MiWay

[MiExpress]

16 hours ago, Orion_II said:

Why did they go with Novas anyways? I get they were the cheapest people to respond to the tender, but don't they consider operational costs when getting busses?

Provided that the subfleets have similar specifications, usage profile and maintenance there may not be a high variance of operational costs between manufacturers especially when evaluating costs over the long term lifecycle. As an example, averaging over the last 5-6 years the 2010-2012 diesel Orions and 2011-2013 diesel Xcelsiors have maintenance costs that are within a very close range to each other that all factors considered the performance of the fleets is pretty much identical. 

Operational costs can be impacted by agency specification of buses, usage profile, and maintenance choices.

16 hours ago, Orion_II said:

Wouldn't reduced training costs and streamlining of the fleet make up for the difference over the 15 year lifespan of the busses?

Even a goal of "streamlining" the fleet wouldn't necessarily reduce operational costs. Even if there is standardization of the model there can be design changes through the years, whether it be agency changing specifications or manufacturer changing designs by choice or regulations. MiWay received a large amount of New Flyer buses between 2003-2009, but there are enough differences between the orders that require different stocks of parts and maintenance requirements. Some were manufacturer design changes either by choice or regulation, others were changes to specifications by MiWay.

The first order of Novas ended up being an order of 80 buses which is a sizeable enough subfleet, not a small subfleet of oddball buses that has nothing in common with the rest of the fleet.

16 hours ago, Orion_II said:

Seems odd that they wouldn't consider it especially because of the less than 1M price different in the acquisition fees for the order that formed Miway 1730-1766. Wouldn't reduced training costs and streamlining of the fleet make up for the difference over the 15 year lifespan of the busses?

The price variance between Nova and New Flyer for that order was just under $1 million.

Looking back at the tender documents for MiWay bus orders including the one that led to the Novas, training for maintenance staff is to be included in the overall bid price.

Operators did receive training and it was around 2 hours if i recall. Some did it outside work hours being paid overtime as a result, others were booked off during work hours for training. Even operating under the assumption all 1100 operators received 2 hours of OT pay for the training based on 2018 pay rates, the cost of training operators on Novas was no higher than $120,000 far less than the price variance in the tender. 

16 hours ago, Orion_II said:

Why did they go with Novas anyways? 

Because they submitted the lowest bid while meeting all the terms and conditions set out in the tender document. Prior to 2016 Mississauga bus tenders were also evaluated based on a scoring system with price accounting for 40-50% of the total score but the scoring was similar between manufacturers and it always ended up coming down to price.

From a legal perspective, if a procurement process is conducted and a bid submitted from a qualified bidder meets all the terms and conditions set out in the tender while providing the lowest price from a legal perspective there is a obligation to accept that bid. To do anything else jeopardizes the integrity of the entire process.

[Gil]

I'm just posting this for posterity's sake since it hasn't been posted here yet.  Given the new connection point with Milton Transit at Lisgar GO, how long before it appears on MiWay's map (as MT?)? 

Apparently Milton Transit had hoped to use either Meadowvale Town Centre or even Meadowvale GO as a terminus, but due to the limited space at both they were forced to use Lisgar GO.  Their next regional route will run via Britannia since GO has the Derry corridor covered.  I wonder where the Mississauga end of that route will be?  Halton's plans say Erin Mills Town Centre, but I'm thinking MiWay will force them to either use an on-street loop or go down to Churchill Meadows CC or even Winston Churchill station on the Transitway if they want a GO connection.

Updated Weekday and Express Maps.

Service Changes on Monday, Sept. 5

Starting Monday, Sept. 5, 2022, there will be MiWay service changes that include adjusting service levels in the transit network to match growing ridership demand along key corridors, resuming regular service to post-secondary and high schools as students return to class, and allocating blue buses on two local (non-express) routes to help redistribute resources and improve service reliability.

Service increases due to high demand

Some routes will have increased service to respond to ridership growth and provide more capacity where and when customers need it.

These routes include:

• 35 Eglinton-Ninth Line (weekdays)
• 42 Derry (Saturday and Sunday)
• 61 Mavis (Saturday and Sunday)
• 66 McLaughlin (weekdays)
• 107 Malton Express (weekdays)

Service to University of Toronto Mississauga

Routes 101/101A Dundas Express will both service the University of Toronto Mississauga on weekdays, as students return to in-person learning on campus. Weekday schedules will be updated.

Route 110 University Express will also provide regular service to and from campus. The Route 110 bus stop at the City Centre Transit Terminal will be relocated from Platform O to Platform L due to HuLRT construction.

Service to Humber College North Campus

Route 107 Malton Express will resume service to Humber College North Campus as students return to in-person learning. Weekday schedules will be updated.

Service to high schools

300-series routes to high schools will resume service; however, the PM trip on Route 304 Father Goetz-Mississauga Valley and the Route 335 Glenforest South will be cancelled due to low demand.

Students can view a list of all the bus routes that travel to their school.

Blue buses will operate on two local routes

Blue buses will be allocated to Routes 11 Westwood and 66 McLaughlin on weekdays and weekends to deliver a consistent customer experience, as orange 40-foot and 60-foot buses are reassigned to busier routes to support service reliability and address overcrowding.

Service reductions due to lower demand

Service will be reduced on several routes where customer demand and ridership is consistently low. These reductions were identified after a comprehensive review of ridership across the MiWay network. The resources saved from these reductions will be reinvested elsewhere in the network to address overcrowding and increase capacity where needed.

