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

[Palma]

Uber is more than just "people signed up and picking up passengers as they go about". Uber also offers limo service and regular cab service, a different service than Uber X, which you are referring to.

yes I know and those services are more expensive and transit users are not going to pay for their service to get then to a Go stop

 

[dowlingm]

I find the whole last mile thing hilarious because it seems to much more driven by "ridesharing" lobbyists than transit advocacy.

We've been told for years that we can't expand TTC 400 series routes using Wheeltrans-type buses to penetrate parts of Toronto which are hard to serve with conventional buses, because we're told labour is the major cost rather than the vehicle. Well, okay, but that labour is a reasonably predictable/stable cost. Instead the idea is to get UberPools or something to bring people from subway stations etc., except it presumes Uber will always be cheap enough to be workable.

Instead, I predict that once the shareholders tire of throwing billions into Uber and require actual economic return, the economics of more community-type buses is going to get a bit attractive - or we just decide that the cost of last mile transit is too much to subsidise and we go back the situation we are in now.

 

[cplchanb]

cplchanb makes a good point, but it could be a number of things...'baggage' haul? Onward connections?

But here's an idea: I briefly skimmed through this two days back looking for Presto Card info (there's a lot in there) and (gist) 'new ideas for marketing UPX' were detailed.

Have a read if you haven't already:
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...60909_BoardMtg_2016-2017_Business_Plan_EN.pdf

So from CPTDB it turns out that they are doing periodic shutdowns of the line in order to upgrade the bridges (I believe Landsdown (???))
so they will have buses do the shuttling during those blackout periods.

 

[am29]

So I have used the UPX twice this year and I must say I really like it. It will only become that much more valuable when all these downtown developments start going up. Especially 1 Yonge, LCBO Lands, all the waterfront stuff.

Once we get the Eglinton CT to the airport we'd be pretty well off in getting the airport connected to the city.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

It's basically Torontos first RER line. It also intoduces tons of services to Toronto for the first time like onboard charging, wifi, platform screen doors, (new multiple units on mainlines).

The problem is it wasn't supposed to be it was supposed to be a express service to and from the airport, it got turned into a local service by metrolinx because they added stops to it because they were on the way. It now sees more ridership because people use it like they use the go train because there isn't enough go train service on the line it is on. Alos it only has platform edge doors at two of it's ations Union and the airport.

 

[micheal_can]

The problem is it wasn't supposed to be it was supposed to be a express service to and from the airport, it got turned into a local service by metrolinx because they added stops to it because they were on the way. It now sees more ridership because people use it like they use the go train because there isn't enough go train service on the line it is on. Alos it only has platform edge doors at two of it's ations Union and the airport.

It makes sense that it should connect to the subway and future LRT. When RER/Smartrack comes out, it should not stop at all stops on it.

 

[musafir]

Has there been a study showing the impact of UPX on traffic? Particularly the 427?

 

[steveintoronto]

With ridership steadily increasing how long do you think it will be before they need to consider either lengthening trains or buying more DMUs?

In the Business Report,
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...60909_BoardMtg_2016-2017_Business_Plan_EN.pdf
they detail exactly that, running all the trains three car. There's already enough stock to do that, the problem has been lack of availability due to service issues. There will be no more purchase of the Sharyos. Out of production now, would cost (from SMART reports, the US operator, only other user of Sharyos) twice the
price paid previously, which was already expensive. (There was only one possible supplier of the spec stated)

Didn't they upgrade pretty much everything in GTS? Does this have anything to do with Electrification?

It's to do with the Barrie line and increasing tracks, plus the West Toronto Bike Path being done at same time.

 

[steveintoronto]

Are they adding another track? From where to where?

Rather than try and answer that, someone else can answer or you can look up GO's website on projects.

And who is the sole supplier? Or is it Sharyo

There was no other choice available due to a number of factors, mostly political and the pending Pan Am Games. Had Metrolinx not been forced into rushing this, other options would have been available, perhaps electric, but that's a whole other debate in itself.

