Jump to content

MT0603

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

    4,012
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MT0603

  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.
  16. That's not at all how any of it works. No preference is given to 'local' companies and Orion didn't recieve any orders between the 01s and 10s because they were simply out bid by their competitors.
  17. I have a really old Presto card that I use to this day and it 'expired' back in May 2015. What it originally meant was that if the card failed through no fault of your own before that date Metrolinx would replace it for free. I have been since told that Metrolinx has dropped this warranty period and so long as your card fails through no fault of your own it will be replaced for free, regardless of whether or not it is 'expired'. As a result newer Presto cards no longer have an expiration date on them.
  18. You seem to be referencing numbers from the proposed capital program overview on page 194 and interpreting the buses category as only being for purchases. If you scroll down a couple pages to the proposed 2018 capital budget detail on page 196 you will find that of the 6.06 million being spent in the buses category almost all of it is for capital maintenance of major components.
  19. Somewhat, Malton now has two base blocks (all day) on the 39.
  20. I should have included this in the original post, for sake of clarity: 101 DUNDAS EXPRESS~ TO VEGA/SUBWAY ~ VIA UTM; Runs express between Islington and ESR, local from ESR westward; 7d/wk; no late night service. 1 DUNDAS ~ TO SOUTH COMMON/SUBWAY ~ VIA UTM; Operates at all times. 1A DUNDAS ~ TO VEGA/SUBWAY; Operates when the 101 doesn't, concurrently with the 1. The 1 would operate with both branches only in the late evening when the 101 isn't operating. There would only be a small overlap in local service between the 1 and 101 between Nanticoke (Erindale Park) and ESR/Glengarry for sake of transferring between services. Starting/ending at Nanticoke because for someone coming from the west along Dundas, Nanticoke is their first opportunity to transfer a local service under this scheme should they be destined for a stop between there and ESR or vice versa. This is done to allow for mobility between the routes, not to address capacity concerns in that section. For most riders on the 101, it will remain entirely an express service as they know it. Only those venturing west of ESR/Glengarry would experience a bit of the 101 as a local. As for the stops in that section, there are a fair amount of stops, however the even frequency combined with the low passenger volumes at a lot of these stops would not seriously hamper running times. Although time will be lost to serve UTM, this is part of the tradeoff. In return they are guaranteed a maximum wait time which is half of what is currently offered. I should also clarify with what I mean by maximum wait time (I also refer to it as 'absolute frequency') because this is a driving rationale behind this service scheme. So when you have two services operating along a common portion of a route you will often hear about their combined frequency; two 20 minute frequencies combine to a 10 minute combined frequency for example. In the case of an express and local route overlap you will never be able to harmonize the frequencies due to running time differences between time points. Therefor the maximum possible wait time corresponds to the route with the greatest frequency, in this case 20 minutes. So the idea that a combined frequency on an express/local corridor where each service operates at every 20 minutes means a bus will come every 10 minutes is wrong. Study after study shows that transit riders rate wait times at stops as the number one factor to encourage ridership; they don't like it and want it kept to a minimum.
  21. Alright, so a member here wanted to address the 'neighbourhood tour' service design of the 101 Dundas Express between UTM and South Common. So at first let's try to understand why the 101 is designed the way it is. Prior to the 101 running in its current form, there used to be two rush hour express services running along Dundas: The 101 which ran to Vega (originally Oakville Uptown Terminal) via UTM and; The 201 which ran from South Common, to Dundas via a stop at South Millway/Fifth Line. Both services ran every 20 minutes and harmonized along the common portion of Dundas to provide a 10 minute frequency. In March 2013 as part of a service increase along Dundas, the 101 became the sole express route along the corridor. The 101 was turned into two branches, with the main branch running to South Common via the 201's routing west of Mississauga Road. Service along the original 101 to Vega became the 101A branch and midday service was added to the 101 branch only. MiWay wanted to preserve service levels along the 201's route west of Mississauga Road and at the same time desired to increase capacity between South Common and UTM. So that's how we ended up with the 101's current arrangement in the west. Only problem is because of the 101's routing and the additional time it takes between SC and UTM, it doesn't do a good job relieving the pressure. When I was at UTM most people only hopped on the 101 if they absolutely had