These routes include:

• 4 Sherway Gardens (weekdays)
• 28 Confederation (weekdays)
• 29 Park Royal-Homelands (weekdays and Saturday)
• 36 Colonial-Ridgeway (weekdays and Saturday)
• 76 City Centre-Subway (weekdays)

Schedule adjustments

Schedule adjustments will be made on various routes to improve service reliability as traffic and ridership patterns continue to evolve throughout the city. MiWay will make further schedule adjustments as needed to ensure that services remain responsive to customer needs.

These routes include:

• 9 Rathburn-Thomas (Sunday)
• 13 Glen Erin (weekdays)
• 38A Creditview-Argentia (Saturday)
• 42 Derry (weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday)
• 57 Courtneypark (weekdays)
• 61 Mavis (Saturday and Sunday)
• 66 McLaughlin (weekdays)
• 101 Dundas Express (weekdays)
• 101A Dundas Express (weekdays)
• 103 Hurontario Express (weekdays)
• 107 Malton Express (weekdays)

Holiday service

On Labour Day, Monday, Sept. 5 and Thanksgiving Day, Monday, Oct. 10 buses will operate on a holiday schedule.

Some routes will not operate due to low customer demand, including:

• 28 Confederation
• 35 Eglinton-Ninth Line
• 46 Tenth Line-Osprey
• 48 Erin Mills

On National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Friday, Sept. 30, 2022, buses will operate on a regular schedule.

Please check for updated schedules.

Next planned service change – Monday, October 24, 2022.

Provincial moment of silence

MiWay buses and operations will pause service at 1 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 19 for 96 seconds (the age of The Queen at the time of her passing) to observe the provincial moment of silence.

Learn more:

City of Mississauga Pays Tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

The funeral for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to be Streamed Live at Celebration Square

Since MiWay's budget for the year means no net new services, they've just been reallocating services based on demand.  Hopefully ridership has rebounded to a point where we will see some net new service next year.  The municipal election in October mean a bit of a delay in getting that new service, but I'm hoping that it will come at some point next year.  The LRT construction is getting to the point where alternate routes will have to be beefed up, but the QEW, 403 and 401 are all chokepoints.  

[ngdvd]

28 Confederation should have been combined with 66 McLaughlin as was originally planned years ago, especially now with 26 Burnhamthorpe taken out of CCTT. Ridership declining? No surprise.

I never understood the current 13/29/48 arrangement. The old 13/31/48 had much higher ridership, with 4,410 and 889 and 3,606 boardings per weekday in 2006 compared to 3,843 and 2,335 and 1,479 boardings per weekday in 2016.

Hurontario Express bypassing CCTT was for a grid. 20 Rathburn extended to Erindale GO was for a grid. Re-aligned 26 Burnhamthorpe bypassing CCTT was for a grid. New 35 Eglinton was also for a grid. 38 Creditview taken off Bancroft and Britannia was for a grid. The old 48 Erin Mills was already for a grid.

And for grid, 26 Burnhamthorpe should have been extended to Ninth Line, connecting at least with 45 Winston Churchill. Ridership of 36 falling, but 36 not really needed to begin with if there is extended 26 and re-aligned 29.

Here is an idea of what the system could like with full, continuous service along with these major corridors, Burnhamthorpe, Confederation/McLaughlin, Erin Mills, instead of broken up like they are currently:

You can see how an incomplete system is killing transit ridership in York Region, a major gap in the grid that is Steeles Avenue. Even a simple VIVA Steeles would be enough, but YRT still continues to ignore the Steeles corridor, York Region's busiest east-west transit corridor, and their only continuous and straight east-west road south of Rutherford Road and 16th Avenue. The gaps in Mississauga's transit system are not so huge, but they still need to be closed.

[Orion V]

3 hours ago, ngdvd said:

You can see how an incomplete system is killing transit ridership in York Region, a major gap in the grid that is Steeles Avenue. Even a simple VIVA Steeles would be enough, but YRT still continues to ignore the Steeles corridor, York Region's busiest east-west transit corridor, and their only continuous and straight east-west road south of Rutherford Road and 16th Avenue. The gaps in Mississauga's transit system are not so huge, but they still need to be closed.

I don't get it. How can YRT operate a VIVA Steeles when TTC covers that entire road east to west. You'll be duplicating the service.

[Gil]

18 hours ago, ngdvd said:

28 Confederation should have been combined with 66 McLaughlin as was originally planned years ago, especially now with 26 Burnhamthorpe taken out of CCTT. Ridership declining? No surprise.

I never understood the current 13/29/48 arrangement. The old 13/31/48 had much higher ridership, with 4,410 and 889 and 3,606 boardings per weekday in 2006 compared to 3,843 and 2,335 and 1,479 boardings per weekday in 2016.

Hurontario Express bypassing CCTT was for a grid. 20 Rathburn extended to Erindale GO was for a grid. Re-aligned 26 Burnhamthorpe bypassing CCTT was for a grid. New 35 Eglinton was also for a grid. 38 Creditview taken off Bancroft and Britannia was for a grid. The old 48 Erin Mills was already for a grid.

And for grid, 26 Burnhamthorpe should have been extended to Ninth Line, connecting at least with 45 Winston Churchill. Ridership of 36 falling, but 36 not really needed to begin with if there is extended 26 and re-aligned 29.

Here is an idea of what the system could like with full, continuous service along with these major corridors, Burnhamthorpe, Confederation/McLaughlin, Erin Mills, instead of broken up like they are currently:

You can see how an incomplete system is killing transit ridership in York Region, a major gap in the grid that is Steeles Avenue. Even a simple VIVA Steeles would be enough, but YRT still continues to ignore the Steeles corridor, York Region's busiest east-west transit corridor, and their only continuous and straight east-west road south of Rutherford Road and 16th Avenue. The gaps in Mississauga's transit system are not so huge, but they still need to be closed.

