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

[AnarchoSocialist]

If a people mover option is picked, then they should scrap LINK and do it properly, picking something like the PRT system at Heathrow. Connections should be dead simple....no escalators or stairs or elevators....just pods waiting on the other side of the platform as soon as you get off the train. If you can just off a train, grab a pod (with no wait or at least minimal wait during busy periods) and head straight to your terminal in a very short time, then it might be a reasonable option. Not what I would prefer but at least it would be a huge improvement over the two cheapo options currently on the table.

There are some benefits to this plan if implemented properly. Metrolinx could still run small train sets specifically designed to serve Union-Pearson to ensure that there is frequent (at least every 15 minute service) until the line is converted from diesel bi-levels to an electrified regional rail line. Once that change over happens, the only thing being scrapped is the rolling stock, and even then it could be put to use elsewhere on the GO network. If designed properly the station could be made to feel as though its a part of the airport itself. Dont call it Malton or Woodbine (whichever one happens to be used)...call it Lester B. Pearson. Make it modern and comfortable and attractive just like the airport itself. If you cant create the illusion that once they have gotten off the train they are basically already at the airport, then that would make the plan successful. I would also note that this would require PRT (no monorail or cable cars or anything like that) as PRT would allow for the perfect way to manage the shuttling of passengers to and from the station and terminal (a simple example would be sending pods to whatever platform is about to receive a train to make sure there are enough waiting for disembarking passengers).

 

[Allandale25]

Interesting article:

Here's an article from today's Globe and Mail:

John Lorinc
Globe and Mail Update
Published on Tuesday, Aug. 03, 2010 10:48PM EDT
Last updated on Tuesday, Aug. 03, 2010 11:47PM EDT
File this one under late arrivals.

In a previous guise, the long-coveted public-private rail link between Union Station and Lester B. Pearson International Airport was supposed to be up and running by 2008. But when Metrolinx took over responsibility for the controversial project in late July, 2010, the agency also inherited the private-sector consortia’s pledge to have the 22-to-23-minute shuttle working flawlessly by February, 2015, just in time for the Pan Am Games scheduled for later that summer.

The event, proponents say, is meant to provide some much needed focus for a plan that has been slip sliding away for years. “The Games are for two weeks, [but] the service is for generations,†Metrolinx chair Robert Prichard said in an interview.

While five years may seem like plenty of time, Metrolinx officials know the work schedule is uncomfortably tight. Indeed, the next few months will be crucial, said Mr. Prichard. Herewith, the major pieces of what needs to get done.

Step 1: Complete the Georgetown South Corridor

Though well under way, this massive overhaul of a key GO Transit route is far from complete, and includes several grade separations (including one in West Toronto), the construction of the Strachan Avenue overpass and other pieces of infrastructure related to both expanded GO service and the air rail link. ETA: 2014.

Step 2: Build the 3.3-kilometre rail spur between the Georgetown corridor and the LBPIA

The line runs mostly, but not entirely, on airport land. The spur has already undergone an environmental assessment, so the regulatory approvals are complete. The route has also been determined, and the land secured. But Metrolinx and the Greater Toronto Airport Authority must negotiate an agreement – which Mr. Prichard anticipates will be straightforward – before construction begins.

The work itself is logistically complex because the line will be built within a functioning airport, on a narrow strip of land, with allowances for future electrification. The station, adjacent to the people mover station at Terminal 1, is partly constructed. Project duration 1.5 to 2 years. ETA: 2014.

Step 3: Acquire 12 purpose-built diesel multiple unit (DMU) trains

This is the one that will keep the folks at Metrolinx up at night. The trains will be paired – one set heading up, the other down – and are designed so no locomotive is required. While DMUs are common throughout Europe, Metrolinx needs to acquire models with two special features. They need “tier 4†engines, which conform to a higher emissions standard. And they must comply with North American rail safety standards written for passenger trains that share tracks with freight trains.

