several Kildonan bus runs up Henderson and down Hodinot. It looked like it might work out when the cost was calculated only for the extra mileage outside City limits, but if you calculated the cost based on mileage from downtown to East St. Paul it was much pricier. City administration insisted on the higher pricetag.

If it’s pricier from Downtown than it is from Glenway, imagine how much greater it would cost based on mileage from Polo Park, let alone Westwood/Crestview/St. Charles or that business park. Would provide WT with some much-needed income, but could be out of the smaller municipalities’ budget range. Not to mention the costs WT themselves would have to pay to sustain an extended-on-both-ends 11 that would run from the Iceplex to East St. Paul (how many more buses would they have to buy in order to maintain a 10-15 minute headway?)

[ConnorsCompShow]

Extending route 11 wouldn't make sense unless/until the strongly rumored Costco gets built. DART it and the Buchanan and Lakewood areas after 7.

[SirAndrew710]

1 hour ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

Extending route 11 wouldn't make sense unless/until the strongly rumored Costco gets built. DART it and the Buchanan and Lakewood areas after 7.

David’s post above leads me to believe that no reroutes would take place until after Costco gets built.

I drew up a map showing how I would carry out the reroutes. Because the St. Charles branch would be affected if service was rerouted to Costco and the Iceplex, I would serve that area with the same DART service as that development southwest of the Portage/Perimeter interchange outside of rush hour, with the 98 continuing to provide service through there at rush hour.

[DavidW]

6 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

My guess is that’s why the original route that went out there was discontinued in the first place?

Winnipeg Transit was providing service to Headingley because it was part of the City of Winnipeg. When Headingley voted to separate from Winnipeg it had the option to pay Winnipeg Transit (or someone else) to provide service. Since Headingley chose not to pay, Winnipeg Transit ended bus service to it.

[SirAndrew710]

18 hours ago, DavidW said:

Winnipeg Transit was providing service to Headingley because it was part of the City of Winnipeg. When Headingley voted to separate from Winnipeg it had the option to pay Winnipeg Transit (or someone else) to provide service. Since Headingley chose not to pay, Winnipeg Transit ended bus service to it.

I didn’t realize Headingley was ever part of the city. I guess that explains why City of Winnipeg street signs are still visible along Portage and Roblin.

 

[armorand]

On 1/24/2020 at 3:28 PM, DavidW said:

Of course any transit service outside Winnipeg City limits would have to be paid for by the municipality or municipalities served. Winnipeg Transit also currently has a policy of not doing any charters outside City limits or outside the Perimeter (whichever is greater). The Downs/Iceplex/Red River Ex, the small housing subdivision south of Portage and immediately west of the Perimeter, and the empty business park development immediately west of the RREx are all inside City limits. The Flying J and everything west of it. And everything west of the Perimeter and south of the Assiniboine River, are Headingley's transit responsibility. 

As I heard it the developer of the small neighbourhood alongside the Perimeter between Portage and the river asked for Winnipeg Transit service but Transit declined estimating ridership would be too small. 

If the business park west of RREx ever fills in, I was told Transit's initial service idea was to yank the "St. Charles" branch of Portage services out of the St. Charles neighbourhood and reroute it into the business park. 

The City of Winnipeg adopted a framework for providing city services outside City limits several years ago. I believe it requires any specific agreement to not cost City of Winnipeg taxpayers a single cent to deliver the external service.

A proposal for Transit to provide service to East St. Paul several years ago crashed and burned. The idea was to extend several Kildonan bus runs up Henderson and down Hodinot. It looked like it might work out when the cost was calculated only for the extra mileage outside City limits, but if you calculated the cost based on mileage from downtown to East St. Paul it was much pricier. City administration insisted on the higher pricetag.

So far none of the surrounding municipalities have been willing to pay for service.

I'm just curious - so the 82 has been on transits chopping block list for service cuts, due to lack of ridership... yet, instead of extending the 82 to Assiniboia Downs/Westport and justifying its continued existence and boosting ridership, they would rather extend the 11 and take it out of St. Charles?

I was thinking... the 82, if extended, would basically turn into a shoppers-esque route, much like the Downtown Spirit, with Westwood and the Grace Hospital area suddenly being able to connect to Westport, the Iceplex and the Downs. Therefore, boosting ridership considerably. 

But why rip out the 11? Instead, maybe it would be better to just increase 11 St. Charles service accordingly? That way, the 82 would act as the feeder and handle Westport/Downs area - BUT the 11, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 66 would handle the rest. 

Just seems like a bad idea to overextend the 11 and rip it out of St. Charles, when the 82 can be extended instead, and another 11 added on Sundays (or another 21/22 the rest of the week), along with the Ness and Grant, taking over the rest of potential transit demand & ridership.

