[gweed123]

The people mover is like an elevator going up and down. You can't really extend it very far, without making the vehicles so infrequent, it can't handle it. If you want a more sophisticated system with more than 2 vehicles, you will have to rebuild it from scratch. It's designed to have a very short extension to a second Terminal 1 station, if Terminal 1 is extended. That's it. Alternatively you maye be able to extend it at the other end to an adjacent parking garage. Anything would require a completely different system.

Replacing it to allow for extensions I would imagine would still be less expensive than building an Eglinton LRT extension from Renforth Gateway to Pearson though, as a revamped PM wouldn't require the complete reconstruction of the existing stations. Any LRT extension would require at least one pretty sizeable LRT station (probably elevated) built at Pearson, which wouldn't come cheap.

Like I said, as a standalone project it isn't very flashy, but when you start looking at it as an alternative to an LRT extension with a similar goal in mind, and it starts to make a lot of sense.

 

[nfitz]

Replacing it to allow for extensions I would imagine would still be less expensive than building an Eglinton LRT extension from Renforth Gateway to Pearson though, as a revamped PM wouldn't require the complete reconstruction of the existing stations. Any LRT extension would require at least one pretty sizeable LRT station (probably elevated) built at Pearson, which wouldn't come cheap.

It's not an extension though. The current cable car system is not extendable. It would be a completely new system. I'm not even sure the structure would support the weight of anything more than a cable car.

And I don't know why building whatever that new system is from T1 to Renforth Gateway would be cheaper than the Eglinton LRT.

Wasn't the original pre-LRT plan by the airport (the old master plan) to have a second heavy-duty people from T1 to Renforth Gateway, in addition to the the current cable car from T1 to T3 to the parking?

 

[innsertnamehere]

I thought the cable car system was designed to be converted to self propulsion?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The original 1998 Master Plan showed potential future extensions of the people mover, North to serve the employee parking lot, and East to serve Renforth gateway. However in the most recent Master plan the only extension shown of the people mover was the one station extension at T1. Part of that I think is probably due to inaction by other agencies in building the Renforth gateway. I wonder if these plans will resurface in the next Master plan.

*Edit*
The Master Plan also stated that the APM is built to be able to convert to self propelled technology and that would be the only way to extend it past Viscout Rd. and T1.

 

[BMO]

It's not an extension though. The current cable car system is not extendable. It would be a completely new system. I'm not even sure the structure would support the weight of anything more than a cable car.

And I don't know why building whatever that new system is from T1 to Renforth Gateway would be cheaper than the Eglinton LRT.

Wasn't the original pre-LRT plan by the airport (the old master plan) to have a second heavy-duty people from T1 to Renforth Gateway, in addition to the the current cable car from T1 to T3 to the parking?

It is possible to extend and add trains to a cable system if you change the trains and adjust the cable pulling system at the terminals to have a train cross over to the other side so that it could latch onto the cable pulling the opposite direction. I'm am unfamiliar with what the cost of such a venture would be, but you are correct in that the current line as is could not be extended it would have to be re-tooled or modified due to limitations of the technology.

 

[gweed123]

It's not an extension though. The current cable car system is not extendable. It would be a completely new system. I'm not even sure the structure would support the weight of anything more than a cable car.

And I don't know why building whatever that new system is from T1 to Renforth Gateway would be cheaper than the Eglinton LRT.

Wasn't the original pre-LRT plan by the airport (the old master plan) to have a second heavy-duty people from T1 to Renforth Gateway, in addition to the the current cable car from T1 to T3 to the parking?

It would probably need a reconfigured propulsion system and new cars, but I wouldn't think the columns would need to be rebuilt, nor the stations. Pound for pound, the Eglinton LRT guideway and the PM guideway would probably cost about the same. It's the stations required (or in the case of the PM, not required) that make the cost difference. Having to build a new LRT station or stations at Pearson would likely comprise a significant portion of the LRT extension cost, a cost that would not need to be borne in the PM option.

 

[TOareaFan]

GO Transit is very aware of the costs and options involved in servicing the airport. Their own commissioned reports from 2003 said that a people mover connection to the mainline (and a new station a touch west of the 427) would cost 10% or more than a new spur line built to the airport to mainline rail standards.

You would know better than I but isn't that price difference a function of what was actually compared. At the time the option wasn't to extend (as I am suggesting) the PM to Malton but, rather, to take it to a new station around Woodbine Racetrack.

If that is right, the extension would have had the same challenges with regards to getting around/over/under the various freeways and ramps and would have included the cost of building that new station.

Extending it to Malton removes the station cost (its already there) and I think it might be easier/cheaper to get to Malton via, either, Airport Rd or around the back of it (mostly on Viscount but with a jog).

 

[smallspy]

Extending the people mover costs more than building the spur?

It was, because not only would a new station would need to be built, but the people mover would have to be completely replaced.

Despite that, GO still felt that it was the superior option, as ridership would be quite a bit higher (and would in fact cost less per passenger than the spur).

You would know better than I but isn't that price difference a function of what was actually compared. At the time the option wasn't to extend (as I am suggesting) the PM to Malton but, rather, to take it to a new station around Woodbine Racetrack.

If that is right, the extension would have had the same challenges with regards to getting around/over/under the various freeways and ramps and would have included the cost of building that new station.

Extending it to Malton removes the station cost (its already there) and I think it might be easier/cheaper to get to Malton via, either, Airport Rd or around the back of it (mostly on Viscount but with a jog).

