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

[innsertnamehere]

Assuming 4 trains are required to do 15 minute service (considering travel time is supposed to be 25 minutes, i think that number would be correct, as it would likely take 55 -60 minutes to do a round trip), and $400 an hour, then it takes $28,800 a day to operate, lets round up to $30,000 to account for getting to and from the yard (this gives each train 67 minutes a day to get to and from the yard). This means yearly operations cost $10,950,0000, assuming 2 million passengers yearly, that is $5.48 a rider. Accounting for $500 million capital costs, paid with 0% interest over 30 years, (haha ya right, but i'm not going to do those calculations right now) means $16,666,666 a year need to be paid to cover capital costs. Lets say $20 million yearly to account for interest. That means total yearly costs is $30,950,000, or $15.475 per passenger assuming 2 million per year. You will likely have more than 2 million riders for $15, so lets assume 2.3 million. you now have $34,500,000 to operate on, which probably helps with the fact that I low-balled operating costs, and didn't include things such as maintenance.

Also important to remember that airports do in fact have peak periods where the train will be much busier. even if the train isn't full all day long, as long is it is full at some point in the day, the size of the train is justified.

 

[TOareaFan]

If $400/hr op cost is right, and its 144 trains per day, then the break even fare is about $29 (a good bit lower than I estimated), and the projected ridership is 1.7 million/year. Trains will run 80% empty on average.

The bolded part seems to be the basis of your white elephant conclusion.....while I don't begrudge you your opinion, I wonder what that projection of 80% empty is based on? Running 80% empty would mean that they won't be able to find more than 2,600 people a day wanting to get to Pearson from downtown Toronto in a time and cost efficient manner.....and another 2,600 people a day wanting to get from Pearson to downtown in a time and cost efficient manner.

I just don't see 5,200 total trips a day being that hard to achieve (once it has a chance to run and the word to get out and prove itself as, both, time and cost efficient).

If we really are a business centre then there will be lots of people making those trips every day....add in the odd tourist and the odd downtown resident...it does not seem a very large number.

That said, if 25,920 seats every day are only, on average, 80% used that still translates to 1,555,200 riders per year. So, even with that (IMO) overly pessimistic ridership projection and using your earlier cost estimate of $47,304,000 ($900 per train trip) if those riders were charge $25 per trip you would still see revenue of just shy of $39 million and a cost recovery ratio of 82%.

So is that a white elephant? A line that recovers 80% of its cost?

Look at it another way......if your cost estimate is correct, and the fare is $25 and absolutely no one used this train on the weekend (unlikely)...that would leave 260 days of M-F trips......to break even on those costs the trains would need to run at 28% capacity on those M-F trips......does that seem like a totally unreasonable number?

Like you, I actually have no idea what the actual numbers will be but (again making a lot of assumptions) a line that breaks even just with 28% of its seats filled 71% of the time seems like a long way from a white elephant....or am i missing something?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Also need to consider that the capital costs will be shared with the Kitchener line. I doubt there is a break out of what costs are ARL specific and what are Georgetown South related.

****

I'll add that ridership on the Kitchener extension was what? A few hundred passengers? Think those passenger revenues even come close to recovering the cost.

 

[drum118]

One needs to keep in mind that 144 is not trains, but trips.

The number of trains is based on total round trip time including layover divided by 15 minute headway. If total time is 60 minutes, you need 5 train on the line at any given time. If the line is to see 18 hr of service, then it is 5 X 18 + (10 to get trains to/from the yard). That 10 maybe more depending how crews are handed off as well if the train has enough fuel to do a full day service. On the safe side, add another 10 hrs. This will give you 110 hours of service for $44,000 per day. If the trains carry an average of 400/hr in total, you will see about 7,200 rider per weekday and about 4,000 per weekend day for a total of 44,000 riders a week.

Therefore the cost per trip is $44,000 X 7 divide by 44,000 riders

We know that trains will never see full loads for all 18 hours of service, with various time see next to no riders while standing room at other times. Weekends will light loads.

You can't look at 1 day and say this is the rate as you have to factor all 7 days number to arrive at a rate.

