Jump to content

MT0603

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

    4,015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

15,323 profile views
  1. It would appear the June 29th board period (BP) was moved up to make official the service reductions that have already occurred. As for why the board period was moved up I have a theory. Operators had already selected crews for the April 27th BP by the time significant cuts started trickling down and the way cuts to service was done meant that operators who have cancelled blocks as part of their crews have instead become spareboard operators. Essentially some operators have benefited by these cuts regardless of seniority, which is a big deal in a unionized transit environment. By moving up the BP they restore the order of seniority in crew choices as this upcoming BP reflects how service is actually operating. Unfortunately the 7 is not being truncated nor is the 34 being eliminated. A single rush hour bus has been cut from the 34 resulting in a 30+ minute frequency all day on weekdays. There's no changes (additions or removals) to service hours on the 7 or 35. Another unfortunate thing is how service has been cut on some routes. For example on the 26 on Saturdays a single bus has been removed from the schedule without making alterations to the others blocks on the route. The result is a schedule that for the most part runs at a 20 minute frequency, but with a 40 minute gap once ever 6th bus. (20-20-20-20-20-40-repeat) Had there been a proper rescheduling of the route on Saturdays they could have instead provided a consistent 23.33 minute service with the same run times in place. This haphazard manner of cutting service almost guarantees crowding/doors closed for those unfortunate enough to find themselves at the tail end of the 40 minute gap in service. It's not fair nor good for operators and passengers alike.
  2. I have the 2015 (first edition), April 2016 update, October 2016 update, July 2017 update, February 2020 update and the most recent update saved. I'm pretty sure I have all the annual service plan PIC presentations saved as well. I've been meaning to get all my MiWay Five material up into a Google Drive folder to share. With the new website up unfortunately the old Transitway page is gone along with all the links to the various EA project files. Fortunately enough Google has the pages cached and I saved all the files. Will have to put those up into a Google Drive folder to share as well.
  3. Schedules are finalized quite some time before they are released publicly. All the changes outlined by Silly Tilley in a post from March 28 found on the previous page of this thread are going forward. Yesterday MiWay released the GTFS file for the next board period and that's why the new routes are now showing up on Google. Expect public outreach from MiWay this coming week. Although not included in Silly Tilley's post, the 39 is seeing midday service increase to 24 minutes (from 28) on weekdays with the addition of a base block.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. While 0311 was changed off yesterday on the 45, it is in service this morning.
  12. Outside of Mississauga they generally only have signs at major stops and locations where there is no corresponding agency stop.
  13. 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.
  14. 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).
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...