The potential snag, said Mr. Prichard, is that such next-generation trains aren’t yet in production. He notes that SNC-Lavalin, the private-sector proponent that bowed out of the project last week, had already developed the technical specs and surveyed the locomotive industry to see which firms are interested.

Metrolinx is also working with a vehicle acquisition consultant to figure out how to proceed. Once a manufacturer is chosen, the firm will have to hone the engineering specs, as well as build and crash-test a prototype, before going into full production. Target delivery date: late 2014.


Step 4: Develop a marketing/customer-service plan

While contractors and suppliers work on the engineering, Metrolinx plans to hire a dedicated team to oversee the branding, marketing and customer-service aspects of the operation. The components will include loyalty programs and other incentives, as well as customer-experience elements that seek to match the service Porter Airlines provides to its passengers before they leave the ground.

 

[TOareaFan]

^ certainly looks like they have already decided to just pick up where SNC left off and run (yet to be designed/built) trains right into the terminal via a spur line.

Too bad, I really think there is greater opportunity to serve more people with the idea of two AirportTransit Hubs (north and south) connected via some sort of better/improved/longer airport link that runs back and forth from the hubs through the two terminals.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Except you still need dedicated trains, and in your case you add another transfer. The Go line isn't going to be REX'd by 2015. and likely not by 2025 even.

 

[TOareaFan]

Except you still need dedicated trains, and in your case you add another transfer. The Go line isn't going to be REX'd by 2015. and likely not by 2025 even.

Unlike, though, the dedicated trains in the SNC/now-metrolinx plan the people mover/air link idea (not my idea but one I support) would serve multiple access points to the airport (GO/VIA on the north side) and TTC/GO/MT on the soutside.

Who says that GO Georgetown line could not be bi-directional, all day, with 20 - 30 minute frequencies by 2015? All of the track/bridge infrastructure will be there.....and with the additional passenger driver of airport along with the already heavily populated areas the line serves....it would be a supportable service level.

Like was discussed recently, if the transit hubs are designed properly it will not feel like a "transfer" once in the hub it could feel like you are already at the airport and the people mover/air link is just moving you from one part of the airport ("PIA Transit Centre") to another part of the airport ("PIA Terminal 1")....certainly that is the way it feels in airports like San Fran, when they put people on trains to get to, for example, the car rental stations...you don't feel like you are leaving the airport just being conveniently transported to a further away part of the airport.

 

[EnviroTO]

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.

Something like LaGuardia's transit system is definitely not the suggestion. JFK's air rail is more similar to what is being proposed and being built now it would obviously be fully accessible and easy to keep luggage on its wheels.

 

[EnviroTO]

Except you still need dedicated trains, and in your case you add another transfer. The Go line isn't going to be REX'd by 2015. and likely not by 2025 even.

For someone coming from Kitchener and flying on British Airways the trip would be:

1) AirRail Option = VIA or GO to Union station going right past the airport, transferring at the bustling and complex Union Station to get to track 3, taking the Metrolinx AirRail service for an additional $25 for "the convenience", arriving at Terminal 1, transferring onto the cable pulled amusement park ride to Terminal 3, and then checking in.

2) PeopleMover Option = VIA or GO to Malton/Woodbine station, transferring at the airport focused station to the airport people mover, arriving at Terminal 3, and then checking in.

Union station is only one station in the GTA. Not everyone lives or works within walking distance of Union station. Current VIA service which goes past the airport comes from Sarnia, London, Stratford, Kitchener, and Guelph as well as Union Station. Current GO service which goes past the airport comes from Georgetown, Brampton, North Etobicoke, Weston, and Bloor as well as Union Station. In the future VIA could have trains from other parts of the province pass the airport. GO will extend their line to Kitchener and go to all day service past the airport (without accounting for additional trains which would be added for airport specific service). The Mississauga busway would bring people from all through the heart of Mississauga to the airport. The Eglinton LRT would bring people from the middle of Toronto to the airport.

The Air Rail spur is great for people on Air Canada and near Union Station. However, 50% of the people in the GTA are outside Toronto let alone the city core, and T3 carries some 35% of the passengers at the airport and far more airlines (i.e. while more Canadian's will arrive at T1, more international passengers are likely to arrive at T3).

