Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[robmausser]

Mathematically it is impossible to do that. How long do the games run for? How many trains would run during that period of time....even if they ran 100% full during that period what kind price difference would have to be charged on your projected post-games fares to even put a dent in the construction costs?

And it was not "rushed" for the Pan Am games....it was delayed/mired for so long that the games became a logical target date (things go better with a deadline) but the original plan for this was that it would be built and open sometime between 2008 and 2010 ....the 2015 Pan Am games were awarded in November 2009.

I guess I need to be more specific:

"I think they are trying to recoup AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SOME OF the costs of building it through the Pan Am visitors"


It was rushed for Pan Am. The original plans had electrification from the get go. The original ORGINAL "idea" had Budd DMU cars, but the first actual EA of this plan had electrification.

Then, after things got delayed, they opted for DMU to EMU conversion to meet a 2015 deadline.

 

[gabe]

Rbt, if it was built, more people would use Eglinton West. Chicago and Philadelphia have subways to the airport, and Los Angeles is extending their LRT to LAX. Plus The Crosstown will cost 30 times less then the Up Yours express. If anything else, it should be about connectivity and not just density, the airport is the second largest employment area in the entire city. Eglinton West will connect people from Oakwood-Vaughan, Fairbank and Mount Dennis to jobs.

In Chicago i took the subway from the airport to downtown, it took a while but it only cost me $5.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I think it's pretty incredible that when Metrolinx are so close to beginning testing that we are still accepting the fact that they will not publish a proposed fare within a reasonably tight range and a business plan. There is a spreadsheet somewhere in Metrolinx with those numbers but clearly it is firewalled from anyone, including the admirable Ms Adkins, who might cause it to be shared. The inference one draws is: the fare is going to be at the high end of the expected range, with or without the GTAA Tax, and they are waiting until the last possible second to say so.

I do have sympathy though since if they do blurt it out, there will be calls from the usual populist suspects for any kind of short sighted cuts that can be done and especially anything deemed "frills". You know, like when platform doors were ripped out of the Spadina Extension design before someone noticed their frames would be partially holding up the roof (and thus a bunch of $ was dropped redesigning the roof rather than admit it was a mistake and reinstate them)

Has it occured to anyone that they don't want to give their competition (e.g. taxi industry, private coaches etc.) a head start? Maybe, even though we could give rough guesses, they don't want to screw over the project by allowing someone to sway the market before launch? Besides, what are the chances that someone is going to be able to set up a competitive service that can slice through increasing congestion in time to grasp something out what will become Metrolinx's dominant hold on the market.

I can't believe how many naysayers and know-it-alls are coming here to denounce UPX. Do you really think you know something that the team of experts at Metrolinx doesn't know? B**ch please.

If someone starts a poll on whether this thing will break even and retain good ridership, put me down for a solid yes.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

In Chicago i took the subway from the airport to downtown, it took a while but it only cost me $5.

Chicago is supposed to building a UPX type thing, but there's not the urgency we have because at least they have the basic RT connection.

 

[smallspy]

Yes, but lets be realistic, like almost all policies the USA change, Canada does the same like the smaller little brother that we are.

Except that they don't, not always.

For instance, Transport Canada is leading the way on tank car safety/the dreaded DOT111A design. FRA is looking at following, but hasn't said anything as yet.

And indeed, on non-compliant rail equipment such as being used on the O-Train in Ottawa, both agencies differ in how they are allowed to operate.

And then, there is the whole issue on PTC and its implementation. Transport Canada seems to have no interest in it, and yet it is mandated on all major lines in the US.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[TOareaFan]

I guess I need to be more specific:

"I think they are trying to recoup AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SOME OF the costs of building it through the Pan Am visitors"

It matters not....there really is no fare that could be charged that would make any sort of dent, at all, in the costs of construction. Even if you don't allocate any of the $1.3B of GTS costs to this, ML tell us they are spending $450million on this. How much do you think could possibly be recovered from Pan Am visitors? Let's get crazy and think that during the games 10,000 trips a day (double what ML says the service will average over the first year) will happen and that those crazy pan am visitors will pay $30 a ride......over the 15 days (I think it is 15) that raises revenue of $4.5million.....what are the op costs? Let's get really bizarre and say that magically it operates with zero op costs during the games....well, you have managed to pay off 1% of the total (well, not quite total but we are not allocating any GTS to this) costs.....the games are only significant to this in that they provided a deadline/target for opening....it is not being built "for" the games and the games will not materially impact it's long term success (or lack of success if that is the case)......and they certainly won't go towards "paying the cost of construction".

It was rushed for Pan Am. The original plans had electrification from the get go. The original ORGINAL "idea" had Budd DMU cars, but the first actual EA of this plan had electrification.

Then, after things got delayed, they opted for DMU to EMU conversion to meet a 2015 deadline.

Clearly we have different recollections of the history of this.

