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

unimaginative2 said:
Yeah, that would be okay. I'd use it quite regularly, as would many people I know. In addition to the downtown airport express, there should definitely be at least a people mover connection to a Woodbine station on the GO and VIA lines. In the long term, I'd love to see a full diversion of the rail corridor through the airport, with a station for GO, VIA and airport express trains between Terminal 1 and Terminal 3. Maybe as part of a high-speed rail project.
Click to expand...

If the private service (Blue 22) is going to 'spurr' right into the airport, I see absolutely no need for a Woodbine station.

GO and VIA could be linked via a people mover extension to Malton just as easily and at less expense (ie. no need for a new station). If a Woodbine Station is needed to service that whole new Woodbine Live development...they should build it.

I guess I have no problem with your idea of VIA diverting right into the airport but I would be opposed to GO diverting in there.....like I said earlier, it would add too much to the commute times of GO Trains and would be a negative to what should be their core customers/responsibilities.....the commuter!
 
TOareaFan said:
That is also my position.

I presume there is a track rental fee payable by the private service operator to the public for use of publicly owned infrastructure? If so, then there should also be a rental fee paid if publicly owned trains want to use the privately built/owned infrastructure into the airport.

I just don't see a need for the public services going directly into the aiprort. The most obvious (and talked about) one would be the Georgetown GO trains. I think the increased travel times caused by a detour into the airport would cause a loss of ridership in their core business (moving commuters to their jobs)......I can't see the ridership pick up from the airport (when facing a faster private service...albeit a more expensive one) offsetting that loss.

I think the best option (as I mentioned in a previous post) would be for the the public systems to connect (either at Malton or a new Woodbine) via an extended people mover. If this means an expenditure to upgrade the thing...so be it.
Click to expand...
No need for any detours, or inconveniencing commuters. It's not like every train stops at every station. Some trains could go to Brampton without stopping at Pearson, some could short turn at Pearson without going to Brampton, some could go to both. A direct connection to the terminal would be much more useful for travellers than a shuttle to Woodbine.

If there's demand for a private service, chances are there's even more demand for a public service.

TOareaFan said:
would people actually take a connecting train to Montreal when there are so many flights to Montreal now? Just asking (I have never considered this but at first blush it does not sound like something I would build a business around).
Click to expand...
Trains replacing all, or nearly all, short haul connecting flights is a key part of the business model of HSR in other countries. Airport connections are essential.
 
Whether it's Woodbine or Malton, I don't really care. I just assumed that they're going to build a Woodbine station anyway, so it makes sense to use the closer station.

The diversion of GO trains through the airport would result in a minimal increase in the mileage of the route and therefore the travel time, while adding a major destination.
 
MisterF said:
No need for any detours, or inconveniencing commuters. It's not like every train stops at every station. Some trains could go to Brampton without stopping at Pearson, some could short turn at Pearson without going to Brampton, some could go to both. A direct connection to the terminal would be much more useful for travellers than a shuttle to Woodbine.

If there's demand for a private service, chances are there's even more demand for a public service.
Click to expand...

I guess the devil would be in the details. The big benefit to the public that I have always seen in this infrastructure expenditure is not the ability to go to the airport (by any service) but the ability to now provide more frequent and reliable service to commuters through this corridor. If a re-routing through the airport of some of those trains ate into a substantial amount of that new service (allowing for the fact that, even expanded, the line would have some limite to its capacity).
 
TOareaFan said:
I guess I have no problem with your idea of VIA diverting right into the airport but I would be opposed to GO diverting in there.....like I said earlier, it would add too much to the commute times of GO Trains and would be a negative to what should be their core customers/responsibilities.....the commuter!
Click to expand...

1. GO should be a regional transit service, not a "commuter" service.

2. How many jobs are at the airport? A lot. It's not just businessmen and tourists who could use a rail link.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Whether it's Woodbine or Malton, I don't really care. I just assumed that they're going to build a Woodbine station anyway, so it makes sense to use the closer station.

The diversion of GO trains through the airport would result in a minimal increase in the mileage of the route and therefore the travel time, while adding a major destination.
Click to expand...

I guess what I am saying is that other than as a link to Blue 22.....Woodbine is a station that I see as having virtually no benefit.....since it would be on the south side of the horse track it is nowhere near any population (currently), has horrible access and serves no one......so if the people mover link is going to be built, why not build it to Malton, linking an existing VIA/GO station as well as being beside a major MT bus garage and the International Centre?

I think people underestimate the impact of GO Trains going through Pearson. I see the simple diversion as being a 2 -3 minute diversion.....then if you allow that people getting on (with bags from, possibly, international flights, and off...with similar baggage) are going to take a much longer than normal stop time...I figure 5 minutes at that station...so it adds, lets say, 6 - 8 minutes to a train's schedule.....using Brampton station (only because that is what I a most familiar with) that turns a 43 minute train trip into a 49 or 51 minute train trip....in commuting terms, that is pretty significant....granted (as someone else pointed out) not all trains would take the detour...but if enough of them did, it would diminish the benefit of the increased GO service and I would prefer they just connect Malton via the people mover, let GO concentrate on its core business and if people wanna use GO to get to Pearson then they have to accept that the switch at Malton is part of the deal (remember, I am accepting that VIA trains and Blue 22 would both go through the airport so there are 2 more direct options).
 
ShonTron said:
1. GO should be a regional transit service, not a "commuter" service.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess, what it should be and what it is are two different things. It is a commuter service.....even the line that has full 2-way-7 day service (Lakeshore E&W) prove this......there are a lot of trains running both ways in off-peak times that are very, very, sparsely used......it is a commuter/event service....probably always will be!

