Jump to content

MiWay


Orion VIII

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Articulated said:

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

I never said that fare integration is not a solution. That's exactly why I pointed out the fare integration between Mississauga and Brampton. Steeles is a big gap in the YRT network, simple as that. And fare integration alone won't give Malton residents access to the Finch buses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ngdvd said:

I never said that fare integration is not a solution. That's exactly why I pointed out the fare integration between Mississauga and Brampton. Steeles is a big gap in the YRT network, simple as that. And fare integration alone won't give Malton residents access to the Finch buses.

No, but you never mentioned in any of your posts today that it was a solution. Instead you kept bounding on and on about how every system needs to operate deep into its neighbours territories and duplicate service.

Extending routes everywhere is also not always the best solution. At some point, routes become too long to manage properly and service quality declines, due to issues in one area affecting service in a far-away area, or just accumulated delays piling up along the route. It either means large gaps and bunching becomes inevitable, or it requires very long recovery times at terminals which is inefficient. Think the 501 Queen streetcar, which has historically had poor service quality for many years thanks to it being merged with the 507 Long Branch car to find "efficiencies". The result of this is that cars are now having 2+ hour one-way trip times, and service to Long Branch or the Beach gets huge gaps due to streetcars encountering delays through Downtown.

A proper integrated system where it makes sense is the best way, really. The example you gave earlier of MiWay and Brampton do this best, where corridors extend a short distance into the neighbouring municipality where it makes sense to do so. But it's not necessary everywhere, and there are much greater political and financial concerns that preclude this. Metrolinx was supposed to be looking into fare integration, but that project seems dead now (once they realized nobody was going to pay more to subsidize the cross-border riders).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Articulated said:

No, but you never mentioned in any of your posts today that it was a solution. Instead you kept bounding on and on about how every system needs to operate deep into its neighbours territories and duplicate service.

Extending routes everywhere is also not always the best solution. At some point, routes become too long to manage properly and service quality declines, due to issues in one area affecting service in a far-away area, or just accumulated delays piling up along the route. It either means large gaps and bunching becomes inevitable, or it requires very long recovery times at terminals which is inefficient. Think the 501 Queen streetcar, which has historically had poor service quality for many years thanks to it being merged with the 507 Long Branch car to find "efficiencies". The result of this is that cars are now having 2+ hour one-way trip times, and service to Long Branch or the Beach gets huge gaps due to streetcars encountering delays through Downtown.

A proper integrated system where it makes sense is the best way, really. The example you gave earlier of MiWay and Brampton do this best, where corridors extend a short distance into the neighbouring municipality where it makes sense to do so. But it's not necessary everywhere, and there are much greater political and financial concerns that preclude this. Metrolinx was supposed to be looking into fare integration, but that project seems dead now (once they realized nobody was going to pay more to subsidize the cross-border riders).

I never said fare integration was a solution? I mentioned the arrangement between Mississauga/Brampton as the ideal, and I even highlighted the fare integration between them. I would like to see 36 Finch West extended to cancel 22 Finch, the 50 Burnhamthorpe cancelled in favour of 26/76 Burnhamthorpe, etc. As you say yourself, fare integration is a dead idea, so these agencies need to find a different solution. You can dream about future fare integration, I am just talking about what should be done now.

I brought up the lack of YRT service along Steeles because YRT chose to duplicate TTC service with Viva Orange and Viva Green. Duplicating service was YRT's idea, not mine. I talked about a small extension of TTC 36 Finch West into Malton and I suggested an extension of a short route 51 Tomken to Bramalea. I never advocated for "extending routes everywhere" and creating any super long routes. You're just putting words into my mouth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ngdvd said:

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.

 

But that's a political problem, not a transit one.

 

No amount of drawing lines on an imaginary map, or thought exercises about what buses can go where will fix that. What you are proposing is simply not possible because of it.

 

Are the lines and rules silly and arbitrary? Yes. But until they get fixed, the various transit agencies in the GTA have to abide by them and work within their framework. It's simply not within their best interests to do otherwise.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, smallspy said:

 

But that's a political problem, not a transit one.

