mdrejhon
Senior Member
Given the ability to run 3-car trains, an equilibrium fare is needed to fill the trains a little better, e.g. full 2-car train at the peakiest of peak (After 1-2 years). Leaving enough expansion room for 3-car trains.
Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited
Given the ability to run 3-car trains, an equilibrium fare is needed to fill the trains a little better, e.g. full 2-car train at the peakiest of peak (After 1-2 years). Leaving enough expansion room for 3-car trains.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
My earlier calculations (I'll have to dig them up) was more based on a 7 year amortization guesstimate, because they need to pay off the trains before electricifation. 20 years is a tad long, I think. I can't find the post at the moment, but IIRC, it ended up being closer to 6000-7000 people at a price closer to $23-$24, based on the figures quoted ($70M operating cost per year including amortization).
But either way, both your and my figures means many empty trains, and that may be an issue with taxpayers who see UPX not being efficiently utilized, and may cause a vote to convert it into something more well-utilized. Cash and Presto prices within $10-$19.99 range probably would provide better utilization and utilize a lot of idling staff at the UPX terminal, including the UPstairs lounge which is probably fairly quiet.
7000 people at $12 average fare ($10 Presto, $15 cash) would have the same farebox recovery as 3500 people at $24 average fare -- there are enough surplus UPX employees to handle a doubling. And 7000 people per day is still only roughly 50% utilization of the current fleet.
An equilibrium of something that causes full 2-car trains during Pearsno Peak but not full 3-car trains. A $10-$15 Presto fare and being a rare standee (e.g. only 5 trains per day of 2-car being standee) is okay with me -- it's not a $27.50 standee fare. Makes a better UPX impression, "wow, look how popular Toronto is, a great business market" -- rather than "wow, not many people doing business in Toronto".
We've got great airport train, it makes little sense to rip it down (even if I wanted it to be like a public transit subway initially). Let's adjust it so it's more useful, make a better impression to our taxpayers, a better impression to businesses visiting Toronto, and fill up the trains a bit more, so that we can at least justify electrification sooner than later.
The 5000 per day goal can break even under running some numbers, yes.
But there's approximately 15,000 available seats per day on UPX. That does not include standees, so with a full 3-car fleet and standee crush, could even go double that (in theory). We do get standees on $10 trains today (GO trains!) and standees won't happen as often as on peak GO trains, so Metrolinx should not be skittish about pricing closer to GO train fares, even if not TTC -- at $27.50 I would be steamed if I was a standee -- but not at $10. Currently, 3250 or 5000 per day will mean a lot of very empty-looking trains even if breakeven at 5000. With 3-car trains and a 10 minute frequency, and lower operating costs of electrification, $10 should still be profitable. (A lot of UPX surveys of Toronto said they'd pay $10, so ridership could really dramatically increase).
In case of capacity issues, there's the option during electrification to run 3-car trains every 10 minutes to allevitate capacity issues. Better to occasionally crowd the 2-car trains (2-3% of the trains) at a lower premium price, to justify expansion.
Even if achieves full farebox recovery, we don't want UPX to be a "perceived boondoggle" that cancels GO RER electricifation, network-wide. For that reason, I think we should, at some point, tweak the fares to reduce the amount of political ammunition available (towards cancelling GO RER), even if it's a bit of short-term "finally"/"see?" humilitation.
For this reason, I think we should make it rocket to 7000 per day quicker, and towards 10,000 per day, as a balance for capacity management (of the infrastructure they chose to build) versus taxpayer impression / business visitor impression.
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
This is the part that interests me.......really not sure why we are spending so much time (here and elsewhere) discussing ridership levels after 1-2 months....particularly as it is the summer months....traditionally really slow business travel months.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Probably. Metrolinx needs to be prepared to adjust quickly, once they see the startup pattern. If there's any sign of difficulty filling the trains, adjust. Trains need to be made sufficiently popular before next elections that may affect GO RER -- while maintaining farebox recovery goals.
nfitz
Superstar
As it's been demonstrated that they are not having problems filling the trains now, what would make you think that ridership would drop to levels that they would have to adjust quickly?
What do you think will change to dramatically reduce ridership?
TOareaFan
Superstar
So a service that is just open.....is long term in nature....has a goal to grow to 5k riders a day has to "adjust quickly" before an election that is, what, 3 years away?
I think we are talking about it now....because there are people who were always opposed to this....know that ridership will build and need to get their agenda in print before it is too late and they seem daft. (just my opinion). So they pick a gruesomely unscientific way to "study" ridership (and, really, we have no idea how many days they watched the trains for 2 hours before they picked a really "slow" day) and then make a big deal about it and, again, regurgitate the myth that it is a $29 ride on this train and it is for elite fat cats. (again, just my opinion).
