News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Why not simply let Mississauga Transit service Mississauga? Mississauga should terminate 50, 100, 107, and 109 at Renforth. All the buses along Dundas, Bloor, Burnahmthorpe, etc. should terminate at Etobicoke Creek. Furthermore, Mississauga should follow Toronto's example and exercise its powers to ban Brampton Transit, TTC, Oakville Transit, and GO Transit from providing serivce in Mississauga.

Why not simply let Mississauga Transit service Mississauga?
 
doady said:
Why not simply let Mississauga Transit service Mississauga? Mississauga should terminate 50, 100, 107, and 109 at Renforth. All the buses along Dundas, Bloor, Burnahmthorpe, etc. should terminate at Etobicoke Creek. Furthermore, Mississauga should follow Toronto's example and exercise its powers to ban Brampton Transit, TTC, Oakville Transit, and GO Transit from providing service in Mississauga.

Why not simply let Mississauga Transit service Mississauga?
Click to expand...

This is absurd. Streets, that is transit corridors, don't start and stop at municipal borders.

For example, I often take the 68 Warden bus from Warden station to Highway 7 and Warden. Would you really have me get out of the bus at Steeles and wait for a YRT bus to come every bloody time?

Overlapping service areas make sense.
 
doady said:
Why not simply let Mississauga Transit service Mississauga? Mississauga should terminate 50, 100, 107, and 109 at Renforth. All the buses along Dundas, Bloor, Burnahmthorpe, etc. should terminate at Etobicoke Creek. Furthermore, Mississauga should follow Toronto's example and exercise its powers to ban Brampton Transit, TTC, Oakville Transit, and GO Transit from providing serivce in Mississauga.

Why not simply let Mississauga Transit service Mississauga?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what Toronto example you are refering to beyond how they used to do things. For example, the TTC has 14 bus routes that extend into York Region. Also, in case you didn't hear, they are building subways to Richmond Hill and Vaughn.
 
Am I the only one that splashed by the sarcasm dripping off of Doady's post? Or did I read sarcasm into it wrongly?
 
leopetr said:
This is absurd. Streets, that is transit corridors, don't start and stop at municipal borders.

For example, I often take the 68 Warden bus from Warden station to Highway 7 and Warden. Would you really have me get out of the bus at Steeles and wait for a YRT bus to come every bloody time?
Click to expand...

68 Warden north of Steeles, like all TTC routes going north of Steeles, is a YRT service contracted out to the TTC, accepting YRT fares, and 100% subsidized by YRT. The ridership north of Steeles is counted as part of YRT ridership. Similarly, the 58 Malton service west of the airport is contracted out by Mississauga Transit.

I don't mind Mississauga Transit serving Kipling/Islington if it followed the TTC's example and only operate the 1 Dundas, 3 Bloor, 11 Westwood, 26 Burnhamthorpe, etc. to Islington if the TTC requests it, and the TTC agreed to subsidize 100% of the operating costs of these routes within the City of Toronto.
 
gweed123 said:
You're right. I forgot Newmarket was served by YRT, oops. Halton Region's municipalities all have their own transit systems, so it may make sense to start there. Take for instance Burlington Transit. It's very clearly centred around 3 things: downtown, the malls, and the GO stations. Integrating that as part of Metrolinx would be an interesting experiment to see how well it works.
Click to expand...

er, only three of the four Halton municipalities have their own transit systems. Halton Hills shares the same fear of public transit as Caledon, as both have a strong case of Post-Bramptonian Disorder. Halton Hills and Caledon, both with well over 50,000 persons, are the largest municipalities in Canada without a local transit system serving them.
 
doady said:
68 Warden north of Steeles, like all TTC routes going north of Steeles, is a YRT service contracted out to the TTC, accepting YRT fares, and 100% subsidized by YRT. The ridership north of Steeles is counted as part of YRT ridership. Similarly, the 58 Malton service west of the airport is contracted out by Mississauga Transit.

I don't mind Mississauga Transit serving Kipling/Islington if it followed the TTC's example and only operate the 1 Dundas, 3 Bloor, 11 Westwood, 26 Burnhamthorpe, etc. to Islington if the TTC requests it, and the TTC agreed to subsidize 100% of the operating costs of these routes within the City of Toronto.
Click to expand...

IF MT ran the 20, 26, 76 along Burnhamthorpe, Toronto riders for the #50 would be thrill, as they would see twice the amount of service that TTC provides for the 50 theses days. At the same time, 26 and 76 would not require any subsidize from TTC. 20 and 11 would see no subsidze since they will run at a lost in the first place becuase they will rarely pickup someone along the route going to Mississauga in the first place.

