Jump to content

MiWay


Orion VIII

Recommended Posts

If I'm not mistaken, the majority of the 2017 LFS' are here, if not completely delivered, as they are double parked around the back and at the front. Same goes for the LFSAs. I noticed that one unit already has an advertisement on the back.

Only a matter of time before we see the 18s. 

Quirky feature I noticed about delivery: The pointer flags don't come installed from the factory. Why is this?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MiWay0310 said:

So if I'm not mistaken, today would mark the first time Novas are out on the weekend.

I've also learned that ops will not be trained on the 60's, since training on the 40's will be enough. 

Nope. They've been out previously on weekends.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TransferCutter said:

1735 already has advertising on it. First time I’ve seen it on a unit so quickly after delivery. 

E4F66EF1-1CE1-4365-A0DB-D8E809EA1FB5.jpeg

F53EB96A-B3AF-4471-806B-02456164B416.jpeg

Yeah, I posted a few pics in the delivery thread, and 1779 already had one an insurance ad. 

640e0ff0-e839-4300-ad57-28129a0efcfd.JPG

Curious to see how the ads on the Nova skirts will fare compared to the 11s, since I heard the removal of them caused a bit of damage to the paint on the skirts. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doppelkupplung said:

Quick question: How come the 110 S leaving CCTT doesn't go straight to Hurontario and get on to the 403 from there? Doesn't it take more time to go down Centerview Drive and wait for the lights/traffic at Mavis? Compared to Hurontario where you only deal with 2, as opposed to 4. 

I'm pretty sure the bus bypass lanes start just around Mavis... which would be why they go to Mavis versus Hurontario.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 110 did use Hurontario to go to the 403 westbound before ever using the bus turn right-of-way at Mavis. It was the old routing.

Been wanting to take a stab at the route rearranging around Erin Mills/UTM/Clarkson GO:
Have the 13 no longer serve Clarkson; instead, operate between South Common and Meadowvale TC and/or Erin Mills with its current northern routing north of South Common. Those whom are more familiar with this can comment.
The 48 to extend south of South Common and stay on Erin Mills without deviating into Sheridan Centre. (Maybe a 48A could do that, perhaps)? while it would go down to Clarkson GO. Erin Mills TC to Clarkson GO via South Common and Erin Mills Transitway Station.
The 29 could take over from what the 13 would leave behind south of South Common, including serving Sheridan Centre as well as Truscott Drive into Clarkson GO and its southern routing south of Southdown Road.
Would this suffice?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, newflyerinvero said:

The 48 to extend south of South Common and stay on Erin Mills without deviating into Sheridan Centre. (Maybe a 48A could do that, perhaps)? while it would go down to Clarkson GO. Erin Mills TC to Clarkson GO via South Common and Erin Mills Transitway Station.

That doesn't sound too bad; though MiWay is pretty desperate to get any and every local bus to go through that bus terminal at Sheridan Mall. Its too small of a deviation to make another branch of the 48. The buses don't really serve the mall, it is a dud; rather, they serve the apartment complexes around the mall. Personally, I think all local routes SB (13, 29) should stay on Erin Mills, the 71 could stay at Sheridan (or be rerouted), because the walking distances from those apartments to the bus stops on Erin Mills is roughly the same distance, if not shorter in some cases. However, this follows MiWay's passion for neighborhood tours, so they must go around Lincoln Green Way/Fowler Dr.  

15 hours ago, newflyerinvero said:

The 29 could take over from what the 13 would leave behind south of South Common, including serving Sheridan Centre as well as Truscott Drive into Clarkson GO and its southern routing south of Southdown Road.

Perhaps, but I think it'd be best to make a branch of the 29 that skips the deviation into the Truscott area, and just goes straight to Clarkson. It would help the frequency of the 48, 110, especially in the morning/evening, when people are trying to get to school/GO station, rather than see what the Truscott area looks like. 

More importantly, if the 29 was to replace the 13 south of S. Common, what would serve its existing routing?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2018 at 11:02 PM, newflyerinvero said:

Been wanting to take a stab at the route rearranging around Erin Mills/UTM/Clarkson GO:

Have the 13 no longer serve Clarkson; instead, operate between South Common and Meadowvale TC and/or Erin Mills with its current northern routing north of South Common. Those whom are more familiar with this can comment.