 

No amount of drawing lines on an imaginary map, or thought exercises about what buses can go where will fix that. What you are proposing is simply not possible because of it.

 

Are the lines and rules silly and arbitrary? Yes. But until they get fixed, the various transit agencies in the GTA have to abide by them and work within their framework. It's simply not within their best interests to do otherwise.

 

Dan

There are no rules that force the TTC to not serve Westwood Mall. 22 Finch goes further into Toronto than an extension of 36 Finch would go into Mississauga.

The TTC isn't forced to provide bus service along Steeles for York Region residents either, but they do it anyway, because it is beneficial to Toronto residents as well. Likewise, a 1km extension of 36 Finch to major transit hub like Westwood Mall instead of terminating at Indian Line Park would also open up many new possibilities for Toronto transit riders. I never imagined that the idea of a 1km extension of an existing bus route can garner so much confusion and controversy and resistance, but I guess that's the internet for ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ngdvd said:

There are no rules that force the TTC to not serve Westwood Mall. 22 Finch goes further into Toronto than an extension of 36 Finch would go into Mississauga.

 

There are no rules, but the onus is on the TTC to make the service "worthwhile" in the sense that it has to meet a bunch of specific targets regarding ridership and fare recovery if it is net-new service - which this is. If the TTC can't make that be the case, then why should they offer it?

 

The fact that the 22 comes further into Toronto is an indictment of the service from Mississauga, not the other way around. MiWay is well within their rights to end the service at the border, and they do in many other cases.

 

15 hours ago, ngdvd said:

The TTC isn't forced to provide bus service along Steeles for York Region residents either, but they do it anyway, because it is beneficial to Toronto residents as well. Likewise, a 1km extension of 36 Finch to major transit hub like Westwood Mall instead of terminating at Indian Line Park would also open up many new possibilities for Toronto transit riders. I never imagined that the idea of a 1km extension of an existing bus route can garner so much confusion and controversy and resistance, but I guess that's the internet for ya.

 

The TTC doesn't provide service on Steeles for York Region residents, it provides them for Toronto residents. They only provide Toronto transfers. That some York Region residents are able to take advantage of that is a fluke more than by design, and frankly that situation's been the case since the advent of the fare zones.

 

Here is a serious question: what would be th+e actual projected ridership from Finch to Westwood Mall? I don't know the numbers, and I have my doubts that the TTC has ever looked at it. Maybe offer to them as a suggestion through the official channels, rather than bitching to us here who can't do anything about it?


Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, smallspy said:

The fact that the 22 comes further into Toronto is an indictment of the service from Mississauga, not the other way around. MiWay is well within their rights to end the service at the border, and they do in many other cases.

Here is a serious question: what would be th+e actual projected ridership from Finch to Westwood Mall? I don't know the numbers, and I have my doubts that the TTC has ever looked at it. Maybe offer to them as a suggestion through the official channels, rather than bitching to us here who can't do anything about it?

Route 22 serves specific high traffic destination in Toronto -> Humber College and Etobicoke General Hospital hence the need to go "far into Toronto".  Looking at the stores at Westwood Mall there is nothing of particular interest there aside from maybe a Walmart that would justify going there instead of any number of other malls along Finch within Toronto.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mike said:

Route 22 serves specific high traffic destination in Toronto -> Humber College and Etobicoke General Hospital hence the need to go "far into Toronto".  Looking at the stores at Westwood Mall there is nothing of particular interest there aside from maybe a Walmart that would justify going there instead of any number of other malls along Finch within Toronto.  

I don't think it's so much about what's at Westwood Mall, but more so about the connections offered at Westwood Mall to elsewhere within Mississauga.

I would think more people would benefit from extending more of those routes to Humber College rather than dragging the singular 36 there. Westwood Mall is a strange terminal point, the community is not contiguous with the rest of Mississauga and there is very little there that makes it a destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T3G said:

I don't think it's so much about what's at Westwood Mall, but more so about the connections offered at Westwood Mall to elsewhere within Mississauga.

