[k10ery]

Ah, interesting! A couple points: How would you have gotten the line from a King St tunnel onto the Don Branch? I'm genuinely interesting in ideas about that possible connection, because it does seem quite complicated (but worthy of being analyzed). Generally I'm not a fan of any 'direct to Union' routing. If this is to be a pseudo-DRL, I think it's worth it to combine the project with a tunnel through downtown.

I'd love to discuss that with you, but I'm worried the troll would come out and bite us. But seriously I am no expert, I jut think there must be room there particularly if Bayview Extension were closed during construction, or even permanently. It's not a very useful road.

Another thing is I believe you're overestimating the complexity of twining/refitting the Half Mile Bridge. Metrolinx did a similar bridge widening project over the Humber for the UPX/Georgetown corridor. Literally, the bridge is almost identical in design, but slightly shorter in length. There are 1986 estimates for refitting the Half Mile, and the costs don't seem all that high (particularly when compared to the astronomically-priced subway projects we've undertaken since).

Good point. For fun, I did some digging, and Half Mile is twice as long and about half-again as high as the Humber Viaduct. Having (*shhhh*) walked it myself, I just assumed the abutments would have to be replaced entirely. But the Half Mile's concrete abutments date to 1920, and the Humber's date to 1911, so quite possibly I am wrong. (BTW what a beautiful structure, it would be nice to preserve it.)

The tunnel idea is interesting. I would not be opposed to merging DRL and Don Branch. It may not provide as much relief as, say, Coxwell, serving a larger area of southeastern Toronto, but would be substantially cheaper. Some people, like Steve Munro, would probably object to this though.

Anywhere east of the Don could relieve Bloor-Yonge, as long as it offered attractive connections. You are comparing to the Spadina interchange - but nobody uses that on the grounds that St George is much more convenient. I worry that your long escalator would have the same effect - most people would stay on until Yonge, and put up with the crowds cause it was fast and easy. A tunneled line otoh could start in Riverdale Park somewhere, tunnel under the Adult Learning Centre, and terminate nicely in a new station right under Broadview B-D station. (Uh oh, I might have awakened the troll.)

I don't think UPX would ever shut down, as it's expected to be a profitable service for Metrolinx, so currently we're stuck with it wasting corridor passenger capacity that could have been used for bigger-capacity rapid transit trains (larger subway sized or GOtrain sized trains). There are reasons why it's going to be hugely popular with airport travellers, even to the point of occasional standees on 3-car trains (747/A380 landings). So if routing to Union, then another train berth will be needed (even Platform 3, if it's not a through route), or Don Branch could perhaps behave as the East-side continuation of either Kitchener or Barrie RER trains (perhaps Barrie, since Kitchener line will be paired up with the Stoufville line, in the SmartTrack plan)

My view on the profitability of UPE are different, and they are stated a bit upthread of yours, so I won't rehash it. But however popular it is in its current form it would be WAY MORE POPULAR if it only cost 3 bucks - and offered a connection onward at Broadview to boot. (And even if it was slower because of the addition of a half dozen local stops.)

 

[mdrejhon]

But however popular it is in its current form it would be WAY MORE POPULAR if it only cost 3 bucks - and offered a connection onward at Broadview to boot. (And even if it was slower because of the addition of a half dozen local stops.)

Agreed on WAY MORE POPULAR, and MORE USEFUL TO TORONTO, and makes RESIDENTS HAPPIER...

BUT...
...definitely not more profitable.

There isn't enough capacity on UPX to sustain a $3 service and it would very likely be unprofitable at that level. Full trains at an average $20pp earns much more than full trains at $3pp. Even if you filled six times as many trains at $3, filling one-sixth of the trains at $20pp still yields more profit, as long as the other trains at least broke even (e.g. one-quarter full maybe the break even point).

Tokyo -- 3000 yen for express train, about CAD $30
Hong Kong -- HK $100, about CAD $16
London -- 21.50 pounds one-way express train, about CAD $40 (35 pounds roundtrip, about $65)
All of the above are profitable, and sometimes the trains do get full in all of them during air traffic peak surges.

