In today’s Toronto Star, Tess Kalinowski writes about recently released Metrolinx reports concerning the Union Pearson Express (UPX).
The items of interest are down at the bottom of the Reports & Information page and they include ridership forecasts from December 2011 and May 2013. The latter report was cited as background to the Auditor General’s 2012 Report on Metrolinx [beginning on p. 6 of the pdf].
Given that the projection is almost two years old, one might be tempted to say “maybe things have improved”, but that’s a tad hard to believe in the absence of any newer studies from Metrolinx.
There are great hopes, and even greater hype, for the UPX, and getting some basic information on the table is certainly worthwhile.
Commercial Confidentiality
Sections of the forecasts have been redacted by Metrolinx “to protect economic and other interests”, and the missing data appear to be entirely concerned with revenue projections and fare levels. How exactly this is applicable is quite a mystery considering that Metrolinx is a public agency and we are not dealing here with a privately operated UPX or a 3P, the very model that was abandoned because the “private partner” didn’t think the line could make money.
Metrolinx and, through them, Queen’s Park are hiding behind confidentiality provisions to save themselves from criticism over fares and costs, but we can get at that by other ways, notably in the Provincial Auditor’s Report (discussed at the end of this article).
Metrolinx owes the public a clear statement of just what “economic and other interests” are being protected other than the threadbare reputation of politicians who have staked much on this project.
December 2011 Forecasts
The first step in estimating ridership is to look at the overall projected use of the airport. The chart below starts with projected demand in 2020 and then carves away travellers who are not in the potential market for UPX services.
Of the projected 40.8-million airport users, 10.9m are captive to the airport because they are changing between flights. A small number, 1.8m, will be arriving or leaving during hours the UPX is not running. The next large block, 14.9m (36.5%) originate from or travel to locations the UPX does not serve. Another small block, 1.3m, use private shuttles such as links to hotels. This leaves 11.8m (28.9%) of airport users as potential UPX passengers. Of these, the overwhelming majority now use taxis or drop offs/pick ups for transport to/from the airport. This is the market UPX seeks to tap in its aim of reducing road congestion and associated problems such as pollution.
Based on surveys of travellers in 2009, the passengers were reassigned by mode to show the effect of the UPX.
This chart considers all of 29.86m passengers who are not transferring at the airport, and predicts that the ARL would capture 3.08m trips. What the chart does not tell us is the distribution of trips within and outside of the potential scope for UPX riders (the 11.8m above). Note that the thickness of the bands in the first chart (in scope trips) is different from the bands in the “without ARL” column in the second chart (all trips). “Rental car” is a noticeably thinner slice for in scope riders than for airport trips in general. This probably reflects the comparative difficulty of reaching locations that are not downtown and the need for personal transportation once someone gets there.
In any event, UPX (labelled “ARL” above from its original name “Air Rail Link”) manages to pick up 3.08m trips which is 26% of its in scope market, or 10.3% of all trips to/from the airport. Most of these are to/from downtown, and so these can reasonably be assumed to be auto/taxi journeys diverted from the 427/QEW/Gardiner route.
The report estimates that the UPX riders have been diverted from other modes: 62% from taxis, 11% from an express bus and 27% from a car (rentals, drop-offs, parking).
Ridership on UPX is projected to begin at 1.35m for the 2015 partial year (April 5 to December 31), and ramp up to a “mature” level of 2.97m annually in 2018. Thereafter, growth at 1.4% per annum is projected (based on experience with other similar systems worldwide) to a 2031 value of 3.57m.
A much more generous view of ridership was assumed in the Neptis Foundation report authored by Michael Schabas. In that report, which included quite rosy projections for the financial health of UPX, Schabas begins with a presumed 2015 ridership of 3m (annualized basis) with ridership doubling by 2023 and doubling again by 2033. This is vastly more riders than projected by Steer Davies Gleave in the Metrolinx study.
Part of the black art of ridership estimates is a projection of the “capture rate” for airport trips from various parts of the city. If there would be 100 trips to the airport from an area, how many of these would likely be picked up by UPX?
A high capture rate is predicted for downtown at 68% (note that although the chart includes a legend for 80-100%, no zone actually achieves this level). In other words, for every 100 trips to the airport from to/downtown, 68 are expected to use UPX. The proportion at Bloor Station is high too:
… capture rates are high at 53% reflecting the highly competitive nature of the ARL compared to other competing modes for those travelling to or from this area. [p. 18]
This is certainly wishful thinking because unlike a businessman downtown who would probably walk to Union Station, riders along the Bloor subway corridor are far more likely to get on the subway and, having done so, simply continue west to Kipling and the TTC’s 192 Rocket service. A related problem here is that there is no direct connection from Dundas West Station to the UPX platform. Metrolinx has even proposed a scheme to rejig (one might say “gerrymander”) Dundas West Station simply to improve the surface link between the subway and the GO/UPX station. It is worth noting that SDG explicitly states:
The ARL station at Bloor will be easy to access and have a good interchange with other transit modes. [p. 20]
They presume that in the absence of a good connection at Bloor UPX station, riders would backtrack to Union rather than simply taking the subway plus the 192. This is a rather blinkered view and clearly does not allow for the substantially added access time just to reach Union. (The effect of a longer trip is clear in the sensitivity analysis later in the report.)
Hourly demands over the day are projected from the known travel patterns at the airport (hourly volumes, trip times adjusted relative to flight times to allow for security clearance and baggage handling, variation in proportion of trips types by time of day) to produce a projected demand level for UPX in its first year.
The first chart shows projected demand on a typical day for traffic to and from the airport. This is well within the capacity of two-car trains. (The “ramp-up” scenario below presumes that traffic does not build immediately to the full projected level. Given that much of the traffic will be to/from downtown, this chart is also a good indication of the number of trips that will be removed from the road network by time of day.
August is a heavy travel month, and the projected peak demand for it is shown below. This would take UPX either into standees (hardly a “premium” service) or a need for three-car trains.
Usage by station shows a very heavy skew to Union as the primary origin and destination.
Finally, the report considers the effect of altering assumptions in the model.
It is intriguing to note that the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) who run Pearson Airport have different assumptions in their model of airport traffic compared to the Metrolinx study. Notably they have a higher assumed mode share for downtown and they project a higher growth in air travel.
Adopting the GTAA air traffic forecasts leads to a 14% increase in the forecast ridership of the ARL. This is directly related to the fact that the GTAA air traffic forecasts are greater than the ones that have been developed by us for this study.
