MiWay

[Gil]

18 hours ago, blue.bird.fan said:

Weren't the 100-series routes initially rush hour only as well? I think 101, 102, 107 and 109 were like this, with the 110 being the only exception.

The evolution (according to the MiWay routes wiki) went from 80-series up until the mid-2000s when they were mostly renumbered into the 200-series.  The 110 UNIVERSITY EXPRESS was the first 100-series route in 2007, having been upgraded from the 24 UNIVERSITY route which also initially only ran during peak periods.  The last remaining 80-series route, the 89 MEADOWVALE EXPRESS (which changed to MEADOWVALE-SUBWAY with the introduction of the 109) became the 87 MEADOWVALE-SKYMARK when it was cut back from Islington to Skymark in the early 2010s and the 200-series became 100-series as they gained all-day service and the Transitway began coming online.

I do wish they'd go back to showing the express stops with those orange and blue dots on either the Express Network Map or on the main System Map for the routes not using the Transitway.  The Transitway stations are already clearly defined on the maps.  The 108 MEADOWVALE BUSINESS EXPRESS (which simply displays BUSINESS EXPRESS on the desto) however, runs into the problem of it serving ALL the local stops when it's in Meadowvale.  It's more like the 71 SHERIDAN-SUBWAY running non-stop express the majority route and the local once off the highway and has varied between an 80-series, 200-series and now just the 70-series with the 76 CITY CENTRE-SUBWAY being the only route that's a bit of an outlier in this category.  With the pending fare integration with the TTC it may evolve again to provide the necessary service along Burnhamthorpe. 

It's all a matter of marketing/prestige it seems.  I don't know if MiWay will continue ordering buses in distinct Local and Express liveries seeing as they don't quite mean very much if the buses can be assigned elsewhere as needed.  The amenities on the MiExpress buses are slowly becoming standard on all buses these days anyways.  At least for other agencies.

70-series: routes using the highway to access industrial parks, local service once off the highway

80-series: limited stop routes, primarily rush hour service

90-series: (the PanAm services fit this category as well) non-stop routes

100-series: express routes, primarily all-day service

200-series: express routes, primarily rush hour service

The 11 WESTWOOD appears to be grandfathered as the 427 was the only direct route between Islington (now Kipling) and Malton/Westwood Mall and was one of the earliest routes in the network.

Come 2024 when MiWay can expect funding increases for new service hopefully a new network of 80-series or 200-series routes can be implemented in conjunction with the opening of the Hurontario LRT which will alter the network and the fleet allocation.  Eglinton and Britannia could probably use a rush hour limited stop supplement along the entire corridor to deal with crowding.  I wonder how a non-stop service between City Centre and Kipling would impact other routes running between the two like the 3 BLOOR, 20 RATHBURN, 26 BURNHAMTHORPE, 76 CITY CENTRE-SUBWAY, 109 MEADOWVALE EXPRESS and to a certain extent GO's 29 GUELPH/MISSISSAUGA.  Say you needed to get to Mississauga Valley from Kipling, it would likely be faster to take a non-stop route to CCTT then double back on the 3 BLOOR than ride all the way on a westbound 3 BLOOR.

[MiExpress]

On 1/5/2023 at 1:05 AM, Gil said:

The 90 COPENHAGEN LOOP aside as it's due to be replaced, will the 90-series become non-stop routes?  I'd like to see one between CCTT and Kipling, which currently only exists as a deadhead.  The bus is going there anyway, why not take passengers and run non-stop along the Transitway?  It would meet the budget's guideline of no new net hours (see MiExpress' excerpt below).

While the original MiWay Five 2020 service plan presented in late 2019 had the 90 being eliminated and partially replaced on the west side by a new route 50 running along Churchill Meadows, Lisgar, Terragar and Derry to Meadowvale TC, the proposal was dropped in a subsequent update in 2020 after people on route 90's Copenhagen side (which has always been very low ridership even pre-COVID) loudly complained to city council. Instead, the proposal was changed to retain the route 90 as is and have the 50 go along Derry from Lisgar Drive, which is disappointing as it means service along that portion of Derry will continue to be duplicated by 50/90 as it is today by 39/90.

