UP Express in Toronto: A train less ridden

What does a billion dollars' worth of transit investment get in Toronto? A piddly 5,000 daily riders. To put things in perspective, dozens of bus routes in Toronto carry more passengers every day than the trips forecasted for the Union-Pearson rail link (UP Express).

The rail link will connect Canada's two busiest transport hubs: The Union Station and the Pearson Airport. Despite the high-speed connector between the two busiest hubs, transport authorities expect only 5,000 daily riders on the UP Express. The King Streetcar, in comparison, carries in excess of 65,000 daily riders.

The UP Express and the Sheppard subway extension are examples of transit money well wasted. A 2009 communiqué by Metrolinx estimated that the George Town Expansion (including the UP Express) will cost over a billion dollars. The Globe and Mail reported Ontario government alone had invested $456 million in the UP Express. Instead of investing the scarce transit dollars on projects likely to deliver the highest increase in transit ridership, billions are being spent on projects that will have a marginal impact on addressing traffic congestion in the GTA.

Source: www.upexpress.com

With $29 billion in planned transport infrastructure investments, some of which will be publicised Thursday in the Ontario budget, the Province and the City need to have their priorities right. The very least would be to stop investing in projects that do not generate sufficient transit ridership.

One may argue that 5,000 fewer trips by automobile to and from the Airport should help in easing congestion in the GTA. However, with over 12-million daily trips in the GTA, 5,000 fewer trips are unlikely to make any meaningful difference in traffic congestion. At the same time, the taxpayers should focus on the cost-benefit trade-offs for transit investments. Notice the cost-benefit efficiency of the existing TTC bus service (192 Airport Rocket) to the Pearson Airport that carries over 4,000 daily passengers. A billion dollars later, the UP Express will move only one thousand additional riders.

In North America, fewer than 10 airports are connected with local subway or regional rail transit. With the exception of the Ronald Reagan International Airport in Washington, DC, most other airports accessible by rail report approximately 5% transit trips to and from airports. The European experience though has been better. Almost 35% of the trips to and from Zurich airport were made on rail-based transit. Munich airport reported 40% of the trips by rail and bus.

Certain transit network attributes, which are missing for the UP Express, contribute to the strong transit ridership to and from airports. For instance, the rail-based service to high transit ridership airports does not terminate at the airport but instead continues further to serve the communities along the corridor. In addition, the airport lines at the successful airports are integrated with the rest of the rail-based transit system, instead of being a standalone line. The UP Express is a standalone rail line that connects to only one terminal at Pearson Airport. The prohibitive fare makes the ride uneconomical for commuters travelling in teams of two or more who would find a cab ride cheaper and convenient from most parts of suburban Toronto.

Two other key factors limit the ridership potential of the UP Express. First, the Billy Bishop Airport near downtown Toronto caters to the short-haul business travel market. It has been argued in the past that business travellers originating in downtown Toronto would rather take the train than a cab to Pearson Airport. Given the frequency of service and choice of destinations served by the Billy Bishop Airport, business travellers increasingly favour the downtown airport, which eats into the UP Express potential market share.

In addition, the peak operations at Pearson Airport coincide with the morning and afternoon peak commuting times in Toronto. This implies that one would have to commute to Union Station in the morning and afternoon peak travel periods to ride the UP Express. The extra effort in time and money required to travel to downtown Toronto from the inner suburbs alone will deter riders from using the Union-Person rail link.

The UP Express is yet another monument dedicated to public transit misadventures while the region continues to suffer from gridlock. Getting the transit priorities right is necessary before Ontario dolls out $29 billion.

London riots and Toronto’s suburbs

As violence spread through the immigrant dominated, low income, suburban neighbourhoods in UK, it has raised concerns about a similar violent breakdown in low-income neighbourhoods in Canada.

A recent report by Prof. David Hulchanski of the University of Toronto has pointed out the growing disparities between low- and high-income households in Toronto. In this post I argue that while income disparities have increased in central parts of Toronto, concerns about violent breakdown are largely misplaced for most Canadian cities, including Toronto.

In an earlier post I have argued that Professor’s Hulchanski’s results were influenced by the choice of spatial limits used to define ‘Toronto’. It is true that income disparities have worsened in Metropolitan Toronto, which is home to 2.5 million people and covers an area of 250 square miles. However, the increase in income disparities has resulted from outward migration of Toronto’s middle class to suburban municipalities that constitute the greater Toronto area (GTA).

