Jump to content


CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Mississauga, ON
  • Interests
    Politics, Transit and Travel.

Recent Profile Visitors

15,108 profile views
  1. I can only assume that trips were cancelled because of no operator available to fill the work. Yesterday around 6PM there were 16 blocks with no bus tracking on them. Granted some may have not been tracking for other reasons, but I wouldn't doubt that a good deal of them were missing for the reason listed above. As it stands there are currently 9 blocks not tracking. Likewise on Fridays there have been quite a few Fridays since September where there have been a great deal of buses not tracking.
  2. The route 57 is the only route with this problem. I'm not quite sure how it happened, but the GTFS-Real Time trip IDs that route 57 buses are putting out do not match the trip IDs for the 57 in the static GTFS file for this board period. Transit55 and TransSee reference the static GTFS file, whereas your typical prediction apps simply rely on the GTFS Real Time output. The 57s are putting out trip IDs through Real Time beginning in 190xxxxx, whereas every other route is putting out trip IDs beginning with 187xxxxx. Indeed in the GTFS static file for this BP all weekday service trip IDs begin with 187xxxxx, including the 57. I'm going to reach out to MiWay tonight and hopefully this issue can be resolved quickly enough.
  3. It's easy to think that this is just a roadway reconstruction, indeed the TTC notice makes it seem so, but in many cases bus terminal roadways are supported by the station structure. I would be willing to bet that this bus roadway reconstruction also includes structural slab work. In the GTA and Ontario many sectors of the construction industry are absolutely saturated with work and that is particularly true for the structural segment. Simply put there's not enough resources (companies, project managers, skilled trades, etc) to get these projects moving any faster at a reasonable cost. I'm sure the capital managers at the TTC did their research and established a project timeline that they felt would be attractive to competition in these types of market conditions. The TTC does have a huge capital backlog afterall and spending extra money for expedience isn't exactly prudent. Let's look at a couple City of Toronto tenders for structural work on the Gardiner that have had relatively tight timelines to put things in perspective. The EB York-Bay-Yonge offramp tender returned a single bid in 2017. City Staff followed up with relevant companies in the field to determine why they didn't bid and excess workload/tight timelines was the primary reason cited. In late 2018 the City put out another tender with tight timelines, this one for the rehabilitation of twelve bents and five piers of the Gardiner Expressway. It ended up returning two bids. The low bid at $9.6 million by Torbridge Construction and the second bid at $17.4 million by Bridgecon Construction. Both are contractors that bid on TTC structural work.
  4. Apart from summer school service wrapping up there are no service changes in August. When the overnight service launched there was no mention of any pilot period. Given that it is both favourable from a crewing perspective and an overnight storage perspective, I'd be surprised to see it withdrawn anytime soon.
  5. This really is a matter of semantics, but in any case the statement, and as I too quoted, was "any major overhaul". Forget words for now and let's look at this from a numbers perspective. Mississauga has 500 buses and for the next 10 years has an average annual transit bus overhaul/rebuild/replacement capital budget of $7 million and climbing. Annually that works out to $14 thousand per bus and means on average over a 15-year life of a bus in Mississauga $210 thousand are budgeted on said capital costs. A York Region report regarding electric buses from 10 January 2019 noted the Region's capital costs for diesel buses was $15.6 thousand annually, that's only 11.4% more than Mississauga. So Mississauga spends 89.7% of what York Region does on vehicle overhauls, yet does not do any major overhauls by your definition. That's misleading and is a narrow view on what makes for a major overhaul.
  6. I'd caution against saying that MiWay doesn't do any major overhaul of the vehicles. While Mississauga certainly doesn't have a scheduled top-to-bottom vehicle overhaul program, vehicle components are overhauled on an as needed basis. MiWay's 10-year budget has an average of $7 million annually going towards various overhauls for the bus fleet. For example you'll find that most of the 03s that are still in service have had large sections of flooring ripped up and replaced, particularly around the rear door and raised rear section, something that would normally occur under a top-to-bottom overhaul.
  7. I was looking at things on Transit55 and DE60LFR #610 caught my eye. It reentered service on 8 June, prior to that it had last been in service on 28 February. It's surprising to see it back after a 100 day absence given how close it is to the end of its service life.
  8. While 0311 was changed off yesterday on the 45, it is in service this morning.
  9. Outside of Mississauga they generally only have signs at major stops and locations where there is no corresponding agency stop.