Example economics:

$19 -- trains full 1/3 of the time, train half-full 1/3 of the time, train empty 1/3 of time, few frustrated customers
= Average $9.50 per seat all day long. MORE PROFIT

$10 -- trains full 2/3 of the time, train half-full 1/3 of the time, some upset customers who can't squeeze onto full train
= Average $8.30 per seat all day long

$3 -- trains full all the time, lots of upset customers who couldn't squeeze onto full train
= Average $3 per seat all day long

I suspect the theoretical sweet spot is closer to $10-$15 IMHO on "milk the maximum cash versus passengers" ratio, but $19 is sufficiently close enough and may prevent standee complaints from hurting the service reputation during surge airport traffic. Metrolinx did say they will adjust pricing based on demand, probably to maximize the profit of this route. But $3 will generate far less revenue because trains will be too full. Even if every single UPX train is full all day long, it can still be a loss if the grand total fare doesn't pay for the operating cost of that specific train trip (staffing, fuel, amortized maintenance of train and trackage, etc). And even if it was a small profit, it won't be as big a profit as if one-third of the trains filled up at $19 and the other half was completely empty. (i.e. average $6-7). You can't gain more $3 customers to compensate if the trains are full to their limit. And airport customers are quite captive customers, bound to the inconveiences of taxi, car, buses, etc, making UPX and its amenities a relative bargain at $19 for downtown-goers when compared to Pearson's unappealing options. And empty seats included, UPX is virtually certain to earn far more than $3 average per seat when you average the empty seats and filled seats. Trains would need to be about 85% empty (3.0/19.50ths filled) on average in order for average seat revenue to be only $3 -- and that's not going to happen with UPX. Most UrbanTorontoers here, even skeptics, would say UPX is going to be far more than popular than that, with more than 15% utilization.

However, ECLRT and Hurontario will be bus-fare-priced, and ECLRT may one day be extended to the airport too, possibly when UPX becomes too full too often at surge moments, so that people can choose between a premium service and a basic rapid transit service (like Heathrow).

"Profit" versus "Useful for Public Transit" are two separate things, as you can see...

 

[44 North]

...I am no expert, I just think there must be room there particularly if Bayview Extension were closed during construction, or even permanently. It's not a very useful road.

An at-grade crossing crossed my mind – although it’s obviously unobtainable considering the frequency. But closing the southernmost section of Bayview is actually a pretty good idea! If the south end of Bayview were to terminate at River Street instead of its current terminus of WDL – a portal along the valley wall could be built to bring the RH corridor underground to align below King Street. Another bonus about closing this section of Bayview is that the constrained corridor between the valley wall and the Don River would be opened up significantly – allowing for a surface station at Gerrard or Dundas.

I use the ramp from River to Bayview quite a bit. But only seldom do I use the stretch south of there. And with no sidewalks, or bike lanes...it’s basically a short stretch of highway. Granted, the south end has been a construction nightmare for years, but IMO it’s not significantly useful. If the City worked on a way of improving the River Street ramp – and perhaps improved River for more N/S traffic – I probably wouldn’t care at all if Bayview was shuttered south of Gerrard.

Good point. For fun, I did some digging, and Half Mile is twice as long and about half-again as high as the Humber Viaduct. Having (*shhhh*) walked it myself, I just assumed the abutments would have to be replaced entirely. But the Half Mile's concrete abutments date to 1920, and the Humber's date to 1911, so quite possibly I am wrong. (BTW what a beautiful structure, it would be nice to preserve it.)

You’re probably aware of this article considering you’re citing the date of the new abutments. But if not, this Spacing piece is quite interesting: http://spacing.ca/toronto/2015/01/07/great-toronto-bridge-swap-1928/

The great Toronto bridge swap of 1928
January 7, 2015 | By Chris Bateman

 

[k10ery]

Example economics:

$19 -- trains full 1/3 of the time, train half-full 1/3 of the time, train empty 1/3 of time, few frustrated customers
= Average $9.50 per seat all day long. MORE PROFIT

$10 -- trains full 2/3 of the time, train half-full 1/3 of the time, some upset customers who can't squeeze onto full train
= Average $8.30 per seat all day long

$3 -- trains full all the time, lots of upset customers who couldn't squeeze onto full train
= Average $3 per seat all day long

So in your illustration, raising the price from $10 to $19 and gouging the customer only increases revenue by about 15%. This is a perfect example of the economic concept of "deadweight loss". (Look it up.)