Given the size of the Lakeview redevelopment, I would have terminated the 8 CAWTHRA there instead of looping at Lakeshore.  There are still a bunch of unfulfilled ideas from the last MiWay 5 plan and still no word on the next one.

Unless the 35/35A plan comes with increased frequency, the 87 will still be needed as the 35 EGLINTON runs doors closed pretty much east of McLaughlin until Dixie during AM peak. 

[ngdvd]

5 hours ago, Gil said:

Given the size of the Lakeview redevelopment, I would have terminated the 8 CAWTHRA there instead of looping at Lakeshore.  There are still a bunch of unfulfilled ideas from the last MiWay 5 plan and still no word on the next one.

Unless the 35/35A plan comes with increased frequency, the 87 will still be needed as the 35 EGLINTON runs doors closed pretty much east of McLaughlin until Dixie during AM peak. 

Ah, sorry, that thumbnail was for an older version, but I have updated it. You can also see full PDF version by clicking on the thumbnail.

A 35A to replace 7 and 34, bypassing CCTT, should provide plenty of relief to the current 35. 87 can't continue as a one-way route unless 43 and 108 also continue as one-way routes, and I think it is way past time for some kind of two-way service for Matheson.

A lot of overcrowding along Eglinton, on 89 back in the day and now on 35 and 87, due to the historic lack of continuous east-west service north of Eglinton. The Britannia, Matheson and Courtneypark corridors also need to provide relief to Eglinton. 39 Britannia was finally extended past Kennedy to Renforth recently, but the rerouting of 57 Courtneypark north into Brampton did not help.

20 hours ago, Orion V said:

I don't get it. How can YRT operate a VIVA Steeles when TTC covers that entire road east to west. You'll be duplicating the service.

Same way YRT already duplicates those same TTC bus routes along Yonge to Finch? And MiWay duplicates TTC services along Dundas, Bloor, Burnhamthorpe and Highway 427 to Kipling and Islington? And Brampton Transit duplicates MiWay services along Hurontario to CCTT and Dixie to Meyerside? Do you think TTC is right not to connect to Westwood Mall with 36A/B Finch? Should MiWay cut all the service at the border like TTC does? I think MiWay already makes a huge mistake ending 51 Tomken at Derry instead of travelling all the way to Bramalea City Centre.

If there is a gap in the network, they need to fill in that gap. And there is a huge gap in the York Region Transit network right now. Even if they add fare integration along the Steeles corridor for TTC 53/60, York Region will still benefit from a united Steeles East and West, and they can do that best with a new VIVA route, and with fare integration it would benefit riders from Toronto as well. Steeles should have been their #1 priority with VIVA from the very beginning, the most urgent problem with the York Region Transit, and it still remains.

[Kelvin3157]

32 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

If there is a gap in the network, they need to fill in that gap. And there is a huge gap in the York Region Transit network right now. Even if they add fare integration along the Steeles corridor for TTC 53/60, York Region will still benefit from a united Steeles East and West, and they can do that best with a new VIVA route, and with fare integration it would benefit riders from Toronto as well. Steeles should have been their #1 priority with VIVA from the very beginning, the most urgent problem with the York Region Transit, and it still remains.

Steeles is under jurisdiction of Toronto, so it is under Toronto standards and maintenance. Not necessarily to be a VIVA route, but there is a Steeles BRT planned, however it may be operated and maintained by TTC. York Region would split the operational/maintenance cost 50/50 under their boundary road agreement. Fare integration would be a thing in the future

[ngdvd]

On 9/28/2022 at 7:44 PM, Kelvin3157 said:

Steeles is under jurisdiction of Toronto, so it is under Toronto standards and maintenance. Not necessarily to be a VIVA route, but there is a Steeles BRT planned, however it may be operated and maintained by TTC. York Region would split the operational/maintenance cost 50/50 under their boundary road agreement. Fare integration would be a thing in the future

Oh right, the jurisdiction of Toronto. I forgot that City of Toronto and TTC essentially bans neighbouring transit agencies from operating within their boundaries, drop-off only for incoming buses and pick-up only for outgoing buses. Hopefully, that has changed or is changing soon. You can also see Toronto and TTC's hard boundary policy in their lack of service to Westwood Mall and how that hurts Malton, the isolation of that neighbourhood no doubt the root of so many of the problems there, and no doubt isolation contributes to problems in other border communities like Rexdale, Jane-Finch, Malvern.

Westwood Mall is nothing compared to the huge boundary that is Steeles Ave, so maybe I should give YRT credit for doing the best they can with such a major barrier and having to deal with a neighbour as the City of Toronto. But the Regional Municipality of York probably has to share some of the blame for not sharing in the road maintenance costs of Steeles Avenue. Maybe TTC would be more cooperative with York Region Transit if York Region were more cooperative with Toronto in other ways. Fare integration between TTC Steeles buses and YRT buses should have been the first priority, so hopefully it is happening or will happen soon. Steeles Avenue is not just one huge gap in York Region's transit network, it is York's busiest transit corridor.

[Gil]

A shared route along Steeles with YRT and TTC splitting the costs and accepting each other's fares/transfers is I think the second phase of the fare integration project.  Still waiting to hear word on when Phase 1 will start, but it would likely involve increases in frequency and a supposed change in routing for the 20 RATHBURN to provide more service along the Bloor corridor.

As for BRT service along Steeles, at the rate YRT is expanding its services, the YNSE will probably be complete (barring a Crosstown-esque delay).  Will the TTC maintain their express services along Steeles with the 960 and 953 or will they hand that over to YRT for a VIVA service of some sort?

