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

I do not in some circumstances disagree with the editorial opinion of the Sun. The Star and Royson James irritate me no end. But to keep harping in both papers about what a "failure" the UPX is is becoming tiresome. I'd like to ask all the editorial writers to give their heads a good shake. The UPX is a success beyond measure and the most discouraging thing, following a Brexit, is that when you write something - even if it's not true - like that "Britain will be fine after a Brexit" or that "UPX is a failure"; that the citizenry begins to believe it. We are at a dangerous point where if enough downright stupid things are written, the populace will begin to believe them and the politicians will pull the plug on new transit plans. Shame on Shawn Jeffords - although kudos for consistency - and The Sun. Shame on The Star too for a consistently negative viewpoint on Mayor Tory, Jennifer Keesmat, Metrolinx and the UPX in particular.

I for one; am not remotely interested in a TTC style ride with a 50 lb suitcase on the UPX and am happy to see it remain in GO's hands.
 
I don't blame the Sun for reporting something that is factual, ie the MPP's apparently actually put forward this proposal. I do blame the MPP's for demonstrating such a superficial understanding of the actual operation to think this is a good idea. And I blame Josh Colle for actually sounding supportive, when TTC has enough things to manage. (and for not immediately asking the biggest question...... who covers the operating deficit?).

Considering that the Province bled some higher-priority opportunities (ie further upgrade to GO on the Weston Sub) to rush UPX into operation in time for the Pan Am games, the Province clearly has the onus to keep feeding UPX. And if they thought about it, seeings as it's becoming a success story after initial troubles, they have nothing to gain in the long term by shedding it (and letting TTC claim the credit for the turnaround) when they could claim the credit for tinkering until it works well.

- Paul
 
Transit: You use a rather broad stroke of the brush. Just because *aspects* of UPX *are* a failure does not then mean the entire concept is a failure. The business implementation, against all competent advice (as we find out after the fact) was destined to fail. They knew that! The question is whether that responsibility lies with QP or Metrolinx brass. Heads rolled, and perhaps the wrong ones.

When I filled out the questionnaire at upsatisfaction.com just a few hours ago, I found myself giving them top marks in almost every category...but let's not forget, they can accomplish that because it is *heavily subsidized*! Far more than GO itself. In the open comment box, I wrote of the need for more morphing into an even more effective model, the potential is there, and its probably by being folded in with RER.

And I disagree with "The Star and Royson James irritate me no end." Why? Because they hit the nail on the head? Royson especially is bang-on on the SSE and refurbishing the present SRT. Is that what bothers you? Do you live in Scarborough by some chance? The Star's coverage is not much different from the Globe's, albeit being a Toronto centric medium, they usually go into greater depth and frequency. The Stun has made many of the same points.

I challenge you to *quote* what it is you take issue with, and then perhaps we can analyze and comment on your points. It seems to me that you and some other posters take every constructive criticism (and most posters reference and/or link/quote their points) as a personal offence. Left to the original model, UPX would have been even more of a disaster than it was. It's now on much better footing since the realization (mostly due to that very press critique you lambaste) that it was a plebe-subsidized perk for the well-heeled.

There remain some serious challenges with UPX as it now stands. The trick is to find good service at a good price to satisfy the needs of the plebes who fund it as well as catering to the needs of air travellers. That can be done, but it won't be without constructive input.

Edit to Add:
[but it won't be without constructive input]
I highly recommend posters fill out the survey upsatisfaction.com since many posters will be far better informed than Johnny Average as to what ideas and observations are needed to make it better. It can be made better...and some of the questions lead to affecting economy, e.g. the one on the on-board magazine (a curious item, albeit it might not cost the plebe a penny) and brand recognition of the UPX sponsors. (I, like most, just automatically censor promoted brands). Someone at Metrolinx is asking the right questions. We have an onus to respond...and beyond that, add your comments in the open box for it. There's aspects well beyond the asked questions that need input, and the survey is aimed at the average rider, not the informed pundit, so add your input there, they just might get back to you with more specific questions. (You have an option to post your email address for them to respond)
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
I don't blame the Sun for reporting something that is factual, ie the MPP's apparently actually put forward this proposal. I do blame the MPP's for demonstrating such a superficial understanding of the actual operation to think this is a good idea. And I blame Josh Colle for actually sounding supportive, when TTC has enough things to manage. (and for not immediately asking the biggest question...... who covers the operating deficit?).