Of course, as you mentioned before, Winnipeg Transit is "not interested in my ideas", but if they do decide to plow ahead with ripping out the 11 and never extending the 82 (which might boost ridership enough to safely remove it from WT funding cuts in the future), will the 98 at least replace it? Or will St. Charles, living with transit service for decades and potentially even a century (considering pre-1972 transit), just have to deal with the cuts?

[SirAndrew710]

28 minutes ago, armorand said:

I'm just curious - so the 82 has been on transits chopping block list for service cuts, due to lack of ridership... yet, instead of extending the 82 to Assiniboia Downs/Westport and justifying its continued existence and boosting ridership, they would rather extend the 11 and take it out of St. Charles?

I was thinking... the 82, if extended, would basically turn into a shoppers-esque route, much like the Downtown Spirit, with Westwood and the Grace Hospital area suddenly being able to connect to Westport, the Iceplex and the Downs. Therefore, boosting ridership considerably. 

But why rip out the 11? Instead, maybe it would be better to just increase 11 St. Charles service accordingly? That way, the 82 would act as the feeder and handle Westport/Downs area - BUT the 11, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 66 would handle the rest. 

Just seems like a bad idea to overextend the 11 and rip it out of St. Charles, when the 82 can be extended instead, and another 11 added on Sundays (or another 21/22 the rest of the week), along with the Ness and Grant, taking over the rest of potential transit demand & ridership.

Of course, as you mentioned before, Winnipeg Transit is "not interested in my ideas", but if they do decide to plow ahead with ripping out the 11 and never extending the 82 (which might boost ridership enough to safely remove it from WT funding cuts in the future), will the 98 at least replace it? Or will St. Charles, living with transit service for decades and potentially even a century (considering pre-1972 transit), just have to deal with the cuts?

One one hand, extending the 11 (and, by extension, the 21 and 22) seems the most logical move to me, as doing so would provide passengers looking to travel out there with a a one-seat ride from the Grace, Polo Park and Downtown, not to mention the residential portions of St. James, and I’m sure ridership would exceed that of the current 11/21/22 (how many of the people who take that bus go past Unicity?). On the other hand, you’re right about Route 82 ridership. Every time I’m on the one that departs Unicity at 11:22, I can count the other passengers on that bus on one hand - if there are any. And yet they regularly dispatch 40-foot buses (usually 700-series LFRs) onto there these days (maybe it’s because of the interlining with the 98 - is ridership higher on that route?). The question is, how can ridership on there be boosted without inconveniencing the people looking to travel out to the Downs, the Iceplex and Westport?

[LilZebra]

Any word on what proposed route 23 will be named? It's scheduled to commence April 8 as SWBRT 2 opens. To me, it'd make sense to call it the Broadway bus, like so:

23 Broadway City Hall, Logan

29 Sherbrook Beaumont Stn., Logan

 

Long term, if it were me doing WT planning, I'd terminate the 23 Broadway bus at Union Stn. where passengers would connect with LRT/subway trains heading SW, and East. A relocated intercity bus terminal at Union Stn. would also connect with communities beyond the Perim. Hwy.

I would extend Broadway west to Arlington, which would require the demolition of houses along that right of way. I presume that a new Arlington Bridge will be constructed and that long-term redevelopment of Arlington Street (north end side) would feature mid- and hi-rise apartment and condo. housing.

So the 23 Broadway bus would then be extended to Ar;lington, like so:

23  Broadway Union Stn., Arlington

[armorand]

5 hours ago, SirAndrew710 said:

One one hand, extending the 11 (and, by extension, the 21 and 22) seems the most logical move to me, as doing so would provide passengers looking to travel out there with a a one-seat ride from the Grace, Polo Park and Downtown, not to mention the residential portions of St. James, and I’m sure ridership would exceed that of the current 11/21/22 (how many of the people who take that bus go past Unicity?). On the other hand, you’re right about Route 82 ridership. Every time I’m on the one that departs Unicity at 11:22, I can count the other passengers on that bus on one hand - if there are any. And yet they regularly dispatch 40-foot buses (usually 700-series LFRs) onto there these days (maybe it’s because of the interlining with the 98 - is ridership higher on that route?). The question is, how can ridership on there be boosted without inconveniencing the people looking to travel out to the Downs, the Iceplex and Westport?

Are you aware of the MAX BRT routes in Calgary? If you are, a MAX Purple variant for Winnipeg, from Unicity to Downtown, might solve that problem. 

The infrastructure exists already too. All Winnipeg Transit would have to do, is just turn the 22 into this supposed "super express" and leave the 21 as-is. Or in Sundays case? Leave the 11 as-is, and keep the super express running between Unicity and Downtown. 