I would think more people would benefit from extending more of those routes to Humber College rather than dragging the singular 36 there. Westwood Mall is a strange terminal point, the community is not contiguous with the rest of Mississauga and there is very little there that makes it a destination.

Didn't think of that - extending from Westwood to create a hub at Humber College instead.  It makes sense  especially since 36 might not even run to Humberwood once Finch LRT opens.

Wouldn't be surprised if when LRT opens, 36 disappears from Humberwood and 37 is extended to Humber College instead.  Or perhaps a circular route can be established running from Humber College via Albion Mall to Woobine Centre and then via Humberwood back to Humber College.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike said:

Route 22 serves specific high traffic destination in Toronto -> Humber College and Etobicoke General Hospital hence the need to go "far into Toronto".  Looking at the stores at Westwood Mall there is nothing of particular interest there aside from maybe a Walmart that would justify going there instead of any number of other malls along Finch within Toronto.  

Oh, I'm well aware of why route 22 does what it does. It's no different as to why Brampton runs to York University, or why DRT runs to UofT Scarborough.

 

But they could also just as easily just drop passengers off at the border of Toronto and let them fend for themselves. In those cases, the respective agencies have done the research and realized that their ridership will be higher by doing things this way and offset the additional costs that the lengthened service will bring.

 

I'm not convinced that any TTC extension to Westwood would offset its additional costs, but I can certainly be enticed to think otherwise.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, T3G said:

I don't think it's so much about what's at Westwood Mall, but more so about the connections offered at Westwood Mall to elsewhere within Mississauga.

I would think more people would benefit from extending more of those routes to Humber College rather than dragging the singular 36 there. Westwood Mall is a strange terminal point, the community is not contiguous with the rest of Mississauga and there is very little there that makes it a destination.

Why duplicate the service of MiWay's 22 FINCH with an extension of the TTC's 36 FINCH WEST to Westwood?  Unless you're coming from a point east of John Garland/Martin Grove boarding a the 22 FINCH avoids the double fare and will allow you free transfer to the MiWay and Brampton Transit routes (and the 52 LAWRENCE WEST up to Pearson) that serve Westwood Mall.  Aside from the mall the community centre, library and public high school are all adjacent to the terminal which sits at the north end of the mall.

The TTC did a public consultation with the community as part of the route restructuring for the opening of the Finch LRT, and it either didn't come up or didn't come up high enough as a list of services they wanted.  Again, extending the 36 FINCH WEST to Westwood would trigger a double fare for such a short distance.  Those living in Rexdale or Humberwood could easily access any of the other MiWay routes (11 MALTON, 22 FINCH or 30 REXDALE) directly to get to Westwood if needed without the double fare.

I'm torn between extending the Finch LRT down to the Woodbine redevelopment and terminating at a future GO station there and having it continue west on Rexdale/Derry and then south on Airport to meet up with the Eglinton LRT at the transit terminal proposed there.  Granted, through-routing the two may be a bit more complicated.  Either terminus would provide connections to GO Transit and possibly VIA.  While the Pearson option wouldn't provide direct access to the warehouse jobs in the area, it would provide some additional service to the area.  Perhaps in conjunction with those employers MiWay could offer additional service for that "last mile".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gil said:

Why duplicate the service of MiWay's 22 FINCH with an extension of the TTC's 36 FINCH WEST to Westwood?  Unless you're coming from a point east of John Garland/Martin Grove boarding a the 22 FINCH avoids the double fare and will allow you free transfer to the MiWay and Brampton Transit routes (and the 52 LAWRENCE WEST up to Pearson) that serve Westwood Mall.  Aside from the mall the community centre, library and public high school are all adjacent to the terminal which sits at the north end of the mall.

The TTC did a public consultation with the community as part of the route restructuring for the opening of the Finch LRT, and it either didn't come up or didn't come up high enough as a list of services they wanted.  Again, extending the 36 FINCH WEST to Westwood would trigger a double fare for such a short distance.  Those living in Rexdale or Humberwood could easily access any of the other MiWay routes (11 MALTON, 22 FINCH or 30 REXDALE) directly to get to Westwood if needed without the double fare.