Facts don't seem to bother them.....so 6 weeks into its operations, in what is likely the service's slow months, their $19 fare has them at over 60% of their target ridership which they targetted reaching in how many years? We are supposed to be concerned about that?
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Two. You've forgotten campaigning.
salsa
Senior Member
Just like when people complain there's too few stations and too many stations. It's impossible to satisfy everyone.
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Not disagreeing that there might be ways to increase its utilization, but it's only a perceived boondoggle in the eyes of people who want it to be.
From everything I've heard and seen on the ground, the service is meeting the expectations that ML had set for it at this point.
rbt
Senior Member
Interesting analysis for not knowing the dates. No, there was absolutely no meltdown between 2003 and 2004. It was long after 9/11 and tech downturn and long before the great recession.
Thought I mentioned timing relative to the AT&T purchase (roughly 18 months prior) but perhaps not. I discount that as a reason (raising capital) because they 1) took pennies on the dollar, 2) raised operating costs by relocating and increasing pay for many staff, and 3) AT&T was actually a customer.
If it was a single company in the GTA I wouldn't have paid any notice. That it was several within a very short time span makes it far more interesting.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Agree that it's too soon for any fact-based debate.
If the true numbers were dramatically different than the study claims, ML could have produced a more granular rebuttal. I suspect the researchers' numbers were actually accurate enough. The debate is over their significance rather than their validity.
Low ridership and perceived high fares on UPE won't kill further transit projects - but, if the trains do run empty for too long, the line's public credibility will suffer. Leaving seats empty is a tough route to take when local commuting demonstrably needs better service, quickly. ML must feel strongly that this is the only way to make the end price point stick - Is proving this point so important that it overrides ML's mandate to transit users? I would have thought that some form of short term loss-leader could have been spun so that expectations were managed against any revolt when higher price is justified.
- Paul
TOareaFan
Superstar
I don't think anyone (certainly not me) is accusing those folks of lying about their numbers. But I do take exception to what they did being called research or them being referred to as researchers. They sat for 2 hours and counted people. That is not research that is, well, doing a limited sample head count. A few weeks ago I went to a TFC match that had 17k people at it.....can I safely assume that this is the TFC attendance and that there is absolutely no need for a 30k stadium? Of course not. Not only is it unclear why they chose any 2 hour window....it is not clear why they chose that 2 hour window....it is also unclear if they did indeed sample multiple 2 hour windows but chose to lambaste the service on that particular window. Their numbers may be correct for the observations that they made in the period they reported on.....but that is not research.
That said, and forgetting that all numbers at the 6 week point are meaningless, why is the ttcriders count of 14 people per train more valid/valuable than Metrolinx' own figures of 3,250 people per day? Or am I to assume that you think the lack of granularity in the ML figures indicates they are lying but ttcriders is not? Help me with what your comment there means?
But are the ridership numbers low? Is 3,250 ppl/day at this point low? Are the fares high? No matter how often groups like to pick the highest cash fare possible and put that out as the "per ride" cost it just isn't so......there are multiple different discounts available and, the simplest one, simply involves using a presto card to pay the fare.
The issue here is not UP....its the lack of other public transit running on the available infrastructure. I have been a long time critic of the lack of GO rail service in this corridor (to the annoyance of many here, I might say) and I full agree that more GO trains should be running in this corridor in both directions, 7 days a week. That is what the commuting public needs/wants......and getting more 10 car GO trains running up and down the line more often will provide a meaningful service and meaningful capacity. That, however, is no reason to fabricate "studies" and numbers to critique UP.......a service that with reduced fares and used at as a commuter service would just frustrate the commuting public due to its lack of capacity.
Be critical of the lack of GO trains (I will join you at the sit in
) but don't mix your issues with UP....they are separate matters entirely.
wopchop
Building Toronto
I agree. From what I understand, they did a head-count during one two-hour window. That is not scientific at all. Calling that research is an insult to researchers all across the planet.
Napoleon
Active Member
My unscientific survey consisted of counting riders in the train window when I was on my after-work bike ride. At 5:30 PM, I counted 3 people on one train at Bloor station.
wopchop
Building Toronto
Your survey was also useless.
According to this article, the UPX was averaging 3250 a day, only a few weeks after opening.
The Metrolinx ridership count is taking into account all ridership at all times of the day. Unless you have reason to believe that they are lying, it is really the only count that matters.
According to this article, the UPX was averaging 3250 a day, only a few weeks after opening.
The Metrolinx ridership count is taking into account all ridership at all times of the day. Unless you have reason to believe that they are lying, it is really the only count that matters.