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

[EnviroTO]

^ However bringing AirRail link trains to T1 doesn't pass the test of going the extra mile and in fact leaves GO and VIA with no link to the airport whereas a monorail from Malton GO and Renforth would allow access from VIA and GO from Malton, Mississauga BRT, GO 401 bus services, and the TTC on Eglinton... equal access to both terminals as well. I'm not sold on Blue22 being the better solution considering it will cost more and serve less.

 

[p5connex]

My initial post included such components as GO, VIA and Amtrak, but unfortunately got lost in the midst of multi-tasking. That said, I think the potential for an internal inter-modal station of sorts in the airport would be best, and if anything should not be a dead-end. I don't have a problem with trains running back and forth between the city, but there should still be the availability to catch a train to say, Windsor, or Barrie etc.

p5

 

[TOareaFan]

TOareaFan this is not necessarily directed at you..

Its not that we are sure, but that it is better, more efficient and makes the most sense. I am really tired of the way we do things in North America - honestly, all the grumbling about a few extra dollars, just do the goddamned job and do it right! Why do always need to cut corners, do only the average amount of work necessary at the status quo level, to save a few bucks? This is the mentality that we live with day in and day out! Everything is too much trouble and is good enough the way it is - so why bother in the first place!

While places around the world look at ways to make themselves more and more competitive and appealing to the rest of the world, be it for the tourist market or the business market, Toronto sits idling in neutral, content with reminiscing about the days of 1980's when this city was a leading example for transit, civic activity and forward thinking. These types of projects need to happen and need to be done right, especially for the large proportion of people who believe we are fine without...


p5

It is an interesting debate (and I don't take it {or most anything} personally)......what always intrigues me is that we (when we debate) tend to give more credibility to examples outside of North America than good solid, working, examples on our own continent.

I was particularly impressed by the San Francisco model.....they have a train (not much more elaborate than our current people mover) that, essentially, circles the airport and connects all of the terminals, they have pushed things such as car rental agencies to a single location (freeing up aisle and counter space inside the terminals) to a more remote location that serves all terminals....the train takes you from your terminal and gives efficient and equal service to customers of the airport whether they are leaving by transit or car......it is an accepted part of air travel and no one grumbles.

Putting that in a Toronto context, while we have been waiting for the financing and engineering and co-ordination to bring trains and transit directly to the door of the terminal(s) we have been living for too long with an airport that is (largely) inaccessible by transit.....even though a people mover/train could have been whisking us, relatively cheaply and easily, to a train line not far away that already serves downtown and points north west of the airport already....that train line also connects in two different spots with our subway system.....and is relatively inexpensive.

I know what your point is about "cheaping out" but if we had built the people mover in the first place to move people to the Georgetown GO line would that quick simple transfer not now be ingrained as the easy/inexpensive/accepted way to the airport? Perhaps......instead we are still waiting/debating how to do it!

 

[Second_in_pie]

^ However bringing AirRail link trains to T1 doesn't pass the test of going the extra mile and in fact leaves GO and VIA with no link to the airport whereas a monorail from Malton GO and Renforth would allow access from VIA and GO from Malton, Mississauga BRT, GO 401 bus services, and the TTC on Eglinton... equal access to both terminals as well. I'm not sold on Blue22 being the better solution considering it will cost more and serve less.

I think that if you were going to extend the people mover that far, it would need an upgrade. The current travel times are about 5 minutes wait for a train (when they aren't broken.) Extending it to Malton and Renforth and the 401 would just be killer. It would probably be less than one train every 10 minutes, which is a horrible frequency to maintain.

I think the best way to do it would be to build a big hub on a parking lot, the perfect space being the one at Dixon Road and Carlingview. The people mover could reasonably be extended there without massacring the frequency. The Georgetown corridor could also be rather easily be rerouted (underground) there, while diverting it all the way to Renforth might be a bit harder. It would also be an easy hub/terminus for the Mississauga Transitway (the last stretch from the 401 to the hub would be an easy way for 401 busses to reach the Terminal.) Eglinton could obviously terminate there quite easily, maybe even using the Transitway ROW from Eglinton to get to the Terminal.

Unfortunately, this dream parking lot might not be available, and diverting Georgetown would take around 10 kilometers of tunneling. However, I think that this would be the best solution, even taking cost into consideration.

 

[EnviroTO]

I think that if you were going to extend the people mover that far, it would need an upgrade. The current travel times are about 5 minutes wait for a train (when they aren't broken.) Extending it to Malton and Renforth and the 401 would just be killer. It would probably be less than one train every 10 minutes, which is a horrible frequency to maintain.