I'm torn between extending the Finch LRT down to the Woodbine redevelopment and terminating at a future GO station there and having it continue west on Rexdale/Derry and then south on Airport to meet up with the Eglinton LRT at the transit terminal proposed there.  Granted, through-routing the two may be a bit more complicated.  Either terminus would provide connections to GO Transit and possibly VIA.  While the Pearson option wouldn't provide direct access to the warehouse jobs in the area, it would provide some additional service to the area.  Perhaps in conjunction with those employers MiWay could offer additional service for that "last mile".

Let's be clear. TTC/City of Toronto's job is not to provide service outside the city (service area). All routes extending outside the 416 are requests and contracts from the 905 regions. So this would never even come up in the Line 6 public consultation cause it's impossible to implement by the TTC themselves. 

Unless their is a governing body that looks into inter-municipal "local" travels and subsidizes them, I don't see things going to change. Currently, for the TTC to offer a route from Finch LRT to Westwood, people would have to bring this to Mississauga's city council's attention and have to approve and fund such a route. 

The 52 Lawrence West operating in Mississauga is paid by Mississauga. The can give up anytime and the TTC would cut the 52B/D branches. So would Mississauga rather have a Miway route or pay the TTC for an extension is totally up to them. If they think it's more beneficial like the 52 or once upon a time the 32B extension, they would request and pay for such extensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Gil said:

Why duplicate the service of MiWay's 22 FINCH with an extension of the TTC's 36 FINCH WEST to Westwood?  Unless you're coming from a point east of John Garland/Martin Grove boarding a the 22 FINCH avoids the double fare and will allow you free transfer to the MiWay and Brampton Transit routes (and the 52 LAWRENCE WEST up to Pearson) that serve Westwood Mall.  Aside from the mall the community centre, library and public high school are all adjacent to the terminal which sits at the north end of the mall.

It is not my proposal, so I'm not sure why you're quoting my post. I am merely trying to understand where the proposal is coming from. One argument for why someone may not like the 22 Finch is the unattractive frequencies that the route runs. The TTC's 36 is much more frequent.

As I said, dragging more Mississauga buses to Humber College strikes me as being the more useful option of the two.

  

7 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Let's be clear. TTC/City of Toronto's job is not to provide service outside the city (service area).

I do not live anywhere near the concerned area, so I have no horse in this race, but self interested chauvinism questioning why one municipality should pay for services running across an imaginary line to another municipality does not interest me. This argument would fly if each city was separated from one another by farmland, but thanks to the endless amounts of sprawling hell we have chosen to build, we need a cohesive approach and not tribalistic bickering. If an agreement can be worked out to run a great honking subway to Vaughan, cross border buses should be no issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Let's be clear. TTC/City of Toronto's job is not to provide service outside the city (service area). All routes extending outside the 416 are requests and contracts from the 905 regions. So this would never even come up in the Line 6 public consultation cause it's impossible to implement by the TTC themselves.

 

The TTC has provided service outside of Toronto when it felt the ridership was there, and without request from the neighbouring agencies. And some of it was quite recent in its history. There seems to be no reason why they couldn't do it again if they so desired.

 

So it's obviously not impossible, seeing as how the TTC has done it.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

 

The TTC has provided service outside of Toronto when it felt the ridership was there, and without request from the neighbouring agencies. And some of it was quite recent in its history. There seems to be no reason why they couldn't do it again if they so desired.

 

So it's obviously not impossible, seeing as how the TTC has done it.

 

Dan

I guess you’re right if you mean the 53B looping in Markham. They determine it was better at the time as there’s nothing south of Steeles to loop around at the time. 
 

I feel like if TTC staff put forward a proposal for such a service. It’ll be challenging for it to pass through TTC board made up of mostly politicians that would have you defend why should they spend money on a service outside Toronto than improving service within the city. Especially when they’re other locations nearby. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

I guess you’re right if you mean the 53B looping in Markham. They determine it was better at the time as there’s nothing south of Steeles to loop around at the time. 
 

 

And the 32 looping through the Explorer Dr area. And a bunch of others in the 1970s, too.

