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

[mdrejhon]

Interesting!

Did not know the UPX trains were being considered for transfer to a low-ridership GO corridor (e.g. offpeak on some routes). That would make sense, as those are fairly efficient trains, though the baggage racks would need to be converted to additional seats. And it'll need to be repainted into a GO wrap. I am wondering how UPX performs this winter.

One question I have is: Will UPX ridership taint the upcoming LRTs?

Since there are many skeptical taxpayers, that some of them are not 100% convinced on LRT economicss because of their experience seeing the UPX not being well utilized.

Of course, there's massive Metrolinx successes (e.g. Lakeshore West). We really need to see the opening of a few LRTs (Waterloo and Ottawa, 2017-2018) to see sentiment-changers, I believe opposition for LRTs will reduce when successes from the first Ontario LRTs finally arrive. The economics of LRTs, run at public transit fares, are quite sound in a huge number of cities. That said, it doesn't help if one Metrolinx route is underperforming from the perspective of residents/taxpayers. It may be performing well to Metrolinx's view but with media/residents wondering...

I ask the question about UPX affecting LRT sentiment, as I'm a member of the hamiltonLRT.ca citizen advocacy -- and this is a question I ask as a sentiment on all kinds of rail-based Metrolinx projects, GO/RER/LRT/UPX/etc -- as public/media sentiment of one Metrolinx project can affect sentiment for other Metrolinx projects. Opinion?

 

[andrewpmk]

I think that LRT lines will have the opposite problem. Especially Eglinton, it is extremely expensive and has a much lower capacity than subway. The low ridership of the UP Express is entirely caused by high prices. LRT lines that charge low fares will have the opposite problem.

 

[Amare]

Another problem with LRT's is that we'll always have dummies such as RoFo and DoFo who will confuse the general public and tell them that streetcars are LRT, and Toronto already has LRT lines on St.Clair and Spadina.

Most of the public is not transit-savvy and they cant tell the difference between a streetcar (especially when the new Flexity's arrive in larger quantities), and LRT.

 

[mdrejhon]

I think that LRT lines will have the opposite problem. Especially Eglinton, it is extremely expensive and has a much lower capacity than subway. The low ridership of the UP Express is entirely caused by high prices. LRT lines that charge low fares will have the opposite problem.

Not necessarily.
LRTs can be cheaper.
See:

-- Calgary C-Train LRT operating costs only $0.27 per passenger -- while Calgary buses cost $1.50 per passenger.
Citation: Calgary Transit, this PDF document, bottom of Page 15.

-- Flexity Freedoms are designed for revenue service as part of a coupled chain of multiple vehicles, up to 4 cars (20 segments), resulting in a block-long subway-length LRT. The Crosstown platforms are being designed for this.

-- Crosstown is capable of running as trains of multiple LRT vehicles. One driver can pull a train of 3 passenger-carrying LRT vehicles. Crosstown is already designed to be easily upgradeable to pull up to almost 1000 people with just one driver. The platform lengths in the Crosstown tunnel are already being designed for this eventuality!

-- If you run trains of multiple LRT vehicles (a subway length), the costs fall dramatically to prices similiar to subways. Look at Calgary C-Train that runs a chain of LRTs one full block long, through surface intersections. Imagine a subway train crossing a surface intersection! (Except the traffic light goes immediately green for it, never slowing down like the TTC King/Queen/College streetcars)

-- LRTs are more flexible from an expansion perspective. They can start small, streetcar-style, and quickly expand to 30,000 passengers per hour (not possible with streetcars) using subway-length LRT chains pulled by one driver. One automobile lane does only up to about 2,000 cars per hour. (That's tailgating at under 2 seconds, since there are only 3600 seconds in one hour.)

-- Sheppard Subway is extremely expensive, operating cost at ~$14 per passenger. One of the worst farebox returns in North America. This is far more than the cost of most LRTs. Sheppard Subway would actually become cheaper if it was converted to an LRT that is able to "scale downwards and upwards". See the above bullet.

 

[andrewpmk]

Eglinton LRT is extremely expensive to build (over $5 billion, making it the most expensive LRT in the world) and has 1/3 the capacity of subway (10000 vs 30000). The underground sections of it cost MORE than a subway. Why does this make any sense?

The opposition to building subways in Toronto seems like a weird Toronto political thing that makes absolutely no sense. If we actually funded our transit system properly, we would have a much larger subway system and this bizarre LRT vs subway debate thing would disappear.

 

[mdrejhon]

Eglinton LRT is extremely expensive to build (over $5 billion, making it the most expensive LRT in the world) and has 1/3 the capacity of subway (10000 vs 30000). The underground sections of it cost MORE than a subway. Why does this make any sense?

On an element you probably agree with me: We should not have filled-in the Eglinton subway in the early 90s, and filled in the tunnels.

That said, this specific LRT, the Eglinton Crosstown is one of the most expensive LRTs in the world due to the tunneled section.

Look at how long the Crosstown is, too. Adjusted vertical, the Crosstown is longer than the Yonge Subway section of YUS! (Union to Finch is 15.5km, while Crosstown is 19 kilometers long). More than half of it is underground. That's why it is so expensive.

Rotate the line vertical, and you realize how long the LRT is -- it's longer than the Yonge half of the subway. That is how massive the Crosstown project is.

The cost of the underground sections are similar as a subway.
The "MORE" part you refer to, is primarly because of the vehicle cost, LRT cars cost more than a subway car, having cabs at both ends of each car, and the ability to drive each car independently (individual subway coaches cannot be driven by themselves). However, the modern LRTs are also able to run as a train, a daisychain of vehicles.