On top of the $400/hr, you need to factor in maintenance and capital cost to maintain the line as well paying off the cost to build it over an X time frame. Some of it is in the $400, but not all of it. How do you spread/repay the $1.5B cost to upgrade the whole line when it benefits other GO service as well ? What is real cost the UPX has to look at so it part of the operating cost? I don't know.

Right now, its a guess game using various method to say trains will take X time for a runtime until the line is ready for testing. Once the line is ready for testing and training, then what the real time is will be known then. The UPX then can come up with a schedule as well having more real data to say what operating cost will be and plug in X riders to arrive at cost of a trip.

Its assume that the trip will take 25 minutes, but testing it in real time with real service of other lines will determined if that is correct or wrong. Only then can Metrolinx decided what will take place and will it stay with the 15 minute headway as plan or revised it. It may require an extra train to be on line or 1 less. It will effect the operating cost.

 

[smallspy]

I was simply challenging the notion that all new services have to meet the cost recovery test.....certainly half hour GO trains on Lakeshore don't/won't (in fact they may take the overall recovery on the line backwards) and I doubt that extending the GT line to KW does either.....that does not mean they are not good ideas/services but the notion that cost recovery is the overriding determinant of any new service just can't be right....so I was wondering why so many here feel that it should be applied to the UPE.

Of course the half-hourly Lakeshore off-peak service and trains to Kitchener don't meet the metric. In those two cases, there never was a metric to begin with (at least, not beyond some internal GO - not Metrolinx - number crunching). They were dictated by others on high, and thus it didn't matter how much it would cost, or how much they would "lose" running the services. They were going to be run, and that was final.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[k10ery]

@TOarea: Look, I think it's great to have more rail running in this corridor. It's only a white elephant if we don't put bums in seats. Trains running 80% empty is waste. Compare that to what you see on the BD subway (peak or off peak).

Efficient use of this investment would involve letting people ride from Weston to Union at regular GO rates. As I suggested before a premium for the airport is appropriate, but $9 sounds about right. After establishing such S-Bahn service, we could then look at fare integration and adding more stations.

If instead Mlinx insists on setting fares to cover capital costs then regular users will be price off the trains, and trains run nearly empty. What sense does this make? We don't require it of any other transit service in the province.

@drum: So the $400/hr is operators and fuel, but not maintenance? I thought that might be so. I found an engineering study online for DMUs in commuter service that used $50/mile as the operation plus maintenance cost. That works out to $900 per trip on the UPE.

 

[innsertnamehere]

yep, lets allow people from weston use a premium express service with free wifi and large comfortable seats for the price of a regular GO fare.

 

[TOareaFan]

Also need to consider that the capital costs will be shared with the Kitchener line. I doubt there is a break out of what costs are ARL specific and what are Georgetown South related.

****

Yes there is a breakdown....the GTS project and the UPE each had their own project pages showing separate costs.

I'll add that ridership on the Kitchener extension was what? A few hundred passengers? Think those passenger revenues even come close to recovering the cost.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier......GO/Metrolinx launch expansions all the time that do not achieve the 80% cost recovery (I used the KW example as well as the 30 minute service on Lakeshore)...it does not mean they aren't valuable projects from a system perspective but it is strange that the UPE is being held to a much higher standard as regards to cost recovery.

 

[TOareaFan]

@TOarea: Look, I think it's great to have more rail running in this corridor. It's only a white elephant if we don't put bums in seats. Trains running 80% empty is waste. Compare that to what you see on the BD subway (peak or off peak).

only you seem to think it will run 80% empty though....I was just pointing out that even at 80% empty the cost recovery is very good.

Efficient use of this investment would involve letting people ride from Weston to Union at regular GO rates. As I suggested before a premium for the airport is appropriate, but $9 sounds about right. After establishing such S-Bahn service, we could then look at fare integration and adding more stations.

No one will pay a premium fare if they can't get a seat...it is a clearly differentiated service. The answer for Weston (and all the communities served by this corridor) is to move way more quickly than they currently plan to bring full GO service to this corridor.
By far more public money is being invested in the GTS than in the UPE and, frankly, it is insulting to the communities served by the line how little additional service is planned in 2015.

Perhaps the UPE would be less offensive to some folks if the GO service along the line was taken up to full day, two way, 7 day a week service....and that would be at regular GO fares.