 

2 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

I feel like if TTC staff put forward a proposal for such a service. It’ll be challenging for it to pass through TTC board made up of mostly politicians that would have you defend why should they spend money on a service outside Toronto than improving service within the city. Especially when they’re other locations nearby. 

 

Why would it? The board doesn't normally look at individual route requests. They certainly haven't done it in the new routes suggested in the last several annual service reviews, or for the various subway & LRT openings.


Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, smallspy said:

And the 32 looping through the Explorer Dr area. And a bunch of others in the 1970s, too.

...

Dan

I don't know how much of the short-lived extension of the 32 west of Etobicoke Creek was a request from Mississauga vs. a means to serve that one segment of Eglinton, which technically was in Toronto but completely inaccessible by TTC.  They obviously didn't want to spend the money to build a loop at Rakely on the Toronto side of the street and the truck traffic on Rakely itself probably meant it wasn't feasible to layover at the end of the street.  The ironic thing is there's a Drive Test location there but you needed a car to get to it!  Service on Eglinton has improved with the addition of the 35 EGLINTON and the Transitway, but those are relatively recent additions to the network and still require an additional fare when coming from Toronto to get to.  There really isn't an option to loop north of Eglinton with the section of Skymark still unopened between Spectrum and Satellite pending development, so this will continue to be a part of Toronto that lacks access to the TTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Gil said:

I don't know how much of the short-lived extension of the 32 west of Etobicoke Creek was a request from Mississauga vs. a means to serve that one segment of Eglinton, which technically was in Toronto but completely inaccessible by TTC.  They obviously didn't want to spend the money to build a loop at Rakely on the Toronto side of the street and the truck traffic on Rakely itself probably meant it wasn't feasible to layover at the end of the street.  The ironic thing is there's a Drive Test location there but you needed a car to get to it!  Service on Eglinton has improved with the addition of the 35 EGLINTON and the Transitway, but those are relatively recent additions to the network and still require an additional fare when coming from Toronto to get to.  There really isn't an option to loop north of Eglinton with the section of Skymark still unopened between Spectrum and Satellite pending development, so this will continue to be a part of Toronto that lacks access to the TTC.

That is not my understanding of the history of that extension.

 

The TTC had requests to service the area, and their research indicated that there was high enough ridership coming from Eglinton to justify it. That's why it was done, and why it didn't require a second fare. Mississauga didn't get involved in the operation of the service until near the end of it.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2023 at 5:09 PM, Gil said:

I don't know how much of the short-lived extension of the 32 west of Etobicoke Creek was a request from Mississauga vs. a means to serve that one segment of Eglinton, which technically was in Toronto but completely inaccessible by TTC.  They obviously didn't want to spend the money to build a loop at Rakely on the Toronto side of the street and the truck traffic on Rakely itself probably meant it wasn't feasible to layover at the end of the street.  The ironic thing is there's a Drive Test location there but you needed a car to get to it!  Service on Eglinton has improved with the addition of the 35 EGLINTON and the Transitway, but those are relatively recent additions to the network and still require an additional fare when coming from Toronto to get to.  There really isn't an option to loop north of Eglinton with the section of Skymark still unopened between Spectrum and Satellite pending development, so this will continue to be a part of Toronto that lacks access to the TTC.

 

9 hours ago, smallspy said:

That is not my understanding of the history of that extension.

 

The TTC had requests to service the area, and their research indicated that there was high enough ridership coming from Eglinton to justify it. That's why it was done, and why it didn't require a second fare. Mississauga didn't get involved in the operation of the service until near the end of it.

 

Dan

EDIT: I will leave my response here since it may be noteworthy, but looking back at the discussion and checking old TTC maps I may have gotten confused about whether the discussion was about the 32 branch that simply looped at explorer which was also called the 32B at one point, or the extension of the route further into the Airport Corporate Centre.

The 32 extension west of Explorer into Mississauga was initiated in February 2002 in cooperation with Mississauga, partly as a response to requests for additional service by various companies that had relocated to the Airport Corporate Centre. Mississauga funded the total operating costs of this extension from day one of the service; initially a second fare was not charged and the full annual operating cost of the TTC extended service ($145,000) was covered by Mississauga. Starting in January 2004 as a result of city budget pressures a second fare was implemented to reduce the net cost for Mississauga from $145,000 to $60,000.

