miWay Transit

[drum118]

I don't see the problem, really. How many commuters on MiWay are headed to the office buildings at Islington and Bloor?

Compare that to the number of YRT commuters forced to pay a double fare to go to York University, or walk a longer distance.

It been stated over 500 riders need to get to Islington not related to transit needs. It has also been stated and shown on a plan for the New TTC Islington station and platforms, provision for a miWay bus in is there as well talk of x route doing it. One only has to go to the bus shelter on Bloor St, west of the bus terminal to see how many riders are getting on miWay. Stand on the south platform and watch riders walk-in off the street to catch a miWay bus and not just one route.

Once again, got to hand it to Mississauga Council, miWay planners, schedulers and the power be how to screw up service let alone how to build a transit system that meets everyone needs, not a few with this dumb plan and service level for the busies bus route in the system.

The change on Feb 28, 2000 started my 20 years of being a transit advocate as well Urban when service which was every 6 minutes south of Sq One and 18 minutes north of it was change. Service became every 11-13 minutes using artic's buses for the whole route to the point it made no different if it was south of Sq One or north of it, you had to wait up to 45 minutes for a bus show up that show up in a convoy of 3-5 buses following the leader and try to get on one of them. Miss a number of appointments to the point I started to go before council since I wasn't getting answer from Mississauga Transit of the problem then. What I thought was a simple complain turn out to be the tip of an ice berg and a lot of problems system wide and sadly still is.

Over the years, have made some changes, but not the one that are long over due starting with the model split. Since I started tracking numbers over the years, the model split has gone from 10% to 13% and no where it should be today at 30% heading for 50% by 2040. Could be light on the 13% since I very rarely ride Zum to see what those numbers are since it taken over service from miWay for some years, but less than 16% and this includes GO Transit. Only looking at 20-30% for model split for 2040, if that.

These new service levels are close to where I thought it would be for the LRT come 2024, but unless artic's are being used 100% for this change, crush loads 7 days a week and will never meet the 2 meter distance for rider today due to COVID-19 Virus.

The city talks the talks for transit since 2005, but fail to backup the talk by providing low density in place of higher density and lack of funding, considering the transit cost eats up 22% of the tax bill in the first place.

When it came time to replace the artic's for 19, someone got the idea to buy 53 40's in place of the artic's and that been a mess since then. Those 40's buses where due to be replace in 2018, but will not be replace until 2021/22 with over 100 buses been order then to replace them as well other buses due for replacement.

As a supporter of LRT for Hurontario as well in other locations, quality of service is going back to the 70's and before my time using transit and what takes place in the US today.

I have notice for the past 2 weeks, white local buses are used on 109 in place of express buses that are normally use on it 7 days a week. Seen the odd blue express ones, but mostly local buses with the odd orange NovaBus.

The last 5 year service plan was a failure in most cases, and expect to see the same for the next 5 year plan.

 

[Wm Perkins Bull]

Will Mississauga have enough buses, to allow the LRT to be properly tested for a decent length of time (looks at Ottawa)?

 

[drum118]

Will Mississauga have enough buses, to allow the LRT to be properly tested for a decent length of time (looks at Ottawa)?

That a good question since close to 250 buses are due for replacement by 2024. Service is to remain as is on Hurontario until the LRT line goes into service, but you never know what will happen by 2024 and cost cutting council. Some local buses will remain on Hurontario with others beefing up other routes. 103 will be kill off and those buses will either replace buses due for replacing or beef up routes, but will need artic's for 107 and 109 almost 100% by then. Some could go to 100 and other express routes needing 40's only.

Brampton 502 will be cut back to Steeles and will require less buses for it. If Brampton still runs 502 to Sq One, defeat the need of an LRT until it gets built to the GO Station.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Brampton 502 will be cut back to Steeles and will require less buses for it. If Brampton still runs 502 to Sq One, defeat the need of an LRT until it gets built to the GO Station.

Given Brampton Transit's obstinacy for running the 501A all the way to York U instead of terminating it at 407 station, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept running the 502 to Square One.

