Mississauga Mississauga Transitway | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | IBI Group

Transitway isn't complete yet so 107 and 109 not as fast as they could be. GO also still hasn't reroute its buses onto the transitway yet (although they will stop only at Dixie and Renforth stations anyway).

There are also lots of major gaps in service that MT needed to fix even before the transitway let alone after. I would like to see a new Cawthra bus from Lakeshore to Eastgate, for example. And 53 Kennedy to Mississauga Valleys, with some actual weekend service.

Central Parkway Station has no bus connection from south, and none from any direction on weekends. Cawthra has nothing at all. If people can't get to the stations, they probably aren't going to use them.
 
doady said:
Transitway isn't complete yet so 107 and 109 not as fast as they could be. GO also still hasn't reroute its buses onto the transitway yet (although they will stop only at Dixie and Renforth stations anyway).

There are also lots of major gaps in service that MT needed to fix even before the transitway let alone after. I would like to see a new Cawthra bus from Lakeshore to Eastgate, for example. And 53 Kennedy to Mississauga Valleys, with some actual weekend service.

Central Parkway Station has no bus connection from south, and none from any direction on weekends. Cawthra has nothing at all. If people can't get to the stations, they probably aren't going to use them.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking this for years, perhaps the 8 Cawthra should serve this route from Lakeshore to Eastgate/Cawthra Station and let those who use the 8's current route in the valleys take the proposed route that you mentioned from the Central Parkway station. To further back up doady's point, I think every station should have ATLEAST one connecting bus route because where we stand today a station like Cawthra is completely useless if you're not carpooling or have parked in the station which in my opinion is a no no.
 
What doady posted where recommended to MT & Council going back 10 years or more by me already.

My recommendation for Cawthra was to run service on it from Lakeshore to Derry Rd using 410 to Courtney Park and then by Kennedy Rd to Steeles. It would service the BRT station.

Ridership will be poor outside of peak time.

Max headway "SHOULD" be "30 MINUTE, 7 DAYS A WEEK" with "Service" being "7 DAYS A WEEK." A few routes will be more than 30 minutes as well only 5 days a week. Trunk Lines "SHOULD BE 15 Minutes MAX, 7 Days A WEEK."

There needs to be full service on Kennedy from Hurontario & Central Parkway to Steeles 7 days a week to service the sports complexes.

Most of 8 riders are west of Cawthra, not on it or from the schools.

With the 38 being cut at Mavis, it brings back another recommendation and that having a 38B that runs to Islington by Bloor St and bypass the jog north of Britannia Rd 7 days a week on a 30 minute schedule.

Also running a 61C (new number) from Derry Rd to Cooksville Station by Dundas 7 days a week every 30- minutes. This allows riders to use GO as well riders bypass Sq One in the first place to shorten their travel time.
 
Mississauga Transitway will expand by 2 stations come Jan/Feb 2016 when they open and connect to Eglinton Ave at Etoicoke Creek Bridge.

This will save more traveling time for 109 & 21 buses.

No Sunday service until 2017.
 
Last edited:
Transitway Open House

When: June 6

Where: Dixie Station

Time: 10 am to 3 pm

Don't know how often buses will be running from Sq One at this time.
 
Near Etobicoke Creek station, looking west. Deep trench!

tranway1.png


And looking east:

tranway2.png
 

Attachments

  • tranway1.png
    tranway1.png
    881.2 KB · Views: 1,009
  • tranway2.png
    tranway2.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 1,004
Last time I went to Pearson airport, I really wanted to take MiWay to get there, and check out the transitway. But it was a holiday schedule, so of course, there was no 107.

I hope once they have this next section open, they consider running service 7 days a week for this massive piece of infrastructure.
 
doady said:
Is it because of the cost overruns? I hope it doesn't stay that way forever.
Click to expand...
The city is in litigation against the contractor for all the delays that have occurred. I would assume money stopped flowing to the contractor a long time ago and that's why progress has pretty much stopped. Hopefully once it's all settled in court these stations can be finished.
 
Toffy said:
The city is in litigation against the contractor for all the delays that have occurred. I would assume money stopped flowing to the contractor a long time ago and that's why progress has pretty much stopped. Hopefully once it's all settled in court these stations can be finished.
Click to expand...
Doesn't explain why the perform bond hasn't kick in to complete the work by now.

When a contractor is noted in default, the owner looks to the bonding company to get the work done. Depending on the bond and issue, the bonding company hires someone to complete the work at the lowest price. Once completed and the issue is determine as who is at fault, then the legal matters starts. The cost to complete the project is past onto the party at fault. In this case, the city is to pay the bonding the the cost to complete the work still owning to the contractor once the work is finish. If it is the contractor at fault, it must pay the bonding company the difference between what it cost them to complete the work and what it received from the owner. In some cases, it hasn't cost the company anything at all.