  10. Interesting, I know the joints have hydraulic dampers to help with that which also monitor vehicle speed, but I wasn't aware of torque limiting except near the max angle of the joint. The New Flyer artics equipped with ATG joints really whip around corners compared to the Novas. Maybe that's why ATG joints tend to become distorted and resulting in drooping trailer sections, usually more severe on the curbside. Refer to these two pictures to see what I mean by drooping trailer sections, neither are mine: https://www.flickr.com/photos/71639059@N00/8432391873/in/photostream/ http://www.hiddenimages.ca/transit/showpic.aspx?PhotoID=1014 Are you guys finding any distortion of the Hubner joints? The HNG 15.3 looks a lot more sturdier built than the ATG joints in New Flyers. EDIT: Since we're on the topic of bus joints, here is a New Flyer service bulletin containing various images and drawings of the ATG joint used since 2006 (New Flyer used Hubner joints prior to this). https://www.newflyer.com/site-content/uploads/2017/09/tsib-09-03-rev-a.pdf This is the best picture available for the Hubner joints used on the LFSA, it's the HNG 15.3 model: http://www.hubner-group.com/en/Articulation+Systems-path-1,3144,3150.html You can also catch a glimpse of the HNG 15.3 in a How It's Made video of a Nova Artic on YouTube around 02:22 in the video. Both joints yaw occurs roughly in the middle of the joint, however on the Hubner joints the pitch occurs closer to the tractor section, whereas the ATG joints pitch closer to the middle thanks to the wrist joints that extend from the tractor section.
  11. Prior to this board period there was two PM blocks that were assigned 40' buses, as of this board period all blocks are assigned artics, except for evening blocks pulling out after the PM rush. The 35 gained another PM artic block and it now has 2 base artic blocks and 2 PM artic blocks. The 26/76 also gained 2 PM artic blocks, prior to this BP it had no artics assigned to it with the exception of a single outbound AM 76 trip (bound for 108) and a inbound PM 76 trip (off the 71).
  12. So I rode 1775 and 1781 today, has anyone here noticed how slow they are to get going from a standstill? Once they get moving they're fine, but that initial climb to 5-7km/h is something.
  13. MiWay uses time based transfers that are system wide and not route specific. They expire two hours after the start time of the route they are issued from. The number you speak of is the week of the year.
  14. So with the introduction of the 104 Dery Express let's take a look at what the Derry corridor will look like come April 30th. In terms of frequency: The 42 goes down to 11 minutes (from 9.5') in the AM peak and down to 12 minutes (from 10') in the PM peak, off-peak times remain unchanged. The 104 operates every 16 minutes in the AM peak and every 17 minutes in the PM peak. First and last trip times for the 104 are: WB from Westwood: 5:55a-9:53a and 2:35p-7:09p EB from MTC: 5:25a-9:50a and 2:22p-6:28p In terms of scheduled run time the schedules are a mess for the 104. If we look at WB trips and use Westwood, Dixie, Hurontario and MTC as our time points we get (travel time in parenthesis): 42/104 at 6AM: 5:54a/5:55a -> 6:09a/6:10a (15/15) -> 6:19a/6:21a (10/11) -> 6:46a/6:49a (27/28) Totals: 52 minutes/54 minutes 42/104 at 7AM: 7:13a/7:10a -> 7:32a/7:28a (19/18) -> 7:44a/7:41a (12/13) ->8:14a/8:11a (30/30) Totals: 61 minutes/61 minutes 42/104 at 3PM: 3:01p/3:05p -> 3:22p/3:23p (21/18) -> 3:36p/3:37p (14/14) -> 4:06p/4:07p (30/30) Totals: 65 minutes/62 minutes 42/104 at 4:30PM: 4:32p/4:26p -> 4:55p/4:47p (23/21) -> 5:11p/5:02p (16/15) -> 5:43p/5:34p (32/32) Totals: 71 minutes/68 minutes At 6AM the 104 is scheduled to take the same time to Dixie, 1 minute longer to Hurontario and 1 minute longer to Meadowvale. 52 minutes for 42 Vs 54 minutes for the 104. At 7AM the 104 is scheduled to take 1 minute less to Dixie Road, 1 minute longer to Hurontario and the same time to Meadowvale. 61 minutes for both routes. At 3PM the 104 is scheduled to take 3 minutes less to Dixie Road and the same time from Dixie to Meadowvale. 65 minutes for the 42 Vs 62 minutes for the 104. At 4:30PM the 104 is scheduled to take 2 minutes less to Dixie Road, 1 minute less to Hurontario and the same time to Meadowvale. 71 minutes for the 42 Vs 68 minutes for the 104. If we look at EB trips and use MTC, Hurontario, Dixie and Westwood as our time points we get (travel time in parenthesis): 42/104 at 6AM: 6:09a/6:10a -> 6:41a/6:38a (32/28) -> 6:49a/6:48a (8/10) -> 7:05a/7:02a (16/14) Totals: 56 minutes/52 minutes 42/104 at 7AM: 7:02a/7:12a -> 7:37a/7:43a (35/31) -> 7:46a/7:53a (9/10) -> 8:04a/8:09a (18/16) Totals: 62 minutes/57 minutes 42/104 at 3PM: 3:14p/3:10p -> 3:46p/3:38p (32/28) -> 3:56p/3:48p (10/10) -> 4:14p/4:02p (18/14) Totals: 60 minutes/52 minutes 42/104 at 4:30PM: 4:36p/4:31p -> 5:11p/5:00p (35/29) -> 5:21p/5:11p (10/11) -> 5:40p/5:26p (19/15) Totals: 64 minutes/55 minutes At 6AM the 104 is scheduled to take 4 minutes less to Hurontario, 2 minutes longer to Dixie Road and 2 minutes less to Westwood. 56 minutes for the 42 Vs 52 minutes for the 104. At 7AM the 104 is scheduled to take 4 minutes less to Hurontario, 1 minute longer to Dixie Road and 2 minutes less to Westwood. 62 minutes for the 42 Vs 57 minutes for the 104. At 3PM the 104 is scheduled to take 4 minutes less to Hurontario, the same time to Dixie Road and 4 minutes less to Westwood. 60 minutes for the 42 Vs 52 minutes for the 104. At 4:30PM the 104 is scheduled to take 6 minutes less to Hurontario, 1 minute longer to Dixie Road and 4 minutes less to Westwood. 64 minutes for the 42 Vs 55 minutes for the 104.
  15. Amazing how not a single source is listed in all this banter. Municipalities negotiate cost sharing and service provision agreements for shared pieces of infrastructure. Also Steeles Avenue lies entirely within the City of Toronto. Source: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-70184.pdf Mississauga and Toronto have a number of agreements for the bridges over the Etobicoke Creek and while Toronto is administering the work at Bloor and (previously) Eglinton, the City of Mississauga pays their share of the projects.
  • Create New...