02-24-2016, 12:29 PM
(02-24-2016, 12:12 PM)zanate Wrote:(02-23-2016, 09:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote: They did, and it was confirmed by the Metrolinx board today.
The $4.70 minimum fare is still a deterrent to regular commuting, which is as it should be.
That's an odd statement.
Is UPX only successful if it prevents people from using it regularly? If it is used as a regular commuting route (such that it ends up being too full for airport travellers, I guess that's the risk you're suggesting), does that run the risk of showing how such a specialized, low-capacity airport transit project was a political misstep in a city that is begging for more general use transit along the downtown/airport corridor?
As Canard said, it has very limited capacity. If it's too full for people traveling to/from the airport, then it will also have failed in that mission, as people will not want to rely on being able to take it.
It really depends on the goal of UPX: if the goal is to provide commuter capacity along this line (I'm not saying that's a bad thing), they probably should be running three-car trains at the minimum, or higher frequencies (probably requiring more trains) during the peak hours. But I believe it's targeted at providing airport access.