News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 26K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.6K     0 

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3,046
Reaction score
965
Perhaps that is why Minister Murray keeps using the words "Terminal 2" in his talks/tweets.....maybe there is a plan to build a different kind of transit interface at the airport.

Yes agree. Mind you I find the use of Terminal 2 strange. As Transport minister is it not part of his portfolio to be aware that Terminal 2 was demolished years ago? Is he simply ignorant of this fact? Is he, I suppose, speaking to the public who may or may not refer to Terminal 3 as Terminal 2? It does not give me confidence when that terminology is used.

If the plan is for a new station why not say as much rather than letting the public hypothesize about a modified UPX station.
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
2,516
Yes agree. Mind you I find the use of Terminal 2 strange. As Transport minister is it not part of his portfolio to be aware that Terminal 2 was demolished years ago? Is he simply ignorant of this fact? Is he, I suppose, speaking to the public who may or may not refer to Terminal 3 as Terminal 2? It does not give me confidence when that terminology is used.

If the plan is for a new station why not say as much rather than letting the public hypothesize about a modified UPX station.

Since he flew out of T3 on the weekend (he was tweeting out warnings about the long lines at US customs) I am sure he is aware of the name of the terminal. If he is simply mistaken about where the current train station is being built, then it is a confusion over T1 not T3 ...no?

As I said a couple of days ago, it is not clear if it is a repeated slip or a sign of news to come but he has said Terminal 2 enough times now (and with enough days in between) that he surely would have been corrected by staff if it was just a slip.
 

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
871
I think what we may see is a multimodal transit complex built at Pearson to consolidate TTC/GO/UPX/HSR at the airport. It will probably be underground and beneath the T1 expansion that is actively being studied (this could be the reference to T2).

The UPX spur will get a good 10 years of use, and could be mothballed for future use down the road.
 

BMO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
317
I think what we may see is a multimodal transit complex built at Pearson to consolidate TTC/GO/UPX/HSR at the airport. It will probably be underground and beneath the T1 expansion that is actively being studied (this could be the reference to T2).

The UPX spur will get a good 10 years of use, and could be mothballed for future use down the road.

I'd be fine with this.
 

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
871
I'd be fine with this.

So would I... Sensible European thinking!

Imagine a 4-platform underground station with cavernous ceilings. Two tracks for GO and two tracks for HSR/Union Express.. Ahhhhh so sensible!!
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
2,516
And god damned expensive.

It seems only expensive to Canadians... I'm sick of travelling and being in awe at how sensible infrastructure can be.

No matter how you cut it, though, it is expensive particularly since if there had been a bit of forward planning and forethought and eveyone could have said "at some point we will need a transit station in/under that bit of the airport"...perhaps some/all of the $450 million could have been saved?
 

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
871
No matter how you cut it, though, it is expensive particularly since if there had been a bit of forward planning and forethought and eveyone could have said "at some point we will need a transit station in/under that bit of the airport"...perhaps some/all of the $450 million could have been saved?

Exactly!

Point is, if you want HSR to serve Pearson, then the station will have to be in Pearson, not a 15 minute ride away on a people mover. Imagine the people mover with a trainful of people.. There's no way it can handle that!

If HSR is to serve the airport, then UPX and its spur is dead.
 

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
580
So would I... Sensible European thinking!

Imagine a 4-platform underground station with cavernous ceilings. Two tracks for GO and two tracks for HSR/Union Express.. Ahhhhh so sensible!!

But there is really no easy or practical way to divert the entire railway corridor to the airport terminals, it would be far cheaper and just as effective to use a shuttle between a train station and the airport, and it wouldn't be a 15 minute trip.
 

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
871
But there is really no easy or practical way to divert the entire railway corridor to the airport terminals, it would be far cheaper and just as effective to use a shuttle between a train station and the airport, and it wouldn't be a 15 minute trip.

Then this is another bandaid solution (like the UPX spur).
 

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
871
What's your suggestion for the new route? It's a tricky area, particularly on the East side.

I'll leave this for someone else to answer (not long ago someone posted a route study for an underground rail link to Pearson. Basically realigning the rail corridor through the terminal area). This was proposed a while ago though, before UPX became a thing.
 

diminutive

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 27, 2012
Messages
867
Reaction score
43
I think what we may see is a multimodal transit complex built at Pearson to consolidate TTC/GO/UPX/HSR at the airport. It will probably be underground and beneath the T1 expansion that is actively being studied (this could be the reference to T2).

This would require, basically, a new route between Derry/Airport and Weston/Lawrence along Airport and Dixon. It would easily cost several billion dollars.

I'm just not sure what the demand is here which would justify these costs.

It seems only expensive to Canadians... I'm sick of travelling and being in awe at how sensible infrastructure can be.

This is mostly just selection bias; tourists use airports far more than locals, so they tend to overweight their importance in the overall transit scheme. Think of Shanghai's ludicrous airport maglev!

In the UK there's a debate now with HSR2 skipping Heathrow. Despite some protest, it doesn't seem like twisting HSR2 to serve Heathrow would make any sense.
 

Hipster Duck

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
9
Not having a direct, pedestrian connection to an integrated long-distance, through-running HSR station at the airport isn't the end of the world. There are only a handful of airports anywhere that have this sort of arrangement. I'm sure there are others, but off the top of my head I can only think of: Frankfurt, Paris-CDG, Zurich, Amsterdam-Schiphol, and Lyon-St. Exupery. There are some other airports that have a pedestrian-connected through station that's just missing HSR/intercity service like Providence and Gatwick, but there aren't many of those, either.

There are a lot of airports out there that have spurs or end-of-the-line HSR stations, and our's will be among them. Really, all we need is to keep the existing UPX for people who are interested in paying a premium for door-to-door express service, and the rest of us can either ride GO or the HSR to a station near the 427 and Goreway and transfer to the LINK train. That setup would be similar to what you have at, say, Newark airport.

One thing's for sure: if the HSR stops at an "airport transfer" station, it sure as hell shouldn't be stopping at Brampton.
 

Top