 

[johntauren]

Given Brampton Transit's obstinacy for running the 501A all the way to York U instead of terminating it at 407 station, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept running the 502 to Square One.

I doubt that.

501A/C still run all the way to York because there has yet to be any fare relief for those heading to York, (under normal circumstances, I would assume that is most riders end point) which is now a double fair for YRT. Students will not be happy if they change that now, after keeping it for some time after the extension opened.
Heck, even the GO co-fare with TTC ends today. (But who knows what'll happen later this year when the covid crisis is over)

With fare integrated between Brampton and MiWay, there is a much better argument for cutting 502 at Steeles.(on the very strong assumption that the LRT is the same fare as MiWay)

 

[Wm Perkins Bull]

Given Brampton Transit's obstinacy for running the 501A all the way to York U instead of terminating it at 407 station, I wouldn't be surprised if they kept running the 502 to Square One.

It is not going to continue to Square One, I've talked to people at BT and confirmed this. If it did do that, then it would do severe damage to potential LRT ridership north of Square One.

 

[buschic]

In December I received MiWay's data from the Automated Passenger Counters (APCs) installed on the buses, covering 2018 and 2019. This allowed me a much deeper insight into MiWay's ridership.

I'm currently putting together some of the data and given the questions surrounding the transitway decided to put together a series of graphs showing a deeper insight into ridership. MiWay stated that transitway ridership in 2019 was 5.1 million boardings. This figure includes ridership of 3 routes - 100 Airport Express, 107 Malton Express and 109 Meadowvale Express. It is these 3 routes that will be the focus of the graphs as hey are the main routes using the transitway as well as the routes used to calculate MiWay's transitway ridership. Route 110 and GO ridership are not included.

Given the MiWay route network design, the vast majority of those boardings benefited from the transitway infrastructure

The APCs on MiWay buses collect ridership data for each trip operated and will have data for total boardings during that trip. The APCs are calibrated for accuracy and data collected from each trip must meet narrow criteria for accuracy otherwise the dataset is discarded.

To create the weekday graphs, I used data for all trips operated on weekdays between October 28-November 6, 2019. For a few trips, it was necessary to go outside that range to get a representative data sample. The boarding counts for each trip during that range were averaged to create a 'average daily boardings' figure for each trip which is the basis of the graph. The intent was to show transitway ridership on a average weekday. Each trip on the weekday graph is colour coded based on the service period it operates in as listed on the graph.

The Saturday and Sunday graphs were created using the same method except data for weekend ridership was calculated using all Saturday and Sunday trips operated in September and October 2019.

With that said, onto the ridership graphs for the 100, 107 and 109

109 MEADOWVALE EXPRESS - 10,619 Weekday Boardings
The 109 has 8 minute service during rush hour and 12 minute service during the midday. Evening service is approximately every 15 minutes.

It is the busiest of the 3 main routes serving the transitway with very strong ridership in the peak periods with several trips consistently recording over 100 boardings.

View attachment 230365View attachment 230366

107 MALTON EXPRESS - 8,598 Weekday Boardings
Like the 109, the 107 has 8 minute service during rush hour and 12 minute service during the midday. Evening service is approximately every 15-20 minutes.

While ridership is not as high as on the 109, there is a much more even distribution of boardings, likely due to the spread out nature of student ridership to/from Humber.

View attachment 230363View attachment 230364

100 AIRPORT EXPRESS - 2,223 Weekday Boardings
The 100 operates every 15 minutes all day on weekdays and is the newest of the 3 routes, introduced in October 2018.

While it does not have the ridership levels of the 107 and 109, it does provide much needed additional capacity on the transitway especially during rush hour when overcrowding is a chronic issue.

View attachment 230361View attachment 230362

109 MEADOWVALE EXPRESS - Weekend Boardings
109 Saturday Boardings - 4,005
109 Sunday Boardings - 2,942

Route 109's weekend frequency during September and October 2019 was 23 minutes all day. Effective the October 29 service changes route 109's Saturday midday frequency was improved to 15 minutes, and Sunday midday frequency was improved to 17 minutes.

