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

I imagine $35 is the estimate of a one-way full fare and $15 a discounted fare.

The original idea in 1995 was $22. In 2015, with inflation, that will be $33.

Remember this project is supposed to cover its capital as well as operating costs - unlike any other rail transit project in the history of Canada!

I, like you, have no idea what the cost will be. I only take issue with people (anyone) seeing a quote that says "$15 - $35" and announcing that it is now $35....it does not contribute to rational discussion if we (intentionally or otherwise) parse/misquote items in that fashion.
 
I, like you, have no idea what the cost will be. I only take issue with people (anyone) seeing a quote that says "$15 - $35" and announcing that it is now $35....it does not contribute to rational discussion if we (intentionally or otherwise) parse/misquote items in that fashion.

So you agree that $35 is too high? And you also must agree that $35 in 2015 dollars is what was always being proposed for this fare - since I have so rationally contributed the calculation of the inflation rate :) ?

The business model for the ARL is broken, and it always was.
 
So you agree that $35 is too high? And you also must agree that $35 in 2015 dollars is what was always being proposed for this fare - since I have so rationally contributed the calculation of the inflation rate :) ?

The business model for the ARL is broken, and it always was.

No...I do not agree and, again, you have taken a comment out of context and twisted it to suit your purpose....not sure what purpose you think that fits.

Whatever the price is, it will be compared to the alternatives. So, a business guy coming into town faced with "$X" for an "X" minute wait for a train that will take 20 minutes to reach Union and then an "X" minute transfer to his hotel will weigh that against whatever a cab/limo costs (in time and money) to reach the same destination. This is the market far more than tourists (tourists tend to travel in groups so a group of 4 will, likely, always see a cab as a cheaper approach rather than paying 4 times "X" for the train) and not until we see the cost and operating environment will we know how successful it will be.

The studies in 1995 talked about a $22 fare generating a certain amount of ridership (can't remember what it was but it was over a million) and, yes, it is likely that by 2015 inflation will have boosted that fare...but inflation will also have boosted the cost of the alternatives that were looked at in those studies....no?
 
Remember this project is supposed to cover its capital as well as operating costs - unlike any other rail transit project in the history of Canada!

This is a derail, but ... what? Back before the car age, there were plenty of streetcar lines and interurbans back that were profitable to build and operate.

The primary reason it's difficult for transit projects to cover their costs now is that they compete with private automobiles, which receive massive subsidies in the form of a free-to-use road and highway system.
 
No...I do not agree and, again, you have taken a comment out of context and twisted it to suit your purpose....not sure what purpose you think that fits.

Whatever the price is, it will be compared to the alternatives. So, a business guy coming into town faced with "$X" for an "X" minute wait for a train that will take 20 minutes to reach Union and then an "X" minute transfer to his hotel will weigh that against whatever a cab/limo costs (in time and money) to reach the same destination. This is the market far more than tourists (tourists tend to travel in groups so a group of 4 will, likely, always see a cab as a cheaper approach rather than paying 4 times "X" for the train) and not until we see the cost and operating environment will we know how successful it will be.

The studies in 1995 talked about a $22 fare generating a certain amount of ridership (can't remember what it was but it was over a million) and, yes, it is likely that by 2015 inflation will have boosted that fare...but inflation will also have boosted the cost of the alternatives that were looked at in those studies....no?

Apparently inflation operates in a vacuum acting only on those things that some people choose them too.
 
This is a derail, but ... what? Back before the car age, there were plenty of streetcar lines and interurbans back that were profitable to build and operate.

The primary reason it's difficult for transit projects to cover their costs now is that they compete with private automobiles, which receive massive subsidies in the form of a free-to-use road and highway system.

The original subway line was also profitable.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, competition with the car has had an impact but Toronto's subway lines are as busy as ever (though the streetcars have lost a lot of riders). Fares, adjusted for inflation, are also a lot higher. On the other hand, labour costs and construction costs are also far higher than when transit was profitable. Not that I'm advocating wage cuts at all but, given that 80% of the TTC's operating costs are labour, if we in theory cut wages then the TTC could be profitable. I don't think profitability is the most important objective to pursue.

As for the rail link, I think that $35 is too high and could deter riders. On the other hand, the main competition for this service is the taxis, which cost $60 from downtown with tip.
 
Last edited:
As for the rail link, I think that $35 is too high and could deter riders. On the other hand, the main competition for this service is the taxis, which cost $60 from downtown with tip.

It's standard policy amongst many large telecom companies and I assume large companies of any type that employees should take the express rail service when available.

