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

TheTigerMaster said:
So the UPX operating subsidy is apparently $84.10...
Click to expand...
Yes, average including pre-fare-cut. Abysmal.

Right now, my rough napkin calculations shows closer to $30 per rider operating cost at current ridership, and roughly 40% farebox recovery at current today operating cost and ridership. (I get this figure only when I ignore everything before today -- advertising surge costs, management-heavy team, seatback magazine, low ridership). I think Year 2 operating costs will end up being somewhat lower.

I think a few mitigations can occur to bring it gradually from 40% to 70% farebox recovery, in line with the rest of GO -- at least until electrified (with bigger, preferably 4-coach trains).

The growth is still linear, not even plateauing yet.
Metrolinx has an opportunity to do some farebox recovery mitigations, and turn lemons into lemonade...

upx_ridership_20160531.jpg
 

Attachments

  • upx_ridership_20160531.jpg
    upx_ridership_20160531.jpg
    43 KB · Views: 734
Last edited:
I just rode the UPX Bloor to Weston, cycled down to lakefront and across, when I don't have the dog, there's little reason to do this, save that I *found* (on the street) a Free Coupon to ride the UPX, any start/finish point, one way, any fare bracket, last day being today! So I used it to do my miles today (cycled down from Weston station to lakefront and more) because it was free.

Now I feel guilty...OK, I'm lying...my fare would barely touch the subsidy.

The sooner this is folded into RER, the better. It's not that anyone begrudges airport travellers a swift and efficient ride. It's just we're paying for that, and getting shortchanged on the Weston Corridor doing it.

Where's the subsidy for 15 minute all day Bramalea to Union?
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
The Barrie line has been tendering some station upgrades recently. A single basic pedestrian tunnel under the tracks is over 10% of the price. I imagine a good chunk of that cost is simply the result of trains running overhead during excavation.
Click to expand...

I am floored that something so simple could cost so much.
 
Are people really getting so upset about a brand new transit line having 37% cost recovery in its first year of operation, which also involved a major fare cut, that resulting a major ridership increase that is still ongoing? What a waste of time... Maybe we should stop building new transit lines and stop adding new service, so that the cost recovery will never go down again.
 
I would wait until the end of 2017.

From link:

Cap-and-trade

Ontario intends to implement a cap-and-trade program, starting January 1, 2017, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the province. Under this system, businesses will have their own greenhouse gas quota (the “cap”) and will be able to sell any unused portion (the “trade”). As a result of cap-and-trade, based on the current forecast for the price of carbon:

  • the pump price of gasoline will increase by 4.3¢ per litre
  • the cost of natural gas will increase by 3.3¢ per cubic metre
Click to expand...

I'll expect an increase in all transit ridership by the end of 2017 and beyond. Expect to see increases in sales of hybrid and electric cars.
 
Tulse said:
That seems insane to me, especially as the market they were aiming for was rather upscale (and that for that amount of money you could simply hand out limo vouchers).
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. I say shut the thing down until we figure out how to better use it, or until Metrolinx demonstates a plan to get that subsidy down to something reasonable. $86 subsidy per passenger! What an incredible waste of money.
 
It should be noted that the subsidy calculations only included three weeks with the new fare policy. So the reduced fares will have an impact on the subsidy.

Any guesses on if the reduced fares increases ridership enough to decrease the per rider subsidy, or if it just increased the subsidy even more?
 
TheTigerMaster said:
It should be noted that the subsidy calculations only included three weeks with the new fare policy. So the reduced fares will have an impact on the subsidy.

Any guesses on if the reduced fares increases ridership enough to decrease the per rider subsidy, or if it just increased the subsidy even more?
Click to expand...
$600/hr per train divide by (seating of 2 cars x 2 trips x $6 x 60%) will tell you.
 
drum118 said:
$600/hr per train divide by (seating of 2 cars x 2 trips x $6 x 60%) will tell you.
Click to expand...

$600 is your hourly operating cost per train? That doesn't seem to come close.

If they spent $63 million operating 5 trains for 10 months, 20 hours per day, then that's $2,100/hr.

It's looking very much like the problem is not fare or ridership, it's operating cost. Why so much?
 
TheTigerMaster said:
This is ridiculous. I say shut the thing down until we figure out how to better use it, or until Metrolinx demonstates a plan to get that subsidy down to something reasonable. $86 subsidy per passenger! What an incredible waste of money.
Click to expand...

The page says $52.26 subsidy per passenger, not $86. But revenue is a whopping $31.84 per passenger. Wow. That's great, right?

I think all this really tells us is there aren't a lot of passengers. I don't see the point of using this stat to complain about subsidies.

Government subsidies for transit have been increased massively for over 10 years now. During the Mike Harris Era, the TTC had 80% cost recovery ratio, but now it's closer to 70%. GO had 85% in 2004, but now its 75%. Mississauga Transit had 62% cost recovery in 2003, but cost recovery ratio fell to 45% in 2013 - a whopping 17% decline in the cost recovery ratio in just 10 years. All because of Mike Harris' absence. UPX just seems like a scapegoat here.

I don't even like the UPX, I never supported it, but that blog post by Steve Munro is still irritating to me. I don't understand how someone who claims to be a transit advocate can write such garbage. UPX is bad because it won't "break even". The other GO lines were "drained" of $39 million this past year. Do people actually agree with this?
 
Is there any hope that now that UPX is fully up and running and some redundant management removed that 2nd year op costs will come down even slightly?
 
doady said:
I don't even like the UPX, I never supported it, but that blog post by Steve Munro is still irritating to me. I don't understand how someone who claims to be a transit advocate can write such garbage. UPX is bad because it won't "break even". The other GO lines were "drained" of $39 million this past year. Do people actually agree with this?
Click to expand...
The difference is that the UP Express was pitched with the idea that it would break even within a few years. When you set such high expectations, you will be criticized more.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top