 

[ksun]

A first question would be, what percentage of business travellers stay overnight at all. A glance at flight schedules of various airlines tell you that there is a lot of business travel between NY/Montreal/Ottawa and Toronto.......a decent percentage of those will be same day trips and the train (if the market acts logically) should attract a very high percentage of those trips...just maximizes time efficiency (assuming, I think safely, a high percentage of those trips are geared towards the core).

Then you have to ask of the trips that will result in some sort of overnight stay....what is the envelope of hotels that are considered walkable from the train station. Certainly that includes the new Delta, the Royal York, the Intercontinental.....to some it will include the Hitlon, Sheraton, Hyatt etc. To some it won't.

Assuming the hotel is the first destination of business travellers (it often isn't) and the visitor is not staying at a walkable hotel your question has to be broken down into this "is it more efficient (time and $) to take a cab from airport directly to hotel or take a train to Union and then a cab to hotel?"

I don't have the answers but from Montreal/Ottawa/NYC/Chicago/Boston business travelers, why don't they fly to Porter? I actually have friends who came on business from Boston a few times and every time she took Porter. Why head to Pearson in the first place? Seems a no brainer to me.

For those who stay overnight, I doubt many business travelers will walk from Union to Hilton and Sheraton and Hyatt with their luggage (about 15 minutes walk, not far but how often do business travelers do that, especially when they don't have to pay, plus many might not be familiar with the city).

And I doubt $ is important in driving their decision because how many companies really care about additional cost of $30 when they have already spent $600+ on the airfare? Time of course is more important. The UPE only takes 15 minutes, but consider the time to wait and board train, existing union station and reaching final destination, I am not sure it really saves time (unless it is peak hours when traffic is bad). Additionally when there are 2-3 passengers, I doubt very much that they would say "let's each buy a train ticket" instead of sharing a cab.

For those who travel outside North America (Asia, Europe) for business, I also doubt they would take the trouble of finding the train station, buying tickets, getting to Union, and then finding ways to their final destination, after 10-15 hours of flight.

 

[TOareaFan]

I don't have the answers but from Montreal/Ottawa/NYC/Chicago/Boston business travelers, why don't they fly to Porter? I actually have friends who came on business from Boston a few times and every time she took Porter. Why head to Pearson in the first place? Seems a no brainer to me.

Some do....but other than Montreal that only allows you one airline to pick from....one thing frequent flyers are very protective of is their frequent flyer status/mileage......if a guy working in Boston has Toronto as one of his destinations, he may fly with Porter...or he may stick with the airline he typically flies with. Billy Bishop has an impact....but count the number of flights between Pearson and the cities you mention and between BB and those cities.....BB is still way behind.

For those who stay overnight, I doubt many business travelers will walk from Union to Hilton and Sheraton and Hyatt with their luggage (about 15 minutes walk, not far but how often do business travelers do that, especially when they don't have to pay, plus many might not be familiar with the city).

That is why I did not include them in my envelope...i said they would be walking distance for some (would be for me) but there are lots of hotel rooms very close to Union.

And I doubt $ is important in driving their decision because how many companies really care about additional cost of $30 when they have already spent $600+ on the airfare? Time of course is more important. The UPE only takes 15 minutes, but consider the time to wait and board train, existing union station and reaching final destination, I am not sure it really saves time (unless it is peak hours when traffic is bad). Additionally when there are 2-3 passengers, I doubt very much that they would say "let's each buy a train ticket" instead of sharing a cab.

You are right time and predictability are far more important than cost (but efficiency factors in all 3).....the biggest issue with driving to our airport is not just the time it takes but how unpredictable it is. Leaving yourself 45 minutes and getting there in double that (not unusual) can cost you your flight....leaving yourself an hour and a half and getting there in 45 minutes makes you think "could have taken another meeting"......the train offers a real saving in time and real predictability.

BTW saying that $ is not that important then saying 3 business guys would just share a cab because the cost of 3 tickets is more than a cab are contradictions. If the train proves more efficient from a time management perspective but 3 tickets cost $75 while a cab would have been $60....the train will win.

For those who travel outside North America (Asia, Europe) for business, I also doubt they would take the trouble of finding the train station, buying tickets, getting to Union, and then finding ways to their final destination, after 10-15 hours of flight.

"the trouble of finding the train station".......it is a walk across a ramp from T1...if you went out to catch a cab the most prominent thing in your line of sight would be the train station. Buying tickets? Either they or their assistant or their travel agent/rep would be aware of their final destination and plan accordingly....they will likely just buy tickets in advance and have them in their little travel portfolio.

But, your right, international travellers never take trains from airports...thats why so many airport express trains around the world in business cities have simply closed their operations...no one used them!

 

[dowlingm]

Rumour: Metrolinx set to be taken for a run on Chicago Metra's Rock Island Line
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=157043&p=1285840#p1285832

robmausser: I'd like a read of that EA, assuming you've seen it first hand. I don't recall having come across it. I've just read articles from 2005, 2007, 2009 all referring to it as diesel.