[Kelvin3157]

5 hours ago, ngdvd said:

Westwood Mall is nothing compared to the huge boundary that is Steeles Ave, so maybe I should give YRT credit for doing the best they can with such a major barrier and having to deal with a neighbour as the City of Toronto. But the Regional Municipality of York probably has to share some of the blame for not sharing in the road maintenance costs of Steeles Avenue. Maybe TTC would be more cooperative with York Region Transit if York Region were more cooperative with Toronto in other ways. Fare integration between TTC Steeles buses and YRT buses should have been the first priority, so hopefully it is happening or will happen soon. Steeles Avenue is not just one huge gap in York Region's transit network, it is York's busiest transit corridor.

York Region and Toronto splits maintenance costs 50/50 under their boundary road agreement:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2000/agendas/council/cc/cc000411/plt3rpt/cl003.pdf

The same is true for Highway 50, where Peel maintains and operates and Peel and York pays 50/50 its maintenance costs.

York Region is getting pretty good deals on these border agreements

3 hours ago, Gil said:

A shared route along Steeles with YRT and TTC splitting the costs and accepting each other's fares/transfers is I think the second phase of the fare integration project.  Still waiting to hear word on when Phase 1 will start, but it would likely involve increases in frequency and a supposed change in routing for the 20 RATHBURN to provide more service along the Bloor corridor.

As for BRT service along Steeles, at the rate YRT is expanding its services, the YNSE will probably be complete (barring a Crosstown-esque delay).  Will the TTC maintain their express services along Steeles with the 960 and 953 or will they hand that over to YRT for a VIVA service of some sort?

TTC will maintain their express routes as Steeles remains in Toronto control.

[AWEChess1]

Any word on when we might see articulated buses on route 110, or some sort of adjustment to UTM service in general? I'm a student who also happens to be a transit geek and the current issues I'm seeing on the ground are concerning. 110 normally appears to be scheduled at 15-minute headways but there are numerous times when the buses have bunched together leading to situations like a 5-minute gap followed by no buses for at least 20 minutes. Route 44 appears to be acting as a feeder for Eglinton and Burnhamthorpe from to the campus, which means it is packed to the doors-closed point but then empties out significantly after reaching Eglinton. This is also leading to long lineups at the campus bus stop during peak times which will become very uncomfortable once the weather gets colder.

Curious if the more experienced folks here have any insights.

[MiExpress]

5 hours ago, AWEChess1 said:

Any word on when we might see articulated buses on route 110, or some sort of adjustment to UTM service in general? I'm a student who also happens to be a transit geek and the current issues I'm seeing on the ground are concerning. 110 normally appears to be scheduled at 15-minute headways but there are numerous times when the buses have bunched together leading to situations like a 5-minute gap followed by no buses for at least 20 minutes. Route 44 appears to be acting as a feeder for Eglinton and Burnhamthorpe from to the campus, which means it is packed to the doors-closed point but then empties out significantly after reaching Eglinton. This is also leading to long lineups at the campus bus stop during peak times which will become very uncomfortable once the weather gets colder.

Curious if the more experienced folks here have any insights.

It's a valid concern and I have observed much of the same. Last week around 7:20pm I observed a route 44 at UTM with a full standing load...and it wasn't scheduled to depart for another ten minutes.

Taking your first comment on artics, the fleet currently has 77 articulated buses and currently approximately 55 are used during peak periods. Even though that leaves about 22 left over, artics generally are less reliable, require more maintenance and can have more extended downtime than a standard 40 foot bus. However there are 16 new articulated buses being delivered by the end of the year replacing standard 40 foot buses, and that might be the best opportunity in the near term to increase capacity on the 44 and 110.

Service on both routes 44 and 110 is worse than prior to the pandemic. In fall 2019 the 44 ran at 14 minute frequency during peak and 17 minutes during the midday, while the 110 between UTM and City Centre ran every 8 minutes during peak and 16 minutes during midday. Forward to fall 2022 and the 44 runs at 21 minutes frequency all day, while the 110 runs at 17-20 minute frequency all day. While those service levels worked okay when there was a combination of virtual and in person learning now that full in person learning has returned the routes can't keep up with the demand.

Service levels are based on available service hours - in simple terms, 1 bus on the road for a hour = 1 service hour - which are approved annually by city council as part of the city budget, these hours are a fixed amount in the budget and MiWay cannot just add whatever amount of service hours they want. Since the start of the pandemic in 2020 the amount of available service hours has been frozen at 2019 levels which means that the only way to add service to routes is to cut service elsewhere. Routes like Derry, Mavis, McLaughlin, Kennedy, Tomken have had added service which has been achieved by cutting service on other routes. In order to add more service to the 44 or 110 there would have to be service cut elsewhere and there isn't much more places where service can be cut back further especially on weekdays. Also contributing to the inability to add service is a shortage of drivers due to lags in hiring during the pandemic, can't schedule service that won't have any drivers to drive the buses.

So what to do? It's a very valid problem despite the constraints. Writing to MiWay's service development department as well as the local city councillor would be a good start making it clear the buses are completely full and more service hours (budget issue, city council) and capacity (artics) is required. Hopefully at the least MiWay can figure out a way to get artics back on the 110 until more service hours can be approved in the budget and drivers hired. UTM students collectively pay millions of dollars in U-Pass fees to the city so it's reasonable to expect better than what's currently offered and I would hope any feedback is taken very seriously, at the very least there should be a way to put artics on the 110 beginning in January with the additional 16 artic buses that will be in the fleet by then.

