Winnipeg City Transit/Rapid Transit

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I remember weighing the decision to take Osborne-Kingston Row just to get out of downtown and take my chances waiting for another Osborne Bus in that windswept drop-off point at by the Canoe Club. There was no bus farther south on Dunkirk until the late 70s (?) so I guess maybe Osborne used to end at Kingston Row.

St. Mary's - Rose was another one that I remember seeing occasionally.

I think the St. Germain one went down to Mountbatten School or around there. It would have been the bus that a lot of my farmer classmates at Dakota Collegiate came up on.

Yep, it ended at Churchill Drive. Here's a photo of the St. Vital Bridge under construction in 1965 (note the old bus loop) and an Osborne - Hwy. No. 1 East D700 bus in a 1981 photo. Hope the links work:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/manitobamaps/3887159553

http://www.busdrawings.com/Transit/m...0d700a/854.jpg

[DavefromSt.Vital]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I think the St. Germain one went down to Mountbatten School or around there. It would have been the bus that a lot of my farmer classmates at Dakota Collegiate came up on.

At Victor Mager we were warned not to become like those kids standing around smoking across the street in front of Dakota Collegiate.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by DavefromSt.Vital

At Victor Mager we were warned not to become like those kids standing around smoking across the street in front of Dakota Collegiate.

If memory serves, smoking outside was our leading extracurricular activity. I believe there were even some teacher-coaches. I always heard that after I left DCI went downhill rapidly and became what Glenlawn had been, with Glenlawn making an equal and opposite ascension into what Dakota had been.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Yep, it ended at Churchill Drive. Here's a photo of the St. Vital Bridge under construction in 1965 (note the old bus loop) and an Osborne - Hwy. No. 1 East D700 bus in a 1981 photo. Hope the links work:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/manitobamaps/3887159553

http://www.busdrawings.com/Transit/m...0d700a/854.jpg

Actually, come to think of it, "St. Amant" was the usual destination sign on the St. Mary's buses that I took, I believe. Going the other way the Osborne was Selkirk-McGregor and St. Mary's was Ellice-Ferry Rd.

There was also the "unibus" which I took to U of M a few times in my first year there (82-83). After that year the unibus was cancelled, I'm pretty sure.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Actually, come to think of it, "St. Amant" was the usual destination sign on the St. Mary's buses that I took, I believe. Going the other way the Osborne was Selkirk-McGregor and St. Mary's was Ellice-Ferry Rd.

There was also the "unibus" which I took to U of M a few times in my first year there (82-83). After that year the unibus was cancelled, I'm pretty sure.

Looks like there was a loop at St. Mary's and Warde (perhaps where the Shell station is?) going by a mid 80s transit map that I looked at. Must have just before the 14 and 16 were re-routed. At one time you may have been right in that it went down to around Mountbatten School, as St. Mary's and Warde is not in St. Germain so there's no explanation otherwise why it would be signed as St. Germain.

Yes, there were three different Selkirk buses, McPhillips, Keewatin and King Edward.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Looks like there was a loop at St. Mary's and Warde (perhaps where the Shell station is?) going by a mid 80s transit map that I looked at. Must have just before the 14 and 16 were re-routed. At one time you may have been right in that it went down to around Mountbatten School, as St. Mary's and Warde is not in St. Germain so there's no explanation otherwise why it would be signed as St. Germain.

Yes, there were three different Selkirk buses, McPhillips, Keewatin and King Edward.

Yes those were the ones. I couldn’t remember if it was McGregor or McPhillips.

Warde was just a dirt track into the bush. I’m not sure what a bus would have been serving beyond there so maybe that’s as far as it went.

[LilZebra]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Looks like there was a loop at St. Mary's and Warde (perhaps where the Shell station is?) going by a mid 80s transit map that I looked at. Must have just before the 14 and 16 were re-routed. At one time you may have been right in that it went down to around Mountbatten School, as St. Mary's and Warde is not in St. Germain so there's no explanation otherwise why it would be signed as St. Germain.

Yes, there were three different Selkirk buses, McPhillips, Keewatin and King Edward.

Mountbatten School was at 3191 St. Mary's Rd. till 2004 when it closed, quite a ways down. Its south of the Perimeter Hwy. in the Grande Pointe area.

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/sites/mountbattenschool.shtm


https://www.google.com/maps/place/31...3!4d-97.126683

[LilZebra]

Pallister just told Richard Cloutier on CJOB that reducing the provincial deficit is a higher priority before electrification of Winnipeg Transit's fleet.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by LilZebra

Pallister just told Richard Cloutier on CJOB that reducing the provincial deficit is a higher priority before electrification of Winnipeg Transit's fleet.

I would 100% agree, the amount of GHG emissions as a % of total emissions is negligible and brings little value to the City and Province. Running a deficit for too long, a decade, can have a much more detrimental effect on the province.

