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

TOinTO said:
And how does the BILLIONS that would cost compare with the Blue-22 proposal?

This proposal is for a modest investment to get an entry-level train service going to the airport from downtown using standard rail infrastructure and what are, admittedly, probably substandard trains. (But that could be easily changed if the service is successful).

Why do people (on this board and living in Weston) see this as an opportunity to advance their favourite fantasy transit project? Do you forget that you live in a region that has done pretty much NOTHING to improve transit in the 5 years that this proposal has sat on the table? Have you not heard that the City has written off subways as too expensive?

I think this proposal reflects a realist assessment of our willingness to invest in transit that many people don't want to accept.
Click to expand...

Somewhere down the line we are going to have to find money for things like this.All major European and Asian cities have no problem,even latley most American cities are getting money to improve their transit infastructure.Our 3 levels of goverment must get together instead of bickering against each other This whole tranit fiasco is a joke.Promises promises promises,the people of Toronto are not getting what they deserve.
 
Whoaccio said:
An Eglinton Subway (much less the TC proposal) will have no attraction to anybody. Seriously, nobody will use it. Students and a few poor people, maybe. How many poor people fly in the first place though? The majority of air travel is done either by single professional travelers or families. In Toronto, no family is going to take any kind of air/rail link from anywhere to the airport in mass numbers. Better to focus where you have a chance.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't families living near Eglinton use it? York is dense with plenty of middle class families, and with a subway line in proximity, it would entice. People living on Yonge in Midtown fit into the category of white collar workers who are likely to travel. There are also airport workers as potential riders. So, I don't think that ridership to the airport would necessarily be low.
 
Star AIR-RAIL LINK opinion piece

"Rapid transit yes; old diesels no"

http://www.thestar.com/article/473531

snip:

"If we are going to spend nearly $300 million of public money to build this, let's build something that serves the many neighbourhoods along the way, including Weston. We really are YIMBYs."

"The province doesn't need to go back to the environmental assessment drawing board to get it done right. A full environmental assessment conducted 15 years ago sits on a shelf somewhere. It details how Toronto can build better public transit, including to and from the airport."

so.....
-the "$300 million" is for infrastructure in Georgetown corridor, which will also benefit GO/VIA, correct? (Will transit users in this corridor be able to access Pearson once this money is spent? i.e., if you live in Brampton, and want to get to Terminal 1 by transit, will you be taking a bus? Or will the rail infrastructure for non-Blue-22 riders be built in a separate project, under some other Airport Rail Transit Access Plan? And how much will we be spending on that plan? ;^)

-the 2006 ToR can be found here: http://www.georgetownpearsonstudy.ca/georgetownpearsonstudy/index.asp

-can't find the "full EA" here, among many documents:
http://westoncommunitycoalition.ca/
 
Le Gique said:
"Rapid transit yes; old diesels no"

http://www.thestar.com/article/473531

snip:

"If we are going to spend nearly $300 million of public money to build this, let's build something that serves the many neighbourhoods along the way, including Weston. We really are YIMBYs."

"The province doesn't need to go back to the environmental assessment drawing board to get it done right. A full environmental assessment conducted 15 years ago sits on a shelf somewhere. It details how Toronto can build better public transit, including to and from the airport."

so.....
-the "$300 million" is for infrastructure in Georgetown corridor, which will also benefit GO/VIA, correct? (Will transit users in this corridor be able to access Pearson once this money is spent? i.e., if you live in Brampton, and want to get to Terminal 1 by transit, will you be taking a bus? Or will the rail infrastructure for non-Blue-22 riders be built in a separate project, under some other Airport Rail Transit Access Plan? And how much will we be spending on that plan? ;^)

-the 2006 ToR can be found here: http://www.georgetownpearsonstudy.ca/georgetownpearsonstudy/index.asp

-can't find the "full EA" here, among many documents:
http://westoncommunitycoalition.ca/
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the tracks / right of way is being upgraded with public money. These tracks will be used by Blue22 and GO (and I guess VIA - but I don't know). The upgrades are required to increase frequency of the trains that travel them (no level crossings etc.). The rails will not be owned by Blue22 - but I do expect the service to pay for usage.

I would prefer new trains be used specifically designed for Airport shuttle services etc.... not some old stuff - but I figure that can be dealt with in the future if they do something that stupid.
 
Quote:
Sullivan also expressed concerns that the original plan calls for using diesel rather than electric trains.

"If we're going to be world-class," he said, "let's not run 55-year-old trains."

The problem I have with groups "expanding" their opposition beyond their "core" concerns is that becomes difficult to understand what would satisfy them.