Use of other GTAA data to change the demand composition of the in-scope market has a number of small impacts, the biggest being the impact of the GTAA mode shares for the downtown metro area of Toronto which increases ridership forecasts by 7%. [p. 24]
Increasing the travel time has a negative impact on projected ridership. This is worth noting in the context of a proposed connection at Bloor/Dundas West where the existing transfer route would add substantially to trip time and also endure the penalty that transferring and waiting rank far higher than on board time as a deterrent to ridership.
May 2013 Forecasts
By 2013, air travel had grown faster than predicted in the 2011 study, and so future passenger volumes were updated. However, the charts showing projected travel at the airport suggests that this effect is quite small, and for some years the projections are actually lower. [Compare p. 8 of 2011 report with p. 9 of 2013 report]
- 2015: 36.5m in both the 2011 and 2013 projections
- 2020: 40.8m in the 2011 projection, but only 40.6 in 2013
- 2025: 45.0m in the 2011 projection, 45.1m in 2013
- 2030: 48.6m in 2011, 48.9m in 2013
- 2035: 51.3m in 2011, 51.7m in 2013
Some of the change is attributed to the effect of the Island Airport diverting traffic from Pearson.
Some of the competing modes fell in price (allowing for inflation) and this made the proposed (and secret) UPX fares less competitive affecting projected demand. Express buses from downtown were still part of the mix, although these are no longer in the market in 2015.
The chart illustrating the “in scope” demand is almost unchanged in 2013 from 2011. Instead of 11.8m in scope passengers per year, the number is now 11.9m. However, the projected annual demand on the UPX has fallen by 2013 from 3.08m t0 2.46m. about 20%. Much of the UPX loss shows up in the auto categories:
- Drop offs were 9.55m in 2011, but are now 9.73m.
- Taxi trips were 5.77m in 2011, but are now 6.08m.
Because the revenue projections are redacted, we do not know how much of an effect the proposed UPX fares have on these numbers, or, indeed, what fare was included in the model, or whether a sensitivity test related to fares was included.
The forecast ridership in 2031 is lower in the 2013 report (2.94m) than the 2020 ridership projected in 2011 (3.08m).
The projected sources of UPX riding (taxis, express bus, auto) are estimated to make roughly the same proportionate contribution in the 2013 report as in 2011.
The projected reduction in car trips is 1.98m per year in 2020 rising to 2.36m in 2031. This may sound like a lot, but it is still under 10% of total traffic to the airport showing how important the provision of much-improve transit access via other routes will be.
In the 2013 study, the capture rate for the market for downtown has been reduced from 68% to 60%. Even so, 73% of demand is expected to come from this area.
Forecast annual ridership is expected to be split between the three stations with 79% at Union, 14% at Bloor and 7% at Weston. This is little changed from the 2011 report.
The hourly ridership numbers come nowhere near the seated capacity which is now based on a mix of 2 and 3-car trains.
We have been advised by Metrolinx that the hourly seated capacity will be between 576 and 672, depending on the mix of 2 and 3-car consists. Both are well above forecast hourly demand. [p. 24]
What is even more startling, however, is to compare this chart from the 2013 report with the one in 2011 that showed demand for the opening year, 2015. The projected demand in 2020 is now lower than the originally projected demand in 2015.
Finally, in a look at airports around the world, the 2013 report gives the following comparison for Toronto. In this chart 2020 Toronto projections are compared to recent data from other cities. In other words, Toronto’s numbers are goosed by the inclusion of at least 7 years of ridership and demand growth relative to other cities.
It is rather amusing that a combination of UPX with bus service is included here to show Toronto in a better light for overall transit access. The bus passengers (those who have not been poached away by UPX) were already on transit and do not represent any reduction in road demand or congestion.
This chart is described in unwarranted glowing terms:
With a forecast market share of 8.3% and passenger volumes of 2.5 million in 2020, the UPE in Toronto is comparable with other North American cities such as:
■ Vancouver, served by the Canada Line rapid transit service: 10% rail market share;
■ Chicago Midway, served by Chicago Transit Authority “L” trains: 6% rail and 9% transit overall;
■ Seattle, served by the Link light rail service: overall transit market share of 11%; and
■ Baltimore/Washington, served by a large number of rail services (Amtrak, MARC and a light rail system): 12% transit market share.
We will just ignore the fact that Toronto in 2020 with UPX will be well below Boston’s Logan airport served directly by the local transit system (the Blue Line), and the much better known (and used) Chicago O’Hare airport (also on the Chicago El).
In the conclusion, the report states:
The UPE is forecast to carry 8.3% of the surface access market. This is well within the range of other airports in the world, and in particular North American rail links such as Vancouver and Chicago. [p. 29]
The reader is not supposed to notice that the comparison is actually to Chicago’s minor airport, Midway, not to its primary airport, O’Hare, nor that many other North American airports already outdo the Pearson/UPX combination’s 2020 projections.
The Provincial Auditor’s Report
The Provincial Auditor reviewed, among other things, the question of cost recovery for the UPX operation and capital costs.
At the time of our audit, the province had not specifically required that Metrolinx recover the cost of operating the ARL from revenues that the service generates. The Ministry of Transportation (Ministry) informed us that Metrolinx would set the ARL’s fare in consultation with the province.
If operating the ARL on a break-even basis is indeed the objective, this may prove to be a challenge for Metrolinx. In 2003, Transport Canada announced a private-sector group as the successful Public–Private Partnership (P3) proponent that would design, build and operate the ARL. However, the group was unable to secure financing for the venture because its lenders did not feel that they had sufficient protection from “no market” risk (that is, from a situation where, despite all reasonable efforts to attract riders, the service does not generate enough revenues to be a viable business). They perceived this project to be riskier than other infrastructure projects because there was no “pre-existing demonstrated revenue stream.” The group proposed that the province assume the lenders’ risk by purchasing ARL assets if the “no market” scenario arose. The province rejected this proposal, so the group walked away from the project. In 2010, the government decided that the province, through Metrolinx, would build and operate the ARL itself. [pp. 210-211]
Yes, there are times when a partnership with the private sector just doesn’t work out, especially when the government won’t agree to bail out a losing proposition.
Metrolinx’s preliminary estimate of the ARL’s annual operating cost is approximately $30 million. However, according to Metrolinx, the cost could well be higher, because the service’s exact nature has not been finalized, so some relevant costs may not have been identified yet. For example, the estimate does not include the annual access fee of approximately $5 million that GO Transit was going to charge the private-sector group for using the GO-owned Georgetown South rail corridor. As well, if the fare was to recover the capital cost of the pro-ject over time, we estimate this would approximate $20 million annually over a period of 20 years. If that amount is included as part of the ARL’s operating cost, the total cost to be recovered from fares each year would rise to about $50 million. [p. 212]
Obviously, if UPX is part of Metrolinx, there would not be an internal charge of $5m for the use of GO Transit facilities unless UPX was treated as a cash cow by GO Transit. However, if there were any idea of farming UPX out to a private owner at some point, the question of track usage and other shared costs would be very much an issue.
