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

[steveintoronto]

Actually, we can thank the good people of Weston for getting electrification on the table. Remember the promise to run the Kitchener line with Tier 4 locomotives? The ones that still haven't arrived? Electrification was never, ever a priority.... a bridesmaid, but one that never caught the bouquet. The backlash to GTS and UPX is what validated electrification. A few of the handbills about all the diesel fumes on that line still can be found along the route.

The tradeoff has always been: electrify some part of GO, or spend the same capital expanding the service somewhere. The expansion has always won. Perhaps rightly so, as GO now serves more places than it did, needs to go even more places, and we still need more track to keep up with demand.

Electrification only became compelling to ML when it became obvious that diesel trains won't stop and start as fast as the RER concept requires.

- Paul

Those are good points worthy of more discussion. I thought at the time that the 'railing' against diesel was misplaced, since it's a large net gain v. the road traffic it replaces. In retrospect though, not going electric from the get go (I swear the puns are unintentional) was a massive blunder as it becomes more obvious with time that locking into the Sharyo option is problematic from any angle. It's not even viable to add a few more vehicles unless SMART dumps theirs (and SMART are smarting, a lot of second-guessing going on, not the least why the line was rated 'heavy' and not getting a waiver to allow other options).

Metrolinx manages to stifle all the news that's come out on the Sharyos, all of it so far coming from SMART and US journos having freedom of information and accountability mandated by law. SMART freely publish their problems in statements. Metrolinx states: "Tum de dum de dum...oh look, we're opening a new card reader, public announcement next week!"

Metrolinx historically have done very well with their rail fleet acquisition. UPX was their first big blunder, and it was massive. In all fairness, the choice was hoisted on them, as there was really only one possible North Am supplier to meet the regs. And it was untried and untested in the North Am form.

Metrolinx certainly are dragging their heels on electrification. I blame that again on the politics of trying to spread themselves everywhere to get something working for votes, rather than doing each project right before starting the next.

Edit to Add: Just doing some quick Googling to see what written history can add to this discussion. I'm hazy this morning, better search tags will develop later in the day, but this supplements Paul's point, and allows me to make one of mine again:

From The Steve, June 2015:
[...]
On Friday, June 5, 2015, the Star’s Tess Kalinowski had an online Q&A with Bruce McCuaig, and it was quite revealing.

When will the line be electrified?

{“The recent provincial budget set aside funding for Regional Express Rail, which includes electrification of the corridors, including UPX. We are folding the UPX electrification into the electrification of the Kitchener corridor as far as Bramalea, and we expect electrification to start being operational on five of the lines in 2023.”}

There was a time when electrification was promised for only a few years after UPX began operation. Clearly, this is not going to happen even on a small scale for 8 years, let alone a full buildout. Whether there will even be a government left in office willing to undertake this project remains to be seen.

Back in September 2014, McCuaig claimed that the government’s promised electrification within 10 years was possible. Hmmm. Maybe a few kilometers here and there, but certainly not the full buildout if they’re only going to start in 2023. After a burst of election fever and enthusiasm for electrified GO services, Queen’s Park is getting cool, if not cold feet. [...]
https://stevemunro.ca/2015/06/05/upx-was-never-to-break-even/

That's certainly Paul's take on things, but accepting that to be the case, what about the corridor Bramalea to Union? Is it also going to remain in limbo for another decade too?

This cannot be allowed to happen. Yet again, I suggest using the imminently redundant F59s (Five are estimated to be needed for what I propose), power derated if need be to improve the emissions level along with an adapter kit, and still far more power left than is needed to accelerate/decelerate a three coach consist at RER intervals on that leg of the proposed RER. This would also allow Tory his unfunded dream, albeit in a crude form. Extra stations could be added by whatever means the City could devise, but a service *must* be started on that corridor now, or it might never be.

Apologies to Samuel Becket, but it's 'Waiting for GO doh'!

By Tess KalinowskiTransportation reporter
Fri., June 5, 2015
On the eve of the Saturday launch of the Union Pearson Express (UPX) Metrolinx CEO Bruce McCuaig took questions from readers at thestar.com about fares, electrification and the cost of building the new train between Union Station and the airport.

