Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
The GO corridor that is (partly) tunnelled is referenced in this map:
What I meant, was that they were tunneling directly beneath the terminal. Which as this image shows they are not.
- Thread starter mdrejhon
- Start date
What I meant, was that they were tunneling directly beneath the terminal. Which as this image shows they are not.
jje1000
Senior Member
I would imagine issues like building the GO loop would be simplified dramatically if those lands were also "owned" by the airport. I.e. impact on future redevelopment potential, interim use and tenancy, cheaper construction costs (just demo everything you need and cut-and-cover vs boring a tunnel).
That being said, fortunately it's all industrial lands right now so at least you don't have the home ownership NIMBYs all up and about like with the DRL.
TOareaFan
Superstar
no but you do have Mississauga's reduced tax base to be concerned about....every square foot of space you tear down is a direct income reduction for the city
crs1026
Superstar
no but you do have Mississauga's reduced tax base to be concerned about....every square foot of space you tear down is a direct income reduction for the city
ML makes Payments In Lieu of Taxes to municipalities. See for example http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-59671.pdf
EDIT But GTAA does not quite pony up. See http://www.mississauga.com/news-sto...y-shafted-by-pearson-airport-says-councillor/
Any rail terminal and new rights of way would be a pretty small amount of land. I can't see ML or the airport buying up land with intent to develop it.....better to just let the developers buy what they need.
- Paul
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
I was responding to a comment that (unless I read it wrong) was suggesting there would not be much/any opposition to the tearing down of some industrial properties to make way for a rail link....I think there will be.
crs1026
Superstar
Anything that messed with employment in the area would be much opposed, yes. However, the industry in the area is all flat warehouses with lots of land separating the buildings. The businesses located there are mostly reasonable candidates for relocation within the zone. I'm sure something could be woven through there without any painful expropriations, perhaps it should all be elevated. The residential area northwest of Derry/Airport Road is likely the touchiest part of the proposal, that's the land that most constrains design of a rail loop down to Viscount.
The end result for Mississauga would be development and more, not less, tax revenue....so the city would likely accept the transitional pain.
I have to think that the overall footprint would be pretty non-intrusive. There's no reason for the airport itself to enlarge its footprint, other than the new terminal building itself. I wonder what the long term plan for the International Center is - it's definitely right in the way.
- Paul
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Yes you're right - just an assumption. I guess having it run above ground is substantially cheaper.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Must read:
Pearson airport megahub is a strong candidate for Canada Infrastructure Bank, advisor says
Pearson airport megahub is a strong candidate for Canada Infrastructure Bank, advisor says
- The Globe and Mail (BC Edition)
- 10 Apr 2017
- BILL CURRY
dowlingm
Senior Member
Organisation I'm joining is very important and if given lots of money will create high paying jobs for people like me, says advisor.
steveintoronto
Superstar
lol...
So any guesses as to who becomes CEO? What amazes me is that McCuaig could be characterized by some as 'bellicose', a lot of that is the company he kept...but the press and details are remarkably absent, perhaps by intent?
I suspect we're more likely to read about the details in the FinTimes and WSJ before the Globe's Report on Business or FinPost.
I do have an Irish/Canadian applying for his UK Passport in mind, and with powerful Lib Party ties, at least in an 'advisory role'...Bank of England Act permitting.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
It's a really good question, and I'd guess it always was, but not in this form. It really is one heck of a diversion with restricting curves. That alignment as per Woodbridge's pic will probably change.
Perhaps not. I'm not too sure on the depth of tunnel required to be below property rights. Minimal tunnel depth to becoming public domain may not even be defined as such, but tunneling, though expensive, might be the best solution for many reasons.
Other airports say otherwise. All of Heathrow's rail access (and some road) is in tunnel. That's a pretty general statement I realize, but will dig on that later. I'd think the re-usability of the TBMs, even with new cutters as per soil type, would work out viable in the longer term.
Agreed, and again, one wonders if tunneling doesn't get them 'below' property rights.
Especially if outside capital is involved. This is going to be a massive expenditure, even for deep pockets, and it's going to have to be done very tightly.
That remains a good question...
nfitz
Superstar
Because at the time the inital lines were built the main terminal complex (Terminal 1/2/3) sits in the middle of the runways. Anything accessing it has to be in tunnel.
steveintoronto
Superstar
And now?
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/our-railway-upgrade-plan/key-projects/heathrow-rail-link/
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/western-rail-access-to-heathrow-wrath/
https://anonw.com/2015/02/06/network-rail-plans-another-tunnel-into-heathrow/We may not build the tunnel boring machines any more, but we certainly know how to dig holes better than most, as Crossrail is showing.