 

[ngdvd]

On 9/30/2022 at 8:33 PM, Gil said:

A shared route along Steeles with YRT and TTC splitting the costs and accepting each other's fares/transfers is I think the second phase of the fare integration project.  Still waiting to hear word on when Phase 1 will start, but it would likely involve increases in frequency and a supposed change in routing for the 20 RATHBURN to provide more service along the Bloor corridor.

Yeah, Burnhamthorpe and Bloor in Etobicoke is another weird one. With fare integration, MiWay buses on 20/26/76 could provide better and more efficient service to current TTC riders in those corridors than TTC buses can. 50 Burnhamthorpe is just a waste of money for TTC right now, and maybe the buses on 49 Bloor West could be reduced a bit too.

20 hours ago, Kelvin3157 said:

York Region and Toronto splits maintenance costs 50/50 under their boundary road agreement:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2000/agendas/council/cc/cc000411/plt3rpt/cl003.pdf

The same is true for Highway 50, where Peel maintains and operates and Peel and York pays 50/50 its maintenance costs.

York Region is getting pretty good deals on these border agreements

TTC will maintain their express routes as Steeles remains in Toronto control.

Good to see York Region and Peel changing their attitudes and finally willing to pay their fair share. I remember crossing Etobicoke Creek along Eglinton and noticing the road get much bumpier right away, so I assume Mississauga wasn't paying their fair share either.

5 hours ago, AWEChess1 said:

Any word on when we might see articulated buses on route 110, or some sort of adjustment to UTM service in general? I'm a student who also happens to be a transit geek and the current issues I'm seeing on the ground are concerning. 110 normally appears to be scheduled at 15-minute headways but there are numerous times when the buses have bunched together leading to situations like a 5-minute gap followed by no buses for at least 20 minutes. Route 44 appears to be acting as a feeder for Eglinton and Burnhamthorpe from to the campus, which means it is packed to the doors-closed point but then empties out significantly after reaching Eglinton. This is also leading to long lineups at the campus bus stop during peak times which will become very uncomfortable once the weather gets colder.

Curious if the more experienced folks here have any insights.

No articulated buses on 110 is weird. It wasn't like that when I was a student. It was a route for artics from the very beginning.

UTM to CCTT is an express corridor that is not very long, just 3 stops, plus bus bypass lanes, so for them to miscalculate so badly and cause closed doors and bunching is sad. Maybe proper service levels for 110 would provide some relief to 44 as well.

[Xtrazsteve]

It's always interesting to see one of the Orion local hybrids on the 110.

[Gil]

On 10/1/2022 at 8:55 PM, MiExpress said:

It's a valid concern and I have observed much of the same. Last week around 7:20pm I observed a route 44 at UTM with a full standing load...and it wasn't scheduled to depart for another ten minutes.

Taking your first comment on artics, the fleet currently has 77 articulated buses and currently approximately 55 are used during peak periods. Even though that leaves about 22 left over, artics generally are less reliable, require more maintenance and can have more extended downtime than a standard 40 foot bus. However there are 16 new articulated buses being delivered by the end of the year replacing standard 40 foot buses, and that might be the best opportunity in the near term to increase capacity on the 44 and 110.

Service on both routes 44 and 110 is worse than prior to the pandemic. In fall 2019 the 44 ran at 14 minute frequency during peak and 17 minutes during the midday, while the 110 between UTM and City Centre ran every 8 minutes during peak and 16 minutes during midday. Forward to fall 2022 and the 44 runs at 21 minutes frequency all day, while the 110 runs at 17-20 minute frequency all day. While those service levels worked okay when there was a combination of virtual and in person learning now that full in person learning has returned the routes can't keep up with the demand.

Service levels are based on available service hours - in simple terms, 1 bus on the road for a hour = 1 service hour - which are approved annually by city council as part of the city budget, these hours are a fixed amount in the budget and MiWay cannot just add whatever amount of service hours they want. Since the start of the pandemic in 2020 the amount of available service hours has been frozen at 2019 levels which means that the only way to add service to routes is to cut service elsewhere. Routes like Derry, Mavis, McLaughlin, Kennedy, Tomken have had added service which has been achieved by cutting service on other routes. In order to add more service to the 44 or 110 there would have to be service cut elsewhere and there isn't much more places where service can be cut back further especially on weekdays. Also contributing to the inability to add service is a shortage of drivers due to lags in hiring during the pandemic, can't schedule service that won't have any drivers to drive the buses.

So what to do? It's a very valid problem despite the constraints. Writing to MiWay's service development department as well as the local city councillor would be a good start making it clear the buses are completely full and more service hours (budget issue, city council) and capacity (artics) is required. Hopefully at the least MiWay can figure out a way to get artics back on the 110 until more service hours can be approved in the budget and drivers hired. UTM students collectively pay millions of dollars in U-Pass fees to the city so it's reasonable to expect better than what's currently offered and I would hope any feedback is taken very seriously, at the very least there should be a way to put artics on the 110 beginning in January with the additional 16 artic buses that will be in the fleet by then.

 

It is also an election year.  You could press the candidates for increased funding.  I'm hoping ridership has recovered enough that they will have recouped most of their COVID fare losses and will be able to increase service next year.

On a separate note, on my morning commute on the Transitway, Transit55 tells me there's a bus running non-stop (obviously Not In Service) from CCTT to Kipling as a 9 RATHBURN-THOMAS becomes a 70 KEATON.  Would it be possible to turn that into a revenue service?  I'm sure there are plenty of people travelling between the two to make a non-stop service feasible.  I'd have to look at the schedules to see if there are other trips that could operate the service aside from this single tripper.