If there was a desire to continue serving Copenhagen, it could have been accomplished by leaving the proposed route 50 as is and extending the 46 to cover Copenhagen which would have also had the benefit of two way service across the length of Aquitaine. 

On 1/5/2023 at 1:05 AM, Gil said:

Given the budget limitations, I guess any new service like to the Premium Outlet Mall is off the table until 2024 (unless they or Halton Hills decides to foot the bill).  I noticed a gap in service when I decided to bike (?!) to the outlet mall.  There's no service on Argentia west of Lisgar GO and several warehouses all the way to Ninth Line.  There were several people walking, presumably to Lisgar GO to access transit.  Likewise people waiting on Winston Churchill not boarding a 43 MATHESON-ARGENTIA bus after missing a 38 CREDITVIEW bus since it didn't connect/go to Lisgar GO (unless they were headed to somewhere along Meadowpine or Meadowvale Blvd.).  Anyway, a route west of Lisgar GO on Argentia has very few terminus points.  The outlet mall being one (didn't know there was an armoury next to the fire department's training facility) and Churchill Meadows CC being the other running into a bit of route duplication.  Continuing down Ninth Line to South Common via Burnhamthorpe or Laird/Vega Loop (once it's built) via Dundas would be other options even if it were to start off as a rush hour route.

The Meadowvale area both residential (around Meadowvale TC and Meadowvale Village) and industrial areas need some sort of overhaul probably in conjunction with the final implementation of the changes in Churchill Meadows if only to provide better connections.  A revamp of the loop at Meadowvale Town Centre will likely require some changes or interlining to reduce disruption from having the terminal closed.

Related to the above comment, rather than having the 50/90 duplicate each other on Derry the 50 could be routed to Lisgar via Ninth Line and Argentia which would provide coverage along that portion. Another option would be a new route running from Lisgar along Argentia, Ninth Line, Ridgeway, Winston Park and then taking over the 45A routing (and possibly the 45's Plymouth loop allowing it to be streamlined) to either Sheridan Centre or Clarkson GO. It would also allow the 36 to be streamlined into a more direct routing.

As for the Meadowvale Town Centre loop one of the options presented in the MiWay Infrastructure Growth Plan (page 548) involved repurposing part of the parking lot in front of Metro for a row of Sawtooth bus bays along the access road which would not require a full terminal closure to implement. 

On 1/5/2023 at 1:05 AM, Gil said:

The old 200-series designation for express routes only running during rush hours (while the 100-series was for all day service) could be used here.  Along with a possible renumbering of the 87 MEADOWVALE-SKYMARK as the last remaining 80-series route.  Aside from the fact that it doesn't use the Transitway (well neither did the 185 DIXIE EXPRESS when it was in service) for a majority of its route - aside from the east/southbound stop at Dixie and Crestlawn, why not keep it on Eglinton to provide a transfer at Dixie?  What is the difference between the 100-series express routes and the last 80-series limited stop routes?  Aside from the fact that this one doesn't run both ways when in operation, giving it an "express" designation may clarify the nature of the route so the driver doesn't have to.

 

On 1/5/2023 at 1:10 AM, blue.bird.fan said:

Weren't the 100-series routes initially rush hour only as well? I think 101, 102, 107 and 109 were like this, with the 110 being the only exception.

The 100 series express routes were numbered in their own series because they were originally intended to be all day express routes as part of the 5 year Ridership Growth Strategy from 2007-2012. Unfortunately the 2008 financial crisis and corresponding city budget reductions hit and while the 110 was launched in 2007 with all day service, all the following routes were launched with rush hour service to start.

12 hours ago, Gil said:

Come 2024 when MiWay can expect funding increases for new service hopefully a new network of 80-series or 200-series routes can be implemented in conjunction with the opening of the Hurontario LRT which will alter the network and the fleet allocation.  Eglinton and Britannia could probably use a rush hour limited stop supplement along the entire corridor to deal with crowding.  I wonder how a non-stop service between City Centre and Kipling would impact other routes running between the two like the 3 BLOOR, 20 RATHBURN, 26 BURNHAMTHORPE, 76 CITY CENTRE-SUBWAY, 109 MEADOWVALE EXPRESS and to a certain extent GO's 29 GUELPH/MISSISSAUGA.  Say you needed to get to Mississauga Valley from Kipling, it would likely be faster to take a non-stop route to CCTT then double back on the 3 BLOOR than ride all the way on a westbound 3 BLOOR.