Here's an edited look at some of those questions and answers:

Q: Is there a date and money on the table to retrofit this dirty diesel to clean efficient electric before carcinogens infiltrate the air of Toronto residents?

BM: The recent provincial budget set aside funding for Regional Express Rail, which includes electrification of the corridors, including UPX. We are folding the UPX electrification into the electrification of the Kitchener corridor as far as Bramalea, and we expect electrification to start being operational on five of the lines in 2023.

Q: I have a family of five. Why should I take the UPX when I can get airport taxi for a third of the price ?

BM: The family of five have the option of buying a family pass for $55 which is cheaper than taking a cab or limo from downtown, even more once you factor in a tip. You get a departure every 15 minutes and a reliable 25-minute trip instead of the uncertainty of traffic on the roads and highways. I personally think that having a convenient, reliable trip to the airport, with all the other stresses of travel, is a good value proposition.

Q: I'm curious about the plans for additional stations on the corridor at Mount Dennis/Eglinton and Woodbine/Highway 27. Do you see UPX trains stopping there and how soon could this happen?

BM: We are building in plans for a new GO station and UPX station into the construction contract for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. The Crosstown phase 1 ends at Mount Dennis and I think it would be a great place to have an interchange to give people more choice. At Woodbine, we have done what transit planners call "protect" for a potential future station. The timing of that is not known, but could be linked to future plans that Woodbine racetrack may have.

Another thought. More stations connected in to the subway (like Dundas West/Bloor) and a future location at Mount Dennis means you can access the service at a lower cost. The trip from Dundas West/Bloor to the airport will have a fare of $15.20 if you use your PRESTO card. People want and need choice to access transit services.

Q: How many riders will the UP Express need to have per day to meet the break-even point for the cost of the service? And have you factored in any repayment of the construction cost to implement this service or is the GO Train picking up all the cost?

BM: We plan to have the fare box for UPX cover its operating costs within three to five years. As you would expect, it will take a few years to build the ridership, just like any other system. We are not expecting fares to pay back the capital costs at this time. The province has invested the $456 million in the capital and it would be unusual in a North American context to expect customers to pay back the capital cost through their fares. I don't know off the top of my head how many riders per day will be needed for cost recovery, but we do expect that level of ridership by year three to five.

Q: Will you ever use this train on your way to or from Pearson, instead of taking a cab?

BM: Absolutely. I am travelling to Ottawa on Monday to meet with OC Transpo who also use PRESTO. I am flying out from Pearson but plan to take the GO train to Union and then UP Express to Pearson, using my PRESTO card of course. I have been on the service five times during the testing and commissioning process and I think that customers will fall in love with it, when you consider the alternatives.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tr...nx-ceo-chats-about-union-pearson-express.html

However, I think the likely outcome of that is that UPX simply would not have been built as yet, not least given the issues with getting the wire into Union.

I don't quite follow, since the UPX platform was never intended to be inside the shed, and isn't now.

 

[smallspy]

It's true, but I don't think those are even slightly good reasons for why Denver is electrified and has better ridership, I mean look at the number of potential riders around the UP corridor it's really huge. If the political willpower was there we could have something just like what Denver has and also have it be somewhat reasonably priced.

Oh, no doubt that there are many, many other factors. For instance, what's the local transit service like around the A-Line? If it's anything like elsewhere in Denver's suburbs, it's probably pretty shite.

UPX, by comparison, has fairly good local transit service along the length of its service. That in and of itself will draw people away from it.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

For retrospect, here's the "McQuaig claimed" linked reference from Steve Munro's article above:

By Tess KalinowskiTransportation reporter
Tues., Sept. 2, 2014

The CEO of Metrolinx has confirmed that the province’s promise to electrify GO trains within 10 years is achievable. But that doesn’t mean all seven lines will get all-day, two-way, 15-minute service in that time.

Although he has never said it couldn’t be done, Bruce McCuaig had previously called the 10-year timeline “aggressive” and “constrained.”