[bomberjet]

Cutting pst again. Why not leave pst as is and do some stuff. It's over 300 mil per year. Also, is it budget time and where is the budget?

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by LilZebra

Pallister just told Richard Cloutier on CJOB that reducing the provincial deficit is a higher priority before electrification of Winnipeg Transit's fleet.

[vjose32]

Someone trying to pay off debt does not cut their income again and again.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Cutting pst again. Why not leave pst as is and do some stuff. It's over 300 mil per year. Also, is it budget time and where is the budget?

So your of the belief that it's govt. that best decides what to do with your money?

$300 M back in private hands to spend in the economy the way one chooses is better than how the govt. would spend $300M!

Consumption based taxes mean that those at the bottom will be taxed on 100% of their income, consumption based taxes are regressive.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

So your of the belief that it's govt. that best decides what to do with your money?

$300 M back in private hands to spend in the economy the way one chooses is better than how the govt. would spend $300M!

Consumption based taxes mean that those at the bottom will be taxed on 100% of their income, consumption based taxes are regressive.

I mean point taken, but we are at an unbelievable infrastructure deficit at the moment and it would be nice to get a couple bigger projects rolling.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I mean point taken, but we are at an unbelievable infrastructure deficit at the moment and it would be nice to get a couple bigger projects rolling.

I mean, maybe if City Hall & the Legislature was cleaned out for corruption, I'm sure millions more could be found overnight. Add an exponential factor too, if the Premier had a higher IQ, and the mayor wasn't forced to be Pallisters slave... Bowman is a breath of fresh air for Winnipeg, but the rest of the municipal government & staff sure as hell aren't.

Clean it all & maybe we'll find those nickels, dimes & bags of cash, underneath their couches?

[bomberjet]

Spend the $300 million on transit. That's my choice. We could have a top notch subway system for $300 million per year. Free for everyone to use.

Heck Brandon could have a subway system too. Subways for everyone!

Instead, I'm going to save a couple pennies every time I go to the store? Do I like less taxes in theory, of course. It's also been proving that reducing taxes and reducing services does not recue deficits.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

So your of the belief that it's govt. that best decides what to do with your money?

Lots of people want to buy things like improved healthcare, education, better road infrastructure and transit service. But you can't just buy them at Costco, your government has to invest in them. Which is why we have this whole thing called democracy to pool some of our resources and collectively choose how to use them.

Originally Posted by rrskylar

$300 M back in private hands to spend in the economy the way one chooses is better than how the govt. would spend $300M!

It's actually the exact opposite. The whole is more than the sum of it's parts. $300million pooled together can buy a significant asset like a bridge or transit line. Investing it wisely could save future taxpayers many times more. Spread that money out to each individual Manitoban and it means each person gets a few hundred bucks, you can buy a Nintendo Switch, maybe, if it's on sale. It's not gonna change your life, also most of that money is gonna be spent at box stores where 90% of the value leaves the province.

An investor with $5million can start a business. A million investors with $5 each cannot do anything on their own, unless they pool their money.

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Consumption based taxes mean that those at the bottom will be taxed on 100% of their income, consumption based taxes are regressive.

Once again, this is not true. People below the median income spend the majority of their income on rent & groceries which are PST-exempt. The more money you have, the more discretionary income you have, and a greater share of your income is spent on items where the PST does apply.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

So your of the belief that it's govt. that best decides what to do with your money?

$300 M back in private hands to spend in the economy the way one chooses is better than how the govt. would spend $300M!

Consumption based taxes mean that those at the bottom will be taxed on 100% of their income, consumption based taxes are regressive.

This is making the ridiculous assumption that the extra 1% savings on some purchases will make a difference in people’s buying decisions. As if people weren’t going to buy something because PST was 7%, but now will at 6%. Lol, sure.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by buzzg

This is making the ridiculous assumption that the extra 1% savings on some purchases will make a difference in people’s buying decisions. As if people weren’t going to buy something because PST was 7%, but now will at 6%. Lol, sure.

Well yeah. That’s how people make decisions. There’s a price that you’ll buy something at and a price you won’t. For certain items the 1% is the difference between buying something or not.

By your logic you can keep adding 1% tax and people will keep buying everything because it’s only 1% more than before. If you’ll buy at 7% then you will at 8%. At 8% then you will at 9.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by buzzg

This is making the ridiculous assumption that the extra 1% savings on some purchases will make a difference in people’s buying decisions. As if people weren’t going to buy something because PST was 7%, but now will at 6%. Lol, sure.

Well it will be 2% on July 1st, Pallister gets that more money in peoples pockets goes back into the economy and not into govt. hands!

A lot of the posters in here have been brainwashed by the 17 year reign of the speNDP regime into thinking more taxes are good thing and lowering them is bad!