Well, yes and no. The land costs were less with the people mover extension, as it is smaller, lighter and more manoeuvrable than a full-sized train is. It can handle steeper grades and sharper curves, and so there may not have been the need to send it 70 meters into the air to clear the highway structures.

The run to Malton was not a reasonable option. The line would have to avoid the east end of runway 05/23, which would mean either going underground or taking an alternate route that would add distance.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[BMO]

It was, because not only would a new station would need to be built, but the people mover would have to be completely replaced.

Despite that, GO still felt that it was the superior option, as ridership would be quite a bit higher (and would in fact cost less per passenger than the spur).



Well, yes and no. The land costs were less with the people mover extension, as it is smaller, lighter and more manoeuvrable than a full-sized train is. It can handle steeper grades and sharper curves, and so there may not have been the need to send it 70 meters into the air to clear the highway structures.

The run to Malton was not a reasonable option. The line would have to avoid the east end of runway 05/23, which would mean either going underground or taking an alternate route that would add distance.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

As it stands, an existing extension of the People Mover would still be a bit of a hassle either going underground, through a building, or around the entire business park to the east of the Viscount Parking Facility. Ideally you don't want it to be longer. It MIGHT be able to take Northam Dr and just run in the middle of the road on an elevated structure and eventually go above the existing factories between the end of Northam and Malton GO, or just expropriate the land.

The Viscount stop is what really screws it up. If it had just ended at T3 then it could've gone along Airport Rd and just run at-grade when going past the runway and then fly over the road to get to the Malton GO Station. It might just be easier to make the viscount station as a spur line. Overall you're looking at a roughly 3KM extension just to get to Malton GO. Another 3.5 km to Renforth Dr. You're looking at a major 7-8km extension, considering the spadina extension is 8km this isn't a tiny job.

 

[jamincan]

The APM isn't exactly very fast either.

 

[ninjabose]

I agree with TOareaFan. The cost of building an extension of the PM would probably be significantly less than building the Eglinton LRT to the Airport (mainly because new LRT stations at Terminals 1 and 3 wouldn't be required).

The Eglinton LRT would likely enter T1 from the east at ground level (near the current TTC and MiWay bus stops) - no need for another costly elevated structure. Just like the UP express, a stop at T3 isn't likely, with the APM already servicing traffic between the terminals.

 

[smallspy]

As it stands, an existing extension of the People Mover would still be a bit of a hassle either going underground, through a building, or around the entire business park to the east of the Viscount Parking Facility. Ideally you don't want it to be longer. It MIGHT be able to take Northam Dr and just run in the middle of the road on an elevated structure and eventually go above the existing factories between the end of Northam and Malton GO, or just expropriate the land.

The only potential extension of the people mover in its current form is one additional stop at T1, when the expansion there gets built. All of the machinery is at Viscount, so the line won't be extended past it.

The Viscount stop is what really screws it up. If it had just ended at T3 then it could've gone along Airport Rd and just run at-grade when going past the runway and then fly over the road to get to the Malton GO Station. It might just be easier to make the viscount station as a spur line. Overall you're looking at a roughly 3KM extension just to get to Malton GO. Another 3.5 km to Renforth Dr. You're looking at a major 7-8km extension, considering the spadina extension is 8km this isn't a tiny job.

Other than the fact that the technology used on the people mover is totally unsuitable for what you are proposing, there is no reason why they couldn't have built a spur up Airport Rd. from the point where the people mover crosses over it. Lots of other people movers around the world have the capability of switching, and had Pearson picked a different technology that may have been an option. That said, going up Airport Rd. to Malton Station is still a greater distance to travel than extending the line past Viscount, and that coupled with the issues surrounding the clearances required for runway 05/23 make it a non-starter.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[gweed123]

The Eglinton LRT would likely enter T1 from the east at ground level (near the current TTC and MiWay bus stops) - no need for another costly elevated structure. Just like the UP express, a stop at T3 isn't likely, with the APM already servicing traffic between the terminals.

Would the TTC really go for a surface stop at Pearson though? I would think they, and Metrolinx and the GTAA for that matter, would want a little 'grander' of an LRT stop at the airport, because for most budget travelers that's how they're going to access the city.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Would the TTC really go for a surface stop at Pearson though? I would think they, and Metrolinx and the GTAA for that matter, would want a little 'grander' of an LRT stop at the airport, because for most budget travelers that's how they're going to access the city.

And an elevated stop is somehow grander? A loop at ground level where public transit currently stops could certainly be built to have a bit more grander than a simple LRT stop and doesn't need to be elevated. In fact I kind of wish that the GTAA had built an underground transit hub to accommodate LRT, Heavy Rail, and buses rather than the sort of hodge podge that has happened, although it makes no sense to build something (and incur the costs) if you don't expect it to be used in 10 - 20 yrs.

 

[rbt]

Would the TTC really go for a surface stop at Pearson though? I would think they, and Metrolinx and the GTAA for that matter, would want a little 'grander' of an LRT stop at the airport, because for most budget travelers that's how they're going to access the city.

Sure. Pearson has tentative plans (as in, it's a possibility) for a partially enclosed LRT station in the ground level of T1.

Anyway, assuming Finch West is built to Humber College, the easiest way to bring high capacity TTC to Pearson AND intercept a frequent GO service is to extend Finch West to T1. Incidentally, this was a Metrolinx idea.