[stevensontransit]

They are still using service hours that were not used in 2025 with funds in place for them.

The next questions that needs to be address what will happen to transit fares with the province wanting the same fare across the GTAH.?? Also who will cover the lost of revenue if X system must cut their current fare structure? Then, what will happen to senior fare that is free or lower than other systems?? If fares take a jump for X system, will riders pay that hike or will they walk away from transit and create a larger cost recovery??

Not surprise to see increase of headway for 135 as the numbers are not there to support the current headway. Extending it to Kipling deals with the extra travel time and transferring from route to another

As for route 5, not surprise to see the headway drop as it was a mistake when it went from 20 to 30 in 2025 with crush loads on those buses especially at peak time. Putting 40 foot buses on the route in place of arctic's was another issue especially at peak time.

Can not speak to the Sunday service for the 101 as I very rare use Dundas on the weekend nor anything west of Hurontario St.

In 2028, buses currently on route 2, 17 and 103 will be reassign to other routes once the LRT start service. I don't know what is plan for parallel service to deal with stops that have longer spacing between the LRT stations especially north of the 403. A few of the existing stops need to be remove now since they are under 250 meters and the 400 meters for the system.

The best thing is to do is to keep that parallel bus service 100% on Hurontario and riders can transfer to the LRT if they want to go to CCTT every 15-20 minutes. This will deal with the travel tine from Eglinton to the Cooksville station since there is no plan in place at this time to run bypass service and more so once the loop is built with the line being spilite in two like today.

But at least it’s good to see MiWay making continued improvements and expanding express services.

 

[Toffy]

The full list of service changes was released today by MiWay and can be found here.

 

[doady]

Looks like 3 Bloor is interlined with 70 Keaton and 108 Meadowvale Express, which explains why the 3 has different frequencies depending on direction. Although frequency in reverse peak direction will be increased slightly, frequency in the peak direction will actually be reduced slightly.

It costs MiWay almost nothing to operate 70 Keaton, 71 Sheridan and 108 Meadowvale Express so a few extra trips is nothing noteworthy. Those buses would otherwise be returning half-empty on the 3 Bloor, 101 Dundas Express, and 109 Meadowvale Express. Just shifting the buses around, nothing more. 101 and 109 getting "schedule adjustments" too.

I have not seen 40 foot buses on 5 Dixie. It is 100% articulated based on my experience. Even 39 Britannia (32 minute frequency) is 30-40% artic.

Increasing frequency of 28 Conferation by 2 minutes while increasing run time by 1 minute is meaningless. Just combine 28 and 66 into one route. They were already planning this way back in 2006.

 

[Northern Light]

The full list of service changes was released today by MiWay and can be found here.

Let me just pull those forward for everyone:

 

[Toffy]

Looks like 3 Bloor is interlined with 70 Keaton and 108 Meadowvale Express, which explains why the 3 has different frequencies depending on direction. Although frequency in reverse peak direction will be increased slightly, frequency in the peak direction will actually be reduced slightly.

It costs MiWay almost nothing to operate 70 Keaton, 71 Sheridan and 108 Meadowvale Express so a few extra trips is nothing noteworthy. Those buses would otherwise be returning half-empty on the 3 Bloor, 101 Dundas Express, and 109 Meadowvale Express. Just shifting the buses around, nothing more. 101 and 109 getting "schedule adjustments" too.

I have not seen 40 foot buses on 5 Dixie. It is 100% articulated based on my experience. Even 39 Britannia (32 minute frequency) is 30-40% artic.

Increasing frequency of 28 Conferation by 2 minutes while increasing run time by 1 minute is meaningless. Just combine 28 and 66 into one route. They were already planning this way back in 2006.

The route 3 interlines with the route 70, but not the 108. All but a single route 70 trip in the afternoon interline to and/or from the route 3. This interline between the 3 and route 70 was introduced during the Covid-19 era, prior to that the 3 operated a symmetrical peak schedule.