On Tuesday, he told the Toronto Star that Metrolinx would deliver on Premier Kathleen Wynne’s promise in April to “phase in electric train service every 15 minutes on all GO lines that we own.”

But he cautioned that GO doesn’t own all its track — including the popular Milton corridor, which is CP’s main freight line, and the track west of Burlington that runs into Hamilton, which is owned by CP and CN.

Negotiating with the railroads to expand passenger capacity on those routes is only one of the complications in the electrification process.

“We’d like to go beyond the lines we own … But we should also recognize that the premier’s language is the reference point we’re starting from,” he said.

A report before the Metrolinx board on Friday provides an early look at the complexities of electrifying GO. The project will require 500 kilometres of catenary wires along the rails, 340 new kilometres of track; renovations to more than 60 stations, 130 bridge expansions and up to 46 grade separations.

Each GO corridor will have its own service concept, defining the frequency of service, the mix of all-stop trains versus express trains, and new infill stations.

“If you were on an all-stop from Kitchener, for example, it makes a long trip. So if we can come up with a limited-stop package for people who are coming from long distances, we think it will make the service more attractive,” said McCuaig.

McCuaig said he sees TTC buses dropping riders at GO stations in the same way they serve the subway. Metrolinx will have to work with other municipal transit agencies to match local bus service with expanded GO schedules.

Considerations outlined in the Metrolinx report also include station capacity. Union Station can take the load for the next 10 years, but more capacity will be needed in the longer term. There will also be expanded roles as regional transit hubs for the Oakville and Pickering stations.

Although the Union Pearson Express is going to be electrified first because the work is furthest along on that route, it will be at least another year before Metrolinx knows how the rest of the work will be phased in, he said. Regardless of which lines get electrified first, it will be necessary for electric trains to reach the maintenance facility in Whitby.

GO won’t abandon its investment in diesel locomotives and its signature bi-level coaches. But an expanded, diversified GO fleet will also include diesel locomotives and electric multiple units that incorporate the engine into the coaches.

By the time the project is complete there will be 150 additional GO coaches and 20,000 more seats on the system, says the board report.

McCuaig promised there will be incremental improvements across the system almost immediately, with a new station in Hamilton being prepared for next year and Kitchener service expected to double in 2016. More weekend trains were added to the Lakeshore line this summer.

Mayoral candidate John Tory reiterated his confidence that the Metrolinx plan will support his SmartTrack “surface subway” transit platform.

“Metrolinx is referring to the whole network. SmartTrack is two lines out of a network of seven and a spur to Mississauga,” said Tory, whose seven-year plan depends on the electrification of the Kitchener and Stouffville GO lines.

The 12-kilometre spur from Mount Dennis to the corporate centre near the airport does not appear on the Metrolinx maps.
Electrification considerations on GO corridors

Lakeshore West: CN owns the corridor west of Burlington. CP owns the track into the Hamilton GO Centre. The new Hamilton James North station will be complete but there is no passenger service plan yet. At least one new track will be needed along much of Lakeshore West. Service could operate all-stops between Hamilton and Oakville and then non-stop between Union Station and Oakville.

Milton: CP owns most of the corridor, and Metrolinx faces a hefty public engagement process through the Streetsville area, where there is lots of residential development near the tracks. Two new tracks would be needed along the corridor.

Kitchener: CN owns the corridor through Brampton, although it’s expected the province will buy it. A new track would be required and Metrolinx would face similar community issues near Brampton, where the tracks run through developed areas. Service could run all stops between Kitchener and Mt. Pleasant, with express service between Mt. Pleasant and Union Station.

Barrie: Owned by Metrolinx but would require a new track along most of the corridor.

Richmond Hill: CN owns the north end of the line and the track along the Don Valley would need to be raised to ensure reliable service during severe storms.

Stouffville: Owned by Metrolinx, the corridor would require an additional track.

Lakeshore East: Owned by GO, it would require one or two new tracks along much of the corridor. All-stop trains could operate between Oshawa and Pickering and then run express between Pickering and Union.