View attachment 230373View attachment 230371 View attachment 230374View attachment 230372

107 MALTON EXPRESS - Weekend Boardings
107 Saturday Boardings - 2,407
107 Sunday Boardings - 1,836

View attachment 230367View attachment 230369 View attachment 230368View attachment 230370

Some additional things to point out with the data. It is once again important to emphasize when talking about the transitway as a corridor, we are referring to routes 100, 107, and 109 as this is what MiWay bases their transitway ridership figure on. It does not include route 110 or GO Transit services. If those ridership figures were also included, the transitway ridership figure would be even higher.

1. Based on the APC data compiled, the transitway as a corridor (100/107/109) had over 20,000 boardings on a average weekday (21,440 boardings). This figure would put the transitway in the top 3 of transit corridors in Mississauga behind Hurontario (19/103/502) and Dundas (1/101).
2. Considered as standalone routes, the 107's and 109's weekday boarding counts would place them easily in the top 5 of weekday routes in terms of boardings.
3. Using the APC data to calculate total annual ridership using the total service days and factoring in month to month variance based on MiWay's annual ridership figures, the transitway as a corridor (100/107/109) had ridership between 5.3 and 5.5 million boardings in 2019. Given the MiWay route network design, the vast majority of those boardings benefited from the transitway infrastructure.
4. MiWay stated that annual transitway ridership in 2019 was 5.1 million. I have no doubt that transitway ridership is actually higher than what the city has been stating and this is borne out in the APC data as well as my own personal observations. It appears MiWay up until now used the ridership data based on manual on board counts on buses, which can be hard to obtain accurately especially on crushloaded buses.
5. The transitway is a corridor where ridership can be expected to continue growing in the future. Ridership growth has been consistently high year over year - off peak and weekend ridership continues to show strong growth as well.
6. Integration of the MiWay route network with the transitway has been a very slow proccess, as more routes get realigned or added to serve the transitway stations directly this will provide another opportunity for ridership increases. Better frequency on come N/S corridors connecting to the transitway will also help.
7. Anyone who rides the transitway, especially during rush hours is well aware of the overcrowding even with the very high frequencies. Thankfully, MiWay has finally ordered more articulated buses for use on the transitway with 11 60' articulated buses to be placed into service this fall. This will help provide much needed additional capacity, although it would have been useful 2 years ago!

That sums up my post. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about the data I've laid out.

I will tell you, as a user of the Transitway on almost a daily basis, it's nuts, I use the 107 into Malton, & the 109, into TTC (Aukland road & Dundas)

The one thing that drives me nuts, is not deep late night Service, honestly MiWay could really take advantage of the Transitway to make some basic overnight service available, especially to shift workers.

They claim to have overnight service, but it still SUCKS, you need early morning Sunday service, I work at sq 1, we often have early morning Sunday events & meetings (8am starts) I have to take a GO bus, & it gets me there at 7:05am.

TRANSHELP is useless at best & far too restrictive & blind ppl don't use it, as our cnib cards aren't recognized as fare.
No Presto fares.
Only Prepaid account, is allowed.

I also use it for getting to square 1, for work, it's far faster than the 26 or 76, ( I am between the Transitway & Burnhamthorpe on Dixie)

I also have to say that the upkeep of the elevators is at times good, but in many ways absolutely deplorable.

I'm on the city Accessibility Committee, we get very little input to MiWay.
I have lived near the Transitway for almost 2yrs, it's been awesome.

 

[buschic]

MiWay's April 27 service changes will see the 19 and it's branches cancelled completely and replaced by 2 new routes, route 2 south of City Centre and route 17 north of City Centre.

The Hurontario corridor changes are in response to the LRT construction. Frequencies for routes 2 and 17 are not far off from what is currently offered on the 19 outside of peak periods, however the Saturday service is going to be a issue going from 8 minutes currently to 15-17 minutes on the 2 and 17.

