Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

10,661 profile views

Mike's Achievements

  1. Question was about routes that are current and not about routes that were eliminated 30 years or more ago. 10 Van Horne is almost 8km (most likely not even in the top 10 of shortest routes). But, 1 Armour Heights would have been about 2.8km round trip, 3 Ancaster Park about 4km, 12D ~3.4km, 121 ~8.3km, the "old 66" ~ 4.9km
  2. According to TTC service summary shortest route is 76C (only a few trips in rush hours) - shortest regular route is 94B longest by far is 300A although for the day time routes longest one is 54A.
  3. I would have serious concerns as a municipal tax payer (and transit fare payer) in Toronto to then have those funds be used to subsidize (or improve) service in an area other than Toronto. Overall I would expect the are far more people travelling into Toronto for work/school, etc... than vice versa so joining other systems to TTC is of far greater benefit to them than to the TTC. Not sure about the situtation in the suburbs, although I would expect more people travelling from Oakville to Mississauga than the other way. On a side note, rather than joining the systems together and going through the painful process of figuring things out with unions, management, funding, etc... I would first see if we can integrate fare systems better through better use of Presto. If Presto cards were able to be read touchlessly then you could figure out where someone got off and apply (transfer) the correct fare to the correct system. For example, suppose you get rid of TTC 50 Burnhamthorpe bus and replace it with some Miway bus and someone boards an eastbound bus (in Toronto) and then through further readings of their Presto card the system figures out that the person got off downtown Toronto the card then subtracts a TTC fare and sends the funds to the TTC. If the same person boarded a westbound bus in Toronto and got off in Toronto it again sends payment of TTC fare to TTC, if on the other hand they get off in Mississauga it subtracts Miway fare and sends payment to Miway. One could then devise a fare structure for travel between cities over greater distances such that its not necessarily a sum of the two fares and that each system gets a cut.
  4. I don't see what the benefit of merging all of the systems would be - noone in their right mind would take local buses all the way across each system to get from lets say Burlington to Newmarket. It would take way too long. I can see some better integration between neighbouring systems would be useful, but that could be accomplished by have a fare system that is better integrated across the region between various systems and GO transit. What would be useful is having access to Presto data to have a better understanding of where people across each system boundaries go because then you could design better intersystem routes. For example, if there are specific areas in Oakville (and not necessarily malls or GO stations) where people from Mississauga go then a route to connect to that place would be useful. Or perhaps the people taking a GO bus from Oakville to Brampton all mostly then take a specific Brampton bus to get to an employment area then the GO route could be extended there. If Presto is fully implemented in all systems in GTA such that cash/tickets are eliminated then things like discounted cross border travel between neighboring systems (as well as using GO inbetween) could be implemented. A fare structure across the region could be designed to facilitate more transit use (this to me likely means cheaper GO transit fares such that they are roughly equal to some discounted version of individual systems' fares + free transfer to systems at each end of the trip).
  5. It seems that over the last 5-10 years quite a few transit systems started that connect small towns within counties between each other. However, most routes only run once a week on a single routes. My question is for those that have observed or perhaps even used some of these systems. Who is the target audience for such service? Is it mainly seniors that are able to organize all their errands in a nearby town (shopping/doctors/etc..) to be on a single day? I can't see such service being useful to get to/from school or work since they only run once a week.
  6. How far in advance of each board period do operators sign up for which routes/shifts they would like to work?
  7. While I understand that dealing with (existing) union contracts is difficult and I am by no means suggesting that stipulation should be ignored or the union busted, But perhaps longer term the ability to rapidly deal with changing circumstances of service provision should be negotiated into new union contracts such that the realities of providing transit service utilizing technologies/innovations of the 21st century can be accommodated by the union workforce. Given the province and Metrolinx were instrumental in selecting Presto as the service provider (I am sure there were other companies that could have done the same thing) - can the TTC and other agencies leverage the province/Metrolinx to lean on Presto to give up the data? Is the real problem with the people at the helm? Should they be looking for CEO/COO with more of a tech background who would embrace tech available in 21st century to its full potential? The funny thing by embracing these technologies and using them to full potential I would expect that the same level of service could be provided with fewer resources leading to cost reductions (or alternatively more service provided with equivalent resources leading to more revenue). At least in the old days (lets say early 2000s) - TTC used to hire lots of coops from Waterloo to do its programming (several of my friends were coops there)- while this approach may not be ideal to deal with the data long-term perhaps it is a way to save on cost while also dealing with data at least partially. Does the City of Toronto official plan get drafted independent of the mayor in charge? The one that defines which neighbourhoods get redeveloped/intensified, etc.. If this is the case then the official long term plan for higher-order transit (subways, LRT, GO trains, etc...) should be developed based on the official city plan. Then discussions about funding with all government levels about long term funding could be had with a concrete plan in hand. If Toronto is trying to act like a "world class" city then this MUST happen. As always, Dan thanks a lot for comprehensive and thoughtful response to my musings...