From an economics perspective, the right price for this trip is about $3 - with a free transfer. See my posts in the other thread for details.

 

[mdrejhon]

From an economics perspective, the right price for this trip is about $3 - with a free transfer. See my posts in the other thread for details.

Mind if you link to the post?

Remember, those are example numbers to show the point where lower passenger traffic can have more operating profit (this is different from "whether this is a good or bad thing", since it can be argued benefit to society is less). When juggling around the numbers, the threshold changes. It might be $11, or $40. And the profit difference between $10 and $19 may be a massive or small gulf. But, as you can see when playing with the numbers, it is not as low as $3, but it might not be as high as $19. Economic impact for society versus economic impact for the specific line, are two different things altogether. The airport is a captive audience who typically paid at least three figures to do something (air fares). Precedent is that public transit has been long needed to be subsidized while the higher priced airport expresses have been profitable. Even in Tokyo and London, with express trains that cost more than the UPX Presto price, have allstop options. The only alternative is a bus (192 express) that departs in the dark underneath of a viaduct which is a less appealing option for an audience otherwise considered a captive audience, while other cities of expensive express trains also have a slower subway alternative more appealing than the 192 express bus. It doesn't mean you nor I are necessarily fully right or wrong, but $3 would almost certainly not not be profitable on an operating basis for the UPX usage case, unless it was massively larger trains with a larger number of stations (and hopefully express stops). Operating cost of UPX is $70M per year, and running full trains (theoretical throughput of 10 million passengers per year with packed trains with standees, using existing trainsets. There is only 7.7 million seat trips per year on UPX), it won't even cover operating cost at $70M. But at an average $23 per train, you only approximately 3 million people per year and average 38% full (62% empty) in order to meet operating costs. The rest is profit. Metrolinx only projects 2-2.5 million people, but that's a lowball to save face, as that always happens in tradition -- it is looking likely over 3 million within five years.

Again, I'd prefer a high-frequency $3 fare high-capacity train with more transit benefits to Toronto in general. It would have more filter-down economic benefit to society as a whole. Yes, if you wanted $3 fare on UPX, you needed more bigger trains at perhaps higher frequencies (e.g. subway frequencies), in order to try to break even. That's economically better to society, and might still happen (e.g. SmartTrack and/or GO RER). But that's altogether a separate subject. Again, not saying UPX is good or bad, just that there's a concept of a higher operating profit in accounting using fewer people -- which happens from time to time -- and is a separate subject than general economic benefit to society.

 

[k10ery]

^Yeah I get your point. But I'm here to tell you: a public transit system should not make a profit. The commitment on UPE is that fares will cover operating AND capital costs, which is a huge operating profit. Huge.

It doesn't matter if you've got the numbers right, your example shows how increasing revenues requires discouraging riders. Sometimes by a lot. That's why it's bad.

You and some other people fall back on the argument that if UPE was priced at $3 then the trains would be packed. Look, subways in Toronto are completely packed at rush hours. So should the subway fare be $19 too?

Price it reasonably, plan for future expansion of service, and for Gods sake don't let trains run near empty at any time of day as long as there are potential riders along the corridor. That's good planning. Yes it means losing money. But the real waste is the taxpayer dollars that went into this, when so few taxpayers will be able to afford to ride it.

 

[mdrejhon]

^Yeah I get your point. But I'm here to tell you: a public transit system should not make a profit.

No disagreement there.
That was never my point that public transit should not make profit.
That was never my argument that I made in my post.
Please re-read, sir(or madam.)

UPX isn't public transit. Yes, it should have been, but it is not. That's a separate subject.
The posts were more targetted at the "UPX will be shut down" argument, due to operating losses.
There are still many people who think UPX will fail because it is too expensive. I'm dispelling that silly notion.

And due to the way UPX is designed (it is not properly designed for public transit), cutting fares to $3 will make it extremely Sheppard-Subway-like in farebox recovery (15%-ish) even with every single train packed to the hilt with standees! Public transit should not have bad Sheppard-like farebox recovery! It was never designed to properly meet transit needs without demolishing the stations & rebuilding bigger stations, totally replacing the trains, with bigger subway-sized-and-bigger trains that run at subway-style frequencies (e.g. 3-min or less peak).