The 48 to extend south of South Common and stay on Erin Mills without deviating into Sheridan Centre. (Maybe a 48A could do that, perhaps)? while it would go down to Clarkson GO. Erin Mills TC to Clarkson GO via South Common and Erin Mills Transitway Station.

The 29 could take over from what the 13 would leave behind south of South Common, including serving Sheridan Centre as well as Truscott Drive into Clarkson GO and its southern routing south of Southdown Road.

Would this suffice?

I read over your post and I had a different idea. 

  • Have the 45 operate solely from Meadowvale TC to South Common
  • Have a new route operate 45's portion south of Dundas, but instead of turning at Royal Windsor, serve Lakeshore and Southdown, Southdown up to Clarkson, serve 29's part on Inverhouse and Orr.
  • Have 29 now serve Speakman in place of the 45A.
  • (Maybe??) Cut 29 from Erin Mills Transitway... (are there plans to make the station a hub replacing South Common?)

 

On 2/9/2018 at 2:51 PM, Doppelkupplung said:

More importantly, if the 29 was to replace the 13 south of S. Common, what would serve its existing routing?

But why skip the residential areas? The 29 isn't a route like the 45 or 48, it's a local route, not a grid one. It doesn't need to be grid aligned, it needs to serve those twisty windy roads to shuttle people to those grid routes or GO stations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, J. Bullock said:

But why skip the residential areas? The 29 isn't a route like the 45 or 48, it's a local route, not a grid one. It doesn't need to be grid aligned, it needs to serve those twisty windy roads to shuttle people to those grid routes or GO stations.

Yeah, you're right in all honesty. The areas the 29 serves, primarily the section that goes around the Dundas/Woodchester area gets pretty deep in, so access to major streets with transit service is a bit of a walk.

The area I have a problem with is the Truscott/Bromsgrove area. Its surrounded by Winston Churchill and Southdown, two streets that have good bus service. I'm not saying abandon the 29 through there completely; I'm saying make a branch of it that goes through there, say every for other bus, or even play with the branching of trips accordingly in during rush hour times. The walk times, realistically (not google maps) is ~10 minutes to either WC or Southdown. 

To add to that, I would suggest introducing a new branch of the 45, say the 45B, which goes through Truscott Drive, to account for the reduction in 29 service. That way, the bus service through there generally stays the same, the buses aren't making time-consuming detours and people are happy. Additionally, people who live along, or near Bromsgrove can walk to Clarkson GO because there is a path off the street. If they aren't going to Clarkson and are going NB or EB, they have the 29 and 45B to help them out. 

My gripe with the 29 through Truscott is that it takes for ever to get through that area, and adds a good 10 minutes to the trip, because of the stop signs, traffic, as well as this city's infernal traffic light system. Otherwise, its a quick minute from Truscott to Bromsgrove. I'd suggest this for rush hours, for a start. The current routing near Clarkson just unnecessary, that's my opinion. 

10 hours ago, J. Bullock said:

(Maybe??) Cut 29 from Erin Mills Transitway... (are there plans to make the station a hub replacing South Common?)

Where would it go?

As for replacing S.Common, I hope not...that would be horrible. You'd be inconveniencing so many people, and the routing of some buses would get screwed hard. The banks, the Walmart, the NoFrills and the GoodLife Fitness, not to mention the other restaurants have workers and clients who rely on bus service from South Common. 

What would happen to routes like the 1C, the 13, 36, and the 101? Oakville's 24? Where would they terminate? I'm not suggesting you're saying that it should be replaced, I'm just laying out some of the potential consequences of making a change like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doppelkupplung said:

My gripe with the 29 through Truscott is that it takes for ever to get through that area, and adds a good 10 minutes to the trip, because of the stop signs, traffic, as well as this city's infernal traffic light system. Otherwise, its a quick minute from Truscott to Bromsgrove. I'd suggest this for rush hours, for a start. The current routing near Clarkson just unnecessary, that's my opinion. 

 

As for replacing S.Common, I hope not...that would be horrible. You'd be inconveniencing so many people, and the routing of some buses would get screwed hard. The banks, the Walmart, the NoFrills and the GoodLife Fitness, not to mention the other restaurants have workers and clients who rely on bus service from South Common. 

