AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Clearly not necessarily cheap - but may prove cheaper than what they have in mind.
AoD
|
|
|
- Thread starter p5connex
- Start date
Clearly not necessarily cheap - but may prove cheaper than what they have in mind.
AoD
Panontario
Active Member
Agreed. But I was wondering about surface parking lots immediately surrounding the Value Garage. Not sure how large are those lands and who actually owns themPerhaps the answer to that would become clearer if a title search was conducted......it is difficult in this country to build stuff on land you don't own.
thethrows
New Member
If that site plan is to be believed, I would tend to think that it is represents a long-term vision; possibly the maximum build-out of Pearson. I am thinking at least 30 years, maybe more (perhaps 50). All of Air Canada's extensive airside construction works (which they are spending in 100s of millions of dollars on) would be destroyed to build this. I doubt that is going to happen in the near or medium term. A lot of Pearson's growth will be directly related to the growth of Air Canada, and they would go through such painstaking construction on their own without AC buy-in and direction.
That said, I do believe the plan demonstrates what the likely next phase of the expansion would be (basically Piers G and H), which is pretty cool! Also, I don't think staging this project is as complicated as some have made it sound. As rbt suggested, the staging is in fact easier than Pearson's last ADP. Basically:
Phase 1: Construction of Piers G and H (immediate and short-term need) - 5 to 10 years
Phase 2: Construction of transit hub and land-side passenger processing area - 10 to 20 years
Phase 3: Destroy old PPUDO and convert to boarding gates and remote stands. Convert existing check-in areas to passenger waiting/experience areas - 20 years
Phase 4: Move existing AC support facilities and cargo areas and build-out satellite terminal - 30 years +
Of course....all of that is pure conjecture.
That said, I do believe the plan demonstrates what the likely next phase of the expansion would be (basically Piers G and H), which is pretty cool! Also, I don't think staging this project is as complicated as some have made it sound. As rbt suggested, the staging is in fact easier than Pearson's last ADP. Basically:
Phase 1: Construction of Piers G and H (immediate and short-term need) - 5 to 10 years
Phase 2: Construction of transit hub and land-side passenger processing area - 10 to 20 years
Phase 3: Destroy old PPUDO and convert to boarding gates and remote stands. Convert existing check-in areas to passenger waiting/experience areas - 20 years
Phase 4: Move existing AC support facilities and cargo areas and build-out satellite terminal - 30 years +
Of course....all of that is pure conjecture.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
There has to be a people mover in there. I could see a Heathrowesque underground subway line running in a "Y" from processing around to the various terminals.
pman
Senior Member
I could see a Piccadilly-like subway line running to Pearson too, just not in Toronto.
Adjei
Senior Member
jaybe
Active Member
Is anyone looking alternate options to the Pearson hub? As Pearson is driving this initiative their focus and gain is to see a transit hub built at the airport. Does it make sense to create a Union Station West at Pearson? What percentage of commuters travelling on the Kitchener GO Line or the Eglinton LRT/Mississauga Transitway will need or want to dogleg to the Airport Hub to end their journey or have the option of a transfer?
Could a dedicated transit service that would run from a station at Eglinton and Renforth, through stops at the airport and up to the Kitchener Go line be a valid option? The line would be roughly 7km long.
Could a dedicated transit service that would run from a station at Eglinton and Renforth, through stops at the airport and up to the Kitchener Go line be a valid option? The line would be roughly 7km long.
aquateam
Active Member
What you're saying about not terminating at the airport makes sense: there's a great blog article "Keys to Great Airport Transit" in Human Transit about transit and airports that makes the same case.
- Combine air travelers and airport employees on the same train/bus, and appeal to an economically diverse range of air travelers, not just the elite. This is a case of the general principle that transit thrives on the diversity of trips for which it’s useful, not on specialization. If elites want a nicer train, give them first class cars at higher fares, but not a separate train just for them. (And as always, elite services are a good role for the for-profit sector.) As always, the more people of all kinds you can get on a train or bus, the more frequently you can afford to run it, which means less waiting, and the lower the fare you need to charge.
- Connect the airport to lots of places, not just downtown, by providing a total network. It’s the total transit system at the airport, not just the airport-downtown express line, that determines who can get there, and how quickly. And the total network requires connections — another reason to care about frequency.
- Don’t interfere with the growth of other services. Airport terminals are still not huge destinations by citywide standards, so don’t sacrifice other major markets to serve them. Toronto’s airport train, for example, not only carries few people but creates issues for higher-ridership services with which it shares track. Another common problem is the branch into the airport that cuts frequency and capacity on a mainline, even though the mainline’s demand is much higher than the airport’s (San Francisco, Vancouver).
- If you can afford it, go via the airport instead of terminating there. Most airports are large-scale cul-de-sacs, and like every cul-de-sac, they say: “I want only as much transit service as I can justify all by myself.” So if you can tunnel under the airport and serve it on the way to other places, as in Sydney, you will often end up with much better service for all your airport users, employees and travelers alike.
jys
Active Member
I completely agree. I am thinking of having two hubs at Renforth Station and Malton GO and connecting the two via Pearson Airport with a single rapid transit line.
Last edited:
stanko
Active Member
This point argues for Union Station West being located at the airport if anything. I see nothing wrong with all traffic going between Kitchener and downtown Toronto through Pearson airport
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Points two and four go hand in hand. Rather than treating the airport as a terminal station, having it be a through station helps by allowing service to radiate out from it rather than travel 'to' it.
kEiThZ
Superstar
The only point I sort of disagree with. Lest we forget, UPE needed to be faster than the airport buses from downtown to divert traffic. There's only one way to do that. Also contradicts a point you didn't quote:
"Total travel time matters, not just in-vehicle time."
We have the ability to improve capacity on that corridor. And we also have terrible services to the airport (sans UPE) in general. UPE was the only way to get a reliable, frequent and reasonably fast airport service running. At some point in the future when there's reliable, fast and frequent GO service, maybe we can ditch UPE then.
stanko
Active Member
Why should we? I know London Heathrow and Vienna for example have express trains from the airport that go to the downtown areas of the two respective cities and while their services are pricey, they're targeting a business audience anyway who have meetings or conferences to attend in the downtown areas and are at a time constraint. Other travellers have regular train services that might not be as fast but are an affordable option, and besides not everyone is heading to Union so GO service from the airport could offer more connections and the UPX as it is now could go to Union with no stops.
Voltz
Senior Member
Well there may not end up being room in the railway corridor for UPX, especially if High Speed Rail comes about, which would not have any stops between the Airport and Union.
jaybe
Active Member
There might be something seriously wrong. The question is the dog leg from the existing Kitchener line. The distance between the existing Kitchener line and the potential Airport hub will be between 3-4km. Is it worth the massive investment to reroute that line into a hub at Pearson and add travel time to the trip for downtown bound passengers?
The same question applies to the Eglinton line.