The road geometry and then transfer time required at City Centre means any trip involving a non stop City Centre-Kipling route would see no time savings and in fact may take longer than just taking the 3 directly from Kipling. Further a non-stop service would save very little time compared to the existing route 109.

[ngdvd]

18 has all day service according to the new map? But as MiExpress correctly pointed out, the midday service actually starts at around 12 or 1pm. I think it would have made more sense to lower the frequency of 42 slightly and extend the 22 west to Sheridan. 22 and 42 together makes sense. 22 is already a busy route in its own right and combined with Derry service, it would only become busier (although ideally TTC should have extended 36 Finch to Westwood decades ago).

39 should have been taken off Lisgar when they started using artics and increasing the frequencies. Artics frequently passing through on a small residential street is not good. They really need to redesign the entire network from the ground up, because one small change after another, the system has become a complicated mess, and still not significantly improved despite the changes, and it is most evident around Meadowvale. After all these years, they still don't have a north-south route west of Winston Churchill, no Ridgeway/Churchill Meadows route, not Tenth Line route. And of course after so many decades, Winston Churchill itself still has no connection to the Burnhamthorpe buses! Just some obvious and crucial links still missing.

[Gil]

On 1/6/2023 at 8:46 AM, MiExpress said:

While the original MiWay Five 2020 service plan presented in late 2019 had the 90 being eliminated and partially replaced on the west side by a new route 50 running along Churchill Meadows, Lisgar, Terragar and Derry to Meadowvale TC, the proposal was dropped in a subsequent update in 2020 after people on route 90's Copenhagen side (which has always been very low ridership even pre-COVID) loudly complained to city council. Instead, the proposal was changed to retain the route 90 as is and have the 50 go along Derry from Lisgar Drive, which is disappointing as it means service along that portion of Derry will continue to be duplicated by 50/90 as it is today by 39/90.

If there was a desire to continue serving Copenhagen, it could have been accomplished by leaving the proposed route 50 as is and extending the 46 to cover Copenhagen which would have also had the benefit of two way service across the length of Aquitaine. 

Related to the above comment, rather than having the 50/90 duplicate each other on Derry the 50 could be routed to Lisgar via Ninth Line and Argentia which would provide coverage along that portion. Another option would be a new route running from Lisgar along Argentia, Ninth Line, Ridgeway, Winston Park and then taking over the 45A routing (and possibly the 45's Plymouth loop allowing it to be streamlined) to either Sheridan Centre or Clarkson GO. It would also allow the 36 to be streamlined into a more direct routing.

[See Response #1 - MiWay Five 2020]

As for the Meadowvale Town Centre loop one of the options presented in the MiWay Infrastructure Growth Plan (page 548) involved repurposing part of the parking lot in front of Metro for a row of Sawtooth bus bays along the access road which would not require a full terminal closure to implement. 

[See Response #2 - Meadowvale Town Centre Loop]

The 100 series express routes were numbered in their own series because they were originally intended to be all day express routes as part of the 5 year Ridership Growth Strategy from 2007-2012. Unfortunately the 2008 financial crisis and corresponding city budget reductions hit and while the 110 was launched in 2007 with all day service, all the following routes were launched with rush hour service to start.

The road geometry and then transfer time required at City Centre means any trip involving a non stop City Centre-Kipling route would see no time savings and in fact may take longer than just taking the 3 directly from Kipling. Further a non-stop service would save very little time compared to the existing route 109.

[See Response #3 - City Centre-Kipling non-sop service]

Response #1 (MiWay Five 2020):

The network has changed significantly since 2020, in light of reallocating resources to Sheridan College and the pandemic-induced drop in passengers.  I'm still waiting for the next 5-year plan which was being worked on pre-COVID.  I'm guessing we'll have to wait for the subsequent 5-year plan as the Hurontario LRT will be coming online and will likely make drastic changes to the network.  If that's the case then let the public know and a new round of consultations should be taking place.  I doubt the information they gathered from the earlier consultations carry much validity these days. 