In the event, Metrolinx decided to piggyback their order with SMART for the only possible candidate that could get them out of their self-painted into a corner predicament:

SMART to Use Heavier Rail Cars
By Michael Rhodes Jul 16, 2009

The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Board, in a 9-2 vote, has elected to use heavier, American-made rail cars instead of lighter, quieter, low-floored, European-made models that some of the directors originally favored.

A report on the various options, presented by SMART staff to the board Wednesday, noted that while the light cars "offer more operational efficiencies in comparison to an FRA-compliant design on a per vehicle basis," they would be much more difficult to purchase and implement, since the SMART’s planned rail service "lies within a perfect storm of American rail service regulators."

For one, the light cars are not Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compliant, and thus SMART would need to negotiate temporal separation from any freight service, which will soon begin operating again in the North Bay for the first time since 2001. Since the light cars would be produced abroad, they also would require a waiver of the Federal Transit Administration’s Buy America clause.

The light trains would also require various modifications to meet FRA-defined conditions for alternate compliance, and SMART would need to be willing to "construct and maintain its track to tighter tolerances than specified by the FRA class 4 track requirements," the report said. Each of these steps could incur additional costs and delay the scheduled 2014 start date for service.

Stephen Birdlebough of Friends of SMART, which advocates for building the rail line, said his group remained conflicted. There was "enough energy in the direction of wanting to press for futuristic approach that we didn’t a consensus," said Birdlebough. "I lean toward the staff’s view. Once we heard the board begin to focus down on the issues … I became convinced for this line this is the right decision."

The report also cited the fact that only one manufacturer, Stadler of Switzerland, was willing to produce the cars, which would lead to far less competitive prices.

Overall, neither car option was expected to run the full 71-mile route faster than the other, with both taking about one and a half hours to complete a one-way trip. The report concludes that their energy efficiency is also roughly the same:

[The light vehicles] achieve schedule performance with 41 percent less energy consumption and 37 percent less fuel consumption on a per vehicle basis; however, the proposed FRA-compliant vehicles will be larger than the proposed alternate-compliant vehicle. As such, an FRA-compliant [diesel multiple unit] will provide about 50 percent greater passenger capacity, so the energy and fuel consumption per seat between the two technologies is practically equivalent.

A full fleet of either type would cost around $90 million.

Some further details from the SMART staff report:

Interoperability. A compliant vehicle makes it more likely that SMART someday can directly connect with the regional and national rail networks, such as Capitol Corridor, Amtrak and, ultimately, high-speed rail. Conversely, a compliant SMART system could more easily accommodate trains from elsewhere entering into the SMART corridor.

Emissions. While the alternate-compliant vehicle is more fuel efficient, the compliant vehicle has a larger passenger capacity. On a per-seat basis, the energy consumption, emissions and carbon footprint of the two vehicles are almost identical.

Electrification. Like Caltrain is currently doing, SMART may someday want to convert its DMUs to electric-powered vehicles, particularly if more electricity from renewable sources is available. Compliant car builders have indicated they can design vehicles ready for relatively simple retrofit from diesel to electric. Stadler told SMART its alternate-compliant design does not and will not allow for this.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/07/16/smart-to-use-heavier-rail-cars/

Take special note of this:
[Electrification. Like Caltrain is currently doing, SMART may someday want to convert its DMUs to electric-powered vehicles, particularly if more electricity from renewable sources is available. Compliant car builders have indicated they can design vehicles ready for relatively simple retrofit from diesel to electric. Stadler told SMART its alternate-compliant design does not and will not allow for this.]
The claim is a sad joke. Metrolinx long ago dropped their page on 'how easy it is to electrify' as it required completely new bogies, pantograph, traction transformer added, wiring, systems changes, other ancillary changes and a partridge in a pear tree.

