[Komiksulo]

Do not eliminate the 82!

It's the bus a lot of people, including me, use to get from Islington to our jobs in the Meadowvale North office park, which includes Microsoft, Dupont, Siemens, RBC, Glaxo, Psion Teklogix, and a lot of other companies. It's crowded around rush hour as well; so crowded that I usually take a later bus. The route was put in to serve the Royal Bank building when it was built; my impression is that it was possible because buses on routes going the other direction had to be returned to their starting points anyways, so why not carry a few people while they're at it?

The alternative would be to go to Kipling and take the Milton Line to Meadowvale GO station, and then backtrack locally on MT. Unfortunately, reaching the Meadowvale GO station from Derry and Mississauga Road is so awkward via MT that it's easier to take a cab or walk. Maybe that will be an easier and faster solution when GO moves to all-day both-direction service on the Milton Line, but today, no.

 

[doady]

The 82 only exists because it is interlined with the 89 and the 89 is most crowded MT route. The 27 and 70 are also interlined with the 89.

I know the 82 has a lot of riders... the 70 and 89 have even more riders. But the 70 and 89, along with the 27, are inefficient and redundant. We know that the 39 will be extended and that the Meadowvale-MCC-Islington pre-rapid transit route (109?) will start service this October, and so these routes will be even more redundant.

If you are a rider of the 89 and you live along Britannia you could just take the extended 39. If you live along Eglinton you could just take the 35. If you want to go direct to Meadowvale then the 109 will be much faster (the 89 is supposed to be an express route but it is very slow).

The 27 and 70 (along with the 17 and 50) will be made redundant by the extension of the 39, assuming that it goes all the way to the subway.

The 82/82A can be interlined with the 109 the same way it is interlined with the 89 now.

 

[Dan416]

I have to question your definition of the word redundant, doady. I haven't seen anything posted to make me believe that I'd be able to get one-ride service to Kipling/Islington from Creditview & Britannia once the 89 is gone.

 

[doady]

I have to question your definition of the word redundant, doady. I haven't seen anything posted to make me believe that I'd be able to get one-ride service to Kipling/Islington from Creditview & Britannia once the 89 is gone.

Anyone can look at a map of MT and see that there is not a single part of the 89 that does not overlap with any other routes. So when you question my use of the word "redundant" to describe the 89, I am not sure what else to say.

 

[RedRocket191]

Anyone can look at a map of MT and see that there is not a single part of the 89 that does not overlap with any other routes. So when you question my use of the word "redundant" to describe the 89, I am not sure what else to say.

If you want to prove it's redundant than tell use how to get from Creditview & Brittania (where there is a trip generator of captive riders) to the subway in a similar amount of time and transfers.

 

[doady]

If you want to prove it's redundant than tell use how to get from Creditview & Brittania (where there is a trip generator of captive riders) to the subway in a similar amount of time and transfers.

Why should the 89 provide a service that the 39 should be providing? Last time I checked, the 39 is called Britannia, not route 89.

If you think that rush hour only, one-way service to the subway is better than all-day, two-way service to the subway, then by all means lets keep the 27 and 89 and continue to let them kill the expansion and ridership of the 39.

Not that many people on Britannia actually use the 27 and 89 in the first place. At least not nearly as much as the 39. And yet it is the 39 with by far the least service. But by all means keep the status quo. It is not waste of resources at all.

 

[Dan416]

The 89 clearly serves a differnet purpose than the 10 or the 39 or the 38. So yes I certainly question your definition of "redundant".

You say the 39 is busy? Are you on crack? I live at Creditview & Britannia, and let me say that bus is nearly always empty. The 89 on the other hand is always packed. And many get on at the corner of the Creditview & Britannia. Lots get on along Creditview itself as well. And you know why the 89 is busy? Because it's a ONE SEAT RIDE TO THE SUBWAY. That and only that is why it's so successful. It's not particularly fast. And it's rush-hour only. But it's the cheapest and among the fastest ways to get to Toronto from northwest Mississauga.

If anything, 89 should get all-day service. I don't see what's so great about a route like the pre-BRT routes that will skip most of the places the 89 serves.

 

[ShonTron]

The October 20 service change notice is posted:

http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/InTransit_20OCT2008.pdf

Looks to be quite disappointing. The 109 is only a rush-hour route with rather disappointing frequencies. There's also a mention that there will be "revised" service on the 89 due to the 109 and the route 35 extension. Of course, this being Mississauga Transit, the changes are incredibly vague.

 

[doady]

The 89 clearly serves a differnet purpose than the 10 or the 39 or the 38. So yes I certainly question your definition of "redundant".

You say the 39 is busy? Are you on crack? I live at Creditview & Britannia, and let me say that bus is nearly always empty.

LOL, you need to get out more.

The 89 on the other hand is always packed.

Only along Eglinton.

