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

[rbt]

Would it be prohibitively expensive to re-route the GO line through Pearson?

On the current Georgetown corridor budget, yes. A GO line through Pearson is probably a $7B project today (cost to electrify the entire line, buy replacement single-level rolling stock, tunnel, underground station at Pearson, etc.).

It seems far more likely to build out Woodbine as the modal interchange point and a bigger people mover between Pearson and Woodbine.

 

[dunkalunk]

A re-route through pearson would probably be 3 times as long and would require many more grade separations than a spur shot through woodbine, although constuction could more easily follow direct right of ways without too much grade separation, especially on Airport Road. This would be a project to consider if we ever get High Speed Rail, although, a well designed transfer to an upgraded, local people mover could be just as useful. See this.

 

[ssiguy2]

Why in god's name would you tunnel under Pearson?
The entire line from Union to Pearson should be at grade or elevated with possibly ver short tunnels where needed like at Dundas West station and maybe Eglinton depending if the Eglinton LRT {or whatever it is} will be tunneled at that intersection.
Electrify the GO line and then from Etob.North station have it swing down to Pearson. If an extension to Humber is more in the long term transit strategy then it can have a monorail to Pearson from the station.
A 5km monorail would, at most, cost $300 million so how would it cost another $6.7 billion to get to Union? The very most it should come in at is $150 million/per km.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

The cost of just the tunnel, plus junctions, fly over/unders, and station is probably $1-$1.5 billion (assuming an already electrified system and the equipment to operate on it). There are a number of alignments that could be considered and it would require more detailed work than just lines on a map to figure out which would be the best.

As Dunkalunk said, if/when HSR begins to be developed a through line for Pearson will make a lot more sense. GO may be able to make the case for a line on its own, but I suspect probably not. If you think of spending $1 billion on a local GO train stop, or $1 billion for a GO/HSR, interprovincial station, there is a pretty difference in the importance of these projects.

If this was any other airport in Canada I wouldn't even consider such a project but Pearson is too large and important to not eventually have a proper rail network connection at some point in the medium term.

 

[EnviroTO]

The cost was determined during a study 10 years ago. The study is HERE. The important pages are:
- Page 23, Mississauga's Rapid Transit route from Renforth Gateway to Malton GO.
- Page 29, Diagram of the three options (HSR capable through route corridor, spur usable only by smaller trains, and AGT (people mover) to the Georgetown corridor and Eglinton-Renforth intersection.
- Page 31, Only airport shuttle, AGT (people mover), and transit can get direct access to the terminal without a corridor diversion. Only the corridor diversion will get HSR, VIA, and GO to the airport without taking the AGT (people mover) to the rail corridor.
- Page 33, cost of corridor diversion in 1994 was estimated to be $900 million.
- Page 36, of the short listed options the people mover (AGT) to the rail corridor is the most affordable option, and the only one with GO, VIA, and HSR link potential.

The summary of the report focused primarily on the people mover (AGT) option but also mentioned a rail spur ending at the long term parking with everyone transferring to the AGT there. The reason they didn't mention a direct connection to Terminal 1 was the complexities of connecting a true heavy rail corridor to the terminal with the roadways, AGT, and terminal developments occurring there.

In the current Air Rail plan they take the link right to Terminal 1 but there are serious tradeoffs in cost (the extra cost which will be significant since it is completely elevated), rolling stock flexibility (the route is curvy, steep, and only handles a very small trainset), and scheduling flexibility (the track will not be twinned). With the plan to stop the spur at the long term parking area the cost was much less and there weren't the same limitations on rolling stock and the line was twinned, but the benefits over the people mover (AGT) to the Georgetown would have been much more marginal.

The report is clear that if the goal is to connect GO, VIA, and potentially HSR to the airport the only options are the corridor diversion for $900M in 1994 (deemed expensive), or the people mover (AGT) to the rail corridor. It is also clear in the report that the people mover (AGT) connection provides the most beneficial link between local rapid transit and the airport.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

If you look at the report it also shows the difference between a people mover connection and a direct, 2 car heavy rail connection is only $15 million (in 1994 dollars). It still requires the same upgrades to the rest of the corridor whether its to allow for more GO trains or the airport link.