Eglinton Crosstown would have been more expensive if it was tunneled for its full length regardless of whether it was an LRT or subway.

But with surface sections, it reduces cost. And by having the rail vehicles go through surface crossings, the only way to do so is to use LRT vehicles as high-floor heavy rail subway vehicles are unsuitable suitable for passing through traffic lights.

So because of:
(1) Crosstown has surface route; and
(2) Surface sections passing through traffic lights, are lower costs than a tunnel.
(2) Surface sections passing through traffic lights, cannot be heavy rail vehicles, but must use LRT vehicles.

So you see, the Eglinton Crosstown would definitely be much more expensive if it was a subway, because the whole length would be forced underground, which raises cost.

If you run trains of 3-4 LRTs at short headways, the capacity can go higher than 10,000 per hour -- the page at Bombardier claims 30,000 passengers per hour in a train of 4 LRT vehicles (5 x 4 = 20 segments) driven by one driver.

 

[nfitz]

... and has 1/3 the capacity of subway (10000 vs 30000).

Something wrong with your numbers. Capacity of a 3-car Eglinton train will be about 300. If they run every 90 seconds that's 15,000 an hour, not 10,000. Which far exceeds forecast demand.

The underground sections of it cost MORE than a subway. Why does this make any sense?

Not sure where you are getting that one from. The tunnelling contract wasn't more expensive than Spadina. The stations are about half the length so should be cheaper. Both the electrical and signalling is simpler, so should be cheaper. It's certainly approaching the cost of doing the underground section as subway, but it's not MORE espensive!

The opposition to building subways in Toronto seems like a weird Toronto political thing that makes absolutely no sense. If we actually funded our transit system properly, we would have a much larger subway system and this bizarre LRT vs subway debate thing would disappear.

Not sure where you are going here ... the opposition is to building subway where demand isn't there - like Eglinton and Sheppard East. Sure, could have built the underground section on Eglinton as subway - but then would have ended around Don Mills instead of connecting to Kennedy.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Which far exceeds forecast demand.

I'd be hesitant put too much stock in ridership projections these days. Case in point the UP ridership numbers. I've always had a strong feeling those numbers would prove to be wrong and likewise I've felt the same about the crosstown, though in the opposite direction.

 

[ssiguy2]

I know in their stellar wisdom they made the Pearson station only able to handle 3-car trains but what about the other stations?. Can Weston, Bloor West, and Union UPX platforms be lengthened?

 

[nfitz]

I'd be hesitant put too much stock in ridership projections these days. Case in point the UP ridership numbers. I've always had a strong feeling those numbers would prove to be wrong and likewise I've felt the same about the crosstown, though in the opposite direction.

Isn't the UP ridership numbers a good example? 2500 opening day compared to 3000 forecast? Poor would be 1500 or 6000. I'm not sure what people expect in terms of accuracy, but I expect those who did the estimate, are actually breathing a sigh of relief!

Double seems unlikely. But even then, if the 2031 IS double for Eglinton, they are still fine. As long as they don't exceed triple it's workable. Though if they exceed triple, extending the DRL to Eglinton would probably mitigate that.

 

[NotMathematical]

On an element you probably agree with me: We should not have filled-in the Eglinton subway in the early 90s, and filled in the tunnels..

But when you think about, I'm glad the Province filled-in Eglinton West over Sheppard. If Eglinton were to be running today, the line wouldn't even reach Phase 2 extension, just like Sheppard.

I know in their stellar wisdom they made the Pearson station only able to handle 3-car trains but what about the other stations?. Can Weston, Bloor West, and Union UPX platforms be lengthened?

All UPX stations are designed to handle 3-car trains.

 

[TOareaFan]

Since we are engaged in the short term....I thought I would announce that UP ridership has turned a corner.....boarded a 3 car train at Weston yesterday at about 4:40 pm.......didn't bother counting the people in the other two cars because there were 20 in our car alone. That is a 4:40 train on a Sunday and it blew the doors off the recent averages...so, clearly, things have gotten a lot better.

EDIT: in the interest of accuracy, I should also say that I took a train about 9:40 pm in the opposite direction and this time I was able to count the people in all cars as I stood on the platform at Weston admiring the very appropriate "way to go" signage.....10 people spread across the three cars.....

...so, what I can conclude from my Sunday return trip.....it is way too early to judge and we should all cool our jets and wait out the first 12-18 months.

 

[sixrings]

If they are going to go ahead with a surface subway for the east DRL how hard would it be to convert the UPX to the western portion of the DRL?

 

[Adjei]

The people at TTC riders are such fools. How is it possible to even turn the UP Express into the DRL West? And since the most important part of the DRL is in the east, what goal would turning the UP Express into the DRL West even accomplish right now? Seems its not just the politicians who come up with stupid ideas.

 

[Napoleon]

The people at TTC riders are such fools. How is it possible to even turn the UP Express into the DRL West? And since the most important part of the DRL is in the east, what goal would turning the UP Express into the DRL West even accomplish right now? Seems its not just the politicians who come up with stupid ideas.

You're right people are conflating two separate concepts with the UPX. The question of what is an appropriate fare for an airport corridor and the question of a DRL. While I, and probably many others, agree that the UPX fare levels have led to lower utilization than desired, anyone who is realistic does not see this line as a DRL. 3 car trains at 15 minute headways are simply not going to move subway or even LRT volumes. If one priced the UPX at a TTC fare level, it would be very plausible that it would reach capacity and fail to serve its original mission of getting passengers to the airport.

It seems like the TTC riders group sees tracks and says "aha", let's just use it as a relief line without thinking through the consequences.