I'm an Ontario taxpayer. I'd prefer to subsidize a massive public transit expansion (and subsidized cheap fares) than a massive freeway expansion (though I don't necessarily agree with the mechanism chosen, such as Hydro One). You're not telling me anything new, k10ery.

 

[k10ery]

And due to the way UPX is designed (it is not properly designed for public transit), cutting fares to $3 will make it extremely Sheppard-Subway-like in farebox recovery (15%-ish) even with every single train packed to the hilt with standees! Public transit should not have bad Sheppard-like farebox recovery! It was never designed to properly meet transit needs without demolishing the stations & rebuilding bigger stations, totally replacing the trains, with bigger subway-sized-and-bigger trains that run at subway-style frequencies (e.g. 3-min or less peak).

I'm an Ontario taxpayer. I'd prefer to subsidize a massive public transit expansion (and subsidized cheap fares) than a massive freeway expansion (though I don't necessarily agree with the mechanism chosen, such as Hydro One). You're not telling me anything new, k10ery.

No I think you're quite wrong there. Neptis estimated UPE's operating costs at $4 per passenger NPV, even at Metrolinx's low projected ridership. Cut the fare dramatically and ridership will at least double, dropping operating cost to around $2 -- lower than most TTC routes. As I said, UPE should be priced at $3 - including the free transfer.

 

[mdrejhon]

No I think you're quite wrong there. Neptis estimated UPE's operating costs at $4 per passenger NPV, even at Metrolinx's low projected ridership. Cut the fare dramatically and ridership will at least double, dropping operating cost to around $2 -- lower than most TTC routes. As I said, UPE should be priced at $3 - including the free transfer.

Can you please cite the math that Neptis used to estimate operating cost of $4 per passenger?
They did some, but it's not on current infrastructure data with all known factors.

Mathematically, there's not enough seat-trips possible. 140 train trips per day (combined for both directions) at an average of 150 seats, times 365 days per year. Assuming they don't modify their timetable, that's a theoretical maximum of just under 8 millon seated passengers per year. Metrolinx quoted a raised $68-$70M estimated annual operating costs, which the old Neptis report does not have. $68 million divided by $8 millon equals a minimum of $8.50 per seat for break-even. Operating cost never falls to $4.

Let's be generous and throw all the trains into service, and possibly buy a few more trains, eliminate all 2-car trains (all trains 180 seats, maximum possible for the current station lengths), increase service frequency, and include standees -- say 16 millon seated and standees. We can't achieve 3-minute headways yet; service limited to maybe 5-7 min headway with very efficient rail operation at the moment, due to corridor limitations (including track crossings with GO tracks). That improves things quite a bit. $68 million operating cost annually, divided by 16 million people is still $4.25 per passenger operating cost with every single existing UPX train packed, full, with standees.

We'd probably need to one or more of the following: Demolish the stations and rebuild the stations with longer stations, redo some of the infrastructure (complete physical separation of track crossings with GO) for increased capacity, do shorter headways like 3-minute headways, purchase and use much longer trains (e.g. 500-1000 people per train like TTC subway), before $3 fares starts breaking even at $68 million operating cost. Even if you can reduce operating cost a bit (such as complete elimination of all the UPX perks).

Neptis did not calculate based on existing UPX trains and infrastructure, and the higher Metrolinx operating cost estimate. The auditor-general even thinks UPX won't meet its operating cost. There is no way that UPX operating cost is under $5 per seat, pretty much guaranteed, with current numbers and current raised operating cost estimate. (My aside opinion: It looks like UPX may end up surpassing the lowballed passenger projections because of the captive audience + very appealing method of getting to downtown, and precedents in other cities -- so I feel it is almost certain to be operating-profitable eventually).

But the operating cost is definitely not under $5 with current infrastructure. Unless they assumed trains packed like sardines (China subway style) with twice the number of passengers (300+ average, every every single train packed, even offpeak, 19.5 hours a day), that's more crowded than a TTC streetcar at peak and that's not going to happen with UPX, especially with airport baggage people will be carrying (I bet Neptis didn't account for that for standee capacity). To go to more realistic numbers 200+ averages (300 packed peak, 150 offpeak), AND also eliminate the UPX perks (reduced staffing), etc, that even still doesn't lower costs to $4.25.