Who said people mover? That cable car thing is a joke. I said monorail and I meant monorail as in vehicles which can move much faster and more smoothly than a modified roller coaster pulled by a wire. The columns that support the current scaffolding style track could probably support concrete beams. If they really need to keep the connection to the parking lot they could reuse the existing parts to run a direct T1 garage to outer parking connection which would be much faster than the curving route past T3 anyways.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Who said people mover? That cable car thing is a joke. I said monorail and I meant monorail as in vehicles which can move much faster and more smoothly than a modified roller coaster pulled by a wire. The columns that support the current scaffolding style track could probably support concrete beams. If they really need to keep the connection to the parking lot they could reuse the existing parts to run a direct T1 garage to outer parking connection which would be much faster than the curving route past T3 anyways.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense That people mover needs to get replaced really badly... Every one of the 3 times I've been to Pearson this month, one of the cars was closed. It is slow, uncomfortable, and has very little room for expansion.

 

[jwill]

Could the Eglinton and/or Finch LRTs take up this role of connecting Pearson to other local lines? Eglinton could potentially connect with the mississauga/GO busway at renforth, then pass through both terminals, then head up to a Woodbine station, where it would terminate. A 'free zone' could be created so that passengers could use the LRT to get from the airport to either the busway or the rail line for free.

Combined with the ARL direct to Union and the Eglinton (and possibly Finch) LRT itself, this would make a lot of the city accessible from the airport.

 

[EnviroTO]

If the Finch LRT connected to the airport after linking to a station on the Georgetown line and the Eglinton LRT connected to the airport after stopping at a Renforth gateway and these two segments were operated as a fare free zone then 'yes', I agree that the airport monorail or link to VIA, GO, TTC, and MT at Malton/Woodbine and Renforth would not be necessary. The province/Metrolinx would need to be assertive to make it happen because the debate over who would pay for a fare free zone at the airport which serves VIA, GO, MT, TTC, and general GTAA traffic would never end.

 

[DTGeek]

In, both, San Francisco and Atlanta, people regularly (and without grumbling) take an internal transit system from their planes to get to things like baggage claim, car rental outlets and,

I've never heard of anyone taking transit (I assume you mean the AirTrain) to baggage claim in SFO. Car rental and long term parking are the only things that are really far away.

remarkably, public transit. It is not a big deal and it is really just an accepted part of the airport experience.

I don't know what you're talking about. The subway in SFO does come directly into the terminals. The terminals at SFO are more like "piers" at YYZ's terminal 1, in that they're all essentially the same building and you can walk between them. If you have a lot of luggage then it makes sense to take the AirTrain to the BART station, but I personally would rather walk (from T2 it's probably more of a hike, but from the international terminal it's right there) than take something like 4 elevators/escalators, cramming into a train with idiots and tourists and their 50 pieces of luggage each, and then lining up at the BART ticket machine for 5 minutes behind same.

And despite the convenience of a subway going right into the terminal, the ridership BART gets from SFO actually seems pretty small to me. The trains come every 15 minutes during peak hours and I've rarely seen them fill to more than 10-20% of capacity when leaving the airport. Not to mention that if you want to take the Caltrain to go somewhere south of SFO, your best option is to not bother and find a shuttle/cab.

Personally I don't think it'd be a big deal at YYZ to have the people mover connect to a train station at a separate location, but I guarantee that you would lose a fair number of passengers who just don't want to be bothered and just want to get to their hotel ASAP and will gladly pay cab fare or whatever for that. It really does make a huge difference just to be able to walk straight off your plane onto the train that will take you downtown.

 

[ShonTron]

The R1 train in Philadelphia runs every 30 minutes as a spur off one of the electrified Pennsylvania Railway commuter routes and serves each terminal. It's a model that could be used here, and the best part is that it accepts regular SEPTA fares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1_(SEPTA)

Another model is the AirTrain Newark, a monorail that connects all the parking lots and terminals to a railway station with frequent NJ Transit trains and Amtrak. There's a premium to use the rail-airport link ($5), but the total fare one way is $15, monthly passes (airport employees) are exempt from the premium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTrain_Newark

Then there are subways to airports. Cleveland and Midway are small enough that the connection from the single terminal entrance are easy enough, but the walks to some terminals from the CTA O'Hare station are lengthy, though there is the option of using the peoplemover there.

Atlanta, through its design, forces almost every passenger through its inter-terminal shuttle. The MARTA subway unloads almost right in front of the main building, where you check in and go through security or retrieve baggage, then board a shuttle to the terminal your flight departs from.

 

[Whoaccio]

Airport taxis given green light for city fares

In a move that caught Toronto cabbies and city officials by surprise, the Ontario government has quietly amended the City of Toronto Act to ensure that airport-licensed taxis and limousines can't be prohibited from picking up fares within city limits.

The provincial amendment ensures the death of a contentious city bylaw that aimed to permit only Toronto-licensed taxis and limos to take passengers to the airport – a short-lived victory for local taxi drivers in a 30-year fight over the lucrative fares.

The city was preparing to defend the bylaw, passed by council Dec. 13, 2007, which would force airport limos to return to Pearson without a fare after bringing passengers downtown. It was suspended by court injunction pending a legal challenge by the limousine drivers and owners.

But Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson has effectively rendered the bylaw and the legal challenge moot. On July 30, he signed a regulation into the City of Toronto Act that permits airport-licensed taxicabs to pick up passengers from any point within Toronto. Neither the city nor local industry representatives were consulted on the amendment, although the act empowers the minister to make such a change unilaterally.

Mr. Watson declined an interview Monday. A spokesman said the amendment is designed to “support the efficiency and choice available to people travelling from Toronto to Pearson Airport.â€

“We had the rug pulled from under our feet,†said Andy Reti, a retired taxi owner and member of an industry committee that was supposed to meet Aug. 25 to discuss the issue with Mr. Watson's designate. “This is dirty politics of the highest order.â€

Howard Moscoe, chairman of the city's licensing and standards committee, said the change came as a complete surprise. He said Mayor David Miller's office received a “last minute†phone call from the premier's office giving notice of the amendment.

Mr. Miller is on vacation and was not available for comment yesterday, but a spokesman confirmed the province acted on its own.

“The ink is barely dry on the City of Toronto Act when the Premier, without discussion, without consultation, arbitrarily changes the regulations,†Mr. Moscoe said. “He just stabbed the taxi industry in the back and the City of Toronto, to boot.â€

Ronald Slaght, the lawyer who represents the three limousine companies that operate at Pearson, said the bylaw would have meant “curtains†for the industry. He argued in court that 70 per cent of their business involved driving passengers from Toronto to the airport. Many are corporate and government clients.

“I hope everybody can just accept it and the world will keep going,†Mr. Slaght said Monday, adding his clients feel “as if justice has been done.â€

The dispute dates back to 1978, when the province added a “pick-up†exemption for airport taxicabs into the Municipal Act. Toronto cabbies, who could count on five to six airport runs a week, saw the lucrative fares disappear. Toronto taxi drivers are also prohibited from picking up at Pearson unless the trip is prearranged and they pay a $10 fee to the airport.

After much lobbying, the Liberal government agreed to remove the exemption from the new City of Toronto Act, which was proclaimed Jan. 1, 2007. Toronto tried to reinforce its licensing rights with the bylaw.

Taxi industry advocate Gerry Manley estimates local cabbies have lost out on more than $1-billion in airport fares over three decades, basing his calculations on an average of two airport runs per shift, per week, for each licensed plate, at an average fare of $45. He said the bylaw would have meant an extra $100-$200 per week in the pockets of cabbies.

“The cream of our business is being stolen from us by the province,†he said.

Toronto has about 3,400 standard taxi plates on the roads, another 1,540 ambassador plates and at least 500 licensed limos. The Greater Toronto Airport Authority has issued about 650 plates to taxis and limousines.

Thank god for the Province. If it were up to Moscoe et al, we would still be riding horse drawn carriages everywhere to "protect" the horse breeders. Taxi quotas and regulations have undoubtedly been some of the dumbest hinderances to public transit in the GTA. This should have been done years ago, moaning of the taxi industry not withstanding.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

^^that was probably done to soften any anticipated blow blue22 would have on airport taxi and limo ridership.

 

[TOareaFan]

^^that was probably done to soften any anticipated blow blue22 would have on airport taxi and limo ridership.

I get what you are saying....but for the city cabbies it means a double whammy...they will have to compete with, both, returning airport cabs/limos and the Blue 22 for the lucrative airport fares......will city cabs without airport licenses now be able to bring fares back from the airport? would seem fare (tee hee) if they were!

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

^^^ That's how it was presented on the radio this morning. That Airport cabs were now able to pick up fares in the City while City cabs were not able to pick up fares at the airport. That hardly seems fare (TEE HEE!)

However the article seems to paint a different picture that city cabs are now able to pick up fares at the airport. This is a point that certainly needs to be clairified.

 

[TOareaFan]

^^^ That's how it was presented on the radio this morning. That Airport cabs were now able to pick up fares in the City while City cabs were not able to pick up fares at the airport. That hardly seems fare (TEE HEE!)

However the article seems to paint a different picture that city cabs are now able to pick up fares at the airport. This is a point that certainly needs to be clairified.

The other thing that needs to be clarified (from a customer point of view) is can one of those airport cabs refuse to take me somewhere because it is not the airport? So I am walking along King Street just now and I flag down a cab....cabbie is saying "hope its an airport fare"......I get in and say "Distillery District" he has to take me and may miss out on an airport fare but that is, as I understand it the deal.

With this change, I may flag down a cab not realizing he is an airport guy and say "Distillery disctrict" and he might say sorry (or something less polite) and speed off........not sure it is the customer's job to try and figure out where cabs can/can't/will/won't go......my bet is that if the airport guys have to play by the same rules within the city as the city guys do....it won't be long before they are saying "can we go back to the old way of doing things"