Filip said:
UPE is one of the very few traditional heavy rail airport links in North America.

Chicago gets a subway line, New York gets the AirTrain to nowhere, a bunch of smaller cities get an LRT line... I can't think of many heavy rail connections to the airport.

In Europe, they're priced accordingly. Paris is currently building a comparable link to CDG in order to acommodate tourists and business travellers who don't want to ride the RER B through Paris' ghettos (banlieus). London has the Gatwick and Heathrow Express (worth every pence of that high cost)...
Click to expand...
Denver is building electric heavy rail to their airport as a P3 (but as part of a wider project).
 
salsa said:
This is what I found. It's about $28.
Click to expand...
That's for "Heathrow Express". That's a non-stop express train, that runs from Paddington direct to Terminal 1/2/3 (Heathrow Central) in only 15 minutes at speeds up to 160 km/hr.

However, this isn't what we've built. Our trains take closer to 25 minutes with 2 intermediary stops.

What we've built, is comparable to the Heathrow Connects services, which has 5 intermediary stops taking about 25 minutes, and costs £9.90 - about $18.

If we were to run both non-stop express services priced at $25 and a stopping service priced at $15, I doubt there'd be the outrage.

Also, Heathrow Connects, offers significant discounts to airport workers. Costing only £12.70 a week or £48.85 from Paddington (and a lot lower from other stations).
 
The other difference with Heathrow Express and Connect is that the airport runs the former and is a partner in the latter. (As opposed to GTAA's UPX tax)
 
dowlingm said:
Denver is building electric heavy rail to their airport as a P3 (but as part of a wider project).
Click to expand...

Exactly and that is what the UPX should be compared to.

As I stated earlier, the UPX and Denver East Line to the airport couldn't be more similar if they tried. Both are currently under construction and will open within 2 years, both will run every 15 minutes all day, both use existing rail corridors, both are part of a larger rejuvenation of the Union stations, and both will run similar types of trains using standard rail.

Denver's is actually longer at 22 miles and therefore has a couple more stations and Denver's is fully electrified. Neither city has another rapid/mass transit corridor that serves the airport and both airports carry about the same number of passengers but Denver's is part of the standard Metro Denver transit system charging what it would for any other service in the area......3 zone fare, Denver has built a transit system but Metrolinx has gone out of it's way to make sure this line is anything but.

BTW, you don't have to go as far as Chicago for airport rail transit as Cleveland's heavy rail Red Line also goes right to Hopkins international using the standard transit fare system. Also Dallas just opened it's DART LRT extension to DFW just 10 days ago with electric trains running every 15 minutes but again using standard transit fares.

Also, as I said earlier, if this isn't a true transit service then what the hell is Metrolinx doing running it? Also if Metrolinx's supposed mandate is to coordinate transit throughout the entire GTAH then why is this line not have total fare integration?
 
nfitz said:
That's for "Heathrow Express". That's a non-stop express train, that runs from Paddington direct to Terminal 1/2/3 (Heathrow Central) in only 15 minutes at speeds up to 160 km/hr.

However, this isn't what we've built. Our trains take closer to 25 minutes with 2 intermediary stops.

What we've built, is comparable to the Heathrow Connects services, which has 5 intermediary stops taking about 25 minutes, and costs £9.90 - about $18.

If we were to run both non-stop express services priced at $25 and a stopping service priced at $15, I doubt there'd be the outrage.

Also, Heathrow Connects, offers significant discounts to airport workers. Costing only £12.70 a week or £48.85 from Paddington (and a lot lower from other stations).
Click to expand...

I see. Then there's also the London Underground (Piccadilly line), which is cheaper but takes around 45 minutes. There are plenty of options. London got it right.
 
Last year Heathrow airport handled 72 million passengers. Pearson airport handled 36 million passengers, exactly half of that. Of course London is going to have better transit into the city. I look forward to the day when we have more than one rail option.

42
 
nfitz said:
That's for "Heathrow Express". That's a non-stop express train, that runs from Paddington direct to Terminal 1/2/3 (Heathrow Central) in only 15 minutes at speeds up to 160 km/hr.

However, this isn't what we've built. Our trains take closer to 25 minutes with 2 intermediary stops.

What we've built, is comparable to the Heathrow Connects services, which has 5 intermediary stops taking about 25 minutes, and costs £9.90 - about $18.

If we were to run both non-stop express services priced at $25 and a stopping service priced at $15, I doubt there'd be the outrage.

Also, Heathrow Connects, offers significant discounts to airport workers. Costing only £12.70 a week or £48.85 from Paddington (and a lot lower from other stations).
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

Additionally, even if the express has 2 stops taking 25 minutes, does it justify the same pricing in Toronto? First I thought London is one of top 3 most expensive cities and one of the top 2 alpha++ elite cities, not exactly a great benchmark for Toronto; and second, we should find at least a dozen comparables and use the average or median as a benchmark, not the highest.
 
P23 said:
Why? It's public transit.
Click to expand...

Their operating subsidy is fixed.

Which regular GO trains would you remove from service in order to run these short-bus alternatives?

Or, would you instead opt to increase all GO fares by 10% to subsidize this airport service?
 
rbt said:
Their operating subsidy is fixed.

Which regular GO trains would you remove from service in order to run these short-bus alternatives?

Or, would you instead opt to increase all GO fares by 10% to subsidize this airport service?
Click to expand...

You should probably direct your angry comment at Metrolinx not me.
 
rbt said:
Their operating subsidy is fixed.

Which regular GO trains would you remove from service in order to run these short-bus alternatives?

Or, would you instead opt to increase all GO fares by 10% to subsidize this airport service?
Click to expand...

they should cut cost, especially labour cost, and bring it to a level comparable to the private sector with similar skills (wage + benefit).
 
ksun said:
Because Oslo is one of the most expensive cities in the world - and therefore not comparable to Toronto (not in the top 20) in this context (pricing of airport trains).

Most expensive cities 1) London 2) Oslo 3) Geneva 4) Zurich 5) NYC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...-in-the-world-2014-in-pics.html?frame=2783436
Click to expand...

TOareaFan said:
Ah the dangers of using indices.....so nothing in Toronto can cost more than it costs in London because the Telegraph says so? I will point that out to the guy who will soon be selling me my post work pint of beer.
Click to expand...

Almost as if on cue...I was reading an article about the cost of flight travel today. While I generally think these things are largely meaningless I was forced to smile as I looked at the table to see where Canada ranked and, after our conversation yesterday, who the two countries immediately adjacent to us were.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/08/26/flights-in-india-are-the-cheapest-in-the-world/
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top