Map
FRScheduled service and available evidence
Evidence period: Oct 29, 2026 – Nov 4, 2026
—
No retained notice returned; this does not prove zero cancellations.
0
0 of 7 trips with a usable feed window (0%) had no matching position.
These counts may overlap; do not add them. A missing position confirms neither cancellation nor a no-show.
7 with position · 0 to investigate · 3 excluded · 10 scheduled trips
Current feed. No explicit notice for this route in the current feed; this does not guarantee service. Observed: Nov 5, 2026, 2:00 a.m..
3 scheduled trips were excluded from the position check for feed or identity gaps.
Published position coverage: 7 / 10 (70%). This is not a delivered-service rate. 7 service days in this source.
Timetables retained before the service day: 7 / 7 requested days · 0 missing days.
Historical calculation: Nov 5, 2026, 1:08 a.m.
Method: explicit provider notices, archived trip windows and retained timetables. Predictions and positions alone do not prove that a bus ran or was missed.
Predictions against the timetable
No comparable percentage published
This service purpose needs a different method. A general percentage could give a misleading picture.
These are provider predictions, not independently measured arrivals. Missing evidence is not counted as on-time service.
Calculated: Nov 5, 2026
6 partial-capture days not counted.
The general hourly comparison is not suitable for this service purpose. Source records remain available.
Improvement or decline requires comparable periods. This single result cannot establish a trend.
Last 28 days, October 8, 2026 to November 4, 2026: 20 days counted.
2 days left out because the live feed was only partly recorded or its trip numbers did not match the timetable: October 8, 2026, October 12, 2026.
Too few buses were measured to judge bunching: 0 pairs checked, 30 needed.
Not enough trips yet to measure speed between timepoints (20 trips needed for each segment).
How this is measured →6 partial-capture days not counted.
No counted cancellations on this route in the last four weeks. Notices we could not check would be listed below.
Did not come (no bus seen, no notice), last 7 days: none of the trips we could check.
From the load level STO’s buses report, over the last eight weeks. A time is marked usually busy when at least half of the trips with a reading reached standing room or fuller.
| When this route is usually busy | Weekdays | Saturdays | Sundays |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before 6 am | Not enough readings | Not enough readings | Not enough readings |
| 6 to 9 am | Usually busy77.8% of 27 trips | Not enough readings | Not enough readings |
| 9 am to 3 pm | Usually seats39.1% of 23 trips | Not enough readings | Not enough readings |
| 3 to 6 pm | Usually seats42.3% of 26 trips | Not enough readings | Not enough readings |
| 6 to 10 pm | Not enough readings | Not enough readings | Not enough readings |
| After 10 pm | Not enough readings | Not enough readings | Not enough readings |
Based on 55 computed days.
Verdict
Median provider predictions are 6.5 min later than the timetable in 1 hours of the day.
Scenario: 7 min more running time on 1 trips. The schedule-block model adds no buses; fleet and workforce feasibility are unverified.
Assumptions: published departure times, trip blocks and service pattern stay fixed while running time changes. A scheduler must test headways, transfers, recovery, fleet circulation, operator shifts, labour rules and cost before use.
| What | When | Measured | Scenario or next investigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ProblemPredictions later than timetable | 15:00 | 6.5 min late | More running time |
Route check
A short summary of what we know. We say so when we cannot answer a question.
Bottom line
We need to confirm how this service is meant to work before rating it.
Prediction sample size: Moderate sample
Based on 989 eligible provider predictions over 17 measured days, from Oct 6, 2026 to Nov 3, 2026.
Updated Nov 5, 2026, 1:32 a.m.
These are repeated prediction-to-timetable differences, not independently measured service failures. They use the same eligible predictions as the result above, but group by stop rather than hour, so the lists need not match line for line.
Problem times are not ranked because this service needs a purpose-specific test.
No current official notice matches this route.
Prediction differences by stop
We do not yet have enough route-by-stop history to name a recurring problem stop. Rider reports are used as leads, not proof.
Open a time period to see each service day, scheduled trip, feed gap, observed public vehicle ID, and the exact counts behind this summary.
Schedule change check
This compares the current retained official schedule with the prior retained version. Schedule changes are facts about what was planned; they do not prove that a trip ran.
Current published schedule began November 3, 2026
We check the first Monday after the new schedule began and the Monday one week earlier. Every figure comes from the retained official GTFS versions named below.
At least one selected date uses added or removed calendar-date service. Treat this as holiday or special-service context, not ordinary weekday growth.
Service date checked: November 2, 2026
Operator calendar-date records: 1 added · 0 removed
Feed fingerprint: 540f8e4e98d50320 · 7a8023af-fdc6-4276-bed6-2e3d7bd7bb74
Service date checked: November 9, 2026
Operator calendar-date records: 1 added · 0 removed
Feed fingerprint: 64b436d79ab51a76 · 623ad8b0-ad29-4d70-b8e6-e594a396233e
We will compare settled arrivals for the 14 days before and after the change. We publish the comparison only after both sides have at least 7 service days and 200 arrivals.
Ordinary on-time scoring does not fit this route’s service purpose. The schedule counts remain visible, but the result waits for the purpose-specific evidence described below.
Checksums let anyone verify which retained timetable produced the counts. A changed count does not identify a cause, cancellation, operator decision, or passenger impact.
No grade is shown until a purpose-specific completion and pickup measure is available.
The public feed does not provide dependable passenger counts or passed-up-rider events. A missing position does not by itself prove a cancellation, no-show, short turn or cause.
Provisional results, published evidence
An ordinary on-time grade is not appropriate for this service without checking its purpose. The route check above explains the pickup, community-service or event evidence needed. You can still inspect the recorded trips and data gaps below.
Evidence window: October 6, 2026 to November 3, 2026
7 / 10 scheduled trips published at least one position across 5 service days (70.0%).
This is not a confirmed no-show. A missing position can mean a cancelled or missed bus, but it can also mean an unassigned trip ID or an operator-feed gap. Otranspo publishes the gap because it matters to riders while keeping the conclusion honest.
Prediction check: the last eligible provider prediction no earlier than ten minutes before the scheduled arrival, counted once per trip, stop and scheduled Toronto calendar date. It is compared with the timetable, not an independently measured arrival. Trip-position check: the timetable kept before each service day, matched to recorded positions. Exact IDs are preferred; an OC timetable suffix is matched only to one trip on the same route and date with an overlapping time window. Missing timetables, ambiguous matches and feed gaps stay labelled; they are not confirmed no-shows. Sources and limitations.
Dated service
The timetable, notices and what the live feed says are shown apart. Seeing a bus on the map does not prove you can board it.
November 4, 2026 · 2 trips in the retained timetable · retained notices; capture coverage unverified
In short: 1 with a matched position · 0 with no matching position (to investigate) · 1 with an unknown outcome.