Either way, whatever crappy solution is picked, it should be done now. If a link is constructed in the next few years then in 15 years time few people are going to care that they spent money on a link that is no longer useful, but did provide a valuable service while a proper through line was planned and finally built. If the GTAA can pick up some of the tab, all the better.

But if the cheapo link is delayed over endless arguments, then its puts a proper plan at jeopardy. Pick one of the plans and do it, or just don't bother and start from scratch.

 

[dunkalunk]

If you look at the report it also shows the difference between a people mover connection and a direct, 2 car heavy rail connection is only $15 million (in 1994 dollars). It still requires the same upgrades to the rest of the corridor whether its to allow for more GO trains or the airport link.

Either way, whatever crappy solution is picked, it should be done now. If a link is constructed in the next few years then in 15 years time few people are going to care that they spent money on a link that is no longer useful, but did provide a valuable service while a proper through line was planned and finally built. If the GTAA can pick up some of the tab, all the better.

But if the cheapo link is delayed over endless arguments, then its puts a proper plan at jeopardy. Pick one of the plans and do it, or just don't bother and start from scratch.

If a direct rail link is constructed in the next few years, then in 15 years people will ask "Didn't we just spend X million building a direct connection 10 years ago?" Just because you could bury the cost of the current temporary rail spur within the Georgetown South Rail Project, doesn't mean you should. If the rail spur is built as designed, there likely wont be justification to build a through route unless that rail line can somehow be re-purposed into a local line.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Metrolinx comes up with after they have examined SNC-Lavalin's business case.

 

[ssiguy2]

YVR kicked in $400 million for the Canada Line spur to the airport so Pearson should be kicking in ATLEAST half a billion. That would pay for the cost of a monorail/ICTS to Etobico North GO. The just a Metro with limited stops to downtown creating the western section of the DRL.
It is true that many cities already have HSR to their airports BUT these cities already have subway/Metro connections. A HSR is completely useless for the budget traveler and the tens of thousands who work at Pearson and the area.
HSR is strickly a government subsidy for the banking crowd. A Bay Street express and to add insult to injury they even get to write off the ticket on their taxes.

 

[EnviroTO]

If you look at the report it also shows the difference between a people mover connection and a direct, 2 car heavy rail connection is only $15 million (in 1994 dollars). It still requires the same upgrades to the rest of the corridor whether its to allow for more GO trains or the airport link.

But that is based on a station at the long term parking area which has a lot less elevated structure and is 2/3rds of the distance to terminal 1. If you consider the rail needs to be extended an additional 50% and that the remaining distance will be costlier due to grade separation and that the resulting station will also be grade separated I think you can easily add 70% to that in costs. That would make it a $53 million difference (in 1994 dollars). This means the spur is double the cost of the people mover when you exclude the common Georgetown corridor upgrade components.

 

[Voltz]

YVR kicked in $400 million for the Canada Line spur to the airport so Pearson should be kicking in ATLEAST half a billion. That would pay for the cost of a monorail/ICTS to Etobico North GO. The just a Metro with limited stops to downtown creating the western section of the DRL.
It is true that many cities already have HSR to their airports BUT these cities already have subway/Metro connections. A HSR is completely useless for the budget traveler and the tens of thousands who work at Pearson and the area.
HSR is strickly a government subsidy for the banking crowd. A Bay Street express and to add insult to injury they even get to write off the ticket on their taxes.

The Canada line also functions as a people mover for YVR, That is primarily why they chipped in. Toronto already has one, so good luck getting the airport to pay up.