TTC would have to fund #3 almost 100% since MT would take a blood bath on fares since the bulk of the #3 ridership is on Bloor in the first place.

TTC should take over the operation of the Dixion/Airport #58 run to Westwood since MT does a poor job in the first place.

As for the #1, even TTC loose money on Dundas since there not much there now for ridership. Most of those riders are using the branch lines in the first place.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
He is being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

I just want Mississauga to be more like a great city like Toronto, by following Toronto's example. Is it really so hard to believe?

drum118 said:
IF MT ran the 20, 26, 76 along Burnhamthorpe, Toronto riders for the #50 would be thrill, as they would see twice the amount of service that TTC provides for the 50 theses days. At the same time, 26 and 76 would not require any subsidize from TTC. 20 and 11 would see no subsidze since they will run at a lost in the first place becuase they will rarely pickup someone along the route going to Mississauga in the first place.

TTC would have to fund #3 almost 100% since MT would take a blood bath on fares since the bulk of the #3 ridership is on Bloor in the first place.

TTC should take over the operation of the Dixion/Airport #58 run to Westwood since MT does a poor job in the first place.

As for the #1, even TTC loose money on Dundas since there not much there now for ridership. Most of those riders are using the branch lines in the first place.
Click to expand...

If the City of Mississauga banned GO from providing service within its borders like Toronto does now, it would improve ridership on these MT routes a lot, and so much more service would be required. So the TTC probably would have to pay an even higher subsidy for these routes to cross the border. The TTC would definitely not fund the 100 and 109 in any case, so those should terminate at Renforth for sure.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1008542--go-transit-motto-should-be-20-minutes-or-it-s-free-mcguinty?bn=1

GO Transit motto should be ‘20 minutes or it’s free’: McGuinty

Robert Benzie Queen’s Park Bureau Chief

GO Transit commuters deserve a “service guarantee,” says Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Speaking to 1,300 people at a United Way fundraiser in Markham, McGuinty said the regional transit service should refund fares if trains are more than 20 minutes late.

The premier, who faces a challenging re-election on Oct. 6, said 94 per cent of GO Transit patrons arrive on time but the other six per cent deserve better service.

McGuinty said the service guarantee would cost the transit service $6.7 million per year.

GO Transit claims only one per cent of its vehicles are more than 20 minutes late.
Click to expand...
 
So if a train is 20 minutes late because of an ill passenger, everyone gets a refund, but if a bus is 1h late because of a breakdown, no one gets a refund? Since when did bus riders become second-class go customers?

And then there's the fact that the $7m this would cost, assuming it were not paid for by service cuts, would result in fare increases.

Sigh. What an inanely stupid proposal, and one that should be well beneath McGuinty. Sigh. But then, it's easier to do this than to announce funding to do more of the things that actually prevent delays.
 
DavidH said:
So if a train is 20 minutes late because of an ill passenger, everyone gets a refund, but if a bus is 1h late because of a breakdown, no one gets a refund? Since when did bus riders become second-class go customers?

And then there's the fact that the $7m this would cost, assuming it were not paid for by service cuts, would result in fare increases.

Sigh. What an inanely stupid proposal, and one that should be well beneath McGuinty. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Seems like, also, catering more to one specific group of people.......GO Customers served by the Lakeshore line who rely more on trains than buses compared to the rest of the lines.

Of course, he has already made other moves geared towards Oakvillians and Mississauguans (giving into their demands to cancell a power facility in an industrial zone (Oakville) and delaying the implementation of time of use pricing for Hydro (Mississauga)......there seems to be no re-election ploy (including cheaper beer and the ability to walk around with it) that is "beneath McGuinty"....Sigh!
 
DavidH said:
So if a train is 20 minutes late because of an ill passenger, everyone gets a refund, but if a bus is 1h late because of a breakdown, no one gets a refund? Since when did bus riders become second-class go customers?

And then there's the fact that the $7m this would cost, assuming it were not paid for by service cuts, would result in fare increases.

Sigh. What an inanely stupid proposal, and one that should be well beneath McGuinty. Sigh. But then, it's easier to do this than to announce funding to do more of the things that actually prevent delays.
Click to expand...
GO has long considered itself a Rail Network that does buses (consider their use of Bus-Trains). With trains on a private ROW, you can reasonable garentee arrivals. With roads and congestion, you can't, so bus-riders are second-class customers by default. Instead of cutting service or raising fares, the $7 million would most likely be paid out of an increased subsidy for GO.

How much can you do to prevent delays for $7 million a year?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top