Jump to content
BCT-3122-D800-10240

Winnipeg Transit and area

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

It wouldn't even be that far back if I'm reading armorand right, it'd be re-establishing Filbert Loop.

His use of the words “around East Kildonan” rather than “in Harbour View South” leads me to be believe it would be that far back.

24 minutes ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

In fairness, the 44 is quite the mess of a route.

My guess is it serves three main purposes: connecting Elmwood and Valley Gardens with downtown (original routing), connecting Harbour View South with downtown (first extension) and connecting Harbour View South with KP (second extension).

26 minutes ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

If it were up to me, I would softly vote no on that 47 proposal and instead hand that area over to route 89 to give it a new market; axe the Kildare-Day zig-zag and Regent service duplication totally.

I’ve always wondered why the 89 (and rush-hour 90) do that rather than going EB Regent (in the case of the 89)/Pandora (in the case of the 90)-NB Plessis-EB Kildare-NB Madeline, like the 48.

Share this post


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

I’ve always wondered why the 89 (and rush-hour 90) do that rather than going EB Regent (in the case of the 89)/Pandora (in the case of the 90)-NB Plessis-EB Kildare-NB Madeline, like the 48.

Probably because Plessis is already covered by the 42/92 and (for now) 46/47, and Kildare is covered by the 46/47 and 48. Day only has the 89/90. Remove the 89/90 from Day, and Day has nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 6:59 PM, SirAndrew710 said:

His use of the words “around East Kildonan” rather than “in Harbour View South” leads me to be believe it would be that far back.

Basically pre-2016? Route 44, looping around East Kildonan. No Harbor View, no KP. 

- brings sevice back up for route 44 in EK, without extending the hell out of it & slashing frequencies. Concentrated service zone provided by old London/Louleda loop routes ensure considerably enhanced transit service for all of East Kildonan.

- allows Transcona DART or Route 87/89/92 extension into Harbor View as a suburban feeder, with the latter routes being saved from the chopping block by significantly generating the extra ridership. 

- solves the issues of NE Winnipeg transit frequencies of over 45-60 minutes outside of daytime service.

If Harbor View South still needs to connect across Lagimodiere, then extend DART/Transcona routes into a looped area, that also connects the 44, 77 and potentially the 90. Further? Connect to Henderson Highway, and bring up ridership even more, connecting to the 11, 40 and 41.

It's really just a matter of seeing if WT will do this right - and not just "as cheap as possible", with no thoughts given to making routes that connect and feed the major bus routes (11 and 47 in this case) that would also boost the ridership enough to make the service work.

Share this post


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

Basically pre-2016? Route 44, looping around East Kildonan. No Harbor View, no KP.

I think the 44 was extended to Harbour View South in 2006, to KP via Lagimodiere in 2012, and going via Peguis in 2015.

15 hours ago, armorand said:

- allows Transcona DART or Route 87/89/92 extension into Harbor View as a suburban feeder, with the latter routes being saved from the chopping block by significantly generating the extra ridership.

Route 87 used to go to Harbour View South, but was cut back to KP in 2005 or 2006.


If I was living in Harbour View South, I would be very much opposed to losing regular service, and having DART instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 3:07 PM, Isaac Williams said:

I think the 44 was extended to Harbour View South in 2006, to KP via Lagimodiere in 2012, and going via Peguis in 2015.

Route 87 used to go to Harbour View South, but was cut back to KP in 2005 or 2006.


If I was living in Harbour View South, I would be very much opposed to losing regular service, and having DART instead.

Much of the neighborhood is condos and typical suburban housing though. Outside of daytime and rush hour services, is there enough demand for fixed route service on evenings and weekend?

Share this post


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

Much of the neighborhood is condos and typical suburban housing though. Outside of daytime and rush hour services, is there enough demand for fixed route service on evenings and weekend?

The point is, good transit service needs to be provided, regardless of demand and profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a listen through of the IRPW session and it appears Transit is objecting to the proposed 47 Kildare modification for a few reasons:

  • It looks like they want to defer routing changes into the TMP from this point forward, or at least put a freeze on it until it's finalized.
  • Headways would be cut in half on Regent and access would be lost to the casino's park and ride.
  • Transcona Blvd isn't totally straight which means that branch would run a longer distance (plus some minutes of run time), and to avoid bunching up, they'd have to boost Edmund Gale idle time (which is already pretty high post-SWRT2). Ultimately, not cost neutral.

The DART proposal was also strongly suggested to get kicked into TMP though Jeff Browaty said that it's well warranted for it to happen sooner rather than later, especially when quoting that if TMP got approved it'd get set in motion no earlier than 3 or 4 years from now.

They are totally right about run time though, I would really hate to be crawling along at 50 when it could be (and really should be) 60. Many drivers do do 60 anyway, but it's known as a frequent cop hideout spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw busses with run cards 96-80 and 50-80 signed as Chartered Royalwood/Windsor Park at 12:33 (Bishop Grandin/Shorehill) and 12:41 (Lagimodiere/Sage Creek), respectively.

Why would there be two school charters running at lunchtime? Especially on routes that are rush hour only.