ShonTron said:
2. How many jobs are at the airport? A lot. It's not just businessmen and tourists who could use a rail link.
Click to expand...

I never said it was just businessmen and tourists......but those people are the ones likely to pay for the premium, direct service....fair enough. I have suggested that a service like VIA could also service the airport terminal using the spurr line (seems to fit with their service) but that keeping the GO line straight and direct but linking it via the people mover seems to be the best compromise to serve, both, the commuter and the airport worker.
 
TOareaFan said:
Greyhound did not build the roads....but the existance of the roads made it possible for them to invest in an inter-city bus service.....same concept.
Click to expand...

it's not the same concept. if it was, all rail operators would be allowed to use blue 22 tracks as they wish.

you can't compare the two. the roads can be used by many companies and private citizens. greyhound doesn't have exclusive rights to the roads which prevents other bus services, etc.. from using those roads.

imagine building highway 409 with public money and then allowing only jim's airport limo service to use the highway for the next 99 years or so. this is blue 22 in a nutshell.
 
Prometheus The Supremo said:
it's not the same concept. if it was, all rail operators would be allowed to use blue 22 tracks as they wish.

you can't compare the two. the roads can be used by many companies and private citizens. greyhound doesn't have exclusive rights to the roads which prevents other bus services, etc.. from using those roads.

imagine building highway 409 with public money and then allowing only jim's airport limo service to use the highway for the next 99 years or so. this is blue 22 in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

I think the general assumption/consensus in this forum is that Blue 22 can't/won't have exclusive use either.....perhaps they will have that as it relates to the airport spurr but the assumption there is that they will also build that...ie. it is not part of the public expenditure....I guess we will have to wait and see which of these assumptions works out to be true?
 
TOareaFan said:
I think people underestimate the impact of GO Trains going through Pearson. I see the simple diversion as being a 2 -3 minute diversion.....then if you allow that people getting on (with bags from, possibly, international flights, and off...with similar baggage) are going to take a much longer than normal stop time...I figure 5 minutes at that station...so it adds, lets say, 6 - 8 minutes to a train's schedule.....using Brampton station (only because that is what I a most familiar with) that turns a 43 minute train trip into a 49 or 51 minute train trip....in commuting terms, that is pretty significant....granted (as someone else pointed out) not all trains would take the detour...but if enough of them did, it would diminish the benefit of the increased GO service and I would prefer they just connect Malton via the people mover, let GO concentrate on its core business and if people wanna use GO to get to Pearson then they have to accept that the switch at Malton is part of the deal (remember, I am accepting that VIA trains and Blue 22 would both go through the airport so there are 2 more direct options).
Click to expand...

That is a good point and I would agree that the goal of GO should be to reduce commuter times rather than increase them (unless absolutely necessary which there might be some cases it would have to). But at the same time Pearson should have GO access. Direct access from an onsight station and not 'kind of close' station that requires a trip on a people mover. But to do this properly would cost a lot of money, and preferably require electrification of the line so that the time added to the trip by an additional stop would be offset by the time saved from a faster overall trip. In other words, it is still a long ways away.

In the meantime a wonky little spur, people movers, and an overpriced, direct access service will have to do. So long as too much money isn't sunk into parts of the project that will be irrelevant when a proper station and alignment is constructed, then it is still worthwhile in the end.
 
TOareaFan said:
Just out of curiosity....would you view a VIA train to Malton and a transfer the people mover a good option.....always good to ask someone who might use the system rather than guessing!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind - I used Orlyval in Paris, which is somewhat similar and that was OK (although that cost money IIRC). I think some US airports have something similar.

The Schipol type station right on a mainline would be ideal... I guess rerouting the g-town line would cost billions though.

I'm not sure exactly what Metrolinx is planning for after Blue22, but IIRC the RTP specifies multiple modes besides Blue22
 
Again, there's absolutely no reason for commuters from Brampton to be inconvenienced by GO service to the airport. It could be that every train going to the airport would simply turn around and go back downtown...not affecting Brampton service whatsoever. There's enough capacity to handle that kind of service, especially after the expansion of the corridor.
 
MisterF said:
It could be that every train going to the airport would simply turn around and go back downtown...not affecting Brampton service whatsoever. There's enough capacity to handle that kind of service, especially after the expansion of the corridor.
Click to expand...


Really? Then I guess it is not an issue.

I was working with this set of facts/assumptions:

1. Currently the corridor is at capacity and no new trains can be added (source....a 20 year + file folder of communications with GO Transit and ministers of transportation)
2. The work being done will allow for Blue 22 and expanded GO service
(source various newspapers and this board)
3. No matter how much work is done there is still some limit to capacity
(source.....logic)
4. If you run Blue 22 with 15 - 20 minutes in between trains and reasonably frequent GO Transit that goes to the airport and turns back, then you probably have used a fair amount of the increased capacity just serving the airport
(source...just an assumption of mine)
5. If you have, then all of that public infrastructure does not lead to significant additional service to the populace of Malton, Brampton, Georgetown, beyond.
(source...additional assumption derived from the assumption in #4)

If you tell me that there is room for both of those services plus full GO then I agree with you.
 
^The amount of train traffic through that corridor is nothing compared to similar corridors in cities all over Asia and Europe. The corridor can handle much more traffic with competent management and the proper upgrades and technology.
 
MisterF said:
^The amount of train traffic through that corridor is nothing compared to similar corridors in cities all over Asia and Europe. The corridor can handle much more traffic with competent management and the proper upgrades and technology.
Click to expand...

Great.....I just wonder, though, how it would compare to similar corridors in Canada/Ontario (assuming there are any).....that would probably be a better indicator of how much traffic we would deem it could handle!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top