If we take the annual ridership projections in 2020 of 2.46-3.08m, the cost per trip is on the order of $10 based on that starting cost of $30m. We do not know what additional costs Metrolinx might face that have led them to a standard fare of $27.50 and a Presto-based fare of $19. Metrolinx finances, especially at the detailed level of this one route, are a mystery. Will UPX riders actually be paying the full cost of their service? Will subsidy funds that might have gone to general improvements in GO Transit be diverted to prop up UPX?
The Auditor estimates that a fare of $28 would be required to break even on operations plus capital amortization, and qualifies even that number with concerns about UPX’s ability to achieve market share at a high ticket price.
This does not include the UPX’s share of electrification costs which are still unknown, at least to the public.
Conclusion
The Union Pearson Express was a vanity project for the former Chretien government in Ottawa together with their “partner” SNC Lavalin who were originally to build and operate the line. It then turned into a provincial project under Dalton McGuinty and is now in the hands of the Wynne government. There will be much hoopla, many photo ops, and possibly even some riders. Much effort has been spent over a very long time for a project that should have been delivered as a basic part of the transit system, at most as a branch offering within the GO Transit network.
Much more openness and transparency are required from Metrolinx about this and all of its projects so that informed decisions can be made, up front, about transit investments, subsidies, fares and services. The sham of “commercial confidentiality” must be stripped from these debates.
Part of me wants any transit project to succeed. The worst possible environment for a transit advocate is to spend time explaining that some new line, some new network won’t be like whatever recent debacle happens to preoccupy media and politicians. The projections for UPX are not encouraging.
Steve Munro 
By the “West Diamond Grade Separation” do you mean the one where the Kitchener Line crosses the CP North Toronto Sub? I hate to tell you this but CN does not run any freights through there and hasn’t for years. I think that you mean CP but aside from that there is a big difference from changing schedules for three days and having your main line expropriated to improve commuter service.
LikeLike
robert – I stand corrected. Yes, CP is NOT CN.
I also did not suggest rail expropriation – there are other solutions, all of which are expensive.
LikeLike
Yes it is hard to imagine, given the level of load through here, and the lack of other possible routes, that they would permit this, without one heck of a fight. A federal government would likely be unwilling to engage in this.
This of course brings back to the fore the most important aspect of the dubious economics – opportunity costs. What were the alternative uses of the corridor, space for a 3 car train & platform, a direct route that potentially could be excluded from switches in the USRC etc? I would strongly suspect that for similar money and space, a 3 car double decker train could have been run on a 6 minute headway in this type of closed corridor. While this would not be a large capacity service, it would act as a high frequency link, and would permit 4-5k in the way of capacity. This is very nearly the capacity of the Gardiner. This service and could have included a stop at Malton that would have served the airport, and would have made for very attractive service from Bramalea or at the least a bus/parking connection from Malton.
LikeLike
@ Mark Rejhon
I was once on a CN passenger train that clicked off mile posts in 33 seconds on the long straight downhill into Winnipeg, 109 mph and 36 hours late because of a derailment but those speeds are not maintainable on a consistent basis. Again the thought of HSR sounds great but the province would be better of going to higher speed rail, HrSR at 160 km/h, which could be achieved at a lower cost than 200 km/h service and still generate a lot of improvements in schedule speeds.
Platform signage is good and better ones are definitely needed but they do nothing to improve track speed. A lot of what you say is possible, a lot is not, but is it the best way to spend limited resources. Should the money to be spent to raise the Toronto London speeds to 200 km/h for a few thousand passengers or to raise the speed to 160 km/h for those passengers AND build a line to get a couple of hundred thousand people from Scarborough, Eastern North York and Markham downtown to their jobs faster!
Yes, but the line is still owned and controlled by CN.
LikeLike
About the CP West Toronto Diamond; I am not sure which railway got there first, CP or a CN predecessor but the one that came second was responsible for maintaining the diamond. While I cannot find a definitive date I believe CP was the second railway there and thus responsible for the maintenance. If some one comes along and says that you will no longer be responsible for the cost if you can close the line for 3 days they are going to say yes.
LikeLike
Man/Steve, I think the perspective is “commute daily” versus “go once in a while” (airport, downtown). The train is, for example, a preferable experience for some people than catching a cab. Although I agree it is stupendously expensive, it does have allure from an airport traveller’s perspective. Just not from a commuter’s perspective. I think that’s why half of the public has warmed up to it, because:
(going off the head, the pros of occasional-use of UPX, like occasional-use of a taxi)
– More fun and relaxing, more legroom, bigger seats, better airport-exiting and downtown-entering experience, better climate control.
– Seat more guaranteed. No midsummer standing on bus carrying a backpack.
– Free WiFi. (good opportunity for online airline check-in)
– Airport departure boards on the train.
– Room temperature all 365 days at platform edge at Union & Pearson. No freezing/sweating.
– Ride is more comfortable and smooth, especially for people who get nauseous with bus/taxi movements.
– No cramped, smelly, sometimes rude, tight-legroom, herky-jerky stop-and-go taxis or discount limos (some are GOOD, but, it’s luck of draw)
– No worry about later traffic, like an upcoming slower-than-usual 401. Luck of the draw.
– Premium transit also tend to stay sparkly clean and better-smelling.
– Shorter walk to most checkin booths than any other public transit option (even with LINK people mover) because LINK is essentially across the platform (and potentially synchronizable to UPX arrivals).
– Consistency. 20-minute bus rides can become a 40-minute bus ride with construction or accidents.
– Sudden peace of mind the very moment you step into UPX at last-minute, “wow, my calm is worth the train fare” because of all the above
– Full of energy, not tired, not sweating, not freezing, no stairs, no last-minute panic even 1h15min before flight, might even occasionally benefit families too ($55 group deal, calming factor of train novelty, etc)
– Essentially, UPX becomes part of the vacation.
BUT … This thing was stupendously (stupidly?) expensive. It wastes corridor capacity that should have been used for public transit. But now, we are stuck with it. It’s going to be very popular and farebox will quickly sustain itself. A portion of naysayers of $15-$45 airport trains (London, Tokyo, HongKong) eventually went “what the heck, why not” and decided to try UPX instead of taxi, and loved it. Approval rating of UPX will probably go to 60-70% within five years, and packed trains will occur during peak.