Given that Mississauga was also receiving requests for additional service to the area that might have been the reasoning they initially chose to fully fund the total operating costs rather than implement a second fare.

The relevant portion from the attached report...

The extension of TTC Route 32B-Eglinton West was initiated in February 2002 and was established on a single-fare basis. This means that customers travelling from Toronto to the Airport Corporate Centre in Mississauga are not required to pay a second fare on crossing the Mississauga boundary. This is not consistent with other TTC cross-boundary services, which require that a second fare be paid on crossing the municipal boundary. The financial performance of this route could be improved if it was converted to operate on a double-fare basis. This would mean that customers travelling west from Toronto will pay the TTC fare on boarding and then pay a second fare on crossing the Mississauga boundary. On the return trip they will pay the first fare on boarding in Mississauga and the second fare after crossing the boundary into Toronto.
Some loss in ridership would be experienced by this change but, despite this loss, it is estimated that the net revenue on the route would increase. The service is currently used by approximately 1,000 passengers per day (600 travelling west into Mississauga and 400 travelling east into Toronto). Through discussions with TIC staff, it is estimated that approximately 35% of current ridership will be lost, if the double fare is introduced. Despite this ridership loss, full-fare revenue would be received from the remaining 650 trips per day instead of the current arrangement which receives fare revenue for onlythe400tripstravellingtoToronto. Collection of the second fare would generate increased revenues to Mississauga Transit of $85,000 per year.
It is therefore recommended that, consistent with the operation of TTC Route 58 and all other cross-boundary services operated by the TTC, a second fare be collected on TTC Route 32B for the portion of the route operating in Mississauga.
The additional revenue generated by this change will result in a reduction in the operating deficit of this route from $145,000 to $60,000. This amount is included in the 2004 proposed budget.

 

2003 11 19 GC Agendas & Minutes-33-39.pdf

On 1/15/2023 at 6:21 PM, ngdvd said:

There are no rules that force the TTC to not serve Westwood Mall. 22 Finch goes further into Toronto than an extension of 36 Finch would go into Mississauga.

The TTC isn't forced to provide bus service along Steeles for York Region residents either, but they do it anyway, because it is beneficial to Toronto residents as well. Likewise, a 1km extension of 36 Finch to major transit hub like Westwood Mall instead of terminating at Indian Line Park would also open up many new possibilities for Toronto transit riders. I never imagined that the idea of a 1km extension of an existing bus route can garner so much confusion and controversy and resistance, but I guess that's the internet for ya.

There may be no rules that force the TTC to not serve Westwood but there are others that make the proposition less attractive. To start, the terminal is not controlled by TTC and they would require approval from Mississauga to use the terminal. Given Westwood is already at capacity Mississauga may not approve which would result in a hypothetical extension of TTC 36 needing to terminate elsewhere in Malton, resulting in a longer routing and further additional operating costs.

The city's bylaws, like other municipalities, contains an exclusivity clause which state that MiWay is the only provider of internal public transit trips within Mississauga unless approval is given by the city to pick/up and drop off for internal trips within Mississauga. If TTC did not receive this approval they could still operate to Westwood Mall as long as they did not pick up inbound and drop off outbound, but this restriction could reduce potential ridership and make any extension not meet productivity (ridership) or financial targets.

Lastly and related to the above, the origin points of ridership in Malton are spread out with riders using Westwood as a transfer location to and from other MiWay or Brampton services. Unless they lived right near Westwood or along the short stretch of Morning Star to Humberwood they would still be forced to pay two fares for their trip. It wouldn't matter if people connect to MiWay/Brampton Transit from the 36/Finch LRT at Humber College (a connection that already exists) or a hypothetical TTC 36 extension to Westwood, the vast majority would require another fare to continue their trip and given this I agree with other posters that proper fare integration is a better way to solve this issue rather than more duplication of existing service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...