Considering that the Province bled some higher-priority opportunities (ie further upgrade to GO on the Weston Sub) to rush UPX into operation in time for the Pan Am games, the Province clearly has the onus to keep feeding UPX. And if they thought about it, seeings as it's becoming a success story after initial troubles, they have nothing to gain in the long term by shedding it (and letting TTC claim the credit for the turnaround) when they could claim the credit for tinkering until it works well.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Let the province not pass along such a success into the hands of a lower order government, until said lower order government grows up and demonstrates it can manage long-term thinking and getting its own house in order. I'll take Metrolinx any day over Toronto City Council's 30 year record on the transit file.
 
steveintoronto said:
Transit: You use a rather broad stroke of the brush. Just because *aspects* of UPX *are* a failure does not then mean the entire concept is a failure. The business implementation, against all competent advice (as we find out after the fact) was destined to fail. They knew that! The question is whether that responsibility lies with QP or Metrolinx brass. Heads rolled, and perhaps the wrong ones.

When I filled out the questionnaire at upsatisfaction.com just a few hours ago, I found myself giving them top marks in almost every category...but let's not forget, they can accomplish that because it is *heavily subsidized*! Far more than GO itself. In the open comment box, I wrote of the need for more morphing into an even more effective model, the potential is there, and its probably by being folded in with RER.

And I disagree with your wide swipes at "editorial" and 'certain authors'. I challenge you to *quote* what it is you take issue with, and then perhaps we can analyze and comment on your points. It seems to me that you and some other posters take every constructive criticism (and most posters reference and/or link/quote their points) as a personal offence. Left to the original model, UPX would have been even more of a disaster than it was. It's now on much better footing since the realization (mostly due to that very press critique you lambaste) that it was a plebe-subsidized perk for the well-healed.

There remain some serious challenges with UPX as it now stands. The trick is to find good service at a good price to satisfy the needs of the plebes who fund it as well as catering to the needs of air travellers. That can be done, but it won't be without constructive input.
Click to expand...

Somehow my English is not clear this morning. I think the UPX is a success. I see the constant swipes at it in the media as highly derogatory to a very good thing. I have also given it high marks on the survey after; more than once. The point that I just made in two sentences is what I thought I had stated previously. Not one (reasonable) person would have expected that with so many variables, that it would be perfect out of the box at launch a year ago. That Metrolinx had a separate person running it as a separate division was obtuse. The Ontario government has demonstrated problems with keeping arms-length government organizations - E-Health, Ornge, and perhaps Metrolinx, accountable.

As for editorial tone. There are ways to say "needs improvement" like my report cards used to, that don't say "he is a failure". There is no need to use that word in the context of the UPX.
 
TransitBart said:
The Star and Royson James irritate me no end.
Click to expand...

TransitBart said:
I see the constant swipes at it in the media as highly derogatory to a very good thing.
Click to expand...
Then post them. This forum is very well equipped to handle quotes. What you're doing right now is a flat out rant, the very thing you complain about.

I find it beyond conspicuous that you espouse a very 'right of centre' bent, and conveniently overlook the fact that UPX, *even after revisions* is still bleeding and can never hope to cover losses.

The privileged see no end to complaining about having to 'pay the help' when the ill-begotten silverware isn't admired by one and all.
 
Last edited:
APTA-2048 said:
Everyone keeps saying we need to add more capacity to UP and attract more riders. But wouldn't the Georgetown line be better suited for that? Keep UP a 25 minute ride and relatively exclusive to airport travellers.
Click to expand...

When I said add capacity, I meant to the line. Extra Kitchener line service is exactly what I had in mind. I was thinking 15-minute local service from Union to Bramalea during peak periods interleaved with UP to create 8 minute headways for the shared segment, and 30-minute service to Bramalea outside peaks.
 