 

[rbt]

You are being optimistic. I don't know how many companies have this train first policy. My doesn't.

My personal experience in this regard is with smaller tech and major telco firms (SBC, AT&T, Bell Canada) when I worked for/with them. I've heard, but do not have personal experience, that the Canadian banks generally hold this policy for their travelling staff as well. Where do you work and who books your travel (yourself, or a corporate travel agent)?

I can tell you that getting stuck in traffic and missing a meeting you flew into when there was another option would have been a firing offence for SBC 10 years ago when I was with their subsidiary.

What percentage of business travelers stay right beside Union station?

A majority of business tourists working in the financial district stay within 1km of Union Station. 1km gets you to the Hilton and Sheraton on Queen; covers about 10,000 rooms. The Eaton Chelsea is a major outlier (1,500 rooms). Four Seasons attracts more tourist than business traveller.

If not, that involves another cab ride. Does that make sense to you?

Nothing captures 100% of the market. GO Rex, the main future competition to UPX, is actually the biggest problem UPX will have. Although that airport ticket premium won't disappear (see Sydney where is costs $5 AUD less to go one station further than the airport and walk back).

Georgetown GO Rex will carry the price sensitive passengers who don't mind a `coach class` feeling and service. Don't forget this corridor has another 5 years of construction ahead of it; this really is just the beginning.

UPX is for and will attract the business traveller who is in Toronto for under 24 hours (most of them). That extra 40 minutes of travel time can significantly impact their stay, particularly for a day trip (9am landing, 7pm take-off).

Those who are price sensitive will continue take the bus/subway.

This is a bad argument because extremely few tourists take the bus today when visiting Toronto. Which means their either very few are price sensitive or it's a huge pain in the ass (in reality, it's both). The TTC has about a 1% share of the total airport transportation market and a huge chunk of that is airport/airline employees.

Time sensitive tourists (business tourists mostly) will take UPX. Price sensitive tourists will take the Georgetown GO Rex service.

FYI, the Airport Express is stopping service this fall citing falling passengers loads due in part to increased congestion/travel times. Clearly travel time is a major concern pushing people to take a cab despite the bus being half the price. We will see if UPX is fast enough to attract people.

 

[TOareaFan]

^How will people get from the airport to the KW RER?

 

[rbt]

^How will people get from the airport to the KW RER?

A people mover connection no doubt. Same way you get around most airport properties.

I understand they are expecting to buy the Kitchener corridor shortly (within a month) and the EA for electrification/REX starts sometime this fall. We ought to know exactly how things will work by next summer.

 

[TOareaFan]

A people mover connection no doubt. Same way you get around most airport properties.

I understand they are expecting to buy the Kitchener corridor shortly (within a month) and the EA for electrification/REX starts sometime this fall. We ought to know exactly how things will work by next summer.

Ok...thanks.....the way you worded it (or the way I read it) it seemed like there were current plans. I have agreed for a long time that some connection (my preference is a Malton) between the people mover and GO provides airport access, at reasonable "public transit" type pricing to lots of people. There are, though, no current plans to do that...which is a shame.

 

[rbt]

Ok...thanks.....the way you worded it (or the way I read it) it seemed like there were current plans. I have agreed for a long time that some connection (my preference is a Malton) between the people mover and GO provides airport access, at reasonable "public transit" type pricing to lots of people. There are, though, no current plans to do that...which is a shame.

Yeah, it's all speculation but there was a lot of leaked information about what form a London HSR *might* take (subject to EA's, business cases, etc.).

Certainly not moving the 4 track railway corridor is going to be cheaper than moving the railway corridor. So, that leaves a people mover to some very nearby railway station (Murry affectionately called it Terminal 2).

As you say, Malton could be used. I think they can reuse the UPX spur for a people mover too.

 

[reaperexpress]

The UPX legacy will likely be tied to the squabbles Metrolinx had with corridor residents, but I think a decade from now we will be looking back at how short-sighted this project was.

This is an argument I've heard many times, and it doesn't make any sense.

The money from this project was spent to build a very substantial quantity and quality of standard railway infrastructure. If we decide a few years from now that we would rather operate the line as an ordinary GO service, we could do so quite easily. We could even convert the line to a subway further in the future if we really wanted to, thanks to the fact that we have now completely grade-separated and massively widened the railway.

The issues we are discussing are in relation to the service (i.e. stops, frequency, fares, etc), not the infrastructure (i.e. where the money was spent).

That said, the fact that the Pearson spur cannot handle large trains and does not continue on to Brampton is indeed a bit short-sighted. But it is justified because a proper railway would have taken decades longer to get built, so the relatively small cost of the elevated spur can be justified by the benefits of having an airport rail link for the decades until we open a mainline tunnel through the airport.
EDIT: or until we change its use to a people mover to a mainline railway station, as rbt suggested. I prefer the name Pearson Junction for that station, btw.