 

[gweed123]

They should scrap the rail link and go straight to RFP for a new monorail / APM with stops at Malton station, long term parking, T3, T1 D-E-F, T1 G-H, and Eglinton and Renforth to replace the rinky-dink cable car APM that is currently there. Forget about the huge expense of elevated heavy rail into the airport, forget about the Eglinton LRT coming into the airport in a roundabout way, forget about the Finch West LRT coming into the airport. One piece of infrastructure (the monorail / APM) can save money on 2 LRT connections, 1 heavy rail spur, and allow GO, VIA, TTC, and Mississauga Transit passengers to access the airport from the north, west, and south as well as the east rather than only via a downtown centric Air Rail Link. End the Finch West LRT at Malton station and move the Mississauga Transit and Brampton Transit hub at Westwood Mall to Malton Station, have all VIA trains on the route stop at Malton Station, beef up the GO service to 20 minutes all day to Malton using smaller trainsets if required. End the Mississauga Busway and Eglinton LRT at Eglinton and Renforth for a hub which links to the airport and also supports both GO and intercity bus routes. It can all be done for less than what is currently planned and provides greater connectivity as an end result.

So if I'm reading this right, basically create 2 hubs on either side of the airport, and run an airport-exclusive service between those two hubs, with the airport in between? I like that idea. Only problem I see with it is the lack of the 1-seat ride for pretty much anybody. Having taken the NYC subway yesterday from Grand Central to 125th St, then the M60 to LaGuardia, I can say that transferring with luggage (especially over multiple station levels) is a pretty big pain in the ass. If you're trying to get people to take transit to the airport as opposed to a cab or driving, a 1-seat ride would definitely be an asset. Of course, you could also design the two hubs to minimize the impact of transferring.

 

[TOareaFan]

Of course, you could also design the two hubs to minimize the impact of transferring.

Isn't that, really, the key? If you get off of the GO train/TTC (depending which terminal/hub you were at) and there is a short, one-level, walk to a train/people mover that is either there or comes real fast and there is a short ride to the terminal in a comfortable/cool/convenient train.....won't most, reasonable, people feel that they arrived at the airport when they got off the GO train/TTC and that everything after that is just part of that bag shuffling/crowded with people/station-station airport experience?

 

[Darwinkgo]

Isn't that, really, the key? If you get off of the GO train/TTC (depending which terminal/hub you were at) and there is a short, one-level, walk to a train/people mover that is either there or comes real fast and there is a short ride to the terminal in a comfortable/cool/convenient train.....won't most, reasonable, people feel that they arrived at the airport when they got off the GO train/TTC and that everything after that is just part of that bag shuffling/crowded with people/station-station airport experience?

As long as you didn't haven't to transfer a second time to get to the other terminal, I could care less. Still, since the Go Trains are not planned to be frequent enough to make it worth while to do so, the one seat to terminal 1 is the best option now, especially since Pearson is not going to pay to extend the people mover to Woodbine.

 

[TOareaFan]

As long as you didn't haven't to transfer a second time to get to the other terminal, I could care less. Still, since the Go Trains are not planned to be frequent enough to make it worth while to do so, the one seat to terminal 1 is the best option now, especially since Pearson is not going to pay to extend the people mover to Woodbine.

I guess the question is does Metrolinx pay to build a rail spur to run specific trains to one terminal or do they pay to extend/replace the people mover so that it provides a direct link between two hubs (GO north of the airport and TTC/MT south of it) to the two terminals.

I would pick the second option...my preference for the northern hub, though, is not a new station at Woodbine but, rather, just extend the people mover to Malton where there is already GO/Via infrastructure as well as an in place trade/convention centre....but that is all just details.

 

[Dan416]

I guess the question is does Metrolinx pay to build a rail spur to run specific trains to one terminal or do they pay to extend/replace the people mover so that it provides a direct link between two hubs (GO north of the airport and TTC/MT south of it) to the two terminals.

I would pick the second option...my preference for the northern hub, though, is not a new station at Woodbine but, rather, just extend the people mover to Malton where there is already GO/Via infrastructure as well as an in place trade/convention centre....but that is all just details.

I think that's the best option as well. I don't like the idea of a spur too much. If the Pearson LINK Train was extended to Malton, then you wouldn't need to build a spur line and then you could just increase service to Malton and since the LINK Train is free, it would just be the cost of taking the train to Malton.