There are obviously needs in and around the Meadowvale/Lisgar/Churchill Meadows that need to be addressed.  Ideally in a cohesive manner so that any overhaul is a net benefit to those communities.  I'm almost tempted to see if I can feed data into ChatGPT to see if it can come up with something better!  A through route along Ninth Line will likely come sooner rather than later based on the development occurring after the lands between Ninth Line and the 407 were annexed by Mississauga.  I'm hoping that what development they do allow is somewhat denser than what's seen on the east side of Ninth Line to make transit sustainable.

If a transfer agreement can be streamlined between Milton Transit and MiWay, considerations should also be given to future service between the two systems that could potentially serve the above-mentioned communities.  A Britannia service is proposed by Milton Transit, but is lacking a terminus point in Mississauga.  GO had trialed seasonal bus service to the Premium Outlet Mall last summer.  I don't know how that went, but with the construction on the 401 mostly completed it would provide another option for getting there.  MiWay or Brampton can provide supplemental service from Peel (via Lisgar GO?).

Response #2 (Meadowvale Town Centre Loop):

That plan (Option 4) provides the least amount of possible growth at Meadowvale Town Centre with only 4 additional platforms.  Both Brampton and Milton (and likely GO as well) Transit would like to serve Meadowvale Town Centre but there isn't the space to accommodate new routes.  Going with any of the other 3 options would necessitate closing the loop as it is reconfigured.  They can use on-street stops, or like Erin Mills Town Centre use the ring road for temporary stops.  Or they can pull a Dixie Outlet Mall and commandeer part of the parking lot for a temporary bus loop.  Interlining where possible will cut down on the number of stops/bays required similar to what the TTC does when stations undergo elevator construction.

See Response #3  (City Centre-Kipling non-sop service):

Doing a comparison between GO's 29 GUELPH/MISSISSAUGA and MiWay's comparable services on the Triplinx planner shows a 10-minute savings on a near non-stop route.  The 29 GUELPH/MISSISSAUGA only makes stops at Dixe and Renforth Transitway stations.  Skipping both stations would likely shave another minute or two off the trip.  I've seen the deadhead run from CCTT to Kipling while using the Transitway (even though it's displaying NIS, Transit55 still shows what it's doing before and after).  If there were a way to catch that bus, I'd make the trip to CCTT.  Creating another 90-series non-stop route would as you've pointed out require a bit of work to schedule for boardings at either end.  Perhaps once all of the LRT-related construction is over they can consider it?  Platforms N (currently closed) or O would make sense, looping back to the Transitway via Duke of York and Centre View.

I did like some of the early proposals for service on the Transitway with 200-series (rush hour only) service coming off the Transitway and providing express services to areas that currently do not have them.  In the absence of Transitway stops at Mississauga, Creditview and Mavis Roads there's a bit of a gap in access to express services.  I'm hoping once ridership rebounds frequencies on the Transitway will be restored as it is rather skeletal.  One missing bus can throw the entire route's schedule out of whack.  The 200-series service could supplement the Transitway.  From Kipling, they had routes coming off at Dixie (which eventually became the 185 DIXIE EXPRESS), CCTT to Rathurn and up Creditview (possibly replacing the 87 MEADOWVALE-SKYMARK) and up Mavis (originally to Financial, but if there's a demand to send it to Sheridan then send it there).

[Gil]

With the freeze on additional service hours for 2023, does that mean the TTC turning over service on Burnhamthorpe to MiWay is being deferred to 2024 or will the TTC be making up the difference for any additional service they require?  The whole pilot project between the TTC and MiWay and YRT seems to have fallen by the wayside.  Serving all the stops in Etobicoke will likely also increase the running time for the 26 BURNHAMTHORPE (is the 76 CITY CENTRE-SUBWAY included in the pilot project as well?).  If this expands to other corridors like Bloor (the 20 RATHBURN was slated to be rerouted to top up service on Bloor and cover Mill Rd from the abandoned 49 BLOOR WEST), perhaps express service might need to make a return.

