Scheduled 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 20 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.
20 with position · 0 to investigate · 0 excluded · 20 scheduled trips
Current feed. No explicit notice for this route in the current feed; this does not guarantee service. Observed: Nov 5, 2026, 9:38 a.m..
0 scheduled trips were excluded from the position check for feed or identity gaps.
Published position coverage: 20 / 20 (100%). 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, 8:09 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
2 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: 26 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 15, 2026.
1% of back-to-back buses on this route arrived bunched together: 2 of 320 pairs checked at stops in the last 28 days. When buses bunch, the wait after them is usually longer.
0% of pairs (0) had a long gap: more than 1.75 times the planned wait between them.
| ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐃᑲᕐᕋᖅ | Pairs checked | Bunched | Long gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morning rush (6 to 9 a.m.) | 320 | 1% (2) | 0% (0) |
Slowest: MOTHER TERESA H.S to LEIKIN / BILL LEATHEM, 18.1 km/h actual against 28.2 km/h planned.
| ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒃ | ᑐᕌᕐᕕᒃ | ᐅᖓᓯᒋᓂᖓ | Planned speed | Actual speed | Trips measured | Slow trips |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOTHER TERESA H.S | LEIKIN / BILL LEATHEM | 2.8 km | 28.2 km/h | 18.1 km/h | 20 | 40% |
| RIVERVIEW A | LEIKIN / BILL LEATHEM | 3.7 km | 20.2 km/h | 18.6 km/h | 33 | 6% |
A slow trip took at least 1.5 times the planned time.
2 partial-capture days not counted.
2 scheduled trips with counted cancellation notices from Thu, Oct 8 to Wed, Nov 4.
Not counted: 0 trips with qualifying later matching vehicle observations and 0 for trips not in that day’s timetable.
Hours with the most cancellations: 2 p.m. (2)
OC Transpo gives no reason for single trips, so none is shown.
Did not come (no bus seen, no notice), last 7 days: none of the trips we could check.
ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑎᓂᖅ
Median provider predictions are 3.2 to 3.4 min later than the timetable in 3 hours of the day.
08:00 has 58% of predictions within five minutes of the timetable, against 79% the rest of the day.
Matched public positions cover 100% of scheduled trips. This is a lower bound on operated service, not an audited delivery result.
Scenario: 3 min more running time on 40 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 | ᖃᖓ | ᐅᑦᑐᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ | Scenario or next investigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ProblemPredictions later than timetable | 07:00 to 09:00 · 14:00 | 3.4 min late · 3.2 min late | More running time |
| ProblemOne hour has a lower prediction match | 08:00 | 58% | Operations, not the timetable |
| StrengthObserved-position lower bound | All measured hours | 100% | Keep what works |
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: Larger sample
Based on 1,300 eligible provider predictions over 18 measured days, from Oct 7, 2026 to Nov 4, 2026.
Updated Nov 5, 2026, 8:32 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.
ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑕᕐᕕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖅ
ᐅᓇ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ ᓇᓪᓕᐅᓇᐃᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒧᑦ. ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒥ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔪᑦ. ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓂᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᓚᐅᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᖏᑦᑐᑦ.
Current published schedule began October 30, 2026
ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕈᑦᑕᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᓇᒡᒐᔾᔭᐅ ᓄᑖᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪ ᓇᒡᒐᔾᔭᐅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᐊᒍᑦ. ᓈᓴᐅᑎᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᑉ GTFS ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᑦ. ᐊᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᑖᓂ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᖅᑐᑦ.
ᐅᓪᓗᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᑎᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖓ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ. ᐅᓇ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᐊᕐᕕᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖃᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ. ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓂ ᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖓ ᐅᒃᓱᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᖃᙱᑦᑐᖅ.
ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᐅᑉ ᐅᓪᓗᖓ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᖅ: October 26, 2026
Operator calendar-date records: 0 added · 2 removed
ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᖓ: 1d13d0abb2506002 · 3932bee1-4577-4968-9a97-2987e88312ad
ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᐅᑉ ᐅᓪᓗᖓ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᖅ: November 2, 2026
Operator calendar-date records: 0 added · 2 removed
ᑐᓴᒐᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᖓ: 91dd8e4251604344 · 6ee8491d-8f94-4122-a67b-ef228d9e0945
ᑎᑭᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᕗᑦ. 14 ᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᖓᓂ ᑭᖑᓂᖓᓂᓗ. ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᓕᕋᐃᒐᒃ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕐᕕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᓂᒃ 7 ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓗ, ᑎᑭᓐᓂᕐᓂᓪᓗ 200 ᐅᖓᑖᓄᓪᓗ.
ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᖅ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖓᓂ ᑎᑭᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓈᓴᐃᓂᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᓇ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᕝᕕᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᖓᓄᑦ. ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᓲᖑᔪᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓱᓕᓐᓂᖓ ᐅᑕᖅᑭᕗᖅ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖓᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓴᐅᑎᓂᒃ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑖᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔪᑦ.
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 7, 2026 to November 4, 2026
20 / 20 scheduled trips published at least one position across 5 service days (100.0%).
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 · 4 trips in the retained timetable · retained notices; capture coverage unverified
In short: 4 with a matched position · 0 with no matching position (to investigate) · 0 with an unknown outcome.