*All corridors would require grade separations

Metrolinx

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tr...sible_in_10_years_confirms_metrolinx_ceo.html

 

[steveintoronto]

UPX, by comparison, has fairly good local transit service along the length of its service. That in and of itself will draw people away from it.

The adopting of GO fares between Union/Bloor/Weston has proved an important point: The demand is there, as peak clearly shows. For those who haven't travelled at peak, two lines are formed at Union: Airport travellers, and others. Airport travellers board first, rightly so, they've paid a premium for their ticket. Then the 'others', and often that means waiting for the next train, as the passengers are counted as they board. Even with standing room taken, more often than not at peak, some are left waiting for the next train.

That proves demand is beyond capacity, and the need for an RER form of service now. Run that up to Bramalea, and it will prove the need, even off-peak, especially once buses are timed to meet at the northern stations.

 

[TransitBart]

The adopting of GO fares between Union/Bloor/Weston has proved an important point: The demand is there, as peak clearly shows. For those who haven't travelled at peak, two lines are formed at Union: Airport travellers, and others. Airport travellers board first, rightly so, they've paid a premium for their ticket. Then the 'others', and often that means waiting for the next train, as the passengers are counted as they board. Even with standing room taken, more often than not at peak, some are left waiting for the next train.

That proves demand is beyond capacity, and the need for an RER form of service now. Run that up to Bramalea, and it will prove the need, even off-peak, especially once buses are timed to meet at the northern stations.

I honestly can not believe that any cogent human being is debating 'need' on any thread in this forum. It's a good exercise, but maybe we should just buy a shovel for each healthy adult resident in GTHA between 18 and 28 (the kind that have to do compulsory military service elsewhere) and put them to work.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's a good exercise, but maybe we should just buy a shovel for each healthy adult resident in GTHA between 18 and 28 (the kind that have to do compulsory military service elsewhere) and put them to work

Wrong demographic: Start with the executive of Metrolinx and Queen's Park, albeit they'll need a study, make that five, of how to use a shovel.

For all-day diesel 3-coach consist 15 min service on the Bramalea to Union stretch, very little is needed beyond what already exists, save for willpower.

We have 'masters' who dictate policy to us based on the 'shiny factor'. Using redundant/surplus but perfectly usable and dull finished paint equipment is anathema to the "public announcement" grandstanding of this administration.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using that beat-up Corolla or Chevy to do the shopping as long as all safety systems are in good order, it starts every cold morning, and it doesn't gobble gas.

Let's flip this over: If the F59s pulling the bi-levels put aside for refurbishing (think the older cab control ones and more) are going to be any less service available than the Sharyos, then raise your hand.

There's only one major glitch and that can be remedied within a year: Availability of five accessibility coaches. (One for each of the sets needed) There might be some older ones in the refurbish line, I don't know, but if not, other coaches in that line can be adapted, including the cab coach ones.

Announce this now, and "probable time frame of a year for completion" at a very low cost, and it will win as many or more votes than possibly any other announcement possible at this time save for the Missing Link, which is far more a federal competence.

But make no mistake, I do like the idea of mandating the suits having to shovel their own shid...

Edit to Add: I do have to add a proviso on the "all-day" aspect. During peak, that may have to be superseded by the full length peak runs, as berthing at Union is already saturated. Some alternate accommodation or 'short turn' might address that during peak, as the corridor itself can handle the intensity, just not the approach and platform availability at Union.

Also a 'run-through' at Union might address some of the saturation dilemma, and perhaps service to Danforth or even further could be considered with added trainsets. A possibility might also be reversing the trains in the yard east of Union after a run-through, to berth them into a platform that is predominantly western running. This would decrease the need for switch alignment and approaching track clearance. Whether platform 3 use from the west past the UPX platform would allow slotting on 7 min (including UPX) headways is a good question, but that would allow greater utilization of platform 3 (the most northerly one if I have the number wrong) as a stub track while still allowing the other end for six coach consists. Whether a run-around switch is possible to by-pass UPX train waiting at its platform if need be could be another consideration in maintaining all-day frequency, and then consider the K/W/Georgetown runs being express until Malton (as is now done southbound late afternoon) or Bramalea.