[ngdvd]

Problem with artics is operating in the snow, too easily get stuck. Seen it personally way too many times. Gotta be extra careful keeping the roads clean, but of course cleaning roads means snow piling up at the side where buses operate. Maybe keep the artics in the garage during the snowstorm.

Another problem is the busiest route in Mississauga will no longer need articulated buses once the Hurontario LRT finishes construction. To invest in more buses would be a mistake, and more articulated buses even more so.

[Xtrazsteve]

1 hour ago, ngdvd said:

Problem with artics is operating in the snow, too easily get stuck. Seen it personally way too many times. Gotta be extra careful keeping the roads clean, but of course cleaning roads means snow piling up at the side where buses operate. Maybe keep the artics in the garage during the snowstorm.

Another problem is the busiest route in Mississauga will no longer need articulated buses once the Hurontario LRT finishes construction. To invest in more buses would be a mistake, and more articulated buses even more so.

If you put it that way, Miway doesn't really need a single articulated buses. Same with most GTA including some of TTC's artic routes. Most of the routes can be operated with better service than 12-15 min headways using artic buses. They could bring this down to 7-12 min instead.

Staffing issue however remains a problem, thus maybe more artics at wider headways has became a better way till they can hire more people.

[lip]

2 hours ago, ngdvd said:

Another problem is the busiest route in Mississauga will no longer need articulated buses once the Hurontario LRT finishes construction. To invest in more buses would be a mistake, and more articulated buses even more so.

Huh to invest in more buses would be a mistake? How?

You do realize Mississauga is growing, and the LRT is only going to bring more ridership right? Which means Mississauga will need more buses for feeder routes

[ngdvd]

15 hours ago, lip said:

Huh to invest in more buses would be a mistake? How?

You do realize Mississauga is growing, and the LRT is only going to bring more ridership right? Which means Mississauga will need more buses for feeder routes

Mississauga growing? How much has population or ridership grown compared to 2019? Tell me.

Mississauga is temporarily using extra buses to make up for construction for the LRT. Construction slowing down the buses reducing their frequencies, thus more buses needed to maintain existing frequencies. The finishing of construction alone will free up many buses. Furthermore, Mississauga's busiest corridor won't even need buses anymore. We are talking about dozens of buses out of service. The Hurontario corridor with 30,000 boardings, that's around 15% of Mississauga's ridership. We are talking about 15% loss of transit ridership for MiWay once the LRT opens.

As for LRT bringing in more ridership, I haven't seen that in Dallas, the largest modern light rail system in North America, but also one of the worst transit ridership and mode share in North America. See also Seattle, one of the leaders in North America in terms of transit ridership, and very little rail service, almost a pure bus network.

LRT isn't being built in Mississauga to bring more ridership. LRT is being built because the ridership is already too high. LRT is being built because of overcrowding on Hurontario. Rapid transit is not for solving the problem of low ridership. Rapid transit is a solution for high ridership. It's not that high ridership is the result of more rail built, but rather more rail is built as the the result of high ridership.

If Mississauga is counting on new rail service to grow ridership, that is already big mistake, a mistake that cities all over the USA have made. If Mississauga really wants to grow its bus ridership, it will need to improve its bus service, and it will have plenty of buses to spare once the LRT opens.

[lip]

51 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

Mississauga growing? How much has population or ridership grown compared to 2019? Tell me.

Here's an official chart that the province uses to chart growth in the province. You can do some deductive reasoning from there.

 

51 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

Mississauga is temporarily using extra buses to make up for construction for the LRT. Construction slowing down the buses reducing their frequencies, thus more buses needed to maintain existing frequencies. The finishing of construction alone will free up many buses. Furthermore, Mississauga's busiest corridor won't even need buses anymore. We are talking about dozens of buses out of service. The Hurontario corridor with 30,000 boardings, that's around 15% of Mississauga's ridership. We are talking about 15% loss of transit ridership for MiWay once the LRT opens.

You do realize Mississauga is short on buses, and there are many routes that arent operating a pre-pandemic levels? And you also do realize, that those "dozens of buses" would do wonders for routes that are operating at capacity at various points in the day.

 

51 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

As for LRT bringing in more ridership, I haven't seen that in Dallas, the largest modern light rail system in North America, but also one of the worst transit ridership and mode share in North America. See also Seattle, one of the leaders in North America in terms of transit ridership, and very little rail service, almost a pure bus network.

Apples and oranges. Mississauga is not Dallas, Dallas is not Mississauga. Speed and capacity are the 2 reasons the Hurontario line is being built. Do you really think there wouldnt be additional ridership on a line that sees larger vehicles run along the spine of a city that is seeing mass development?

 

51 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

LRT isn't being built in Mississauga to bring more ridership. LRT is being built because the ridership is already too high. LRT is being built because of overcrowding on Hurontario. Rapid transit is not for solving the problem of low ridership. Rapid transit is a solution for high ridership. It's not that high ridership is the result of more rail built, but rather more rail is built as the the result of high ridership.

Ok, so if ridership is already too high on Hurontario, what does that tell you? You just defeated the point of your own argument.

 

51 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

If Mississauga is counting on new rail service to grow ridership, that is already big mistake, a mistake that cities all over the USA have made. If Mississauga really wants to grow its bus ridership, it will need to improve its bus service, and it will have plenty of buses to spare once the LRT opens.

Additional Light Rail, and bus service would all improve overall MiWay service. Thus going back to my earlier point, how would investing in more buses be a mistake?

[Xtrazsteve]

I think staff is the big issue right now, not buses but they do need new ones to replace all the old flyers.