For all the above reasons, there is not going to be a UPX failure or discontinuation, although corridor, pricing change (possibly higher, possibly lower, standee discounts, etc), and service might be rejigged (e.g. squeezing cheap public-transit into between the UPX trains, once the route is electrified and reliable), and theoretically electrified UPX trains might be renamed into something that is more commuter friendly (e.g. Brampton Express, Airport Express, Allstop Plus, whatnot), if multiple different levels of service use the route, but there will still be premium high-priced limited-stop (or express) trains with airport conveniences in UPX vein, probably still carrying the UPX brand name (or an airport express sounding name), ensuring 25-minute service to airport still continues through future transit expansions.
I agree, it is NOT a commuter service. Very few will be able to afford to commute on it (a few will, but insignificant compared to airport travellers). But I truly expect it to be very popular with airport travellers.
LikeLike
Agreed. But — duh — we’re talking about governments.
Doesn’t affect my determination of odds.
Correct, but will CN own all 3-4 tracks when eventually that many will go through Brampton? I think a quid pro quo would occur well before that happens. Agreeably, it is very tight but there is space to add that much with only limited Brampton-resident expropriation, given sufficient funding. Far less expropriation than adding a new freeway even through a rural area.
It will require creative solutions to keep the freight moving along during the megaproject, but it is not insurmountable, considering precedent elsewhere in the world. It may involve lots of negotiating, yes, for sure. But let’s be honest: even just 5-10 years ago, Metrolinx didn’t know what they were going to be doing today.
This EA (under progress) is supposedly far more detailed and intensive than any HSR EA ever done in the GTHA region (and arguably even moreso than the EA that lead up to TurboTrain in yesteryear). It supposedly includes several proposed solutions to the freight corridor, the question is whether our Government decides that the price is right.
Anyway, the Kitchener corridor used to be able to send trains to Toronto in just one hour, back in the yesteryear. Much like back a couple “calendar centuries” ago, in year 1891, the Empire State Express train (Buffalo-NYC) ran 1 hour faster than today’s Amtrak fastest train from Buffalo.
Now there are too many surface crossings and too much traffic for 1-hour between Kitchener and Toronto. Once it’s completely grade-separated, we can pull it off with an express diesel GOtrain today. 1 hour Kitchener-Toronto. But only if we cleared all the other trains (including UPX) and solved PSOs (Permanent Slow Orders) that were influenced by external factors such as level crossings or oldness of a train bridge, etc. Now, that’s only in theory, but would be impractical compared to diesel train cost and empty seats since 1 hour requires bypassing all stops.
Now, if we sped things up a little, shortened dwell time to a subway-style 45-60 seconds through higher platforms, sped up to 160kph in most areas, 200-240kph in other areas, and included several stops (Guelph, Brampton, etc) and frequently ran single-level high speed trains, turning even Kitchener-Toronto into daily bedroom communities for each other, and the lower cost of running faster-accelerating electric trains, all the trains would have enough percentage utilization to pay the whole operating farebox, while making several important stops at busy stations. Upgraded signalling to permit tight headways. Level crossings extinct on whole Kitchener corridor. First semiexpress train can make stops at a certain set of stations, then next train is allstop, then followed by a bit of timepadding (due to semiexpress following an allstop), next semiexpress train can make stops at another set of stations, cycle rinse and repeat every 30 minutes. Some stations get 15 minute service, others 30 minute, and others 60 minute. Brampton and Guelph gets their “HSR lite” stop, everybody’s happy, trains full enough to pay farebox. Heck, 200-240kph trainsets can run at 160-180kph initially while incremental megaprojects replace track with HSR-rated track in selected straight sections. It’s a no-brainer if Metrolinx decides to merge GO RER and HSR, into a “GO HSR lite”, people think we saved lots of money by merging the two as a compromise, Brampton/Guelph/etc ecstatic they weren’t bypassed, etc, etc.
Today’s diesel express trains occasionally clock at 143kph (e.g. Lakeshore express to Oakville, when running late). I checked with my iPhone GPS speedometer app; diesel GOtrains do run at 140kph sometimes, though sustained for small bursts, such as 10 seconds. Surprising but true, and GPS speedometers on good lock are accurately <1kph error averaged over 10 seconds. That's a single diesel locomotive. This is a mere 20kph slower than your 160kph claim, and very obviously clearly there is enough track to go 200kph. When nearly all axles have a motor (like in EMU trains), they accelerate startlingly fast.
LikeLike
As a result, an order of magnitude more people travel west of Brampton (sufficient for frequent allday trains) taxpayer revenue along the GO RER high-performance-rail corridor goes up, farebox recovery better than all other GO routes. Precedent of HSR in other countries explain why HSR has boomed. It will soon be too irresistible for an Ontario government to accept, even if it’s “not the best use of money” (read my post about UPX popularity versus government waste above).
LikeLike
That said, I think Windsor is pie-in-sky at this stage for long while (I feel it was included for political reasons), while London would probably be a future Phase 2 expansion (once London built better transit networks) when the economic benefits start coming in of the initial Kitchener-London GO RER high-performance (HSR lite) section with massive increases of Kitchener-Guelph commuters. Some of those will even be commuters between Kitchener-Guelph, Bramalea-Kitchener, etc, and a Woodbine Racetrack station is already discussed within City of Toronto (as a SmartTrack stop alternative if Eglinton spur gets chopped) that could be also used by the HSR (its reputed Pearson stop) and connecting service to the airport, allowing Kitchener/etc to quickly to to Pearson without a car. Transfers to other routes (ECLRT, and whatever GO RER routes is built, such as SmartTrack), also opens a great number of other commuting destination. Frequent Kitchener service would quickly have good farebox utilization and be farebox profitable not too many years after (if not initially) as people got used to it.
The question of “best use of money” doesn’t always equal “is it sustainable in itself, after capital costs?” (to the chagrin of some of us).
LikeLike
As a result, overall, the cards are stacked towards HSR currently:
– Georgetown corridor megaproject
– Expanded track ownership
– Municipal political will
– Provincial political will
– Large number of grade separations have occurred
– Concept of electrification
– Electrification environmental assessments under way
– HSR environmental assessments assessments under way
– Ontario being the instigator of both RER and HSR
– One popular federal candidates might end up leading the poll
– Peer pressure at both the elector and governmental levels. Today, more and more of us have experienced HSR as other countries get them, and our government see benefits (even if not best use of money).