And you know why the 89 is busy? Because it's a ONE SEAT RIDE TO THE SUBWAY. That and only that is why it's so successful. It's not particularly fast. And it's rush-hour only. But it's the cheapest and among the fastest ways to get to Toronto from northwest Mississauga.

If anything, 89 should get all-day service. I don't see what's so great about a route like the pre-BRT routes that will skip most of the places the 89 serves.

Again you entirely miss the point of my suggestions and demonstrate that you do not know how to read.

 

[doady]

The October 20 service change notice is posted:

http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/InTransit_20OCT2008.pdf

Looks to be quite disappointing. The 109 is only a rush-hour route with rather disappointing frequencies. There's also a mention that there will be "revised" service on the 89 due to the 109 and the route 35 extension. Of course, this being Mississauga Transit, the changes are incredibly vague.

Of course, this being Mississauga Transit, the entire updated schedules for every stop for every route are available online.

And I for one am glad that the 89 is finally seeing reduced service.

 

[ShonTron]

No, if this were even the TTC, they would say in the service change notice that, for example, "service will be reduced from every 22 minutes to every 25 minutes during the AM peak". Of course people will have to check the new schedules, but MT is always needlessly vague when they "adjust" or "revise" schedules. They don't even say if it is a reduction clearly either. And I rarely see someone happy to see a busy route take a service cut.

Your response to Coruscanti about "not being able to read" is completely out of line and warrants a warning. Relax or you will get a red card.

 

[Dan416]

LOL, you need to get out more.

Living in the area, I have NEVER seen that many people waiting to take the 39, EVER. Must have been a one-off thing. Either that or the fact that the wait for the 39 at any time of day is particularly painful. Personally I'll always walk home from Heartland rather than wait for the 39. Even if I did have a transfer.

Only along Eglinton.

The bus is only packed along Eglinton because it's picked up so many people from Meadowvale through Britannia and up Creditview that there's no more seats by the time it gets to Eglinton. It's often half-full already by the time I get on at Creditview & Britannia.

And on the return trip there are still many people who are still on the bus after Eglinton. Not as many, obviously. But it's the same way on a GO train. It's the nature of a commuter service.

Again you entirely miss the point of my suggestions and demonstrate that you do not know how to read.

And you miss my point that none of the proposed replacements to the 89 give me a one-seat ride to the subway.

 

[doady]

I was at Britannia and Queen today at 6:10 pm waiting for the bus to go home (yes, I live along Britannia too, near Creditview in fact).

At 6:12pm I saw an unidentified bus on route 89 heading westbound with around a dozen passengers on board.

At 6:15pm two more westbound buses passed by at the same time: bus #0839 on route 10 with approximately 30 passengers on board and #9841 on the 89 carrying only one passenger! A striking difference.

At 6:20pm my bus - 27 Matheson - finally arrived, and right after I boarded I saw the bus #0835 on route 39 westbound carrying around 20 passengers.

But the question is: why is the ridership on the 89 on Britannia be so low at 6:15pm, especially considering that it connects to the subway? You'd think that if so many people living in the Britannia corridor were using the 89 get home from the subway, that 6:15pm would the busiest time for the 89 on Britannia considering its distance from the subway and downtown Toronto, and the "rolling" rush hour effect. If the riders of the 89 along Britannia were so reliant on the subway connection, then the 10 and 39 probably should not be carrying 4 times more passengers than the 89 right after the "traditional" rush hour has ended.

The problem is that most riders on the 89 do not come from the subway in the first place. In my experience, only around 30% to 40% of the ridership of the 89 comes from the subway, and very few of those people actually travel all the way to Britannia. Most of the ridership actually comes from the Eglinton corridor itself and those connecting from the Tomken and Dixie buses. Dixie is an extremely busy route, with almost every major intersection along it being a major transfer point for buses. At its heart, MT is a grid system, not a radial system. And even if it was a radial system, it would be centered on Sq One, not Islington.

So considering the clear lack of people along Britannia needing a direct bus to the subway, there is no reason why then that the 39 - when it is extended to Commerce this January - cannot serve much of the same function of the 89. It fact it will do a much better job: introducing full all-day service in both directions along a corridor that currently has no proper bus service (Matheson) and providing some much-need relief for the extremely overcrowded Eglinton corridor.

 

[Dan416]

I was at Britannia and Queen today at 6:10 pm waiting for the bus to go home (yes, I live along Britannia too, near Creditview in fact).

At 6:12pm I saw an unidentified bus on route 89 heading westbound with around a dozen passengers on board.

At 6:15pm two more westbound buses passed by at the same time: bus #0839 on route 10 with approximately 30 passengers on board and #9841 on the 89 carrying only one passenger! A striking difference.

At 6:20pm my bus - 27 Matheson - finally arrived, and right after I boarded I saw the bus #0835 on route 39 westbound carrying around 20 passengers.