Last year's public consultation by the TTC seemed to make no mention or assumption of a transfer agreement allowing passengers to easily access MiWay services in Rexdale for example.  There was even a proposed route that would have mirrored the 107 MALTON EXPRESS on the Toronto side of the 427 which even Steve Munro found confusing.

[ngdvd]

It's crazy that TTC still has no service to Westwood Mall after all these years, not even an extension of 36 Finch West.

[bus_7246]

1 hour ago, ngdvd said:

It's crazy that TTC still has no service to Westwood Mall after all these years, not even an extension of 36 Finch West.

You must’ve overlooked the 52B Lawrence West bus, that goes to Westwood Mall. SMH

[Young]

Just now, bus_7246 said:

You must’ve overlooked the 52B Lawrence West bus, that goes to Westwood Mall. SMH

TTC actually needs a route that goes there on weekends also, the 52B only goes there Monday -Friday 

[blue.bird.fan]

Just now, Young said:

TTC actually needs a route that goes there on weekends also, the 52B only goes there Monday -Friday 

At this point, I wonder if the 52D is just a legacy of the old services to Malton Village that has been overlooked in favour of delegating those responsibilities to MiWay.

[Gil]

7 hours ago, blue.bird.fan said:

At this point, I wonder if the 52D is just a legacy of the old services to Malton Village that has been overlooked in favour of delegating those responsibilities to MiWay.

It's operated under contract to MiWay similar to the TTC routes operating into York Region.  Given the nature of the 7 AIRPORT route, I doubt it would be worth increasing the frequency to match the combined service on Airport Rd.  The opening of the Finch LRT may skew some of the travel patterns.  The 7 AIRPORT was supposed to be cut back to run between Renforth and Westwood, which would allow it to increase frequencies on a much shorter route.  The only way I could see MiWay absorbing the 52D LAWRENCE WEST would be either as a standalone route or even a branch of the 7 AIRPORT between Westwood and Renforth or as an extension of something like the 22 FINCH, especially if they ever manage to get the Pearson transportation hub "Union West" built.

Westwood already has connections to Humber College via the 22 FINCH and 107 MALTON EXPRESS, which once the Finch LRT opens should become a year-round route rather than only running when classes are in session.  I've mentioned it before, but it could probably use a stop at Morning Star and Humberwood next to the TTC loop. 

[Ed T.]

TTC service to Malton and Westwood Mall is a legacy of the days waaaaaay before Mississauga existed, never mind Mississauga Transit.

https://transittoronto.ca/bus/routes/58-malton-1955-.shtml

https://transittoronto.ca/bus/routes/westwood-malton.shtml

I suppose this is one of those sleeping dogs that no one has bothered to prod. What its relevance is almost 70 years later, with vastly different population distribution and travel patterns, is unclear to me.

[ngdvd]

20 hours ago, bus_7246 said:

You must’ve overlooked the 52B Lawrence West bus, that goes to Westwood Mall. SMH

You must've overlooked the fact that 52B is a MiWay route contracted out to TTC, taking MiWay fares, subsidized by City of Mississauga, and requires a TTC fare to cross into Toronto. SMH

It is the opposite problem in York Region, where the TTC provides all the service along Steeles, and YRT provides nothing. The result is a massive gap in the YRT network where there are only three east-west transit corridors - Highway 7, Rutherford, Major Mackenzie. Compare that to Brampton with five east-west corridors - Steeles, Queen, Williams Parkway, Bovaird, Sandalwood - and Mississauga with seven east-west corridors - Lakeshore, Dundas, Burnhamthorpe, Transitway, Eglinton, Britannia/Matheson, Derry. VIVA along Steeles should have been the #1 priority for YRT, but instead they chose VIVA Orange and Green. SMH

And this major gap in YRT's network is addition to most of their's and the TTC's north-south service ending abruptly at Steeles. Compare that to Mississauga and Brampton Transit, where many routes cross the boundary to Steeles and Derry, respectively, and also offer free transfers. Compare also Brampton Transit with three routes to Westwood to the TTC with zero routes. The only major missing link between Mississauga and Brampton would be the Tomken/West Dr corridor, where after all these years Mississauga still has yet to extend the 51 Tomken to Bramalea City Centre.