Eliminating the branches of route 19 will allow for better vehicle loading as currently the 19 does get busier than the 19A/19B/19C, as it serves some busy stops south of the Queensway.

Route 2 frequency
Weekday 18-20 minutes early AM; 9-10 minutes AM peak, Midday, PM peak; 15 minutes evening; 20 minutes overnight.
Saturday 20 minutes early AM; 15-17 minutes midday; 15 minutes evening; 30 minutes late evening.
Sunday 20 minutes early AM; 15 minutes midday; 16-18 minutes evening; 30 minutes late evening.

Route 17 Frequency
Weekday 18-20 minutes early AM; 10 minutes AM peak, Midday, PM peak; 15 minutes evening; 18 minutes overnight.
Saturday 20 minutes early AM; 15-17 minutes midday; 28-30 minutes late evening.
Sunday 18-20 minutes early AM, 15-17 minutes midday; 28-30 minutes late evening.

Other changes
Route 25 will be expanded to cover the industrial area currently served by route 19B. It will have a revised routing with 2 buses and run every 13 minutes during peak periods. Connections to route 103 will be made at Hurontario and Milverton.
Route 103 will have another stop at Hurontario and Milverton in both directions to connect with route 25.
Route 104 (Derry Express) will have weekday midday service added with 20 minute service using 5 buses.
Route 107 will now serve Humber all year round instead of getting cut back to Westwood during the spring/summer months.

The service into Trillium hospital is being cut?

You can't rely on the other route, it takes so darn long & gets nuts with strollers & ppl with disabilities are frequently bypassed during rush hour.

19 has always been the more direct route into the hospital & area medical offices.

 

[buschic]

It is not going to continue to Square One, I've talked to people at BT and confirmed this. If it did do that, then it would do severe damage to potential LRT ridership north of Square One.

It's going to be a gong show at best, the 502 stop at SQ1, already is a mess, screws over MiWay passengers on the 76, 20 & 26 (weekends) , many buses are missed, ppl who are blind don't know where to stand, nor do elderly or physically disabled ppl.
The drivers of the ZUM, hog the platform, don't wait till their appointed time to get into stop, instead they SIT, for their entire dwell times, completely screwing the other bus routes there.

I'm all in for ZUM, to get the heck out of there, but until the LRT is done, the connection between the routes at SQ1 & ZUM, is going to be a mess.

 

[drum118]

The service into Trillium hospital is being cut?

You can't rely on the other route, it takes so darn long & gets nuts with strollers & ppl with disabilities are frequently bypassed during rush hour.

19 has always been the more direct route into the hospital & area medical offices.

19 only went to the hospital when service was cut back going to Port Credit due to the lack of ridership south of the Queenway. One reason for the 19A & B which was a wasted from day one as it would have been better to have a loop route feeding 19 and 103.

It been clear to me since 2000 that everyone related to transit planning, scheduling and funding have no idea how people need to move around the city and still so today. It been stated that move riders are coming into Mississauga from Toronto than going to it and why the Transitway is a game changer. I said in my 2004 EA opposition to the Transitway, that it should be LRT from day one based on ridership number projection, but those number cover all GO Transit service across the GTHA, with Mississauga numbers even lower after the EA close. The cost was to to $180 million to build it, but cost close to $500 million after all the cut back for the line and close to my $400 million projected cost.

As for stroller and disabilities, I agree to a point, but very rarely a disabilities person are left at a stop for the next bus. Getting people to put strollers in the accessibility area took a long time since I pointed it out starting in 2003, and still an issues today when there is more than one on the bus or the young rider refused to vacate the seat to allow the seat to be folded up. Then the stroller rider will not fold up the seat as they want to sit than stand. This issue applies to all systems, not just Mississauga.

Quality of service is lacking system wide and other than a few routes, no service should be a max of 30 minutes 7 days a week with Trunk line seeing max 15 minutes 7 days a week or under 10 minutes for the highest ridership routes like 19, 1, 26 and 3.