The main reason isn't cost, but related to more predictable service.

I doubt it will carry more than 500 people per day but $4Million in revenue per year should be enough to keep it running.

Next up, how to get GO REX service on the Georgetown line in addition to this. This, ultimately, is why the corridor is under construction.
 
....what I should have highlighted (to elicit information/response) was just the part about a 3 year delay to the all day service.....is this at all accurate?

That's the thing. No one really knows, as GO has never made available (either to the public or even internally) a mocked-up schedule of the line once all of the work is done. The limited mid-day service that they used to run was terminated in order to allow the construction crews at West Toronto (and elsewhere) more time to work on the projects. Once all of the work is done, there is no reason why they couldn't run a similar or improved service during off-peak times.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
That's the thing. No one really knows, as GO has never made available (either to the public or even internally) a mocked-up schedule of the line once all of the work is done. The limited mid-day service that they used to run was terminated in order to allow the construction crews at West Toronto (and elsewhere) more time to work on the projects. Once all of the work is done, there is no reason why they couldn't run a similar or improved service during off-peak times.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

That is true....but if the intent is/was only to run that same limited schedule that was available before spending, what, $1B or so you have to wonder why spend the money? Whether they said it or just let us think it, the expectation was that significantly improved (perhaps even all day, every day, two way) service was coming to the line.
 
Business travellers with expense accounts who are going downtown (remember that lots of business travellers arriving at YYZ are visiting businesses in Mississauga and elsewhere in the GTA) are a tiny market. In any case, I have a suspicion that deep pocketed business travellers will use taxis. A taxi ride from YYZ to Union Station takes about 30 minutes if traffic is good, and the widespread available of Google traffic data should make it obvious that taking the Gardiner is usually faster than the ARL outside rush hour, and almost always faster if one is not going to Union Station.

I think that people who reverse commute from Toronto to the airport area are a far larger market than business travellers. Longer trains, lower fares and more stops will result in 10x the ridership. When the line opens there is going to be widespread political pressure by people who live along the line who cannot afford to use the expensive airport rail link trains which will force Metrolinx to lower fares, rebuild the airport spur to handle longer trains, add more stops and add 15 minute frequency service to Brampton. I hope this ends up being phase 1 of more extensive GO train improvements on other lines.
 
I have to say IMO adding eight stops to the airport express rail link was a silly idea. The Airport Link is supposed to be like London's Paddington to Heathrow non-stop rail service.

If you want a half dozen or more stops, then you might as well extend the subway 10 kms from Kipling to the airport.
 
Longer trains, lower fares and more stops will result in 10x the ridership. When the line opens there is going to be widespread political pressure by people who live along the line who cannot afford to use the expensive airport rail link trains which will force Metrolinx to lower fares, rebuild the airport spur to handle longer trains, add more stops and add 15 minute frequency service to Brampton. I hope this ends up being phase 1 of more extensive GO train improvements on other lines.

I hope you're right. This add-more-stops campaign could be what finally opens the general public's eyes to the potential of the GO corridors for rapid transit within Toronto.
 
I hope you're right. This add-more-stops campaign could be what finally opens the general public's eyes to the potential of the GO corridors for rapid transit within Toronto.

But why not just do that with regular Go trains that run the entire length of the line in addition to the ARL?

Why limit the use of this billion dollar investment in transit infrastructure?
 
But why not just do that with regular Go trains that run the entire length of the line in addition to the ARL?

Why limit the use of this billion dollar investment in transit infrastructure?

Like andrewpmk said, I think it would dramatically increase its use, not limit it. And there are aspects of the ARL that make it more suited to a high-frequency metro service than the other GO lines (in their current state): it won't run with monster 10-car double-deck trains, it's a shorter route than the long-haul trains to Georgetown and Kitchener, and there's space in the corridor for it to have dedicated tracks separate from the longer-distance express services.
 
Like andrewpmk said, I think it would dramatically increase its use, not limit it. And there are aspects of the ARL that make it more suited to a high-frequency metro service than the other GO lines (in their current state): it won't run with monster 10-car double-deck trains, it's a shorter route than the long-haul trains to Georgetown and Kitchener, and there's space in the corridor for it to have dedicated tracks separate from the longer-distance express services.

But those shorter cars are not configured (inside) for mass transit......the highest passenger volume stations on the line are all west of the airport and, if the regular Go is not expanded, a great deal of the line/infrastructure will not be used for large parts of the day so there is very little value in being separated!
 

Back
Top