The missing links in the York Region transit network is reflected in the ridership per capita of YRT, which is half that of Mississauga and Brampton Transit.

[Ed T.]

2 hours ago, ngdvd said:

You must've overlooked the fact that 52B is a MiWay route contracted out to TTC, taking MiWay fares, subsidized by City of Mississauga, and requires a TTC fare to cross into Toronto. SMH

It the opposite problem in York Region, where the TTC provides all the service along Steeles, and YRT provides nothing. The result is a massive gap in the YRT network where there are only three east-west transit corridors - Highway 7, Rutherford, Major Mackenzie. Compare that Brampton with five east-west corridors - Steeles, Queen, Williams Parkway, Bovaird, Sandalwood - and Mississauga with seven east-west corridors - Lakeshore, Dundas, Burnhamthorpe, Transitway, Eglinton, Britannia/Matheson, Derry. VIVA along Steeles should have been the #1 priority for YRT, but instead they chose VIVA Orange and Green. SMH

And this major gap in YRT's network is addition to most of their's and the TTC's north-south service ending abruptly at Steeles. Compare that to Mississauga and Brampton Transit, where many routes cross the boundary to Steeles and Derry, respectively, and also offer free transfers. Compare also Brampton Transit with three routes to Westwood, the TTC with zero routes. The only major missing link between Mississauga and Brampton would be the Tomken/West Dr corridor, where after all these years Mississauga still has yet to extend the 51 Tomken to Bramalea City Centre.

The missing links the York Region transit network is reflected in the ridership per capita of YRT, which is half that of Mississauga and Brampton Transit.

So if I understand this, your original complaint that

21 hours ago, ngdvd said:

It's crazy that TTC still has no service to Westwood Mall after all these years, not even an extension of 36 Finch West.

Is actually a general complaint about YRT not implementing satisfactory cross-border services?

[ngdvd]

1 minute ago, Ed T. said:

So if I understand this, your original complaint that

Is actually a general complaint about YRT not implementing satisfactory cross-border services?

What do you mean? If I criticize the TTC, then I can't criticize YRT and MiWay as well? Is that what you saying?

[Ed T.]

9 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

What do you mean? If I criticize the TTC, then I can't criticize YRT and MiWay as well? Is that what you saying?

Apparently I don't understand you.

<Blade_Runner>But then, who does?</Blade_Runner>

[ngdvd]

1 minute ago, Ed T. said:

Apparently I don't understand you.

I don't understand you either. What is wrong with me criticizing YRT's lack of cross border services? Should I not be allowed to use YRT as another example of lack of integrated transit? How does mentioning YRT invalidate my argument? Tell me.

[Articulated]

4 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

I don't understand you either. What is wrong with me criticizing YRT's lack of cross border services? Should I not be allowed to use YRT as another example of lack of integrated transit? How does mentioning YRT invalidate my argument? Tell me.

In a MiWay thread though?

[ngdvd]

3 minutes ago, Articulated said:

In a MiWay thread though?

So I am not allowed to use to YRT as example related to my point about lack of TTC service in Mississauga? Does that mean I should not have mentioned the TTC as well?

[Ed T.]

Seems nobody is likely to understand you, sorry.

[ngdvd]

9 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

Seems nobody is likely to understand you, sorry.

TTC's lack of service in Mississauga is part of wider problem in the GTA. What exactly is so hard to understand about that?

[Articulated]

2 hours ago, ngdvd said:

TTC's lack of service in Mississauga is part of wider problem in the GTA. What exactly is so hard to understand about that?

Why are you so thoroughly convinced that Toronto taxpayers should be required to fund operations into a neighbouring municipality?

And conversely, your argument is that York Region should be operating service along Steeles, despite the road being fully under the City of Toronto's jurisdiction, and the TTC is already choosing to operate two frequent and heavily utilized routes (53/953 and 60/960) along that corridor. Service along those corridors are already better than every corridor in York Region, so there is little to no benefit from YRT running another bus every 30-69 minutes interspersed amongst the existing TTC service. If your argument is "network completeness", you have a very long way to go in understanding how transit networks operate if you think the primary goal should be to have a nice filled-in map.