Neptis may be right under specific criteria. Yes, assuming different critera such as trains with more room for passengers (including standees pulling bags, reducing room for standees), longer stations, tighter public-transit-size seating distances, different infrastructure (shorter headways). But that is NOT what we have. Serious modifications would be required (station replacement, train replacement & corridor overhaul to allow subway-style headways) to realistically mathematically achieve $4.25 per seat.

Can you please disprove my math? I thusly challenge you. Mathematics and links, please. I'm happy to tear apart Neptis data based on what I know Neptis did not account for.

For this specific message, not saying UPX is good or bad. Not saying UPX is profitable or unprofitable. This specific message is simply asking you to mathematically prove me wrong with current UPX infrastructure they chose to build.

 

[k10ery]

^

http://www.neptis.org/publications/...s-and-benefits/chapters/union-pearson-express

Let's make this the last go around, ok? The evidence you cite is a google search page, for crying out loud.

 

[mdrejhon]

This is what Metrolinx says (reported to Toronto Star):

Metrolinx says it will take three to five years and a ridership of about 2.5 million annually for UPX to recover its estimated operating costs of $68 million to $70 million a year.

This is what Neptis says:

Total O&M costs would therefore be $13.15 million per year or $306 million NPV.

There is a huge big gulf ($68M versus $13.5M) in annual operating&maintenance costs. There are other costs not included such as advertising/marketing costs (which can be reduced if it was just public transit), and the extra train they have to have on standby with crew. Also, $3M estimated by Neptis for track/station/corridor maintenance seems low by Ontario standards, considering our outdoor climate and even amortize for UPX's share of future rail replacement. But this doesn't add up yet. Metrolinx salaries tend to be higher than average, both at the crew and management levels.

Regarding numbers: Lots of costs are left out in the Neptis report, but simultaneously, I can't find the $68-70M number in official Metrolinx documents yet, except as numerous copies of parroted quotes claiming to have come from Metrolinx -- so the door is open of misquotes in the media. Even so, the above would not explain the large gulf yet. If the $13.15M per year, Metrolinx will make a rather big profit off UPX right off the bat in the first year, even if projections fall short. That does not jive with estimates (this time, found in many Metrolinx documents) that it will take about 3 to 5 years before it makes a profit. Theoretically, at O&M of only 13.15M per year projected by Neptis, UPX $456M capital cost could become paid off in just 5 years if ridership projections are exceeded beginning in the first year (at slightly under two-thirds seats taken, or one empty train every two full trains), and even if that doesn't happen, capital costs would be paid off in less than a decade at current Metrolinx passenger projections. Such large profit lowballing don't normally happen with rail transit routes. So now something doesn't seem right.

(This is not yet my official reply -- currently studying and researching to track down all the disreprecancies)

 

[nfitz]

No I think you're quite wrong there. Neptis estimated UPE's operating costs at $4 per passenger NPV, even at Metrolinx's low projected ridership.

When TTC is about $3 per passenger?

Hard to swallow. Perhaps Inneptis rather than Neptis.

 

[W. K. Lis]

When TTC is about $3 per passenger?

Hard to swallow. Perhaps Inneptis rather than Neptis.

If the TTC's farebox recovery ratio is at 73%, then the "real" fare would be $4.00 (based on a $3.00 current fare).

(Mississauga has a farebox recovery ratio of 46%, which makes the "real" fare at $7.00, based on a current $3.25 fare.)

 

[jcam]

Interestingly, in the budget, the Eglinton West Extension and the SmartTrack Stations are grouped into two distinct projects. I wonder if that's foreshadowing what we all hope will be the case (i.e. LRT over heavy rail).

 

[salsa]

It's still many months before we hear back on the technical feasibility of the Eglinton heavy rail spur, financing strategies, and actual costs. Regardless, the mayor is still going on with his original election platform.

Jennifer Pagliaro @jpags
Tory says he plans to sit down with the province this year to hammer out needed reforms to make TIFs work. That is an obvious hurdle.

Jennifer Pagliaro @jpags
Tory says he will go to Ottawa to get the "fair share" of dedicated public transit funds and he'll get his SmartTrack application in first.

Jennifer Pagliaro @jpags
Tory standing here today says he is confident he can get the estimated $8 billion he needs for SmartTrack in seven years.