This change to the route 3 and 70 is a little more than just shifting the buses around, an additional 2 buses supports the increased 15 minute midday service. An additional bus in both peak periods along with shifting the schedule around supports the new rush hour service levels on the 3 and 70. Here's how the route 3 weekday schedule compares as seen from eastbound at Dixie Road.

Speaking of the route 70 MiWay has made an omission about the improved frequency in the afternoon. The 15 minute frequency will actually start from 3:30 and run for two hours, rather than for the single hour starting at 4:30 highlighted by MiWay.

As for artics on the 5 Drum118 is right and indeed there are far less artics allocated to the 5 these days than pre-pandemic. Pre-pandemic all 6 midday buses and 10 of the 12 rush hour buses were allocated to artics. Presently 4 of the 5 midday buses and 6 of the 10/11 (11 in PM) rush hour buses are allocated artics. Come April 27th 6 of the 10 all day buses are assigned artics. Keep in mind these allocations are on paper and there have been days over the last few weeks where only 4 of the current 11 PM rush hour buses have been artics.

 

[doady]

The route 3 interlines with the route 70, but not the 108. All but a single route 70 trip in the afternoon interline to and/or from the route 3. This interline between the 3 and route 70 was introduced during the Covid-19 era, prior to that the 3 operated a symmetrical peak schedule.

This change to the route 3 and 70 is a little more than just shifting the buses around, an additional 2 buses supports the increased 15 minute midday service. An additional bus in both peak periods along with shifting the schedule around supports the new rush hour service levels on the 3 and 70. Here's how the route 3 weekday schedule compares as seen from eastbound at Dixie Road.

Speaking of the route 70 MiWay has made an omission about the improved frequency in the afternoon. The 15 minute frequency will actually start from 3:30 and run for two hours, rather than for the single hour starting at 4:30 highlighted by MiWay.

As for artics on the 5 Drum118 is right and indeed there are far less artics allocated to the 5 these days than pre-pandemic. Pre-pandemic all 6 midday buses and 10 of the 12 rush hour buses were allocated to artics. Presently 4 of the 5 midday buses and 6 of the 10/11 (11 in PM) rush hour buses are allocated artics. Come April 27th 6 of the 10 all day buses are assigned artics. Keep in mind these allocations are on paper and there have been days over the last few weeks where only 4 of the current 11 PM rush hour buses have been artics.

I assumed Drum118 was talking about artics during midday, since these changes are for midday only. I don't have much experience with Dixie during rush hour.

Thanks the detailed breakdown. I wish MiWay would be more consistent with their allocation of artics (e.g. 8 of 8 buses as artics instead of 6 of 10 as artics) but I suppose they can't rely on artics too much when it is snowing.

I don't want to downplay the added service too much, especially considering last year's ridership loss. 15 minute midday service is rare thing in Mississauga.

 

[drum118]

I assumed Drum118 was talking about artics during midday, since these changes are for midday only. I don't have much experience with Dixie during rush hour.

Thanks the detailed breakdown. I wish MiWay would be more consistent with their allocation of artics (e.g. 8 of 8 buses as artics instead of 6 of 10 as artics) but I suppose they can't rely on artics too much when it is snowing.

I don't want to downplay the added service too much, especially considering last year's ridership loss. 15 minute midday service is rare thing in Mississauga.

Even a peak time even when I use it rarely these days because of the headway.

Maybe they should remove a few artic's off 65 since ridership has drop and don't see that many riders to have one. Have yet to see the need for an artic on 126 so far. Lack of space doesn't help ordering more artic's considering the plan back in 2024 was to buy more to replace 40's.

Wasn't aware 3 and 70 interline as well never seen it at either end..

I find route 5 headway is off for pm peak.

 

[drum118]

https://pub-mississauga.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=83995

 

[Sauga89]

Mississauga city staff have made a report summarizing the provincial and federal governments' recent proposed changes to housing and infrastructure legislation. It's a lot to unpack, but here is a portion related to MiWay. City staff have included recommendations to council and the province.