Sq One is still the centre of the universe for transit and riders are forced to go there when they could easy bypass the terminal by proper route planning and saving 15 minutes each way. I use the 103 and save that time when I want to bypass the terminal. The LRT is going to add more travel time when it goes into service for everyone, more so when you have to change cars to do your full trip on Hurontario.

A good example of route failure is the 110 south of UoTM, where there are hardly anyone on it in the first place. I warn council before the route when into service to expect a huge operation lost for that section and it bear that out today. The 100 is a failure so far.

Some routes have change due NIMBY folks, since council doesn't have the backbone to say go away since they vote for car supporting councilors who are long in the tooth and being on council in the first place.

Lack of through road from end to end for the city plan a large part how transit can work as well for traffic.

 

[MiExpress]

Over the past little while, I've been working on digitizing Mississauga Transit material to archive online for viewing. This effort led to http://mississaugatransithistory.ca which is now online.

Included on the website are old Mississauga Transit system maps, schedules and frequency guides, service change announcements as well as various council and committee reports related to Mississauga Transit from its beginnings in the early 1970s to present.

Of course this is just the beginning - there will be much more material to be published over the coming months that will provide a even more complete look into Mississauga's Transit history. The website is pretty bare bones to start as it is meant as a archive for material, but that will evolve over time.

Feel free to take a look and if there's anything you feel should be added to the site or have something to contribute, reach out to me via message or using the email listed on the site.

 

[doady]

Seriously, Drum, I think you complain way too much about the service. The 50% cost recovery ratio of Mississauga is very typical. It suggests typical service level relative to the ridership. The ridership per capita has increased from 40 to 53 in the past 15 years. That is 32% increase. With 53 riders per capita, Mississauga is now higher than Hamilton and approaching Winnipeg and Quebec City. There is a lot that needs to be done, but to deny all of the progress that has been made is ridiculous.

19A and 19B should have looped around Sherobee, not the hospital. The drop off in ridership is at North Service, not Queensway.

110 should be cut south of UTM and 48 restored south of South Common.

Living along Britannia, I saw the massive increase in ridership of the 39 last year. 25 minute rush hour frequency, with articulated buses, and still closed doors ("Sorry, bus full"). It is clear that ridership has little to do frequency. From what I've seen, 40-45 minutes is bare minimum to allow for ridership growth. 61 Mavis was 35 minutes for many years until the ridership forced them increase to the current 15-20 minutes.

The idea of amount of riders being based on the frequencies or the km of rail are such common misconceptions. The frequencies and the amount of rail are based on the amount of riders, not the other way around.

Look at the York Region. Look the massive increase in service that VIVA gave to multiple corridors. It didn't do shit. Ridership per capita in York Region has not improved in the past 15 years.

The mistake that York Region made is the same as you made: assuming that ridership is based on the amount of service. Now they recently are forced to make major cuts to non-VIVA service because that ridership never materialized.

The actual problem with transit in York Region is the service gaps, namely the lack of service along Steeles. Minimizing walking distances, THAT is the key to successful transit. That means routes closer together (no arterials missing service, arterials closer together), higher densities, and fewer pedestrian barriers (more TOD). Increasing frequencies, like rail expansion, does almost nothing to improve ridership.

The important thing is having a complete grid. Without Steeles, YRT's grid is not complete. York Region's second busiest corridor and it is not part of their transit system. MiWay's grid was not complete either until 39 was extended past Kennedy to Renforth, and the ridership exploded with the extension, the completion of the grid. Maybe the grid is still not complete without 48 to Clarkson GO.

 

[Haydenpoon]

The idea of amount of riders being based on the frequencies or the km of rail are such common misconceptions. The frequencies and the amount of rail are based on the amount of riders, not the other way around.

Look at the York Region. Look the massive increase in service that VIVA gave to multiple corridors. It didn't do shit. Ridership per capita in York Region has not improved in the past 15 years.

The mistake that York Region made is the same as you made: assuming that ridership is based on the amount of service. Now they recently are forced to make major cuts to non-VIVA service because that ridership never materialized.