What would happen to routes like the 1C, the 13, 36, and the 101? Oakville's 24? Where would they terminate? I'm suggesting you're saying that it should be replaced, I'm just laying out some of the potential consequences of making a change like that. 

Just because it inconveniences you doesn't mean it inconveniences everyone :P

I know that South Common is a bit of a hub when it comes to retail and commercial services, yes. But I was more referring to putting more priority on Transitway stations to become "transit hubs" where connections from busier express or grid routes to local routes can happen. I wasn't saying totally abandon South Common. As for those routes, i'm thinking that all but the 1,101 could terminate at a Transitway Station instead of at South Common. At this point it's dependant on what "route" they want to take.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, J. Bullock said:

Just because it inconveniences you doesn't mean it inconveniences everyone :P

No no no lol, don't take it the wrong way :lol:. I rarely ever go through there as it is. If I take the GO, its usually through Port Credit. 

I'm just saying that in the grand scheme of things, during rush hour, that detour on the 29 becomes a bit of a time-waster. I think it should serve the Dundas/Woodchester area as is, but when coming down Erin Mills and Southdown, its very likely people just want to get to the GO station. Especially considering that Truscott/Bromsgrove area is a) generally walking distance to Clarkson GO, b ) is served by the 45 on one side and c) the 110, 13, 45A and 29 on the other, it really is an unnecessary detour, but that is my own personal opinion. It defeats the efficiency of the route. I understand it has to serve the neighborhoods, but when people can access it by a 10 min walk, its not that necessary. 

I think during off-peak hours, going through there should be ok. Its just, rush hour is rush hour right? People probably don't want to be faffing around in other neighbourhoods on their way to work. 

Again, my opinion, so say what you will. 

24 minutes ago, J. Bullock said:

I know that South Common is a bit of a hub when it comes to retail and commercial services, yes. But I was more referring to putting more priority on Transitway stations to become "transit hubs" where connections from busier express or grid routes to local routes can happen. I wasn't saying totally abandon South Common. As for those routes, i'm thinking that all but the 1,101 could terminate at a Transitway Station instead of at South Common. At this point it's dependant on what "route" they want to take.

As far as the Transitway goes, does it really have the capacity to accommodate buses like the 29, 13, 36 while they layover? That among heavy GO and MiWay traffic? What will happen with OT 24? Making it go to the EM Stn will make a good 15-20mins of that route in Mississauga. 

I'm going to stay with my original statement regarding South Common. I absolutely agree, the Transitway stations should be hubs, but not to the point where we are abandoning places like South Common. The area around EM station is not as heavily/densely populated as the South Common area. Also consider that not everyone drives in that area, so it's not easy to tell people that they have to wait and take another bus in their commute. That opens up the path to delayed buses, missed connections and so on. 

Even if people were to drive there, does the station even have the parking capacity to handle it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Doppelkupplung said:

As far as the Transitway goes, does it really have the capacity to accommodate buses like the 29, 13, 36 while they layover? That among heavy GO and MiWay traffic? What will happen with OT 24? Making it go to the EM Stn will make a good 15-20mins of that route in Mississauga. 

I'm going to stay with my original statement regarding South Common. I absolutely agree, the Transitway stations should be hubs, but not to the point where we are abandoning places like South Common. The area around EM station is not as heavily/densely populated as the South Common area. Also consider that not everyone drives in that area, so it's not easy to tell people that they have to wait and take another bus in their commute. That opens up the path to delayed buses, missed connections and so on. 

Even if people were to drive there, does the station even have the parking capacity to handle it?

 

I would say that Erin Mills would have the capacity, I mean, the parking lot does have a lot of space, and for both Winston Churchill and Erin Mills, they have the opportunity to expand westwards anyways. Parking could be solved with a parking structure similar to the ones at GO Stations if need be.

24 could terminate at Winston Churchill using Ridgeway to get up to the station, i'm pretty sure that would save time. (Assuming an access road was built from Ridgeway to the station, if not the 24 could still use Winston Churchill.

I am not saying completely abandon South Common. I'm just saying that instead of having it be a major terminal point where buses layover, have it be an intermediate stop along the route. South Common has no room to expand if demand gets any higher, where as the Transitway stations were built with that in mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, J. Bullock said:

I would say that Erin Mills would have the capacity, I mean, the parking lot does have a lot of space, and for both Winston Churchill and Erin Mills, they have the opportunity to expand westwards anyways. Parking could be solved with a parking structure similar to the ones at GO Stations if need be.