We also seem blessed with a geology that in many places, has the consistency of Emmental cheese.
So it is not a surprise that a news item in Modern Railways has reported that Network Rail are planning on creating the access into Heathrow from the West using a 5 km tunnel from between Iver and Langley to the airport.
This Google Earth map shows the area.
Langley To Heathrow
The blue line is the Piccadilly Line at the airport and the red arrow indicates Langley station. Iver station is towards London just before the M25. I would assume that the new tunnel will vaguely follow the M25 and link up to the airport at Terminal 5. It would probably be dug from Langley with a lot of the route directly under the motorway, so the work would not affect any sensitive sites.
I doubt it’s a plan, that will stir up much opposition, except in the area, where it leaves the Great Western Main Line. This Google Earth image shows the area in detail.
Langley And Iver
A quick look at this image, would appear to show that it’s mainly farmland with no housing, for quite a bit of the way between Langley and Iver stations.
Another plus point of this plan, is that the Class 345 trains being developed for Crossrail could probably be used on the new line to connect it to Reading and/or Oxford, if the Heathrow station was built to Crossrail dimensions and standards.
It is in some ways a pity, that Crossrail wasn’t designed to go to Terminal 5 at the airport and then on to Reading in the first place. But then some of the design of the western end of Crossrail had more to do with making sure that British Airways and Heathrow Airport didn’t get upset. It doesn’t matter if they do, as they are secondary to all the passengers and staff who use the airport. After all if the passengers aren’t happy with Heathrow, after Crossrail/Thameslink opens, they can easily get to Gatwick and Luton.
I think that this is a very sound plan and if it could be routed to serve all terminals at Heathrow by perhaps going back-to-back with the current Crossrail line being built to the airport, we’d get a much better service to London’s main airport.
So if we end up with effectively a new Crossrail loop line, that leaves the Great Western at Airport Junction, goes round all the Heathrow terminals and then after Terminal 5 connects to the Great Western between Langley and Iver, what are the consequences.
1. The plan rectifies the big fault of Crossrail not serving Terminal 5.
2. It gives passengers what they want. Going to any terminal at Heathrow from either the West or London, you just get on a Crossrail train that is using the Heathrow loop line and get off at Terminal 1/2/3, Terminal 4 or Terminal 5. Some journeys to Heathrow now sometimes need a change of train at the airport.
3. Crossrail will be used to transfer between terminals.
4. A plan like this, is the last nail in the coffin of Heathrow Express, which will probably be on permanent life support after Crossrail opens anyway. Another nail will be driven, when Old Oak Common station opens as a major transport interchange.
5. When Heathrow Express is dropped, Network Rail will be pleased, as it will free up two platforms at Paddington, for long distance services to Wales and the West Country.
6. There will also be new platform space at Heathrow Terminal 4 and 5, as if all Crossrail trains to Heathrow are going straight through, there will be no need for terminal platforms under the airport. These platforms could be used for the new Crossrail loop line.
7. All rail traffic to and from the Airport will be controlled by Transport for London. This can only be a good thing for reasons that are too numerous to list.
8. British Airways will be livid at the loss of Heathrow Express and the handing of all rail transport to TfL. So be it! There are lots of other airlines!
9. Heathrow Airport may or may not be expanded. But surely a rail line passing under most of the airport would be much easier to fit into new terminals.
10. If you are going to Heathrow 123 today from Tottenham Court Road station, it takes 55 minutes by tube all the way. The Crossrail journey should take 30 minutes and it will be fully accessible. I doubt that Transport for London would close the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow, but I can see it becoming a very quiet way of getting to and from Heathrow.
So I think it is true to say that creating a direct tunnelled link into Heathrow from the West should please everybody, except those who feel that the dinosaur that is Heathrow Express should be preserved.
Attachments
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
And now, they do all the road connections above ground. I can't think of any public road being in a tunnel since they built the M4 link. Though there are some airside roads in tunnels ...
georgevicbell
Active Member
I'm curious about growth potential around the airport...given that there are likely height restrictions I'm assuming that we're not talking about building bigger buildings than what we have now - or changing from warehouses to offices, we're mainly only talking about removing parking - and adding low density commercial or industrial, which I think is probably a no-go unless transit was much more convenient...but that won't happen without ridership, which can't happen because of the existing low density...
I also assume that a large majority of the workers in the area are transportation and warehouse type jobs which will be automated out of existence in the near future...
I also assume that a large majority of the workers in the area are transportation and warehouse type jobs which will be automated out of existence in the near future...