Jump to content
BCT-3122-D800-10240

Winnipeg Transit and area

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2020 at 3:47 PM, armorand said:

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?

A WT bus operator told someone and I overheard him s=y that the topple was done by snow plow contractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Thewinnipegtransitfanhuang said:

Heard from a operator today that WT will ban ad wraps soon and buses who has them now will have them removed for safety reasons 

I can confirm that is true. I think it’s so stupid 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve noticed that 943 lost its ad-wrap recently and that 944 and 946 haven’t been wrapped for some time, but I wasn’t expecting this. Especially seeing as some of the Xcelsiors got their wraps fairly recently. What sort of “safety reasons” would necessitate the removal of all the ad-wraps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand (somewhat) if the ads cover the windows. I don't understand if the wraps are cut around the windows. No other city has made this decision - Translink in Vancouver just spent tons of money wrapping all their new artics in a RapidBus livery. Would that have been banned in Winnipeg under this new rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Thewinnipegtransitfanhuang said:

Heard from a operator today that WT will ban ad wraps soon and buses who has them now will have them removed for safety reasons 

For a cash-strapped transit system, that seems kind of stupid, to cut advertising from their buses like that. Especially if it doesn't impact the driver at all. The worst thing any of those ad-wraps do is just block the passenger views & thats about it. 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, armorand said:

For a cash-strapped transit system, that seems kind of stupid, to cut advertising from their buses like that. Especially if it doesn't impact the driver at all. The worst thing any of those ad-wraps do is just block the passenger views & thats about it. 😕

From what I’ve heard it’s because the cops said when they go by a bus and wants to see what’s going on they can’t see inside, but wraps like the SWRT1 wraps should be fine since they don’t block any windows. Some wraps are worse then others in terms of visibility like 161 and 315 

personally I think that it’s somewhat stupid to ban ad wraps as it just makes our buses look even more boring considering our livery is getting closer and closer to 100% white, but I do understand that we live in a city where bad things happen onboard our buses and having the wraps will only prevent the cops from doing something 

hopefully they will continue the ad wraps but make it a requirement that future ad wraps cannot cover windows 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Thewinnipegtransitfanhuang said:

From what I’ve heard it’s because the cops said when they go by a bus and wants to see what’s going on they can’t see inside, but wraps like the SWRT1 wraps should be fine since they don’t block any windows. Some wraps are worse then others in terms of visibility like 161 and 315 

Why would they impose a total ban then instead of telling Pattison/Outfront to tell potential buyers that they can simply no longer cover up windows?
And sooner or later the cameras that are installed will be able to stream over LTE back to control, making that eventually a moot point.

Speaking of "safety" and advertising, do you wanna know what's an actual safety hazard? Those "King" ads on the sides, at least the ones that aren't stuck right on to the sides without any frames needed. A relevant story, sometime in the fall before the snow flied I was on a bus which had its right side king ad break apart full bore on the transitway, and what was still left of it was whacking the bus pretty frequently and was basically loose. Someone at Osborne told the driver this and he went out, yanked the remainder of it out, and tried to fold it up for storage but couldn't so all he could do was leave it on the floor in front.

Share this post


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

From what I’ve heard it’s because the cops said when they go by a bus and wants to see what’s going on they can’t see inside, but wraps like the SWRT1 wraps should be fine since they don’t block any windows. Some wraps are worse then others in terms of visibility like 161 and 315

I don’t think there’s that much visibility on any of the ad-wrapped ones. Every time I see 184, 189, 337, 339 or one of the other ad-wrapped buses, I couldn’t see inside. Maybe that’s why they kept dispatching 943 onto Route 3 (almost everyday) when it was wrapped.

1 hour ago, Thewinnipegtransitfanhuang said:

personally I think that it’s somewhat stupid to ban ad wraps as it just makes our buses look even more boring considering our livery is getting closer and closer to 100% white, but I do understand that we live in a city where bad things happen onboard our buses and having the wraps will only prevent the cops from doing something 

hopefully they will continue the ad wraps but make it a requirement that future ad wraps cannot cover windows 

I agree with both this and @armorand’s point above. Our newer buses - particularly the XD60s - look boring and WT’s strapped for cash. Ad-wraps kill two birds with one stone in that they make the buses look better and provide WT with valuable money. Is there any other option?

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

×
×
  • Create New...