So if you take the above quote (as an example) would Sullivan support the project if it truly was a modern solution and met his definition of "world class"......even if, say, it still "split Weston in half".

Not only do comments like this inappropriately expand him into an "armchair minister of transport" but they hurt (IMO) what I understand to be his true mission.
 
Some world airports, their rail connection modal split, and type of connection to the city centre. From a TRB report, and is a few years old.

Oslo - 43%
- Express train (half making 1 stop)
- Regional rail
(Also served by national rail network)

Tokyo Narita - 36%
- Multiple express trains (some making intermediate stops)
- Multiple regional rail
(Also served by national rail network)

Geneva - 35%
- Regional rail

Zurich - 34%
- Regional rail
(Also served by national rail network)

Munich - 31%
- Regional rail

Frankfurt - 27%
- Regional rail
(Also served by national rail network)

Amsterdam - 27%
- Regional rail
(Also served by national rail network)

London Heathrow - 25%
- Express train (non-stop)
- Regional rail
- Subway

London Stansted - 25%
- Express train (1 or 2 stops)
- Regional rail
(Also served by national rail network)

Hong Kong - 24%
- Express train (2 stops)

London Gatwick - 20%
- Express train (non-stop)
- Regional rail
(Also served by national rail network)

Paris de Gaulle - 20%
- Regional rail
(Also served by national rail network)

Brussels - 16%
- Regional rail

Paris Orly - 14%
- Regional rail with people-mover or bus connection.
 
I think we should let the Weston folks have their stops. Why put all this work in and confine it's use to one operation. Certainly they could run express trains and all-stops trains concurrently?
 
So where do they want these stops? Does it have the required density, or would it have to be densified afterwards? Area looks as though it has a lot of single-family housing that can be knocked down so that large buildings can be constructed along the rail corridor.
 
isittimetomoveyet said:
I think we should let the Weston folks have their stops. Why put all this work in and confine it's use to one operation. Certainly they could run express trains and all-stops trains concurrently?
Click to expand...

and we know the problem is not just technical; such as how to physically allow for express and all-stop in the same corridor...

the problem that is being discussed behind closed doors is whether Blue22/TARL can make a profit if there is also a local/all-stop option to the airport

my bet is no, so there will be pressure to keep the TARL line separate from any other transit option, and even to AVOID building a parallel or remotely convenient all-stops option

so, all non-downtown transit trips from throughout the GTA would travel to Pearson via:
bus (local and maybe BRT); an eventual Eglinton line (subway will take 10 years to build, the TC pre-metro LRT maybe 7-8?)

if georgetown line rail service is beefed up (a certainty) how will these travellers connect to the airport? a bus connection from malton or etob north? (we're gonna spend $300 million in this corridor and intentionally dump everybody who can't use TARL onto a bus?)

-- again, will any kind of decent transit connection (i.e. rail) from the Georgetown line eat into the business case for the TARL22? (the KPMG biz case report does not seem to address this issue)

i think the province sees this conundrum, as does metrolinx, but they won't let the public into the debate/discussion until AFTER a deal is struck with SNC, this month perhaps.

so, methinks the province will be mindful of the 407 stink, and could decline to enter into a P3 with SNC

i mean, what legal obligation do they have to SNC? the only obvious pressure is from people who say 'build anything just build something'

>even if doing so includes a presumption/secret clause that no decent all-stops rail option will be built for 10, 20 years. Or ever.

who here is willing to risk that? and WTF will we be debating when the RTP comes out, if so many decisions have already been made? suis-je simplement paranoïaque?

another option, which has never been floated to my knowledge, could be to let SNC have the Union-Pearson express service, but to also give SNC the right to carry riders by rail from the Georgetown line

-say, $30 bux Union-YYZ or $10 from Etob North to YYZ (+yer GO fare)

-all neatly payable via Presto, similar to other cities where the air link is a short, premium price add-on

-does that fly, without dinging the taxpayer to SNC's benefit?

and does it offend anyone that the province will not talk about these issues in public, because it is in confidential negotiations with a private company? hooray P3!!
 
Why not just contract SNC-Lavalin to build and operate a transit airport link with operating subsidies with integrated fares a la Canada Line or Viva?

You're right, Gique, this stinks worse then Pepe Le Peu.

The people who say that Eglinton-Crosstown as the public rail link to the airport will "require a packed lunch" don't realize that this should not be the purpose of that line, but just one of the trip generators that this semi-local line will serve. There should be a faster regional rail link to the airport, but not, as one writer to the editor of the Star put it: "Highway 407 on rails."
 