That way, the super express will not only be able to handle Westport and Unicity, but it can help expedite travel all along Portage, and reduce the sardines-loads as well. Plus the 82 can directly connect with both the Super Express *AND* the 11/21, theoretically having a frequency as high as 10 minutes leaving Unicity for Downtown (11/21/SuperX), and with the 82 connecting and feeding/being fed, Portage transfers wouldn't be a problem either, along with Ness, Grant or 82 apartments served near the Grace & through Westwood as well...

It wouldn't be too much of an inconvenience, if its set up like that. The biggest factors would just be:

- new service (82)

- Portage frequent service (either more 11/21/22 or a new dedicated DAILY super express)

...and St Charles. Which could be covered by the 83 or 98. Most likely the 98 NB, 83 SB? That or loop in both the 83 and 98 into St. Charles, so that way, they keep all current service levels until at least 22:00 (18:00 weekends/holidays).

[ConnorsCompShow]

Reworking 82 to go to Westport would make it relevant and actually useful. But if there was insistence on not doing that, I'd just gut it entirely and rework 11/21/22 Westwood to absorb 82's area. In theory, left at Rouge as it does today, left on Sansome, right on Westwood, right on Assiniboine, possibly pull into today's Rouge Loop for a moment if a conversion to a soft terminal is undesirable, right on Bedson, right on Sansome, left back on to Rouge. That only cuts a small part of Bedson and Westwood off, but it wouldn't be earth-shattering. Those north of Sansome on Bedson could go all the way up to Portage and try their hand at a returning St. Charles or make a small eastwards walk to Rouge, and those north of Sansome on Westwood could also go all the way up to Portage or do a westwards walk to Rouge.

[armorand]

7 hours ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

Reworking 82 to go to Westport would make it relevant and actually useful. But if there was insistence on not doing that, I'd just gut it entirely and rework 11/21/22 Westwood to absorb 82's area. In theory, left at Rouge as it does today, left on Sansome, right on Westwood, right on Assiniboine, possibly pull into today's Rouge Loop for a moment if a conversion to a soft terminal is undesirable, right on Bedson, right on Sansome, left back on to Rouge. That only cuts a small part of Bedson and Westwood off, but it wouldn't be earth-shattering. Those north of Sansome on Bedson could go all the way up to Portage and try their hand at a returning St. Charles or make a small eastwards walk to Rouge, and those north of Sansome on Westwood could also go all the way up to Portage or do a westwards walk to Rouge.

Agreed. Plus thinking about it too... its not like Westwood, Portage Ave and the Grace Hospital area isn't full of apartments and rentals... plus demand for the Downs and the Iceplex? Extending Route 82 might actually SOLVE something... and attract enough riders to comfortably remove it from any of Winnipeg Transits slash-lists for the foreseeable future.

Especially if Headingley ever gets their own transit system, or if P&R ever develops at the Downs. Then, any future 82 extensions and such, are completely guaranteed to succeed.

[SirAndrew710]

10 hours ago, armorand said:

Are you aware of the MAX BRT routes in Calgary? If you are, a MAX Purple variant for Winnipeg, from Unicity to Downtown, might solve that problem.

I don’t know anything about Calgary. Outside of Winnipeg, the only systems I have a good understanding of are Grand Forks (ND) and Regina.

8 hours ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

Reworking 82 to go to Westport would make it relevant and actually useful. But if there was insistence on not doing that, I'd just gut it entirely and rework 11/21/22 Westwood to absorb 82's area. In theory, left at Rouge as it does today, left on Sansome, right on Westwood, right on Assiniboine, possibly pull into today's Rouge Loop for a moment if a conversion to a soft terminal is undesirable, right on Bedson, right on Sansome, left back on to Rouge. That only cuts a small part of Bedson and Westwood off, but it wouldn't be earth-shattering. Those north of Sansome on Bedson could go all the way up to Portage and try their hand at a returning St. Charles or make a small eastwards walk to Rouge, and those north of Sansome on Westwood could also go all the way up to Portage or do a westwards walk to Rouge.

I’ve considered rerouting the 82 into St. Charles if the 11/21/22 gets rerouted away from there, and maybe using it to provide additional St. James-Charleswood service and rerouting the 98 away from the Grace (but still across the Moray Bridge).

[MMP15]

12 hours ago, armorand said:

Agreed. Plus thinking about it too... its not like Westwood, Portage Ave and the Grace Hospital area isn't full of apartments and rentals... plus demand for the Downs and the Iceplex? Extending Route 82 might actually SOLVE something... and attract enough riders to comfortably remove it from any of Winnipeg Transits slash-lists for the foreseeable future.

Especially if Headingley ever gets their own transit system, or if P&R ever develops at the Downs. Then, any future 82 extensions and such, are completely guaranteed to succeed.

