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

I'm impressed with myself for having lost any passion about UPX's arguable shortcomings. We should give the service a much longer breakin period before analysing its ridership, service profile, and fare structure performance.
A much more useful area to focus our gripes is the lack of improvement in GO service on this toute after all the money spent.
Just to maintain perspective - I took this shot today in Cornwall, UK - where bustitution is such a routine aspect of rail travel that the bus system even has signage for it. *sigh*
- Paul
image.jpg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 587
Metrolinx under pressure to lower prices on UP Express http://www.blogto.com/city/2015/09/metrolinx_under_pressure_to_lower_prices_on_up_express/

The Union Pearson Express (UPX) hasn't seemed to pick up steam since launching back in June. It's currently running at 10 per cent capacity, which means around 2,500 people use it to travel to and from the airport every day. And, this marks a 23 per cent drop in ridership since since June.

Many believe that the $27.50 one-way fare (or $19 with a Presto Card) is just too expensive, especially when Torontonians can take an alternative route to the airport, via the TTC, $3. Yet, according to the Globe and Mail, the provincial government doesn't want to lower the UPX fare prices any time soon.

Provincial Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca expects the UPX's currently lacklustre numbers to increase and he hopes to see more than 5,000 daily riders by June of next year.

However, at Queen's Park yesterday, PC MPP Michael Harris said the UPX is "becoming a white elephant on the rails," reports the CBC.

Transportation advocacy groups, such as TTCriders, are also vocal about their disdain for the UPX, which cost $456 million to build and $68 million annually to operate. They want to integrate the express train with the TTC. Others, say this money should go towards more essential projects such as a downtown relief line.
 
nfitz said:
Who then provides the money to make up the difference? The airport premium service is supposed to operate as revenue neutral.
Click to expand...

The same people who are providing the money to make up the difference now... Taxpayers.

Might as well lower the price and let them actually benefit from the service than continuing to run empty trains and subsidizing a white elephant.

Fares can always be increased once ridership picks up.
 
What if it was something like: full current price to go to the airport ($19), but GO prices to use it without going to the airport (Weston or Bloor-Dundas W to Union for example).
 
Tuscani01 said:
The same people who are providing the money to make up the difference now... Taxpayers.
Click to expand...
For system-wide fare integration that might make sense. But for the Union-Pearson line? The government promised it would be revenue neutral after 3-5 years. If they change that now, then they open themselves up to criticism. Look at the bizarre media reaction when it turned out that after the first 10 days of service, ridership fell (as it would seem that much of the travel in the first weekend was a temporary surge in ridership because people wanted to ride it).

Tuscani01 said:
Might as well lower the price and let them actually benefit from the service than continuing to run empty trains and subsidizing a white elephant.
Click to expand...
If ridership was significantly below predicted, perhaps. However 2,500 riders when 3,000 were predicted isn't significantly below predicted! They averaged 3,130 last Thursday and Friday ... it's not like it's unused.

ehlow said:
What if it was something like: full current price to go to the airport ($19), but GO prices to use it without going to the airport (Weston or Bloor-Dundas W to Union for example).
Click to expand...
Then it may be more than a 3-car train, and many of those heading to the airport would be out of luck. Perhaps somewhere in between would be interesting.

That would be $5.09 to Westo and $4.77 to Bloor as opposed to $15.20 and $11.40. Might be worth a shot. Or perhaps something like $7.50 and $6. Those stations are so underused, that it might not make a lot of difference to ridership. But do you risk having trains too full in rush hour?

Here's a thought. What about an off-peak fare for Weston and Bloor?
 
nfitz said:
Here's a thought. What about an off-peak fare for Weston and Bloor?
Click to expand...
That might be the best compromise ...total anecdotal....but it might stop people like me driving to Long Branch on Weekends to take trains to events if I could drive to the closer Weston and do the same...so you would do 2 things...fill UP trains and alleviate parking and train congestion at LSW stations on big event days.

Of course the biggest challenge is figuring out if "off peak" for regular consumers/commuters meant the same as off peak for airport users.....could be that they are not (could be, I don't know).

But, again, I don't think the right thing to do is to revamp a service offering this early in its life....give it a year to 18 months...figure out what is working and what is not and if it is stagnating at low numbers at that time take a look at it. I can't help but think a lot of this early on criticism is politically motivated stuff.
 
Here's something like how I would approach it, lacking insider data for ridership and fare strata:
  • No fare to/from Pearson, including discounted ones can be cheaper than GO's fare for equivalent single trips to/from Malton, and
  • No further discounts once 3-car loads northbound from Union hit... 80%? at peak (basically leaving enough room to ensure Bloor-Pearson/Weston Pearson can board.
  1. Reduce fares Pearson-Weston-Pearson to GO levels. ($5.30/$4.77)
  2. Reduce Pearson-Bloor-Pearson to GO levels ($7.20/$6.48)
  3. Reduce Pearson-Union (and all stops between) to GO levels but only southbound, and possibly restricted between service start and 10am.
  4. Reduce Pearson-Union northbound trips to GO levels for all boardings before... let's say... 3pm (3hrs before the eastbound transatlantic rush gets going) and after... 8pm?
 
nfitz said:
If ridership was significantly below predicted, perhaps. However 2,500 riders when 3,000 were predicted isn't significantly below predicted! They averaged 3,130 last Thursday and Friday ... it's not like it's unused.
Click to expand...

It's only 90% under capacity but hey at least somebody is using it.
 
salsa said:
It's only 90% under capacity but hey at least somebody is using it.
Click to expand...
That 90% figure is statistical manipulation. If accurate the capacity is 25,000 a day. Which means that the plan was to be 88% under capacity.

If you run 20 hours a day at the same frequency all day, you are not going to be anywhere close to capacity.

I suspect the figures for TTC night buses are similar. Should we eliminate them, or reduce the fare?
 
By the way, no one linked to this, but Steve Munro posted the actual Metrolynx ridership numbers:
https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/ridership-summary-20150921.pdf
Looks like ridership is down 20% in September to date compared to June. The highest ridership in September was 3,420 which is quite an aberration from the overall daily average of 2289. The lowest ridership is a Saturday with only 1,144.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top