to, otherwise the 1C and 110 was the preferred choice. In fact, for someone travelling to/from SC to save time on the 101 vs the 1C, they have to be traveling to/from Dixie at least in order to realize any savings due to the 101's circuitous routing. Now I agree that the routing has to go and my preference is a complete rebuild of how both of the Dundas routes operate in the west. It would be my preferred alternative to end branched service on both the 1* and 101. *Branched service on the 1 would only operate when the 101 is not operating, so during the late evening/night period. The 1 would operate to South Common via the 1C's current routing at all times and a new late evening/night 1A branch would provide service along Dundas to Vega west of Mississauga Road when the 101 is not operating. The 101 would always operate to Vega via UTM all day everyday, with no late evening service. West of Erindale Station Road the 101 would serve all stops, effectively taking over for the 1. Currently during rush hours each branch is served by two routes, express service running every 20 minutes and local service running every 24 minutes. Meaning a potential max wait time of 20 minutes. Under this proposal both branches would have much lower max wait times due to the elimination of branched express/local service. Rush hour max wait times brought down to 10 minutes on the Vega branch and 12 minutes on the South Common branch. Tradeoffs as part of this proposal include: loss of express service from SC and South Millway/Fifth Line; loss of access to local stops east of ESR/Glengarry for those coming from west of Mississauga Road when the 101 is operating; Severely reduced max wait times along each branch during the rush hours, resulting in much better service; Slightly less overall service from South Common during off peaks; Increased service to Vega during the off peaks; All service to/from Vega now operates via UTM with the 101 resulting in an increase in travel time when compared to the 1. Advantages: Loads would be evened out due to the elimination of branched service* on the two lines; MiWay would have more operational flexibility in events where a bus needs to be short turned. Currently because of branched service, short turning a bus during the rush hour causes a minimum 40 minute gap (44 minutes on the local) on the branch of the short turned bus. With this proposal the 101 would become the main offering 7 days a week, local service levels on weekends would be transferred to the 101 with the local 1 becoming the secondary option as it has become during the week. Weekday service levels would remain as is. Saturday base service would become: 101, every 12 minutes with 10 buses; 1, every 20 minutes wit 7 buses; +1 bus total vs current levels. Sunday base service would become: 101, every 15 minutes with 8 buses; 1, every 23 minutes with 6 buses; +6 buses total vs current levels. Thoughts?
  22. There's two artic blocks on the 39 as of this board period, one for each peak. A Central AM peak block and a Malton base block that goes out as a 40' in the morning and gets changed off for an artic in the afternoon during a crew relief.
  23. @MiWay0310 I don't think how Tilley responded to you was belittling or disrespectful one bit. In fact I would suggest you take a look at the nature of the posts and claims you have been making. It seems to me that Tilley was not here to defend MiWay with every tooth and nail he has, but rather to defend those you have defamed. In your words, you have said that the majority of MiWay operators have shit driving skills and that 90% of operators show no urgency. With 1000 operators do you understand what you are implying or even the nature of it? I don't think you do, but I'm not going to tell you that you should be banished for it. I once had similar feelings as you have displayed, but they were just feelings that weren't exactly grounded in sound evidence or statiscal sampling. There's a lot more out there than you may realize and it is far too easy to take a string of negative events and forget about the good ones. I'm glad you want to talk about MiWay and what needs to be done to improve it, but first let us let the dust settle. No one here is saying there is nothing wrong with MiWay, but saying everything is wrong with MiWay is factually untrue and degrades those who go into work everyday and do their very best to deliver quality service against all that the public has to throw at them. We would all much prefer to talk, teach, learn and understand how and why MiWay operates the way it does and what can be done to improve things, but we need a rational environment to do that in and right now we don't have one.
  24. Does anyone happen to have a saved copy of the Ridership Growth Strategy Report that was presented to the General Committee in March 2007? Unfortunately it is no longer available online.
  25. Really glad to see Transit 55 up for Mississauga, it is certainly appreciated. The colour coding of units on the map to represent schedule adherence really should be an industry standard. The only issue I have found with the Mississauga portion is in the model list, the 2008 D40LFRs numbered in the 09 series do not appear to have their own model page. It instead brings you to the 08 series D40LFRs.
×
×
  • Create New...