 

[dowlingm]

Exceedingly unlikely. They'd already ruled out extending the people mover in 2002 - what makes you think that a delay in the opening of the service by a couple of months to perhaps a year would make is a more feasible option?

Dan, to be clear extending the rollercoaster wasn't what I had in mind, but a shuttle APM in the UPX footprint. In any event, it's moot now.

 

[dowlingm]

I think the obvious place to make local buses more convenient is on the International Centre side of the tracks...build bus bays there can use Hull and airport road as a loop......at the airport...move all the buses to the Viscount end of the link train....no more looping around the airport.

That presumes the International Centre will play ball. You would think better transit would mean they could develop some of their huge car park. As it is, the first train on the Kitchener line from Toronto arrives around 9.30 which is useless for events there.

 

[TOareaFan]

That presumes the International Centre will play ball. You would think better transit would mean they could develop some of their huge car park. As it is, the first train on the Kitchener line from Toronto arrives around 9.30 which is useless for events there.

if GO buses and BT (perhaps others) served their lot then it might be of value to them....doubt they have any interest in developing their parking lots......they need them for cars when bigger events are on there.......but having public transit might extend the audience base for their events.

 

[smallspy]

Dan, to be clear extending the rollercoaster wasn't what I had in mind, but a shuttle APM in the UPX footprint. In any event, it's moot now.

And that's what was studied, and rejected, in 2002. The current rollercoaster is as much a result of that decision as was what became UPX.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[robmausser]

Was just riding the last UP of the night to Pearson to go home for the holidays and had a good conversation with the attendant.

1. When I asked how ridership looked he was definetly super optimistic and was saying how he was seeing ridership still increasing. He was talking about the incredible cost effectiveness of GO and also said that while this year will definetly be a loss that the subsidy was decreasing significantly and that he thought next year could possibly end in a profit. He was definetly an enthusiast and from this forum I think most people are not so optimistic about UPs future performance in terms of getting rid of the subsidy and his optimism was pleasant.

I know of a way that we could slash the subsidy for the UPX, but I don't think the attendant would be too happy to know about it...

 

[rbt]

I know of a way that we could slash the subsidy for the UPX, but I don't think the attendant would be too happy to know about it...

Do federal railway rules still require 2 people onboard every train (engineer and a conductor?). Does the attendant on UPX double as the conductor?

I'd like them gone too; faregates at Union and Pearson (both entry and exit; Presto and barcode) would take care of 99% of their fare-checking job.

 

[mdrejhon]

For 9100 daily riders at average $8 per passenger, this results in $26.5M revenue per year going forward, assuming this is the new normal, 9100 average for the next 365 days.

I think equlibrium will probably gradually hit 12,000 rides average per day in two or three years, netting $35M/annum. At that point, TTC style crowding kicks in for 3 hours continuous (My reasoning is there is still room for peak capacity expansion: While UPX regularly has standees at peak, there is still UPX seats just before 430 and after 530, peak cramming has not become 3 hours long yet like TTC.... so assuming 3 hours of at least lightly packed standees in morning incoming and 3 hours of at least lightly packed standees evening outgoing....that will bump capacity to approx 12000 riders per day easy)

Assume that after incredibly high first-year budget, the subsequent 2017+ UPX budget becomes cost-cut a little to 60M per year... that mathematically works to about 45% farebox today, and tomorrow 60% farebox recovery. Almost TTC!

Cost per rider at $60M budget at $35M revenue for 12000 riders/day, falls to $13.70 per rider -- less than the beginning years of the Sheppard subway. But with higher ticket prices, so FAR better farebox recovery than Sheppard subway as the $8 average fare revenue means only a $5.70 subsidy on top of the $8 fare. Nearly one-tenth what it was before!

Even today, $26.5M revenue for 60M assumed budget at 9100 riders per diem, results in a $18 cost per rider, or a $10 subsidy on top of an average $8 paid fare. One-fifth subsidy of what it was before. And already less taxpayer subsidy per rider than when Sheppard Subway started. Ironic, isn't it!

Certainly not America's worst in farebox loss, even at that -- and today's numbers is almost certainly in the better half of pathetic North America public transit cost recovery.