An Assiniboia Downs P&R (or unicity P&R) to U of M super express via the west Perimeter would be an interesting concept...I think that would open up transit to a lot of people who think it is currently not feasible due to the long travel time

[LilZebra]

3 hours ago, MMP15 said:

An Assiniboia Downs P&R (or unicity P&R) to U of M super express via the west Perimeter would be an interesting concept...I think that would open up transit to a lot of people who think it is currently not feasible due to the long travel time

Via the Perimeter Hwy. south to McGillivray and to Seel Stn. or further south. Would operate locally in Assiniboia + Headingley area and SuperEx;press outside of Assiniboia (Westwood, Crestview, Westport)

[armorand]

5 hours ago, MMP15 said:

An Assiniboia Downs P&R (or unicity P&R) to U of M super express via the west Perimeter would be an interesting concept...I think that would open up transit to a lot of people who think it is currently not feasible due to the long travel time

The only thing is:

- it would bypass Charleswood, if Perimeter only.

- Unicity wouldn't allow a permanent P&R.

It would have to be at Assiniboia Downs. And to engage Charleswood, there might need to be a "kiss and ride" stop on the Perimeter, that also engages a pedestrian overpass (for obvious reasons), and has room for the 65 or 98 to stop in. The 65 and 98 could feed a Perimeter route. Only thing is? RM of Headingley owns all of that land, and while it may be interested in a cheapskate version of this... I personally know the property owner of the NW corner of the Roblin/Perimeter interchange. They might be willing to develop and sell the land to Winnipeg Transit/City of Winnipeg, if its just a small bus loop, a bus shelter, signs and some parking spots for drop-offs... but I can't speak of any of the other property owners west of City Limits. 

On the bright side, it could theoretically make a stop in Oak Bluff, and theoretically give Oak Bluff some of that inter-regional transit service... they'd have to develop the stop themselves, and maybe pay a bit for maintenance and route funding, but it could definitely work. Throwing in a Roblin/Perimeter stop too with bus access and drop-offs, would also help it considerably.

Otherwise, a direct Downs to U of M route may not work very well. Also, another option would be to just run a Grace Hospital - U of M super-express, and shave off absurd amounts of time having to go to Polo/Downtown and then making a transfer. 

[MMP15]

6 hours ago, armorand said:

The only thing is:

- it would bypass Charleswood, if Perimeter only.

- Unicity wouldn't allow a permanent P&R.

It would have to be at Assiniboia Downs. And to engage Charleswood, there might need to be a "kiss and ride" stop on the Perimeter, that also engages a pedestrian overpass (for obvious reasons), and has room for the 65 or 98 to stop in. The 65 and 98 could feed a Perimeter route. Only thing is? RM of Headingley owns all of that land, and while it may be interested in a cheapskate version of this... I personally know the property owner of the NW corner of the Roblin/Perimeter interchange. They might be willing to develop and sell the land to Winnipeg Transit/City of Winnipeg, if its just a small bus loop, a bus shelter, signs and some parking spots for drop-offs... but I can't speak of any of the other property owners west of City Limits. 

On the bright side, it could theoretically make a stop in Oak Bluff, and theoretically give Oak Bluff some of that inter-regional transit service... they'd have to develop the stop themselves, and maybe pay a bit for maintenance and route funding, but it could definitely work. Throwing in a Roblin/Perimeter stop too with bus access and drop-offs, would also help it considerably.

Otherwise, a direct Downs to U of M route may not work very well. Also, another option would be to just run a Grace Hospital - U of M super-express, and shave off absurd amounts of time having to go to Polo/Downtown and then making a transfer. 

What about NB west perimeter to North through St Charles, West on Portage to ASD (providing a transfer point with the St Charles branch of the 11/21/22) and then South on Perimeter?

Also to get to u of m what about eb Wilkes to Beaumont station, and then non-stop along the transitway?

[ConnorsCompShow]

Whoops! The Donald sign on Graham took a tumble. Deliberately? At least if the cones around it are any indication. (Wasn't me.)

[armorand]

Deliberately... hmm, no car damage. Unless some of the junkies Downtown banded up to tear it down by hand, I would think its of enough stable construction, to prevent being knocked over like that. Isn't there bolts to the ground, welding and everything?

[vivablue5215]

Even the southbound Union Station one is missing. I swear it was there earlier this week.

[SirAndrew710]

The sign at eastbound Portage at Woodlawn (20279) is also gone. I do know that whoever takes care of snow clearing does their job pretty carelessly. Stuff gets knocked over every year. A few years ago, they destroyed almost everything that lines Portage through St. James Village. I don’t know how much force it takes to knock a bus stop sign out, but history shows this could be a plausible explanation.