If the plan is still to build a station connecting to Pearson at the Woodbine race track......couldn't you just allow GO to run trains that stop there. The fare would whatever GO would charge for such a journey (ie. dependant on where you got on) but SNC would generate their cash as you left that station to connect to the Airport....say $10.

GO benefits because they now have a trip generator on their Georgetown line (particularly from west of the aiport as I suspect the SNC line would not go west of the airport).

SNC benefit because they would generate revenue from people who cannot (ie are west of the airport) use their train but want to train to Pearson or will not (ie. don't want to pay the express fair).

Travellers benefit by having a slightly cheaper choice (say $5 from Union to Woodbine on GO and $10 exit fee...so $15 rather than $20).

Jeez, you might also have a system that counted how many people exited that Woodbine station to the north (presumably the SNC $10 exit would be to the south) so that we could somehow levy a "delivery" charge on Woodbine Race track for delivering customers to them!.....use that money to build a Liberty Village stop on that line (my big pet peeve) so that another group of public assets (the EX, Ricoh, National Trade Centre, Ontario Place, BMO Field) were accessible by two more transit lines (Georgetown and Milton could use it).

Don't hang me on the $10 exit fee....no magic to the number just using it as an example.
 
TOareafan

At Heathrow, Heathrow Express is free within the terminal area - but that is predicated on train space freeing up by people disembarking at the first stop. In theory, the Pearson Express could pick up GO and VIA passengers from Woodbine and transfer them to the terminal - assuming that the express didn't leave full from downtown. We don't want a situation where people are stranded at Woodbine waiting for a train with a few spaces available if the Blue22 consortium opted to run the smallest number of DMUs it could to match bookings in order to minimise cost.

An JFK AirTrain solution where an ICTS (as at JFK) or other light rail system carried west and eastward GO/VIA/Regional Rail/Pearson Express passengers from Woodbine to the terminals could work perhaps but introducing extra transfers massively impedes travellers with baggage and adds another wait time to the journey - at JFK they have something like six stops in the terminal area so the separate system is more justifiable, and even that has its critics for forcing transfers from other NYC systems.

The issue here is exclusivity - the original B22 agreement was supposed to have had Blue 22 with sole rights to the rails from Woodbine to Pearson. A Pearson Connect run by GO would, as pointed out, change the game operationally and financially.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I see no reason why the regular TTC subway can't be extended the less than 12 km from Kipling Stn to the airport.
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing most folks using the Bloor-Danforth line to access the airport would be coming from the east and central stops and accessing heavy rail at Bloor GO (which is listed as a B22 stop in the fed documents). I know that's what I'd prefer coming from Coxwell.

I'm thinking of a different approach - an LRT Kipling/427/27 area corridor linking Humber College/Long Branch to Kipling GO/TTC and through the hydro corridor on to the vicinity of Dixon Road and Highway 27. This would create an integrated path for GOers coming from Lakeshore West and Malton lines to access the airport while providing student traffic in the reverse direction. Going up the hydro corridor would reduce the demand for stops every 50 metres between Kipling and not produce the same intensification surge as the subway is doing on Sheppard.

This area could be where the Eglinton LRT, the Finch West LRT coming down Hwy 27 past the Live development and the "Kipling" LRT converge to either interline or connect with the LRT path into Pearson from the Dixon/Airport Road direction.

nfitz said:
There's also plans for a direct rail link to Staines from T5.
Click to expand...
More detail here. A disused railway branch runs behind T5 and a path has been preserved to platform space. The existing rail links serve mostly north and west London whereas Airtrack improves rail access from south London. Provision of platforms was a planning condition for Terminal 5 - if only GTAA has similar direction to provide transit as a condition for further T1 and T3 expansion.
 
dowlingm said:
TOareafan


The issue here is exclusivity - the original B22 agreement was supposed to have had Blue 22 with sole rights to the rails from Woodbine to Pearson. A Pearson Connect run by GO would, as pointed out, change the game operationally and financially.
Click to expand...

Either you did not understand what I was suggesting or I don't understand your response.

My suggestion was to allow GO and B22 to stop at Woodbine. GO Passngers, though, would have to pass through a different door and would be charged an exit fee that would mean (when added to their GO fare) they had paid less than a B22 passenger to get to Woodbine (since they would have had more stops and, likely, less comfort) but still would pay more than a simple GO fare.

So if B22 ends up costing, say, $25 form Union to Woodbine and a GO fare was $5...an exit fee of $10 would mean the GO service to Woodbine ended up costing the passenger $15.

If the government wants B22 built but wants to amend the contract to eliminate exclusivity, they will likely have to offer SNC some sort of financial trade off.....something like this probably works (maybe not $10 but the math was easy for me using rounder numbers!)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top