Not to mention that the Cummins engine chosen (albeit a good one in its basic model, widely used) has had serious issues. I get depressed just listing the problems and the costs. Dowling (the poster) is the one most up on the issue from news reports in the Bay Area.

Suffice to say no more will be ordered, and Nippon Sharyo has far more important orders to deal with to try and keep themselves alive, they've screwed up two major orders for other contracts in the US.

 

[mdrejhon]

2 thoughts~
When they add the station at Mt. Dennis How much longer will the trip be? Or can they potentially run trains faster to try to keep it the same?
With ridership steadily increasing how long do you think it will be before they need to consider either lengthening trains or buying more DMUs? What other hf dmu options do we have?

I think UPX would discontiue Weston, and Weston will be served by almost-as-fast electric RER (the SmartTrack, if you wish). UPX would shift their stopping plan to Mt. Dennis.

Mt. Dennis could end up having defacto 7.5 minute "RER" service to Union -- alternating UPX and RER trains.

Who knows, it might even be a unified trainset, depending on what they decide for the RER trains and the electric version of UPX -- platform height changes, dual-level doors, etc.

 

[steveintoronto]

Mt. Dennis would have defacto 7.5 minute "RER" service to Union -- alternating UPX and RER trains.

Which raises the question of why six tracks are needed? On that headway, and using more modern train control and signaling, it could be done with four tracks to the airport spur and two north of there if RER to Bramalea and Kitchener trains are meshed.

 

[mdrejhon]

Which raises the question of why six tracks are needed? On that headway, and using more modern train control and signaling, it could be done with four tracks to the airport spur and two north of there if RER to Bramalea and Kitchener trains are meshed.

The plan is six tracks only to where Barrie splits off, right? At near Pearson, the plan is handled with four tracks.

Needs room for the Bolton/VIA/etc trains too.

 

[Megaton327]

I think UPX would discontiue Weston, and Weston will be served by almost-as-fast electric RER (the SmartTrack, if you wish). UPX would shift their stopping plan to Mt. Dennis.

Mt. Dennis could end up having defacto 7.5 minute "RER" service to Union -- alternating UPX and RER trains.

Who knows, it might even be a unified trainset, depending on what they decide for the RER trains and the electric version of UPX -- platform height changes, dual-level doors, etc.

Like most people who are actually concerned with logical transit planning, I've always said Weston makes no sense as a UPX stop, and should absolutely be closed. Of course, the local residents and councillors won't stand for that kind of downtowner elitism.

I agree that it would largely be nice to have the UPX be a straight express run from Union to Pearson, but I think Lines 2 and 5 are worthwhile transfer points. I wouldn't have it stop at St Clair, and I'd get rid of Weston; have it be Union-Bloor-Mt Dennis-Pearson. However, not only is there no chance of Weston being removed from service (especially now that the money has been spent on building it), I understand that the plan is to have UPX also stop at the St Clair station, in addition to Mt Dennis, making it Union-Bloor-St Clair-Mt Dennis-Weston-Pearson, which doesn't seem very "express" to me.

 

[Megaton327]

Comes back to the question of whether they can run faster to make up time and keep it Express-ish

Electrification will help a little bit, but not nearly as much as EMUs will on GO lines vs the current diesel locos/coaches--since UPX is already on DMUs, there isn't that much of an acceleration/deceleration advantage to be gained. I don't think they can possibly keep 25-27 minutes end-to-end with 2 added stops, even with electrification. From my rides on the UPX, it seems to generally go as fast as conditions/speed limits allow, for most of its route.

Also, with SmartTrack, if there is fare integration I really see no need to make UPX a milk run. Passengers at St Clair or Weston can easily take SmartTrack/RER to Mt Dennis and hop on a UPX there.

 

[Megaton327]

Rode the UPX today from Bloor to Union and, as with a good percentage of my previous (though infrequent) rides, my fare was not checked. I thought they had stepped up fare checking now that it's so well used?