People don't particularly care what colour the bus is that picks them up, just that their service is frequent and reliable.

[81-717]

1 hour ago, Articulated said:

Why are you so thoroughly convinced that Toronto taxpayers should be required to fund operations into a neighbouring municipality?

And conversely, your argument is that York Region should be operating service along Steeles, despite the road being fully under the City of Toronto's jurisdiction, and the TTC is already choosing to operate two frequent and heavily utilized routes (53/953 and 60/960) along that corridor. Service along those corridors are already better than every corridor in York Region, so there is little to no benefit from YRT running another bus every 30-69 minutes interspersed amongst the existing TTC service. If your argument is "network completeness", you have a very long way to go in understanding how transit networks operate if you think the primary goal should be to have a nice filled-in map.

People don't particularly care what colour the bus is that picks them up, just that their service is frequent and reliable.

The only advantage of having a YRT Steeles route that comes to mind is fare zones. Someone taking a YRT bus south to Steeles, and then transferring onto a Steeles bus, would have to pay both a YRT & TTC fare as it is, while a YRT bus along Steeles would allow them to complete the trip using only a single YRT fare. Then again, there's usually an alternative of taking another YRT east/west route north of Steeles, and then transferring onto a different southbound YRT route (for example, the most direct route between Bathurst/Rutherford & Keele/Steeles is either going east/west on Steeles & north/south on Bathurst, or east/west on Rutherford & north/south on Keele).

[drum118]

Don't know why the southbound stop at Bloor on Dixie is not back in service as its finished other than adding the shelter. You got riders standing at both stops with some drivers bypassing the north one while others stop at both.

The northbound stop at Bloor on Dixie is in service once again and a huge improvement over what was there before. The shelter is now located where the sidewalk was before, with the new sidewalk in front of it at the same level with a bend at each end for the stop. Part of the bus pad is level with a slight slop to the curb. Comply with accessibility requirements now.

The northbound stop for Dundas is back in service as well the shelter for Dixie.

[ngdvd]

3 hours ago, Articulated said:

Why are you so thoroughly convinced that Toronto taxpayers should be required to fund operations into a neighbouring municipality?

And conversely, your argument is that York Region should be operating service along Steeles, despite the road being fully under the City of Toronto's jurisdiction, and the TTC is already choosing to operate two frequent and heavily utilized routes (53/953 and 60/960) along that corridor. Service along those corridors are already better than every corridor in York Region, so there is little to no benefit from YRT running another bus every 30-69 minutes interspersed amongst the existing TTC service. If your argument is "network completeness", you have a very long way to go in understanding how transit networks operate if you think the primary goal should be to have a nice filled-in map.

People don't particularly care what colour the bus is that picks them up, just that their service is frequent and reliable.

Bus colour matters because it's a different fare. The TTC buses along Steeles are the most convenient choice, but they aren't part of the YRT system. That means all those riders on the north-south YRT routes have to pay an extra fare to transfer to the Steeles buses, even if they are travelling from one place in York Region to another place in York Region.

That's why I talk about the lack of TTC service in Malton. People in Malton live closer to Albion Mall than the people in Jane-Finch, but the lack of TTC service not only forces the Malton residents to transfer buses, it also forces them to pay extra fare. A smaller distance, but an extra transfer and an extra fare.

Seems like you are one who has a very long way to go in understanding how transit networks operate, not me.

[Articulated]

4 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

Bus colour matters because it's a different fare. The TTC buses along Steeles are the most convenient choice, but they aren't part of the YRT system. That means all those riders on the north-south YRT routes have to pay an extra fare to transfer to the Steeles buses, even if they are travelling from one place in York Region to another place in York Region.

That's why I talk about the lack of TTC service in Malton. People in Malton live closer to Albion Mall than the people in Jane-Finch, but the lack of TTC service not only forces the Malton residents to transfer buses, it also forces them to pay extra fare. A smaller distance, but an extra transfer and an extra fare.

Seems like you are one who has a very long way to go in understanding how transit networks operate, not me.

And that problem is better solved with proper fare integration between neighbouring municipalities, not by running duplicated services on the same corridors.