[ngdvd]

14 minutes ago, lip said:

Here's an official chart that the province uses to chart growth in the province. You can do some deductive reasoning from there.

 

You do realize Mississauga is short on buses, and there are many routes that arent operating a pre-pandemic levels? And you also do realize, that those "dozens of buses" would do wonders for routes that are operating at capacity at various points in the day.

 

Apples and oranges. Mississauga is not Dallas, Dallas is not Mississauga. Speed and capacity are the 2 reasons the Hurontario line is being built. Do you really think there wouldnt be additional ridership on a line that sees larger vehicles run along the spine of a city that is seeing mass development?

 

Ok, so if ridership is already too high on Hurontario, what does that tell you? You just defeated the point of your own argument.

 

Additional Light Rail, and bus service would all improve overall MiWay service. Thus going back to my earlier point, how would investing in more buses be a mistake?

As I said, Mississauga is short on buses because of construction on the LRT causing delays. Construction is only temporary. Finished construction would mean no more delays of buses, and lack of delays would free up buses. Finishing construction would also mean no more buses along the Hurontario corridor freeing up even more buses. Hurontario is 15% of the system's ridership.

Defeated the point my argument? That rail is not the reason for high ridership? How does a overcrowding along a non-rail corridor like Hurontario defeat the point of my argument? Explain this to me.

I don't know what growth forecast for Peel has to do with this conversation. Mississauga, Brampton Caledon, apples and oranges as you might say. Mississauga is built out, and has been built out for quite a while. Population declined 0.5% from 2016 to 2021. To invest in more buses, after an LRT replaces a bus route that represents 15% of ridership, after 0.5% population decline, in the midst of pandemic and people working from home, in the midst of recession which will cause major job losses and thus less people commuting to work, doesn't make sense at all to me.

17 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

If you put it that way, Miway doesn't really need a single articulated buses. Same with most GTA including some of TTC's artic routes. Most of the routes can be operated with better service than 12-15 min headways using artic buses. They could bring this down to 7-12 min instead.

Staffing issue however remains a problem, thus maybe more artics at wider headways has became a better way till they can hire more people.

I do think articulated buses are needed for MiWay and TTC and other GTA agencies, but just don't rely on them too heavily like Ottawa tried to do. Ottawa learned the lesson the hard way during that snowstowm, and GTA doesn't need to make the same mistake.

Even without snow, problem with articulated buses is if there is still only one door for boarding, it means more people waiting at each stop, so there will be more delays as result of these larger crowds. With longer vehicles, whether articulated buses or LRVs or subway trains, you will need an all-door boarding scheme to unlock the full potential of these vehicles. Using them for regular routes is probably not a good idea. Limited stop routes, especially in transitways, probably is okay.

[lip]

 

8 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

As I said, Mississauga is short on buses because of construction on the LRT causing delays. Construction is only temporary. Finished construction would mean no more delays of buses, and lack of delays would free up buses. Finishing construction would also mean no more buses along the Hurontario corridor freeing up even more buses. Hurontario is 15% of the system's ridership.

Defeated the point my argument? That rail is not the reason for high ridership? How does a overcrowding along a non-rail corridor like Hurontario defeat the point of my argument? Explain this to me.

I don't know what growth forecast for Peel has to do with this conversation. Mississauga, Brampton Caledon, apples and oranges as you might say. Mississauga is built out, and has been built out for quite a while. Population declined 0.5% from 2016 to 2021. To invest in more buses, after an LRT replaces a bus route that represents 15% of ridership, after 0.5% population decline, in the midst of pandemic and people working from home, in the midst of recession which will cause major job losses and thus less people commuting to work, doesn't make sense at all to me.

There's no point in me continuing since you have your own set of beliefs regarding Mississauga. If you think Mississauga is built out and wont grow, I wont stop you from believing that. I guess that's why all the condos sprouting out all over Mississauga will be empty huh? And all the redevelopment taking place in the waterfront isnt needed, and they're just doing it for fun to push around dirt. Clearly the people who study population growth in the province think differently.

We'll go along with your point that Mississauga wont need additional growth buses once construction wraps up on the LRT, because they can divert the buses that were used on Hurontario onto other lines in the city.

[ngdvd]

1 minute ago, lip said:

 

There's no point in me continuing since you have your own set of beliefs regarding Mississauga. If you think Mississauga is built out and wont grow, I wont stop you from believing that. I guess that's why all the condos sprouting out all over Mississauga will be empty huh? And all the redevelopment taking place in the waterfront isnt needed, and they're just doing it for fun to push around dirt. Clearly the people who study population growth in the province think differently.

We'll go along with your point that Mississauga wont need additional growth buses once construction wraps up on the LRT, because they can divert the buses that were used on Hurontario onto other lines in the city.

People who studied population growth in the province looked at Peel as a whole, not at Mississauga specifically. The chart you posted says nothing about Mississauga's growth.

Development is not the same as population growth. There are other factors such as household size. Mississauga can grow in terms of buildings but still remain the same or even decline in terms of population.

Population is not the only factor either, ridership is the main factor in demand and the capacity needed. And MiWay will lose 15% of its ridership when the LRT opens on Hurontario.

I never said Mississauga won't need growth buses. My point was they don't need them immediately in the near future. With no more delays due to LRT construction, with no more buses needed on Hurontario, with ongoing pandemic and people working from home, with incoming recession and people losing their jobs, capacity for transit ridership growth seems not an urgent concern.

Winnipeg Transit has over 600 buses, almost 200 more than MiWay. Two similar sized systems serving similar population and similar ridership. Obviously, Mississauga needs to catch up. All I am saying is now might not be the right time.