Fare Harmonization (“One Fare 2.0.,”) and Zone-Based Travel

Bill 98 gives the province the authority to establish transit fares. It is unclear if MiWay’s exiting fare structure will be maintained, which creates a revenue risk for the city and potential affordability concerns for residents. It also gives the province the authority to establish geographic fare zones and require revenue-sharing amongst transit agencies within the zones. Currently, Council sets transit fares annually as part of the budget process. This includes eligibility criteria (e.g., age-based designations such as child, youth, adult and senior), discounted amounts, transfers and concession types like tickets or passes. Mississauga has also negotiated agreements with post-secondary institutions for bus passes. Transit fares carefully balance affordability for riders and revenue generated to partially offset the cost of providing the service. For example, Mississauga strives to recover between 40% - 50% of operating costs from the farebox through user fees.

Recommendation: Council support fare harmonization to simplify the user experienceand requests that Mississauga:

•  Be involved in consultation regarding all aspects of fare concessions, including price.
•  Consulted on the development of any geographic zones and an agreed-upon cost-sharing formula which may be established given its inherent impact on scheduling, planning, operating and capital costs.
•  Be made whole in the event that any changes to fare structures, including those which may be zone-based, invoked by the province negatively impact transit revenues.

Fare Collection and Data Reporting and Compliance Powers

Bill 98 establishes the requirement for the specified transit agencies to use the same fare collection system. Mississauga already uses PRESTO as required by the province and has borne both capital and operating costs associated with its use. The legislation also sets out increased reporting requirements on trips, fares and services. While PRESTO is an existing data source, Mississauga also relies on automatic passenger counters and other software platforms for service planning. Data sharing risks include the need for robust cybersecurity protocols between Mississauga and the province.

Recommendation: Council support continued consultation and involvement between Mississauga and the province via Metrolinx on PRESTO functionality. In the event that the province determines material changes to PRESTO in terms of software or hardware to meet these new data or fare collection requirements, these costs should be borne by the province.

Priority Routes and Service Integration (BRT Corridors)

Bill 98 provides the Province with authority to define priority routes which may cross municipal boundaries for the purpose of service integration. This may include establishing minimum service standards and require a municipality to travel outside of its traditional jurisdiction. These changes will have a direct impact on operating costs, revenue-sharing, fleet utilization and working conditions, creating uncertainty for service planning, budgeting of both capital and operating costs and overall financial sustainability. Mississauga developed operating and capital plans for conventional transit and bus rapid transit corridors (BRT) on Lakeshore East, Dundas Street, Burnhamthorpe Road, Dixie Road and Derry Road through its Council-approved Transit, Roads and Infrastructure Plan (“TRIP” report) and MiWay 5+plan. These plans have been developed over a period of many years and are funded, in part, through the local tax base and other eligible funding programs. If these projects are impacted by Bill 98, there may be broader funding implications.

Recommendation: Council support the principle of service integration, however, it recognizes the local impact on current and future operations and therefore requests:

•  Full participation on all aspects of determining priority routes and plans for service integration which may alter current or future MiWay operations
•  An agreed-upon cost-sharing formula for both capital and operating costs associated with travelling outside of Mississauga’s current jurisdiction and,
•  That Mississauga be made whole by the province in the event that other funding programs are negatively impacted by changes arising from this legislation.

Specialized Transit (Trans-Help)

The legislation provides the authority to require municipalities to participate in a unified trip booking system and provide cross-boundary trips without transfers to a prescribed distance outside of the current municipal service area. Currently, each jurisdiction this service has their own software and methods for trip planning. Changing software and hardware will have significant capital and operating costs. Further, the requirement to travel to an undefined distance outside of its current service area will be all net new operating costs, which will also increase capital costs. As specialized service is door to door transportation, the cost to provide the service is far greater than conventional transit, and therefore a higher level of operating subsidy will be required. In Peel Region, specialized transit is provided by TransHelp. However, residents of Mississauga pay into the regional tax base and will be subject to the associated cost escalations.

Recommendation: Given the potential impact on Region of Peel’s costs associated with the provision of Trans-Help service, Council request to participate in consultations regarding changes to specialized transit that will have cost impacts to TransHelp.