So lets do the math:
30,000,000 passengers approximately / 365 days = 82,000 pax per day
82,000 * 0.65 = 53,000 pax per day in T1
53,000 * 0.8 = 40,000 per day in T1 not connecting
40,000 * 0.5 = 20,000 per day maximum from Toronto proper
20,000 * 0.5 = 10,000 per day from the core (estimate)
10,000 / 18h = 550 per hour from the core maximum which would be like getting 100% of the trips.

 

[rbt]

10,000 / 18h = 550 per hour from the core maximum which would be like getting 100% of the trips.

That's probably pretty damn good for a premium service. Even 1/3rd of that at $25 per seat would probably be enough for GO to cover operational fees (roughly $30M/year in revenue). The capital can likely be recovered through a direct increase in business tax revenue from the larger firms in the core who regularly have visitors that would use such a service. Large companies often have a policy of expensing airport trains when available or cabs when they aren't.

 

[EnviroTO]

That might be true but you are serving the 10,000 people a day rather than the 65,000 people per day who are not connecting. When it was a private company financing the costs of creating a premium service to serve the fraction of the 10,000 people a day willing to fork out $25 I had less problems with it. Now that it is the province picking up the tab they should be serving more of those 65,000 people who are not downtown but are going or coming from the airport. The 3600 people per hour going to the airport could be better served by the People Mover. Even if the PeopleMover charged a loonie to board from the rail station and the Renforth gateway it could amount to $5-10M/year and the operational costs of an automated PeopleMover are probably pretty low.

 

[rbt]

That might be true but you are serving the 10,000 people a day rather than the 65,000 people per day who are not connecting. When it was a private company financing the costs of creating a premium service to serve the fraction of the 10,000 people a day willing to fork out $25 I had less problems with it. Now that it is the province picking up the tab they should be serving more of those 65,000 people who are not downtown but are going or coming from the airport. The 3600 people per hour going to the airport could be better served by the People Mover. Even if the PeopleMover charged a loonie to board from the rail station and the Renforth gateway it could amount to $5-10M/year and the operational costs of an automated PeopleMover are probably pretty low.

I don't think it is an either/or situation. The Union to Pearson premium service (business class really) doesn't remove from the necessity or ability to create a station at Woodbine with PeopleMover connection, or Eglinton/Finch/other LRT connections in the basement. Heck, I can easily see Finch with 3 minute frequencies being used as the connection between Woodbine and Terminal 1's lower level (couple thousand pphpd ought to be enough).

I'm uncertain how much life T3 has left but Finch/Eglinton could be expanded to stop there too. The long term plan was to fold T3 into T1 and that may be on the horizon shortly after 2020 (when Finch/Eglinton get to Pearson).

Having a business class link is important for business and there is lots of business income tax to pay for it, via the province, coming from downtown.

I do agree that it is also important that we don't stop with just that train.

 

[RedRocket191]

^ The Finch LRT could very well bridge the final gap between the Woodbine station and the terminal. It, and/or the Eglinton LRT, could very well replace the peoplemover using much of the same infrastructure.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

For someone coming from Kitchener and flying on British Airways the trip would be:

1) AirRail Option = VIA or GO to Union station going right past the airport, transferring at the bustling and complex Union Station to get to track 3, taking the Metrolinx AirRail service for an additional $25 for "the convenience", arriving at Terminal 1, transferring onto the cable pulled amusement park ride to Terminal 3, and then checking in.

2) PeopleMover Option = VIA or GO to Malton/Woodbine station, transferring at the airport focused station to the airport people mover, arriving at Terminal 3, and then checking in.