 

[innsertnamehere]

only you seem to think it will run 80% empty though....I was just pointing out that even at 80% empty the cost recovery is very good.

I think what he/she is saying is that even if it isn't a financial white elephant, it is a waste of space on a valuable rail corridor, which he/she would prefer to see a more TTC subway style service on.

 

[christiesplits]

yep, lets allow people from weston use a premium express service with free wifi and large comfortable seats for the price of a regular GO fare.

I agree that the UPE (in its current arrangement) should not be charging GO-level fares, that would be preposterous. However, a current GO ticket from Malton to Union costs $6.35. I think a "premium express" fare that was anything above 2.5 or 3x the GO price for the "regular service" would be unwise and unpalatable to a lot of potential riders.

 

[TOareaFan]

I agree that the UPE (in its current arrangement) should not be charging GO-level fares, that would be preposterous. However, a current GO ticket from Malton to Union costs $6.35. I think a "premium express" fare that was anything above 2.5 or 3x the GO price for the "regular service" would be unwise and unpalatable to a lot of potential riders.

Do you think that potential riders of the UPE will actually compare it to a GO service that almost gets them to their destination? I don't...I think they will compare the cost to the other modes of transport that get them from downtown to the airport....and at any fare around $25 the UPE should compare quite favourably to those.

 

[k10ery]

I think what he/she is saying is that even if it isn't a financial white elephant, it is a waste of space on a valuable rail corridor, which he/she would prefer to see a more TTC subway style service on.

I/she agree!

 

[TOareaFan]

Do you think that potential riders of the UPE will actually compare it to a GO service that almost gets them to their destination? I don't...I think they will compare the cost to the other modes of transport that get them from downtown to the airport....and at any fare around $25 the UPE should compare quite favourably to those.

I/she agree!

And I disagree. In the early days of planning, I was opposed to Blue 22 and I still think that there was a better way to get people to the airport (my personal choice would have been full GO service with an extended people mover from the airport terminals to Malton Station) but I look at it now the choice has been made so let's move on and see the positive aspects of a transit line that has a decent chance to take 1.5 - 2 million people a year off of our roads and do so while recovering all (or a very high percentage) of the operating costs of that line.

 

[muller877]

I agree that the UPE (in its current arrangement) should not be charging GO-level fares, that would be preposterous. However, a current GO ticket from Malton to Union costs $6.35. I think a "premium express" fare that was anything above 2.5 or 3x the GO price for the "regular service" would be unwise and unpalatable to a lot of potential riders.

Currently at Aldershot you can choose VIA or GO. $23 for a 45 minutes on VIA or $9 for 1 hr 10 min on GO (Presto discount used). I understand that there are people that alternate using GO vs VIA depending on time of day, if they want free WiFi or if they don't want the crowds. 2.55x premium which is not unpalatable to some users. Kitchener and Oshawa are similar premiums (I think)

I would consider UPX a higher value proposition than VIA. No reservation required, fewer delays since they own the track and frequent service. Assume 3x. $5.80 x 3 = $17.40. However, it is an airport pick-up. The GTAA charges vehicles (incluidng buses) to pick-up passangers at the airport

http://www.torontopearson.com/en/toandfrom/taxilimo/#

$93 for a bus. (44 seats on a Greyhound, assume 50% occupancy) = $4.25 per person. So, $21.65 in total for a reasonable price using the known numbers. Add some more $$ for the spur from Malton, remove the Presto discount and $25 is not that far off the mark. I can see them offering a 10% Presto discount to the $25 ($22.50) to encourage frequent users.

I assume that there will be 15-20% capacity in the first year and the same crowd will be screaming CANCEL...CANCEL! Give it 5 years to reach maturity and I think it will reach 30-35% capacity at a minimum. Just like any transit (including Lakeshore 30 min service). It will need time to change users behaviour.

And please correct me if I am wrong but this is one of the first transit projects that I have heard about in Ontario that includes capital cost amortization or debt repayments in their fare recovery %. I beleive they should include it...but we need to be comparing apples to apples. Does GO include all the track purchases when they look at fare recovery for Lakeshore or TTC with the new subway cars