Jump to content

MiWay


Orion VIII
 Share

Recommended Posts

The plan closure of Hurontario plan for Thanksgiving weekend will not take place as plan. The box itself and other things are not ready for the move and will/could take place either in Oct or Nov.

The box will be for the new northbound lanes for the QEW and it will require the closing of the QEW to put the box in. The LRT will use the current lanes. Traffic will use the on/off ramps to get around the closure that it will cause a few miles of traffic backup to place the box. It is wider than the existing bridge to allow another lane of traffic mostly for the new bridge over the Credit River.

MTO is calling the shots, but currently under review that will see Hurontario close at the Queensway, the Lakeshore and the South service Rd at Hurontario as well a 2nd one south of the Service Rd.

Route 2 will use the Queensway, Cawthra and the Lakeshore to/from Port Credit GO Station with unknown date at this time.

Work on the other box at PC is to start again in Oct with GO using buses in place of rail on weekends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how training vehicles are selected? Is there a pool of them that they have or are they regular service busses that are pulled for training occasionally? I saw 2154 on a training run yesterday and that got me thinking of why they're using such a new bus instead of using something older, like the 10XX D60LFRs they still have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orion_II said:

Does anyone know how training vehicles are selected? Is there a pool of them that they have or are they regular service busses that are pulled for training occasionally? I saw 2154 on a training run yesterday and that got me thinking of why they're using such a new bus instead of using something older, like the 10XX D60LFRs they still have.

MiWay doesn't have a dedicated fleet for training buses, so whatever vehicles are available after every service run has been assigned can be used for training.

As well, all drivers will need to be familiar/qualified on all bus types; this means training needs to be held on all types (New Flyer, Nova, and Orions; standard and articulated; diesel and hybrids).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 11:44 AM, Articulated said:

MiWay doesn't have a dedicated fleet for training buses, so whatever vehicles are available after every service run has been assigned can be used for training.

As well, all drivers will need to be familiar/qualified on all bus types; this means training needs to be held on all types (New Flyer, Nova, and Orions; standard and articulated; diesel and hybrids).

Yup, I still remembered when drivers were being trained on Novas back in 2017-18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, transitfan100 said:

Yup, I still remembered when drivers were being trained on Novas back in 2017-18

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? For the last 17 years proceeding the Nova orders, Miway was firmly in the NFI camp, with a couple of token orders to El Dorado and OBI here and there. 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 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? For the last 17 years proceeding the Nova orders, Miway was firmly in the NFI camp, with a couple of token orders to El Dorado and OBI here and there. 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?

Keep in mind, if NFI thought Mississauga was 'in the bag' and never felt competition, their bid price would likely be higher. Knowing that MiWay will not hesitate to award a bid to a competitor keeps bidders honest and not complacent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Her Majesty the Queen

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

p3550775830-4.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

p3550775830-4.jpg

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

filestream.ashx?DocumentId=1440

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

filestream.ashx?DocumentId=1440

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

NOTABLE-00230.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...