If this occurs daily, why not just sign it as a public route?

Share this post


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

Why would there be two school charters running at lunchtime? Especially on routes that are rush hour only.

Due to COVID, high-school schedules are quite messed up. Classes are not all in-person (as is the case in the early and middle years), so I’d imagine it’s to accommodate students who only have classes in the morning or whatever.

Share this post


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

20201022_132659.thumb.jpg.c73c748ccf9bdf25819c57d390d28873.jpg20201022_132729.thumb.jpg.2e60fd07aa4fa4eaae068009e3db84e3.jpg

Yes, exactly. Weird that they say chartered though and not school charter.

In the past I might have contacted Winnipeg Transit on Twitter, but recently all they do is DM a reference number, and nothing is heard after that.

My main question is that is these busses are already running along preexisting routes, why not sign them and make them publicly available? The route header could read "96 - Royalwood", indicating that the bus follows the route 96 but terminates early in Royalwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MMP15 said:

Yes, exactly. Weird that they say chartered though and not school charter.

I don't think a real school charter route (S4xx) exists that goes into Royalwood, etc. That could be part of it.

21 minutes ago, MMP15 said:

My main question is that is these busses are already running along preexisting routes, why not sign them and make them publicly available? The route header could read "96 - Royalwood", indicating that the bus follows the route 96 but terminates early in Royalwood.

Maybe because they don't want precious space taken up by people who aren't students?... It would also be weird to have a 96 fill run in the middle of the day, when the 96 isn't running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely not a school charter, that much we know. You don't even have to look at the school list to know that nothing goes down Shorehill. The question is then who would have the pockets to buy that charter, and what for? In other words, what's the common denominator of the people that do use it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ConnorsCompShow said:

It's definitely not a school charter, that much we know. You don't even have to look at the school list to know that nothing goes down Shorehill. The question is then who would have the pockets to buy that charter, and what for? In other words, what's the common denominator of the people that do use it?

When I saw it, it looked like it had students on it. Even though no S4xx school charters go down there, and is not signed as a school charter, I think it is school-related. Same with the 50-80. Regardless, MMP15 and I have both seen the 96-80 in the same location at the same time (twice for me), so it's obviously running on a schedule. Also, why would some random charter have a 50-80 or 96-80 run card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Isaac Williams said:

When I saw it, it looked like it had students on it. Even though no S4xx school charters go down there, and is not signed as a school charter, I think it is school-related. Same with the 50-80. Regardless, MMP15 and I have both seen the 96-80 in the same location at the same time (twice for me), so it's obviously running on a schedule. Also, why would some random charter have a 50-80 or 96-80 run card?

Would anyone possibly have access to the 50-80 or 96-80 run card pdf files? Are there similar ones around the city like this. I agree, the bus was for students and therefore am surprised that the header didn't say school charter. However I suppose "chartered" busses do not require public disclosure (like if they're chartered for a one time event), however school charters do. Perhaps WT is using this as a loophole.

Also if these routes were made public, and riders did use the single midday trip home (this could be tracked using the bus's peggo data) this could make a case to run trips of routes like the 50/96 once every hour or two. Not the same frequency as rush hour, just a few midday runs. If Royalwood had midday 90 minute service, at least then it could be feasible to consider public transit as a real option. If I lived in these community right now, I would not be satisfied with only being able to go home at rush hour.

Otherwise, without trial runs like this providing test data, what would ever be the basis to increase transit service in neighbourhoods like this? You can't expect riders to flock to transit, if the current transit service is awful. Yes I realize the TMP could address this, however I envision the city whining that they can't implement the short term plan for another 5-10 years because the province hasn't given them enough Transit funding. Remember when Bowman promised to complete all the rapid transit corridors? That didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MMP15 said:

However I suppose "chartered" busses do not require public disclosure (like if they're chartered for a one time event), however school charters do. Perhaps WT is using this as a loophole.

There are public buses right now that are not disclosed, such as the 22-9x buses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was riding Route Blue (internally 100) this afternoon around 4:30 which is part of my normal commute. However, this afternoon's bus was a XD40 instead of the normal XD60. I have been riding the same run for the last five weeks but this is a first for me. I also have never seen a Blue bus as a XD40. And yet, the 60 still gets XD60/D60LF buses exclusively. 

Share this post


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

Was riding Route Blue (internally 100) this afternoon around 4:30 which is part of my normal commute. However, this afternoon's bus was a XD40 instead of the normal XD60. I have been riding the same run for the last five weeks but this is a first for me. I also have never seen a Blue bus as a XD40. And yet, the 60 still gets XD60/D60LF buses exclusively. 

It happens once in awhile. Usually because of a tradeoff. Looks like 988 had to be traded out with 838 on the 100-13.

Share this post


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

And yet, the 60 still gets XD60/D60LF buses exclusively. 

TransSee says there’s an LFR (637) on the 60 tonight and I saw an XD40 on that route a few Sundays ago.

Share this post


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

TransSee says there’s an LFR (637) on the 60 tonight and I saw an XD40 on that route a few Sundays ago.

Yes that's 60-12 

3 hours ago, Isaac Williams said:

Delete 

 

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...