You could make it have the capacity; that is certainly possible. But where will these extra bus bays go? Are you suggesting they go beyond the roundabout, or there be a path for the buses, parallel to the current platforms, making the WB platform an island?

20 minutes ago, J. Bullock said:

24 could terminate at Winston Churchill using Ridgeway to get up to the station, i'm pretty sure that would save time. (Assuming an access road was built from Ridgeway to the station, if not the 24 could still use Winston Churchill.

I think it'd be best if it stayed on Winston Churchill all the way up to the station. To be honest though, I'd be on the bridge for that routing. Ridgeway up, Churchill down, doesn't matter. Bu they're likely to get more pax traffic on WC. And I'm not sure the city would be willing to pay for an access road to WC that's used by one bus.

Also, moving it to Winston Churchill removes the vital connection to Oakville that people around South Common had. Asking them to catch another bus to make their Oakville connection that runs every 20-30 mins isn't going to fly well with too many people. 

25 minutes ago, J. Bullock said:

I am not saying completely abandon South Common. I'm just saying that instead of having it be a major terminal point where buses layover, have it be an intermediate stop along the route. South Common has no room to expand if demand gets any higher, where as the Transitway stations were built with that in mind.

Eeeehh, I still respectfully disagree here. You're asking too many people to complicate their commute more, with no guarantee it'll still be efficient, or better. You're forgetting that alot of people work at South Common, and also commute through there. If they're finishing up the night shift, they'll have to catch that bus that'll take them to Erin Mills. 

Despite its significant improvements over the past few years, I personally still don't trust MiWay when it comes to making connections. The situation I listed above is only showing a very small portion of the people who'd be affected. We haven't mentioned normal commutes, as well as the significant number of people who don't have access to a car and other groups of people who just rely on taking the bus from South Common. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2018 at 10:30 PM, J. Bullock said:

I am not saying completely abandon South Common. I'm just saying that instead of having it be a major terminal point where buses layover, have it be an intermediate stop along the route. South Common has no room to expand if demand gets any higher, where as the Transitway stations were built with that in mind.

I forgot to mention something since we were talking about South Common. The city reaaallly needs to do something about those massive potholes at the south entrance to the bus terminal. I wouldn't be surprised if that photo I snapped a few weeks ago of the 08 having its tire replaced was something to do with those monstrosities. I'll get a pic next time I get a chance.

Its like getting a little taste of Montreal while on the commute...and especially today, when all the melted snow is creating puddles that hide them. 

_________________________________________________________

Does anyone know if the side desto boards are capable of stacked displays?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Transit geek said:

From the looks of this image, no. I think only the Luminator Titans or Luminator Spectrums have a high-enough resolution for that, not the standard Luminator Horizons.

Unless they changed it, the Spectrum has the same resolution as a Horizon, and it is perfectly capable of stacking lines of text.

 

Dan

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, smallspy said:

Unless they changed it, the Spectrum has the same resolution as a Horizon, and it is perfectly capable of stacking lines of text.

https://www.ltgglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/SMT-12-16.pdf

When it comes to side signs, the 16x120 signs are classified as Titan, while the almost-similar 14x112 signs are considered Horizon when compared with the 8x96 Horizon sign I see in the image. But from my perspective, I have not see stacked text on a side sign anywhere on a GTA transit vehicle besides YRT's TwinVision signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Transit geek said:

https://www.ltgglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/SMT-12-16.pdf

When it comes to side signs, the 16x120 signs are classified as Titan, while the almost-similar 14x112 signs are considered Horizon when compared with the 8x96 Horizon sign I see in the image. But from my perspective, I have not see stacked text on a side sign anywhere on a GTA transit vehicle besides YRT's TwinVision signs.

Signs come in many different sizes. Most front signs are at least 16 pixels tall, which allow for two lines of text. Many side signs are only 7 or 8 pixels tall, which means you can only have one line of text.

YRT has specified larger size side signs when they ordered their buses from 2009-2011 and 2015 onward. Not much stopping other agencies from doing the same.

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...