If the contractor still exist after this mess, the bonding company will do one of 2 things. It will drop the contractor or it will charge more for the next bond the company needs with strict guide line. It will also reduce the limit on the size of the bond as well.

Given the fact the city noted the contractor in default around Aug 2013, the contractor was still working on it in Dec 2014, one has to wonder what is the city doing by not getting the work finish before now.

There were extra's added to the contract since the city was making changes due to unforeseen issue as well Opp's.

There is the usually 10% hold back that the city holds onto for monthly billing cycle that not release until the project is 100% complete and the one year maintains time frame starts. The hold backs apply to all subs and that is done at the contractor level. Subs must have the performance bonds as well.

A sub as well the contractor must show proof that all workers have been paid as well all material and trades before the final 10% is release, so no liens gets register on the lands of the project after the fact.
 
drum118 said:
Doesn't explain why the perform bond hasn't kick in to complete the work by now.

When a contractor is noted in default, the owner looks to the bonding company to get the work done. Depending on the bond and issue, the bonding company hires someone to complete the work at the lowest price. Once completed and the issue is determine as who is at fault, then the legal matters starts. The cost to complete the project is past onto the party at fault. In this case, the city is to pay the bonding the the cost to complete the work still owning to the contractor once the work is finish. If it is the contractor at fault, it must pay the bonding company the difference between what it cost them to complete the work and what it received from the owner. In some cases, it hasn't cost the company anything at all.

If the contractor still exist after this mess, the bonding company will do one of 2 things. It will drop the contractor or it will charge more for the next bond the company needs with strict guide line. It will also reduce the limit on the size of the bond as well.

Given the fact the city noted the contractor in default around Aug 2013, the contractor was still working on it in Dec 2014, one has to wonder what is the city doing by not getting the work finish before now.

There were extra's added to the contract since the city was making changes due to unforeseen issue as well Opp's.

There is the usually 10% hold back that the city holds onto for monthly billing cycle that not release until the project is 100% complete and the one year maintains time frame starts. The hold backs apply to all subs and that is done at the contractor level. Subs must have the performance bonds as well.

A sub as well the contractor must show proof that all workers have been paid as well all material and trades before the final 10% is release, so no liens gets register on the lands of the project after the fact.
Click to expand...
Just speculation, but given that a lot of the leftover work is metal panel work, one problem could be that even if the bonding company hires a new subcontractor to complete the work of the subcontractor that has failed to perform, they still might need to source and manufacture the panels. Especially if the original subcontractor never produced the panels, or won't turn them over due to the litigation. It could simply be that during the period of Aug 2013 to Dec 2014, the general contractor was hopeful and working with the subcontractor (in the hopes of avoiding litigation), but things completely deteriorated later on in that period. Too late to find a replacement subcontractor in time to meet the schedule.

I actually had a situation like this happen to me quite recently, where the subcontractor brought in was not able to complete all of the uncompleted work due to lead-time delays. There was always stress between the general and the original subcontractor, but things fell apart at the last minute, and it totally messed up the schedule due to not enough time to find a new subcontractor and manufacture material.

I saw workers screwing around with panels at both stations in Fall/Winter 2014. Sure, that's at least 5 months ago, but that's not necessarily enough time if all the likely suppliers have busy manufacturing lines (I can attest that many panel contractors are pretty busy).
 
Last edited:
wopchop said:
Just speculation, but given that a lot of the leftover work is metal panel work, one problem could be that even if the bonding company hires a new subcontractor to complete the work of the subcontractor that has failed to perform, they still might need to source and manufacture the panels. Especially if the original subcontractor never produced the panels, or won't turn them over due to the litigation. It could simply be that during the period of Aug 2013 to Dec 2014, the general contractor was hopeful and working with the subcontractor (in the hopes of avoiding litigation), but things completely deteriorated later on in that period. Too late to find a replacement subcontractor in time to meet the schedule.

I actually had a situation like this happen to me quite recently, where the subcontractor brought in was not able to complete all of the uncompleted work due to lead-time delays. There was always stress between the general and the original subcontractor, but things fell apart at the last minute, and it totally messed up the schedule due to not enough time to find a new subcontractor and manufacture material.

I saw workers screwing around with panels at both stations in Fall/Winter 2014. Sure, that's at least 5 months ago, but that's not necessarily enough time if all the likely suppliers have busy manufacturing lines (I can attest that many panel contractors are pretty busy).
Click to expand...
As noted, the outstanding work is by a sub contractor, not the contractor, but become the contractor responsibly in the end.

Only assuming can take place since there is no real info around to say what taking place. As stated, the sub contractor could had a material issues that lead to the delay to the point that it fell apart in the end and having problems finding someone else to supply it. Been there and done it.

Finding a supplier that can fit in a small order at this time of the year going to be hard and costly. It could be tie in to be done when the next 2 stations are being done this year.

Cawthra is the only station 100% complete, with the other 3 in various stages of completion.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top