The momentum has convinced me that HSR (200kph+) has ceased to be pie-in-sky for the Kitchener-Toronto corridor. Consequently, I feel some form of full dedicated electrified ROW running rights will be successfully achieved on at least two tracks through the Brampton corridor, with some form a a quid-pro-quo allowing simultaneous expansion of freight traffic (via speedups caused by grade separations, zero loss of freight trackage, etc) while also having dedicated Metrolinx trackage, even if it’s simply expensively leased corridor width and increased profits by the freight companies, trenchwalling of embankments, a few houses and portions of backyards/parking lots expropriated, etc, accomplishing the complete physical grade separation. Still far less than other alternatives (freeway expansions, etc) and downstream economic benefits, considering Toronto has frustratingly joined the club of permanently-expensive housing (ala Tokyo/London/NYC/etc), so the pressure to do HSR will only increase, and the straw breaks the camel back by 2025 for “it’s now funded”, even if completion date isn’t till the 2040s. Still want to reconsider your 10-to-1 odds bet?
LikeLike
Supporting what I said, 11 minutes ago, Ontario just announced a massive electricified rail expansion plan (Globe and Mail),
Whether you agree with it or not, it is consistent with Ontario momentum towards eventual HSR.
It will take time to construct, but once people get comfortable with the concept of faster electric trains, demand for electrification west of Bramalea goes WAY up. An electrification expansion to Kitchener will very likely require various negotiating and horse-trading with the freight companies to achieve complete physical grade separation all the way to Kitchener, while allowing freight service to improve.
LikeLike
The passenger train line speed was 65 mph when CN operated it but GEXR refused to rehab it for speeds above 50 mph because they did not want to get stuck with the higher maintenance cost. Now that Metrolinx owns it that is no longer a problem. Crews from PNR, I believe, are upgrading the track and installing CTC on it now. This should greatly reduce travel times to Toronto. If Metrolinx were serious they would make one or two of these trains Express From Brampton or Bramalea to Toronto. They could easily get the times under 90 minutes without spending a lot of money, but there is that capacity problem through Bloor station with only two tracks at the moment. Even if they are express they will have to slow down by the high UPX platform until more tracks are added.
LikeLike
On every right of way expansion done on railway owned corridors so far the answer is a resounding YES. The railways will not want to give up control over any part of their corridors in case freight traffic increases. The Halton and Bala subs for CN and the Galt and MacTier Subs for CP are the backbones of their networks. They will not give up any control easily.
From the Globe article:
Union does not have the ability to absorb a lot more passengers in the peak period. They have to do something about that before they get a major peak period increase.
I did not make the 10 – 1 odds bet, Matthew did, but if you’re going to keep extending the effective date into the future you will eventually be correct. I did not read any announcement about spending on HSR saying “it’s now funded”. Nothing is funded beyond the life of the existing provincial government and if the Reformatories win the next provincial election you can kiss RER and HSR good bye. Perhaps I am more jaded by longer experience listening to various government announcements over the years but they are not worth the paper they are printed on as it is too glossy and hard to make into good toilet paper.
The Quebec Government had a lot of nice plans about electrifying all their commuter lines in Montreal and even bought a bunch of really expensive dual power locomotives but forgot to check with the railways about electrifying CN’s and CP’s main lines out of Montreal. The railways said no. I hope Metrolinx and the Provincial government have done more checking with the railways about electrifying than Quebec did. Though to be fair they, Metrolinx and Ontario, have been increasing the clearances on all bridges, under passes and signal gantries to that needed for electrification since the 70s. Something I think Quebec forgot about.
From a purely Machiavellian point of view it would make good politics to promise to spend a very large sum of money to improve transit then have the railways say “Sorry not on our tracks you’re not.” They get all the good publicity, get to blame the big bad railways and federal government for it not happening and don’t have to spend the money. I used to be a cynic but then I realized I was being too optimistic about governments.
LikeLike
When Metrolinx reports that the UP Express is on time and on budget, are they including the cost of the maintenance facility they are building for the trains? Is the cost of electrification of the trains, something they had promised would be complete in 2017, included as part of the on time delivery of the project?
Steve: Almost certainly not as they have yet to finalize the electrification plans.
LikeLike
Agreed. Not a quadrupling at peak. It can support roughly a doubling, when various improvements are taken into accounts. Consider:
– Union Revitalization
– Tripling of GO concourse size
– Better commuter pedestrian flow design (less cross-conflicts)
– Several platforms and tracks are currently shut down during revitalization
– The massive increase in hall width between TTC Union and GO concourse. More doors too!
– Few/no snack/concessions in the GO concourse levels (separated to a massive Urban Eatery style food court underneath York concourse – I saw the diagram and my jaw dropped) eliminating pedestrian interference such as morning coffee lineups.
– Elimination of stairs between TTC and GO (it will be flat to lower basement)
– Double the meters width of PATH connection (totalled)
– Track sharing between VIA and GO
– Double berthing on some VIA tracks (to west), for services coming from opposing directions. Enough room for two 12 car trains with some rejigging.
All the above means passenger density per square foot of concourse and platform will remain roughly the same, WHILE number of people double during peak period.
Doubling is still quite a lot.
LikeLike
New York Penn starion pulls off more than twice as much peak period traffic, while having a similar size and number of platforms.
All of the above are things Metrolinx is confirmed looking at, in their vairous PDFs and/or Union grand plans, through to 2031.
Don’t forget the USRC will be resignalled beginning this year, to increase rail throughput through Union, too.
All in all, we can sustain a quadrupling of GO traffic at the existing Union, by making offpeak as busy as today’s peak. Peak period service will not fully double with this current 10 year plan. Not a problem for this 10 year plan, just a logistical challenge. (From a Union capacity perspective).
After that, we need more relief elsewhere such as a new station.
LikeLike
To be clear: Peak cannot quadruple, but it can roughly double. However, by utilizing underutilized offpeak capacity, total daily traffic is quadrupleable as proposed by this 10 year plan.
LikeLike
Also, if still doubtful … Consider with 15 minute electric trains, dwell time is typically shortened to less than 3 minutes (precedent in other countries) because people will not panic nearly as much as they do today on missing their last GO train, or infrequent hourly train, And electrics accelerate much faster, freeing the berths sooner for the next train. This, combined with reopening ALL tracks and platforms, track sharing with VIA, double berth on a few tracks to the west of York at peak, and more entrances/exits to the platforms caused by the Revitalization, will ensure passenger density on platforms do not increase, while Union peak hour doubles in people.