[MiExpress]

20 hours ago, ngdvd said:

Problem with artics is operating in the snow, too easily get stuck. Seen it personally way too many times. Gotta be extra careful keeping the roads clean, but of course cleaning roads means snow piling up at the side where buses operate. Maybe keep the artics in the garage during the snowstorm.

Another problem is the busiest route in Mississauga will no longer need articulated buses once the Hurontario LRT finishes construction. To invest in more buses would be a mistake, and more articulated buses even more so.

 

18 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

If you put it that way, Miway doesn't really need a single articulated buses. Same with most GTA including some of TTC's artic routes. Most of the routes can be operated with better service than 12-15 min headways using artic buses. They could bring this down to 7-12 min instead.

Staffing issue however remains a problem, thus maybe more artics at wider headways has became a better way till they can hire more people.

 

While the Hurontario corridor will not need articulated buses when the LRT opens, there will still be demand on other corridors. Suggestions to improve frequencies are nice but run into a bigger constraint in the amount of budgeted service hours which is set and approved by council each year.

While Hurontario will no longer need articulated buses when the LRT opens, there will be other corridors that require them due to ridership growth. For example the 42 Derry runs at 6 minute peak frequency and 14 of 17 peak buses on the route are scheduled to be artics. Mavis is another corridor that has trended towards requiring articulated buses in both the peak and off peak.

With constraints on the amount of service hours that can be added artics are another way to increase capacity with less of a impact on direct operating costs, hence why MiWay plans to expand the fleet of articulated buses from the current 77 to 101 by 2024.

2 hours ago, ngdvd said:

Mississauga is temporarily using extra buses to make up for construction for the LRT. Construction slowing down the buses reducing their frequencies, thus more buses needed to maintain existing frequencies. The finishing of construction alone will free up many buses. Furthermore, Mississauga's busiest corridor won't even need buses anymore. We are talking about dozens of buses out of service. The Hurontario corridor with 30,000 boardings, that's around 15% of Mississauga's ridership. We are talking about 15% loss of transit ridership for MiWay once the LRT opens.

You're correct that the LRT opening will allow for buses to be removed from Hurontario but there will still need to be a local service operating at a reasonable frequency as there are several well used local stops. By the way, there currently aren't any additional buses being used on the Hurontario corridor to compensate for the LRT construction. In September 2019, the 19 used 21 buses in peak periods while the 103 used 11 for a total of 32 buses. For September 2022, the peak requirements are 10 buses for route 2, 9 buses for route 17/18 (interlined) and 6 buses for route 103, a total of 25 buses. Even if the 103's peak frequency was restored to the 11 minute frequency pre-covid it would require an additional 4 buses bringing the total to 29.

2 hours ago, ngdvd said:

Mississauga growing? How much has population or ridership grown compared to 2019? Tell me.

LRT isn't being built in Mississauga to bring more ridership. LRT is being built because the ridership is already too high. LRT is being built because of overcrowding on Hurontario. Rapid transit is not for solving the problem of low ridership. Rapid transit is a solution for high ridership. It's not that high ridership is the result of more rail built, but rather more rail is built as the the result of high ridership.

If Mississauga is counting on new rail service to grow ridership, that is already big mistake, a mistake that cities all over the USA have made. If Mississauga really wants to grow its bus ridership, it will need to improve its bus service, and it will have plenty of buses to spare once the LRT opens.

Agreed that the LRT is being built because the demand on Hurontario warrants higher order transit (which should have been built on the corridor years ago).

However the LRT is being built not only with current ridership in mind but also the city provincially mandated growth plans which call for more density on major transit corridors and major transit station areas. The increased density will bring more ridership, because even if the overall city population remains stagnant or only grows slightly, there will be a net increase in population along the LRT corridor even if there are population declines elsewhere.

1 hour ago, lip said:

You do realize Mississauga is short on buses, and there are many routes that arent operating a pre-pandemic levels? And you also do realize, that those "dozens of buses" would do wonders for routes that are operating at capacity at various points in the day.

 

1 hour ago, lip said:

 

There's no point in me continuing since you have your own set of beliefs regarding Mississauga. If you think Mississauga is built out and wont grow, I wont stop you from believing that. I guess that's why all the condos sprouting out all over Mississauga will be empty huh? And all the redevelopment taking place in the waterfront isnt needed, and they're just doing it for fun to push around dirt. Clearly the people who study population growth in the province think differently.

We'll go along with your point that Mississauga wont need additional growth buses once construction wraps up on the LRT, because they can divert the buses that were used on Hurontario onto other lines in the city.

Pre-covid, in September 2019 there was a peak requirement of 384/500 buses resulting in a 24% spare ratio. The current requirement is approximately 315/475 buses (some buses retired without direct replacement during COVID) resulting in a 34% spare ratio. There is no shortage of physical bus assets and the spare ratio at MiWay was considerably higher than the industry standard 15-20% even pre-covid.

As for the issue of adding additional growth buses, I do have to agree with ngdvd that there likely won't be a need for many additional growth buses in the next few years. The Hurontario LRT freeing up buses is one reason, but another big factor is that MiWay like many other systems coming out of COVID has experienced higher growth of off-peak ridership compared to peak service. Additional off peak service does not require fleet expansion to accomodate.

One thing to consider in all this is with any significant economic event, including COVID, is that it impacts transit ridership levels and travel patterns even over the medium to long term. Travel patterns and demand have changed and it is not unlike the 2008 financial crisis where several routes lost ridership and took years to recover, or never reached the high point again. Given all this, previous observations or perceptions may no longer be valid.