The actual problem with transit in York Region is the service gaps, namely the lack of service along Steeles. Minimizing walking distances, THAT is the key to successful transit. That means routes closer together (no arterials missing service, arterials closer together), higher densities, and fewer pedestrian barriers (more TOD). Increasing frequencies, like rail expansion, does almost nothing to improve ridership.

The important thing is having a complete grid. Without Steeles, YRT's grid is not complete. York Region's second busiest corridor and it is not part of their transit system. MiWay's grid was not complete either until 39 was extended past Kennedy to Renforth, and the ridership exploded with the extension, the completion of the grid. Maybe the grid is still not complete without 48 to Clarkson GO.

I am from York Region. Frequencies are needed to minimize transfer time. No one wants to miss the second bus, because the first bus is late, and wait for 40 mins at the bus stop.

Also, I have no problem with the lack of YRT Steele's service, I will only want to take YRT on Steeles if my trip origin and destination are both on Steeles and I have a YRT monthly pass. Otherwise, I will travel east-west on Highway 7, then go south to Steeles.

 

[Haydenpoon]

Living along Britannia, I saw the massive increase in ridership of the 39 last year. 25 minute rush hour frequency, with articulated buses, and still closed doors ("Sorry, bus full"). It is clear that ridership has little to do frequency. From what I've seen, 40-45 minutes is bare minimum to allow for ridership growth. 61 Mavis was 35 minutes for many years until the ridership forced them increase to the current 15-20 minutes.

There are different reasons why the bus is full. Miway route 39 travel mostly through employment areas in the east and workers have predictable travel patterns so they can time their work with the bus schedule. Also, the demography of a city affects its frequency vs coverage problem. It all depends on what citizens value.

 

[doady]

I am from York Region. Frequencies are needed to minimize transfer time. No one wants to miss the second bus, because the first bus is late, and wait for 40 mins at the bus stop.

Also, I have no problem with the lack of YRT Steele's service, I will only want to take YRT on Steeles if my trip origin and destination are both on Steeles and I have a YRT monthly pass. Otherwise, I will travel east-west on Highway 7, then go south to Steeles.

Minimizing transfer times means one transfer maximum. One north-south route and one east-west route, and no more. And that means having a complete grid.

Vaughan has 4 continuous east-west corridors: Major Mackenzie, Rutherford, Highway 7, Steeles. And Steeles has no YRT service. That means Highway 7 is the only continuous east-west YRT corridor south of Rutherford. That is not a complete grid. You can increase the frequencies of the north-south routes as much as you want, it won't mean much unless there is more than one east-west route south of Rutherford to connect to.

Compare that to Brampton: Sandalwood, Bovaird, Williams, Queen, Steeles. That's 5 corridors, and they all have service. That's three east-west routes south of Bovaird/Castlemore/Rutherford instead of just one. That is a complete grid. That is why Brampton has 2 times the ridership per capita of York Region.

York Region has 1.5 times the population of Mississauga but its system has half the ridership. It is not the model for successful transit, sorry. There is no evidence that York Region's strategy of prioritizing higher frequencies has worked better than Mississauga's strategy of focusing on better coverage. York Region was already way behind Mississauga before VIVA and it has only fallen further behind with VIVA. York Region Transit is simply an incomplete system. Mississauga was already a more complete system. WIth the extension of 39 Britannia to Renforth, extension of 20 Rathburn to Erindale GO, rerouting 10 Bristol to Kennedy, rerouting 9 to provide full service along Thomas, the introduction of 35 Eglinton, 57 Courtneypark and 109 Meadowvale Express, the removal of 26 Burnhamthorpe from CCTT, it has become even more complete than York.

There are still things they need to do, like combining 28 and 66, full service along Cawthra, 26 to Winston Churchill, but at least they clearly recognize the problem with not having a complete grid. York doesn't care at all. It's still all about frequencies and BRTs and subways, and that's why the ridership will continue will never grow there.