LikeLike
So Steve, are you going to show up on the opening day of UPX, photographing, and reporting on it? Or is it too expensive for you? If you do, then take your wi-fi device and test the quality of it while the train is in motion (see if works while the train is moving). Is the UPX going to be an honour system? I hope it is honour system because the fare is too expensive.
Steve: Don’t hold your breath. There is a limit to how much I would shell out just to save you the bother of trying the service for yourself.
LikeLike
According to internet sources it has 21 tracks with platform while Union has about 13, In my math 13 and 21 are not similar. Also if I remember correctly it has high platforms which, as you pointed out, will load and unload faster.
It does not mean that the platform will empty any faster and union platforms will be in trouble long before the peak hour doubles.
LikeLike
I haven’t got video but I’ve watched it done repeatedly at Syracuse, NY, near where I live. It’s actually *really really common*.
There’s a gap of four or five inches. But it’s much easier and faster to provide access with a bridgeplate than with steps or a ramp.
Unfortunately, the freight companies are often acting completely looney when it comes to high platforms, and demanding gaps of four *feet*. This is not for any rational reason; ordinary freight trains do not wobble nearly that much, but “just in case” they want to run high & wide loads next to the platform.
With ownership of the tracks, GO Transit can easily ignore such ludicrous demands. High platforms with gaps of several inches are just fine.
LikeLike
Regarding the corridor through Brampton, it seems clear that the long-term outcome will be 2 freight tracks owned by CN on one side, 2 passenger tracks owned by GO on the other side, and a flyover somewhere along the line (between stations, presumably) to get the one pair over the other. A lot of work and expense, but simpler than grade-separating West Toronto Diamond.
LikeLike
You forgot the brand new Platform 26/27 which is not included in old stats, and the future reopening of Platform 3 (for services towards the east, since UPX is to the west on the same track.) That makes 16 tracks accessible with a platform.
All but the southmost track have platforms, and I visually counted the tracks from other photographs, so – yes – 17 tracks with 16 of them eventually accessible by platforms. Wikipedia confirms, and to be sure it was not an inaccuracy and I miscounted in person, I verified in Google Maps, 17 tracks going through Union.
Now when you include the double berth platforms west of York, we will be able to access about as many berths as Penn: About 20! That is my point.
Penn also have some tracks that aren’t through tracks too (dead ends) so that makes it roughly with the double berths and Track 3 at Toronto Union.
See?
LikeLike
Oops, I meant “16” when I said 17, and I meant “15” when I said 16, I typed too fast — I added the passthrough track incorrectly. But the point remains — Union will be competitive to New York Penn in ten years from now, in berth spots.
LikeLike
And far cheaper than solving the Milton Line problem, too. With all-day 15 minute RER service at Brampton GO *and* Port Credit GO, the Hurontario LRT can help divert Mississauguans to either GO line to the north/south. Add a Woodbine Racetrack RER station and you’ve got airport access. Consequently, the Hurontario LRT just became _massively_ more useful. This makes the physical grade separation through Brampton really a worthwhile use of money — to pull off all-day 15-min RER service through Brampton, IMHO.
LikeLike
Thank-you, we can disagree, but no need for personal jabs. Metrolinx is my bread and butter, and I’ve been on a few mega-projects that basically required me to review all GO projects for their impacts on our and vice versa. Eventually, we drew a line in the sand and produced the final reports, but we’ll start the process over again next month.
There are two factors that CN cares about: network connectivity and local customers. You have the Brampton Intermodal Terminal and the MacMillan Yard on the corridor, even though GO trains don’t go past them, they would have to be relocated if you excluded freight west of Halwest Junction. Beyond that, CN doesn’t have an East-West connection, so a new freight corridor would need to be built, as such it probably is cheaper just to build a new transit corridor.
I’d not read the lastest reports on HSR, so I looked up the First Class Partnerships Pre-Feasibility Report from March 2014. This isn’t an “HSR EA approved”. However, the devil is in the details. For $2.5B you get from London to Kitchener in 23 minutes (92 km) and Kitchener to Toronto in 48 minutes (99 km), so they aren’t proposing any track upgrades between Kitchener and Toronto, which are currently designed for a top speed of 144 kph (the current twinning of the Guelph subdivision will greatly improve travel times, from Weston south speeds are more limited below 128kph and beyond King St. below 72 km). Building a new HSR between London and Kitchener is a great idea as it’s mostly green field between the two and it would integrate the largest non-Ottawa population centre not currently served by GO.
There is a huge design difference between 200kph and 250kph. Assuming tilting trains, the curve radii are 1.3km and 2.0km, respectively. For vertical curves, HS1 in the UK specifies a minimum of 10km radius. So you face the choice between rebuilding the Weston subdivision (again) or not running trains to downtown Toronto. Already, this modest HSR has a -0.2 Return on Investment. I’m a fan of the concept, but with so many other worthy projects fighting for transit dollars, this seems like another bauble.
I don’t know the future, but I know the physical constraints of the existing rail system. The Halton subdivision is too critical for CN to sell cheaper than a few billion and true HSR is too constrained elsewhere to make buying this segment of the Halton subdivision the best choice.
LikeLike
Matthew, I was referring to the more intensive EA under way (expected to take several years) is the one I am referring to.
It may not complete until we’ve had an election, but if the same government continues, and new funding sources are found, it may very well become moved to an approved status, especially if electrification is under way by then.
Being a full-fledged HSR EA far more detailed than any HSR EA that came before that, the one nobody has read yet. It will contain solutions for the CN subdivision problem, many of which CN may say no to unless the right price is offered. If a favourable government is still in power, and we find funding for this, then …
Since I wrote that message, Metrolinx announced their RER plan, which indicates electrification to Bramalea (one stop before Brampton) Once Bramalea gets 15-minute RER service, Brampton is going to find it hard to resist the temptation of RER fun, and Metrolinx will want to interchange Hurontario with 15-minute RER. So I’d expect it’s now worth it to spend the funds solving the electrification one stop to Brampton. Combined with a potential Woodbine Racetrack station (to interchange with airport spur), this makes Hurontario and RER far more useful, and more worthwhile spending funds. By then, the huge, careful HSR EA will be completed. It is possible this may be phased (RER extension to Brampton, then complete physical grade separation through the subdivision corridor).