For details see my earlier postings below:

The good, the bad, and the ugly in Toronto

Where is Toronto’s missing middle class? It has suburbanized out of Toronto

A quick review of the 2006 Census data suggest that neighbourhoods in Toronto’s outer suburbs (municipalities that constitute the GTA along with with Metropolitan Toronto) are more egalitarian than the ones in Metropolitan Toronto. The outer suburbs are now the choice digs for Toronto’s middle class, which is lured by abundant supply of affordable housing and other amenities required by households with children. A large number of recent immigrants have also flocked to the suburban parts of the GTA in pursuit of affordable shelter.

One way of comparing Toronto to its neighbouring suburbs is to deploy the same income typology as was used by Professor Hulchanski to categorise neighbourhoods in Toronto. He categorised neighbourhoods (Census Tracts) as follows:

Income quintiles	Neighbourhoods	Percent
Less than 40% average CMA income	134	13.36
Between 20% and 40% below average CMA income	276	27.52
Between 20% above and 20% below average CMA income	398	39.68
Between 20% and 40% above average CMA income	75	7.48
More than 40% above average CMA income	120	11.96
Total	1,003	100

 

CMA in the above table stands for the Census Metropolitan Area that comprises Toronto and most of its suburban municipalities. Toronto CMA has  a population of about 5 million. The above table suggests that in 2006 over 40% neighbourhoods in Toronto region reported average household income below 20% of the regional average.

I produce below tabulations between immigrant population and income quintiles. To account for the impact of recent immigrant concentration on the socio-economics of a neighbourhood, I categorise neighbourhoods based on what percentage of immigrants within a neighbourhood arrived in Canada between 1995 and 2006. Furthermore, I produce two tabulations, one for Metropolitan Toronto, and one for all other municipalities that are part of the Toronto CMA.

The tabulation for Metropolitan Toronto is presented below. Similar to what Professor Hulchanski found, I report that 46% neighbourhoods falling under the highest recent immigrant concentration (category 4) belonged to lowest income category. In comparison, only 4% of the neighbourhoods that were categorised as having the lowest concentration of recent immigrants belonged to the lowest income category. Furthermore, the highest income neighbourhoods were predominantly the ones with lowest concentration of recent immigrants.

However, the situation is quite reversed when the same tabulation is generated for outer suburbs in the Toronto region. Consider the following table where 48% neighbourhoods with the highest recent immigrant concentration corresponded to middle or higher than middle income categories. Only 8% of the highest recent immigrant concentration neighbourhoods fell in the lowest income category in suburban Toronto.

Furthermore, across all concentrations of recent immigrants, i.e., from lowest to the highest, the most frequent income category was the mid income range, i.e., between 20% above and 20% below average CMA income.

In summary, a quick review of Census data from 2006 reveals that Toronto’s outer suburbs are home to the middle class where recent immigrants are enjoying the benefits of affordable housing and other amenities that are not available in Metropolitan Toronto. In addition, Metropolitan Toronto continues to experience higher income disparities that adversely affects recent immigrants at an increasing rate.

When you're buying a home, hassle for a better price

Image by thinkpanama via FlickrFrom The Toronto Star, Wednesday, April 3, 2011

"At this point, Ryerson University professor Murtaza Haider, who is also the director of the Institute of Housing and Mobility, recommends writing down a reserve price you’ve decided you are comfortable with on a piece of paper.

“Then, under no circumstances, are you to go a dime over,” he says. “Put it in a safe place.” And in that very last half hour of bargaining, when many start to feel panicky and will bid that extra $20,000, take it out and look at it. If you lose the home, another will come along, he says.

“People get caught up in the moment,” Haider says. “You have to realize there are millions of housing units in Toronto. There are tons of houses to look at.”

But what exactly causes rational people to make such poor financial choices when it comes to real estate?

For Haider, it’s partly human nature and partly cultural.

The process of making an offer can resemble an auction. The excitement and competiveness of a sale can foster overbidding. Small, incremental increases also seem less significant. What’s $5,000 more when you’re talking $400,000 — it’s an easily mentality to slip into.

There’s also peer pressure, he says. People tend to look at what their friends and family have as a benchmark of status.

“And then there are cultural aspects too,” he adds. “We’re not a bargaining society. If you were buying a pair of shoes in Mumbai you would spend half an hour negotiating. The only time we negotiate is buying a house and we do a poor job of it. Our lack of experience comes in and that shows.”

Haider estimates North Americans are paying anywhere between 2 per cent to 5 per cent more for property because of weak bargaining skills. Sometimes, it can come down to embarrassment. A buyer doesn’t want to look cheap in front of their agent, said Haider."

Spring buying fever is rampant - Moneyville.ca

Related articles

• Big buzz over New Toronto home (theglobeandmail.com)
• Bungalows are GTA's hottest housing bet (moneyville.ca)
• Home sales fall but prices rise (moneyville.ca)