The problem is limited rolling stock, and inability to add to the present Sharyo fleet. Interesting string here on NY's LIRR putting out a request for proposal for DMUs for the Oyster Branch of the LIRR, and either Sharyo not bidding (the only one in North Am that could to meet FRA regs) or bidding and being found unacceptable to MTA.
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=161924

Detailed article here:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...s-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/

As it was, Metrolinx paid a high price for the present Sharyo DMUs, and there's indication from a number of sources that they have mechanical issues, esp as that relates to the drive-train.

The real answer would be for Metrolinx to fast-track (pun half-intended) electrification of the corridor, and at least get the western leg of SomewhatSmartTrack/RER up and running in the next few years.

There's still a challenge there in finding EMUs light enough to make fast acceleration and stops, and yet meet FRA regs. Something has to give with the present Transport Canada regs, albeit Ottawa was granted a waiver for the O-Line. I've not heard a word from Metrolinx on pursuing same. It would open the door to a lot of possibilities not presently available for rolling stock, not the least using a dual voltage/current variant of the LRVs now on order for the LRT lines in TO and various other Ontario cities. This would greatly increase flexibility of runs to the airport and direct connections from the Finch and/or Eglinton lines to the airport.

But alas...no discussion on changes of this sort save for some references by staff in reports, some of which MDrejohn has quoted a few times in this forum
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how you guys consider the UPX a stellar success.

It's ridership has certainly soared since lowering it's fares but they are still just the level of a middling bus route. $500 million for 8000 passengers a day is a ghastly waste of money. Pearson & Union are the biggest employment centres in the city but few commuters take the route because it's too expensive.

Denver's Airport link just opened and is already averaging 15,000 passengers a day with the same 15 minute intervals.
 
ssiguy2 said:
It's ridership has certainly soared since lowering it's fares but they are still just the level of a middling bus route. $500 million for 8000 passengers a day is a ghastly waste of money. Pearson & Union are the biggest employment centres in the city but few commuters take the route because it's too expensive.
Click to expand...
Of course, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Boarding counts favour a route with many stops and high passenger turnover, so local bus routes will naturally seem to have much higher ridership than a service where nearly all passengers ride end-to-end. UPX is essentially at capacity now, so it could hardly be considered a failure, and most of the $500 million could be considered an investment in GO RER, just under a different column in the budget.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Pearson & Union are the biggest employment centres in the city but few commuters take the route because it's too expensive.
Click to expand...
No. People working in the Pearson employment centre don't use the service because the Pearson employment centre isn't walkable.

Also, Denver's airport link has 8 stations between the airport and downtown, some with large parking lots and bus service to generate ridership. Not comparable to the UP Express.
 
smably said:
UPX is essentially at capacity now, so it could hardly be considered a failure
Click to expand...
I beg to differ on capacity except at peak times, albeit the same goes for most of the GO system. It's certainly carrying far more now than it did initially, but the *operating losses* are still very high.
smably said:
most of the $500 million could be considered an investment in GO RER, just under a different column in the budget.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agreed, and I think you'll find most of us cynics agree on that. It's not what it is now so much as what it can be, and a good part of that is the RoW. The stumbling block to getting it to the next level remains the rolling stock more than anything else. And that is further complicated by Metrolinx *still* dragging their feet on electrification.
 
LNahid2000 said:
Also, Denver's airport link has 8 stations between the airport and downtown, some with large parking lots and bus service to generate ridership. Not comparable to the UP Express.
Click to expand...

Right. That's the point. UPE is a complete design failure, in a city that is starved for rail transit. They can't even connect it conveniently to existing subway stations, let alone attract riders to new stations.

But, hey, they have an in-flight magazine. So there's that.
 
APTA-2048 said:
Everyone keeps saying we need to add more capacity to UP and attract more riders. But wouldn't the Georgetown line be better suited for that? Keep UP a 25 minute ride and relatively exclusive to airport travellers.
Click to expand...

Exactly this.

People keep acting like children and pointing and shouting "look a train! It goes on this track! Hey, lets make it stop at more stations and convert it to a commuter train!"

No. Stop. That's not what it was designed for, we HAVE a system that is in the works for this (GO RER/Smarttrack). I understand it might be difficult for you to grasp because you can't point and shout at it, but its coming.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top