Once all the above is taken into context, a few billion may end up being worth it, under this new context. It may not be money perfectly spent but it eventually becomes irresistibly tempting from an urban planning perspective, but if Bramalea RER becomes gangbusters popular, there will be intense pressure to extend RER through the subdivision, considering Hurontario LRT (if built) is one stop away. Hurontario LRT became massively more useful with the RER announcement, interlining with three GO stations (Lakeshore RER and nearly-Brampton RER) as a possible solution to Mississauga relief bypassing the expensive Milton problem. All three GO stations on Hurontario are forecast to have frequent peak period service, but only frequent offpeak at Lakeshore, unless the one-stop extension is made from Bramalea, for northern-Mississauga relief (and Airport).
LikeLike
Did your analysis take into account heavy axle load trains on bridge restrictions, or did you assume all of these would be resolved?
I agree with your point, but just wanted to add the caveat that CN/CP can’t be expropriated at the provincial level.
Most of the expanded corridor already is built for 128 kph or 144 kph, so I don’t think we’ll be rebuilding for such a small incremental increase. On a Union-Kitchener trip, you’d save 3-4 minutes, which is about equal to one or two fewer stops along the way.
CP (Ontario & Quebec Railway) was the late-comer building the diamond in the 1870s with twice daily service between Union and Peterborough starting in 1884. As an interesting side note, there was a plan in 1954 to do a grade separation, but CP didn’t want to pay their $220K share ($100K federal, $650K three-ways between CN, CP, and City of Toronto).
It’s not so simple or cheap. All the current signal blocks and switches and curves are designed for a top speed of 144kph. You can rebuild the first two relatively cheaply (under $1B), but curves are another matter. The question then becomes is the time savings worth the cost, especially when compared to other opportunities. At most, you can save 10-12 minutes between 144kph max and 200kph max speeds when going to the outer edge of the network (100km). Everything up to the 144kph limit is already in the queue to be fixed.
A lot of what you are suggesting is the actual work that’s under way, just with a more realistic speed-price point. As for farebox recovery, the Kitchener line is subsidized and more frequent service will require a greater subsidy. I’m in favour of all-day, frequent service, but from a farebox point of view, it’s going to make things worse, not better.
If you redefine HSR to mean 144kph max speed, then you are correct.
If it’s the $2.5B London-Kitchener-Toronto route, only the London-Kitchener part would be HSR. London and Kitchener aren’t large enough population centres to make this desirable. As a reminder, the bet was that CN will not sell their Halton subdivision in the next ten years. They might allow Metrolinx to share it, but that wasn’t the bet. Do you want my address to send the money, or shall we meet up?
This isn’t new news, only new details. It’s unrelated to HSR, and possibly even a roadblock, as once electrification is built, it will be much harder to do track relocations.
They have done extensive liaison with CN/CP and all their concerns have been accounted for, except for the possible increase in maintenance costs (Metrolinx would pay for the incremental price, but there is disagreement on what that might be).
Yes, and this is already accounted for in planning.
Today daily traffic isn’t the issue. We could run trains at 3AM to increase capacity. This issue has been and remains peak period capacity. Union cannot handle 7 lines running 15-minute headways (or less) in the peak. Metrolinx would like to get to 5-minute headways, if they can solve the issue of Union capacity. It’s not unsolvable, but it will be a multi-billion dollar project, which will have to compete with every other demand on the budget.
LikeLike
Unfortunately Transport Canada regulations require a platform clearance on main line of 2646 mm or 8’ 4 1/4” from the centre line of the track. Since CN or CP retains running rights over these lines GO transit cannot easily ignore these ludicrous demands. Where there are high platforms they either need a separate track for high speed freights or they need a lower passing speed. I believe that you can get by with less of a clearance with special permission or the railway gods though.
Unfortunately if you want to go past Bramalea on Kitchener, Burlington on Lake Shore West or anywhere on Milton you have to run on a main line railway.
Pray tell who in their right mind and lives near Streetsville, Meadowvale or Lisgar station is going to go to the Hurontario LRT to go to either Port Credit or Brampton to get to an RER train? RER will only be going to Bramalea for the foreseeable future.
In the latest GO document I can find about Union Station that has track assignments, it says tracks 13, 14 and 15 are reserved for VIA. Assuming it still exists it would hopefully run more trains than today. It also says only 6, 7 and 8 are usable for double berthing but hopefully that could be improved upon. So only 12 tracks are available for GO train use.
@ Matthew Phillips
Thank you Matthew for the information updates.
I know this but I am not sure how many people out there realize that. I actually studied the BNA act in high school (The British North America Act, the act of the British Parliament that established Canada.)
I was pretty sure CP was the last railway through the West Toronto Diamond but could not find any sources on line. A couple of days of missed service is a small price to pay for getting rid of a major recurring cost.
I only threw the 160 km/h out there because it rounds nicely to 100 mph however 80 and 90 mph are more than adequate for that service. I really would like to see Bi-level equipment with low loading double width and double doors used by VIA, either GO or Amtrak style, this would speed up loading and reduce costs. I watched a VIA/Amtrak train take 10+ minutes to load 50 passenger at Niagara followed 5 minutes later by a GO train loading 700 in 2 minutes.
Via used to run a Friday Sunday train from Toronto to London stopping only at Brantford that did the Toronto Brantford run in about an hour and Brantford London in about 45 minutes. There is no reason it can’t still be done but not with the 1800s era equipment VIA runs. You cannot run decent service using only one or two drop step door per trains.
“They have done extensive liaison with CN/CP and all their concerns have been accounted for, except for the possible increase in maintenance costs (Metrolinx would pay for the incremental price, but there is disagreement on what that might be).”
I was pretty sure that was the case. The summer I worked for CN, 1969, GO was studying all the bridges and signal gantries to make sure any new construction would clear future electric cantenary. One would have thought the Quebec Government would have done that also so you never can tell with governments.
LikeLike
Your announced EA seems to be the follow-on step to my Pre-Feasibility Report. This seems like busy work to flesh out just how bad the idea is. Four to six years to be in a position to decide when they might get trains running. Reading more, this isn’t actually an EA yet, just the Feasiblity Study to be followed by Conceptual Design and Preliminary design and capped with the 6-month TPAP process. The terms of reference are basically looking at upgrades or new corridor between London and Kitchener, and do what we are doing between Kitchener and Toronto. This “full-fledged HSR EA” will only go 144kph for the Kitchener/Toronto segment.
LikeLike
VIA runs very few trains a day per track. There is enough spare capacity on VIA train tracks to do platform-sharing. On page 23 of this Metrolinx PDF, Metrolinx is working with VIA on options. There are changeable videoboards, so platforms can dynamically reassign between VIA and Metrolinx based on ongoing VIA and Metrolinx schedule. On the Union blueprints, there are also new access stairs in the new GO concourses that lead to the VIA platforms.