Perspective, I guess?

Lessee... Plugging in new numbers for a theoretical "break-even" at $8/passenger...

First year operating costs was quite high because it also included a lot of start-up expenses like extra surge of advertisements, etc.

Theoretically....(punching calculator).....suppose they successfully slash annual operating costs down to $50M/year because of lower diesel prices, merge with GO, improved reliability, etc. Now, that's about $137000 per day revenue average needed to break-even. This requires 17,000 passengers a day, less than double today.

Can that be achieved with 6 hours of standees? (3 hour morning peak, 3 hour evening peak). Today, there isn't yet consistent standees or Yonge subway packing (except on a few peakiest of peak trains) so I'm wondering if peak expansion to 6 hours (just like on TTC) would have enough train capacity to reach 17K rides average per day. It's not yet TTC crammed to the point where people are regularly having to wait for the next train -- but it's slowly getting there at peak.

I'm not sure it's achievable with the current 2-coach/3-coach situation. But with some simple modifications (e.g. all-3-coach fleet, electrification, or even 4-coach trains) and even a slight peak frequency boost (12 minute frequency) -- perhaps it's possible to make the math check out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there's only 158 trains per day (79 per direction) from 5:30am through 1am. Minimum seating capacity is 115 people (only 18,170 seated-rides a day possible, under 9200 per direction) and maximum capacity is 173 people (27,334 seated-rides a day) if they were able to run a 3-coach fleet. The average seats is somewhere in between. Trains will always be near empty at 5:30am and 1:00am (to be fair, this happens to the TTC subway too), and reverse direction at various times of the day, so you really have to pack several hours of peak trains with lots of standees to compensate. And for several hours sustained (3 hours morning peak, 3 hours evening peak), to consistently break the 10,000 number every single day, lest reach 15,000+.

Now if they found a way to cut to $45M/year (not sure *that* is even achievable without major changes), that's $123K revenue per day. At $8 average fare per passenger, that's 15,400 passengers.

$60M/year operating cost = $164K/day = 20,500 passengers/day break even at $8 avg
$50M/year operating cost = $135K/day = 16,875 passengers/day break even at $8 avg
$45M/year operating cost = $123K/day = 15,400 passengers/day break even at $8 avg
$40M/year operating cost = $110K/day = 13,700 passengers/day break even at $8 avg
$30M/year operating cost = $82K/day = 10,300 passengers/day break even at $8 avg

I could see a 2nd-year cost-cut to $60M or $50M, but even bigger cuts would be a huge surprise.

I extrapolated 12,000 is easily possible. The farebox can certainly be envious by North American transit standards. But it is going to be a tough stretch to get the numbers to break even, but it could perhaps be achievable with an all-3-coach fleet (even pre-electrification) and major cost cutting and scale of efficiencies being part of GO RER. Maybe 4-coach? Maybe 12-minutes (post Georgetown-electrification)? Etc.

Perhaps for 2018-2019 we will be pleasantly surprised.

It seems it will take major cost cutting between now and then, low diesel prices, and somehow pulling off an all 3-coach-fleet. I'd love to see break-even to help GO RER business case. Major tweaks will be needed.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Do federal railway rules still require 2 people onboard every train (engineer and a conductor?). Does the attendant on UPX double as the conductor?

I'd like them gone too; faregates at Union and Pearson (both entry and exit; Presto and barcode) would take care of 99% of their fare-checking job.

Not sure but I think they usually have one per car I look at them as being a cross between a fare inspector and the customer service person on a go train that puts out the ramp and opens the doors and makes announcements. Go transit used to have a second operator for the announcements and the doors in the back of the train on the top level.

 

[rbt]

Not sure but I think they usually have one per car I look at them as being a cross between a fare inspector and the customer service person on a go train that puts out the ramp and opens the doors and makes announcements. Go transit used to have a second operator for the announcements and the doors in the back of the train on the top level.

I don't use the service very often but the last couple of trips I made had 1 fare inspector (I assume, as they were going between cars at each stop). Both trips were 2-car trains. I'll pay closer attention on my next trip.