But the question is: why is the ridership on the 89 on Britannia be so low at 6:15pm, especially considering that it connects to the subway? You'd think that if so many people living in the Britannia corridor were using the 89 get home from the subway, that 6:15pm would the busiest time for the 89 on Britannia considering its distance from the subway and downtown Toronto, and the "rolling" rush hour effect. If the riders of the 89 along Britannia were so reliant on the subway connection, then the 10 and 39 probably should not be carrying 4 times more passengers than the 89 right after the "traditional" rush hour has ended.

The problem is that most riders on the 89 do not come from the subway in the first place. In my experience, only around 30% to 40% of the ridership of the 89 comes from the subway, and very few of those people actually travel all the way to Britannia. Most of the ridership actually comes from the Eglinton corridor itself and those connecting from the Tomken and Dixie buses. Dixie is an extremely busy route, with almost every major intersection along it being a major transfer point for buses. At its heart, MT is a grid system, not a radial system. And even if it was a radial system, it would be centered on Sq One, not Islington.

So considering the clear lack of people along Britannia needing a direct bus to the subway, there is no reason why then that the 39 - when it is extended to Commerce this January - cannot serve much of the same function of the 89. It fact it will do a much better job: introducing full all-day service in both directions along a corridor that currently has no proper bus service (Matheson) and providing some much-need relief for the extremely overcrowded Eglinton corridor.

Are your hands tired from all the cherry-picking you do?

As for a the 39 going to Commerce, which IIRC is in the Airport Corporate Centre, how does that help anyone, exactly? That's not the subway. It seems pretty half-assed to me, to travel all that way and not even link up with the subway. Not an adequate replacement for the 89 at all.

As for Eglinton providing most of the riders, I already said that. I disagree with your notion that Britannia doesn't deserve subway service.

And you say most of the riders don't come from/go to the subway? Um, wha-a-at? What 89 have you been taking? Everyone gets off at the subway. I'd say 90% of 89 riders get off at the subway. And same vice versa. A few people get on later, but not many. Especially since the bus is packed, how can anyone even get on at Dixie, even if they wanted to!?!?

 

[drum118]

Are your hands tired from all the cherry-picking you do?

As for a the 39 going to Commerce, which IIRC is in the Airport Corporate Centre, how does that help anyone, exactly? That's not the subway. It seems pretty half-assed to me, to travel all that way and not even link up with the subway. Not an adequate replacement for the 89 at all.

As for Eglinton providing most of the riders, I already said that. I disagree with your notion that Britannia doesn't deserve subway service.

And you say most of the riders don't come from/go to the subway? Um, wha-a-at? What 89 have you been taking? Everyone gets off at the subway. I'd say 90% of 89 riders get off at the subway. And same vice versa. A few people get on later, but not many. Especially since the bus is packed, how can anyone even get on at Dixie, even if they wanted to!?!?

I have seen and been on 89's that have been 1/2 to 3/4 empty from Islington.

The 89 was supposed to be an express bus, but became more a local bus and that became an issue.

The amount of riders still on the bus after it leaves Eglinton is very small to the point no riders are on it when it pulls into Meadowvale terminal.

Duplication of routes for a section of a route is find if the ridership warrents it in the first place.

To maintain a single ride connection from point to point cannot not always maintain if the ridership numbers are not there in the first place.

Dixie is only one stop where there are large number of riders wanting to get on an Eglinton bus in the first place after leaving Islington.

I have seen the 35 with peak-crush loads these days going in both direction for PM. Even with the 35 and 89, the 7 gets crush loads.

I don't expect to see high numbers when 109 hits the road going to/from Meadowvale.

Quality of service on Eglinton is an issue and that something the planners and schedules fail to understand city wide.

It cost $$ to put a bus on the road and therefore you need to recover 50% plus of that cost to maintain it. #19 of all the routes does full recovery, but you need to have a high recovery without hitting the fare box as well the tax base. 10 routes have less than 20% cost ratio and I am on one of those routes.

One seat rides are a money looser and someone has to pay for that seat in either a higher fare or spread it over the system.

If it means riders will have to transfer from one route to another to get to/from Islington or what every to maintain a good cost ratio to keep the route on the road, it has to take place. I know at some point regardless what system I am using, I will have to do a transfer. How to make that transfer painless is a real problem for MT staff since they never ride their system in the first place to see what is taking place as to to what, when, where and why.

It means, great to have a route that run every 10 minutes, but to transfer to your main route that runs every 33-60 minutes is a pain in the ass and not fun.

I have said for 6 years that the maximum headway on any route for MT 7 days a week is 30 minutes. At peak time, most routes should be 20-15. We know there will be routes that will have lower headway's do to ridership numbers. There will be routes that never will below 30 minutes also.

Again, NOT everyone is going to the subway, but it how the routes layout works that cause this. It's the same thinking transit revolved around the core of Toronto, but it's the only way to get there to get you to where you really want to go in the first place.

Do we have a bus that runs straight to/from the airport in this city???????

If the ridership warrants the 39 going to Islington, it will then it will happen. By the way, saw no one on a 39E at Hurontario around 7pm as we sat in Wendy's as well going west.