In the near future, GO is going to christen a major train operations centre, acting like the air traffic control center. Combined with the USRC resignalling, it becomes much easier to dynamically share platforms between VIA and GO, by the time capacity is needed.
Don’t forget that three tracks acts as six dead-end tracks, via double-berthing on the three tracks. And New York Penn station also have dead-end tracks too! So that’s six berths on three tracks.
And if we’re counting, there’s the UPX berth, too. Now we’re in the twenty-berth league!
This doesn’t include theoretical smaller berths that might squeeze north/south of the large berths (e.g. 6 car trains).
This is why I mention we’ll eventually have roughly a similar number (within ~10%) of berths as New York Penn Station.
LikeLike
Then perhaps that is the speed that will occur, but time will tell if we take advantage of various speedups, e.g. buying 200-250kph trainsets and doing gradual speedups, achieving >200kph on the 10km segments, eventual addition of Guelph bypass, etc.
I realize 200kph versus 250kph is a big gulf, though that doesn’t preclude buying somewhat faster trainsets than planned operational speeds, if it meshed well with future expansion plans (e.g. fast-tracking London).
700 people boarding a GOtrain at Niagara? Seems like the seasonal service is more popular than I thought. Yes, GO loads much faster than VIA does.
Add a little extra time padding for VIA timeslots in platform sharing. And if VIA is at Union anyway, they’ll be part of the Union passenger increase (hopefully), e.g. running twice-as-long newer VIA passenger trains that run slightly faster than today, in future upgraded service. And if VIA is not, then well, let Metrolinx use that berth for the moment in VIA schedule gaps.
LikeLike
The report I was using was from Fall 2012. It was the one that said VIA would move to tracks 13, 14 and 15. These are the options that GO and VIA were working on. It also said that VIA would limit its servicing time on the platform to 40 minutes for departing trains and 10 minutes for arriving trains. I don’t know why they need 40 minutes on the platform to prep a train for departure. These dwell times and the special access needed for servicing VIA will limit the tracks that VIA uses and also limit the ability to use those tracks for GO. VIA is also notorious for being late so you cannot count on having the track available.
Using your logic Penn station could double berth on their 17 through track thus giving them 38 berths A lot more that 10% above Union. The UPX berth is 3 cars long, not really useful.
Where do you intend to squeeze those theoretical smaller berths north or south of the large berths? You need to convert Union Station into a TARDIS, larger on the inside than on the outside, to make your version of reality possible.
Also as Matthew has said once they get all extra tracks and overhead system installed on the Kitchener line they are not likely going to redo it to save a little extra time on the “HSR” to London. Do you believe every promise a politician makes? I hope yo know that there isn’t a Santa Claus.
LikeLike
Firstly, you may have intended berths, but this wasn’t clear in what you actually said. Second, number of berths isn’t a great indicator of capacity as through tracks have a higher capacity than dead-ends. While many Penn Stations lead into a yard, the station itself isn’t a dead-end, so the trains can easily clear platforms and enter the yard without waiting for a train to reverse and clear the switches. Specific elements may be similar in quantity, but they will differ in capacity (for example, I’m going to assume GO Trains are longer than those in NYC).
For the London-Kitchener segment, they are looking at 320kph trains. I’m very happy with this concept, but as a new corridor, not trying to retrofit existing corridors. Bypassing Guelph is really not a great idea, it’s just the cheaper solution to many grade separations.
I don’t think we should be buying high speed trains until we have a high speed network development plan being implemented.
Daily ridership is near 1200 people, so this was an exaggeration, but the point remains at 200 people.
LikeLike
I am not quite sure if you are talking about my report of 700 people getting on a GO train at Niagara but it was on the May Holiday weekend at the very start of service. GO had a lot of security and CSAs on the train to make sure everything went o. k. and they gave me the count of 700. I rode the train and the count was reasonable as about half the seats were taken. A lot might have been on for novelty of the trip.
LikeLike
Messrs Wightman/Rejhon/Phillips: I live in Niagara on the Lake and can attest that the seasonal GO service to this part of the world is very popular indeed. Our politicians are now pushing for year round, daily service, but the Welland Canal is a huge obstacle. The latest proposal is to pad the timetable by 20 minutes in each direction (that being the average transit time for a laker), but that would result in a 70-minute journey time from Niagara Falls to Hamilton, and almost 2 hours Niagara-Toronto. That might be fine for daytrippers at the weekend, but it’s not going to work for commuters.
LikeLike
I took my boat through the Welland Canal last July 27, 2014, my birthday. I was surprised to hear the canal authority tell a freighter to tie up and wait as they had a GO train scheduled across the lock in a few minutes. I had not heard this before. If they can get the Seaway Authority to let GO trains have priority for the two peak times it would be a whole new ball game.
LikeLike
In July last year I took my son to St Catharines station to get the train back to Toronto. Looking back down the track we could see the canal bridge was raised. Train arrived 25 minutes late. I think it’s unusual for the Seaway to tell the ships to wait for the trains, especially as the rail line crosses the point on the canal at Thorold where there is a succession of locks, which might make holding ships in place more problematic.
At one point the estimate for tunneling below the canal was put at $750 million! Remarkably, a new (and underutilized) road tunnel was put in just a couple of km away from the rail line just a couple of years ago — I can’t imagine it cost anything like as much.
LikeLike
Metrolinx claims UPX will remove 1,200,000 car trips from highways in its first year of operation. If we assume equal loading for each day of the week then it will carry about 3300 passengers per day and using 15 minute service from 6:00 to 1:00 gives around 72 trains in each direction or 144 trains. This gives an average load of about 25 passengers per train diverted from cars (including taxis.)
Like most services it will have heavier loading periods so some trains might have 100 passenger then other trains will have a lot fewer. I know this is a very rough first order calculation but it seems to be grossly under used or a very expensive subsidy for some well heeled passengers. Even assuming half the passengers would have used a bus, which doesn’t run downtown any more, the loading is still not very good.
LikeLike
Robert — I believe you are a little high in your numbers I get only an average of 21. You seem to have an issue with the idea of having subsidy flow to those who have, as opposed to meeting social need.
Steve: Let’s put it another way. UPX is being sold on the basis of “reducing congestion” and, by extension, reducing pollution from auto travel. Is the capital expense and likely future operating subsidy the most appropriate use of public funds to achieve the goals of environment, congestion and transit equity? The Gardiner carries about 200,000 cars per day west of downtown, and removing 3k or so of them will not make any perceptible change in either congestion or pollution.
LikeLike