Union station is only one station in the GTA. Not everyone lives or works within walking distance of Union station. Current VIA service which goes past the airport comes from Sarnia, London, Stratford, Kitchener, and Guelph as well as Union Station. Current GO service which goes past the airport comes from Georgetown, Brampton, North Etobicoke, Weston, and Bloor as well as Union Station. In the future VIA could have trains from other parts of the province pass the airport. GO will extend their line to Kitchener and go to all day service past the airport (without accounting for additional trains which would be added for airport specific service). The Mississauga busway would bring people from all through the heart of Mississauga to the airport. The Eglinton LRT would bring people from the middle of Toronto to the airport.

The Air Rail spur is great for people on Air Canada and near Union Station. However, 50% of the people in the GTA are outside Toronto let alone the city core, and T3 carries some 35% of the passengers at the airport and far more airlines (i.e. while more Canadian's will arrive at T1, more international passengers are likely to arrive at T3).

So lets do the math:
30,000,000 passengers approximately / 365 days = 82,000 pax per day
82,000 * 0.65 = 53,000 pax per day in T1
53,000 * 0.8 = 40,000 per day in T1 not connecting
40,000 * 0.5 = 20,000 per day maximum from Toronto proper
20,000 * 0.5 = 10,000 per day from the core (estimate)
10,000 / 18h = 550 per hour from the core maximum which would be like getting 100% of the trips.

Minor point but I'm pretty sure BA operates out of T1 (I stand corrected, it is T3. However I do agree that there should be consideration for travellers destined for the airport from points North and West of the airport.

Also you treat the people mover between T1 and T3 as if it's some horrible thing. A number of airports have numerous terminal which passengers use people movers to travel between. The experience is similar to other airports around the world...

Building on rbt's comment. Even 250 passengers per hour at a premium business fare "should" be adequately served by the paired BUDD cars.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

I'm uncertain how much life T3 has left but Finch/Eglinton could be expanded to stop there too. The long term plan was to fold T3 into T1 and that may be on the horizon shortly after 2020 (when Finch/Eglinton get to Pearson).

To me, that is a hugely important question in deciding what sort of system should be built. If T3 is going to remain for the long term then a PRT with two points of entry would probably make the most sense since both terminals should have the same level of access for the most part. And in this case I would even say a through line might not be the best choice.

If 2020 is roughly the end of the line for T3, then a through line in the medium term makes total sense and in that case, so long as something is built in the interim, and fast, then thats all that really matters.

And responding to someone a page back about scrapping whatever gets built in 15 years time I would point out that right now a sizeable sum of money is being spent on VIA stations and adding and improving track in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. When HSR gets built will people see it as a waste of money? Some of it can be reused by freight or local passenger service. And even what isnt useful still providing improvements that are needed today. Again, it might not be preferable, but its hard to argue that these improvements will not help VIA in the short term which also helps them increase ridership and support for HSR in the medium term.

 

[EnviroTO]

Also you treat the people mover between T1 and T3 as if it's some horrible thing. A number of airports have numerous terminal which passengers use people movers to travel between. The experience is similar to other airports around the world...

No, I am FOR a real people mover that everybody uses. A people mover LIKE the other airports that have a number of terminals. None of the airport People Movers systems I have ever seen are wagons pulled by a cable and restricted in how far they can go. A real people mover would be extended to the rail corridor. So I am not saying a People Mover is a horrible thing, I am saying a proper people mover is the best solution.

 

[EnviroTO]

I don't think it is an either/or situation. The Union to Pearson premium service (business class really) doesn't remove from the necessity or ability to create a station at Woodbine with PeopleMover connection, or Eglinton/Finch/other LRT connections in the basement. Heck, I can easily see Finch with 3 minute frequencies being used as the connection between Woodbine and Terminal 1's lower level (couple thousand pphpd ought to be enough).

I would really question how feasible it is to fit heavy rail, 2 light rail lines, a busway, and the airport people mover into such a small space and how splitting that capacity 5 ways makes sense.

I'm uncertain how much life T3 has left but Finch/Eglinton could be expanded to stop there too. The long term plan was to fold T3 into T1 and that may be on the horizon shortly after 2020 (when Finch/Eglinton get to Pearson).

That plan has dropped off the radar. They have significantly expanded the south end of T3 and the T3 parking garage.