  8. Here are some thoughts to hopefully stimulate discussion... Please note below applies not necessarily to our current COVID circumstances but to "normal" operating times. 1. On this board I was once upon a time told that TTC needs several board periods to amend schedules. This got me thinking why that is the case in this day and age when schedules really exist only on TTC website. I haven't seen a printed schedule at a stop (or subway station) in what feels like at least a couple of years. Why can't the TTC amend schedules on the fly and fill the difference with RAD/spare board buses? On a related note if those cardboard signs still get posted at stops, I think for the most part TTC should stop doing that and only put those up in cases of routing changes, significant service changes (like the the 60B/D switch to 960B/D) or significant service cuts/improvements like service going from 10 min to 30min or vice versa. Given that actual schedules aren't posted at stops any more knowing that service went from every 6 min to every 7 doesn't really help since one didn't really know when each bus was suppose to arrive anyway and was using some sort of texting/online service or electronic sign at stop to figure out arrival time of next vehicle. 2. Travel pattern assessment. Given that Presto is here to stay the TTC should make use of the data that the system should be able to track to figure out how people actually use the system. For example if in a given industrial area everyone who taps on (at end of shift) tapped on originally in a specific area then maybe routes could be organized in such a way as to provide more direct service. I think there is a wealth of important information in Presto data and I am not certain that TTC uses any of it. 3. Technology. I think TTC should adapt the system used in cars for adaptive cruise control. In cars (and these days not in particularly expensive cars) you can get adaptive cruise control which uses a camera to assess speed of car ahead to automatically adjust speed of your car while maintaining desired distance to car ahead. What the TTC could use this tech for is to record speed of traffic along the route and then build statistical model of traffic along the route which could then be used to create schedules that better match operating reality. Additionally, one could devise algorithms that use this in real time to adjust how buses along each route travel in relation to each other and relative to the theoretical headway between buses. For example, if there are two buses on a route and traffic is heavier for the second bus then the first the system could tell the lead bus to slow down slightly to maintain headway or perhaps to skip a light cycle at a specific stop. Happy to discuss any other ideas/thoughts as they relate to technologies available, but unused at TTC. As a side note on rapid transit in Toronto and how much of it was built over last 30 years compared to other large cities around the world. I think what TTC needs to do instead of getting commitments from government (municipal, provincial, federal) on a specific project. They need to create a plan independent of current mayor/premier that will govern how/what will be built over the next 25 years and get an annual commitment from the 3 levels of government to fund the plan for its duration. As well clauses should be put in to prevent incoming mayors/premiers from redrafting the official plan to fit their "promises". Over the last 30 years too much time has been wasted when each incoming mayor would basically cancel the previous plan so that their own plan would instead enter the discussion phase. This impacts larger city redevelopment plans as well. I moved to Toronto almost 30 years ago and at the time when I moved here the city was actively discussing redevelopment of east waterfront - it is now 30 years later and while we may be somewhat closer to actual redevelopment it still feels like we are years away from any actual building.
  9. That solves that :). Didn't know they post everything on their site. Although, I did see a couple in my source that I don't see on website, but maybe it is just a timing thing and the website will reflect in a day or two.
  10. I have access to the news feed, since NFI is a public company the news feed is generally updated whenever there is an announcement. Other large North American manufacturers (Nova, GIllig) aren't public so their announcements aren't public. If people (on here) don't care about learning about new orders I can simply not post anything.
  11. ST. CLOUD, Minn., Nov. 04, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- NFI Group Inc. (“NFI” or the “Company”), a leading independent bus and coach manufacturer and a leader in mass mobility solutions, today announced that the Capital Metro Transportation Authority (“CapMetro”) has awarded NFI subsidiary New Flyer of America Inc. (“New Flyer”) a contract for 26 battery-electric Xcelsior CHARGE NG™ forty-foot heavy-duty transit buses and four battery-electric Xcelsior CHARGE NG™ sixty-foot heavy-duty transit buses (34 equivalent units or “EUs”). The five-year contract includes options to purchase up to 126 forty-foot and up to 15 sixty-foot battery-electric buses, and up to 427 chargers (197 depot plug-in chargers, 197 depot overhead chargers, and 33 on route chargers). This procurement is one of the largest battery-electric bus orders in North American history and is the largest ever battery-electric bus procurement in the United States.
  12. NFI Group announced that the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, RTC, has awarded its subsidiary New Flyer of America a new contract for 30 Xcelsior compressed natural gas, CNG, sixty-foot, heavy-duty transit buses, with options to purchase up to 100 additional buses. RTC has since exercised 32 options. The new five-year contract is supported by Federal Transit Administration, FTA, funds. "This new order with future potential option orders for up to 100 additional high-capacity CNG buses demonstrates RTC's commitment to more sustainable and efficient transportation, and provides a transition point toward zero-emission mobility," said Paul Soubry, President and Chief Executive Officer, NFI. "With over 13,000 CNG buses on the roads across North America, NFI is a CNG technology leader in mass mobility." The new CNG buses will replace end-of-life diesel vehicles with cleaner, more efficient, low-emission mobility options, and deliver on RTC's Access 2040 Regional Transportation Plan, focused on improving air quality and enhancing multimodal connectivity.
  13. Oct 27 - NFI Group Inc. announced a new order from Regional Transit Service (“RTS”) in Rochester, New York for 10 forty-foot Xcelsior CHARGE NG™ battery-electric heavy-duty transit buses. The purchase, made from a five-year contract established in 2019 with RTS, follows RTS’ 2020 order of 10 zero-emission Xcelsior CHARGE® transit buses and is supported by the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”).
  14. San Mateo County Transit has awarded NFI a contract for seven next-generation battery-electric Xcelsior CHARGE NG 40-foot heavy-duty transit buses.
  • Create New...