LNahid2000
Senior Member
Look at the legend. The portion east of Mount Dennis is also called the Crosstown West. How is that not an error?
|
|
|
Toronto Pearson International Airport
- Thread starter p5connex
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
I still think your overthinking it. Yes, they could have left it as Crosstown LRT; it's pretty clear what it's referring to. I'm pretty impressed they had the gumption to turn this around within hours of the city's announcement.
LNahid2000
Senior Member
It was just the first thing I noticed on the map since it's in huge letters.
TOareaFan
Superstar
That HLRT extension looks a lot like the line on the map that was part of Mayor Crombie used in her campaign in Mississauga. Is it really an extension of Hurontario (that goes well past Derry to Steeles) or just an intersecting LRT using Derry to get to the airport? It doesn't even appear to terminate at Hurontario but seems to go fairly far west of it.
drum118
Superstar
Putting an LRT on Derry is a waste of money considering how poor the ridership is in the first place, regardless I support LRT in the first place. Ridership west of Hurontario is even poorer than the east. Was part of Crombie 2014 plan for the east section and made no sense then.
As for Milton being used in place of Malton happens all the time and this includes me as well.
What the big deal if the Crosstown line is call Crosstown West when it is the west section in the first place?? Picky Picky and no meat on the bone.
It is also nice to see the GTTA finally accepting Transit to the airport as a must. Now if they can get Metrolinx to look at building a Wye at the Weston Sub so trains can go west from the airport to London, they will see riders using the extension more than to Toronto.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
I wonder if that explains why the 42 Derry makes all those circuitous loops in the west end (Old Derry, Financial, Meadowvale Blvd), because if the bus route went straight across Derry ridership would be even less?
drum118
Superstar
Like a lot of MT routes that needs to run all over the place to pickup riders, 42 is one of them. Under the 5 year plan, 42 will become a grid route with better headway than today. This will require riders to do some walking or transferring to another route with wait time.
Until you get service down to 10 minutes or less with 10,000 plus daily ridership, an LRT is not needed. Even at 10, 000, an BRT is only needed. An LRT headway will be 10 minutes at the best of times.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I was just thinking about this video and news release and was going to dust off the old Union station W thread from a few years ago. Here's the thing I see with an intermodal airport district hub: The employees in the area and the clientele of the airport have vastly different needs transit wise. An office worker for example might not be interested in taking a UPX style service (pricing aside) to the airport terminal proper then walk (the walk from the airport is not pleasant) or take the people mover closer to their place of work. However would transit agencies (go, Brampton, YRT, TTC) be willing to shift their routes away from the airport terminal to an intermodal terminal which connects to the airport via a people mover.
I think the solution is an intermodal station with a extension of or creation of a new people mover from the station to the terminal.
I think the solution is an intermodal station with a extension of or creation of a new people mover from the station to the terminal.
rbt
Senior Member
I agree and strongly suspect if such a thing was proposed, and the London HSR study probably will, it would be near here:
(Goreway Road/Kitchener line intersection)
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7020672,-79.6168406,15.5z
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Personally, I'd prefer to have North and South hubs to serve Pearson, connected by a People Mover (likely Mark III ICTS). The North Hub would be Malton GO station (HSR, Via, RER, FWLRT), and the South Hub would be Renforth Gateway (Transitway, ECLRT). Still provides easy access to the airport via the People Mover, but the transit hubs are in locations where they're useful to even non-Pearson riders.
This setup would also justify UPX, since it would be the only direct-to-Pearson service. The other connection options would still be good though.
This setup would also justify UPX, since it would be the only direct-to-Pearson service. The other connection options would still be good though.
rbt
Senior Member
What gets built for a transit terminal will be what is best at justifying the huge dollar project (London HSR). Any other concerns are secondary. The Airport Corporate Center is large enough to require a circulator of some kind no matter where the station is put.
That said, none of this will be construction ready before the next provincial election; which effectively means there is no plan.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I thought the Airport Corporate Centre was the office area south of the airport (south of the 401 even).....are there two areas with the same name?
D
Duck
Guest
That is a great map but unfortunately due to the technology chosen for the Terminal LINK (Doppelmayr CableLiner Shuttle), extending it is not possible (or, it is, but you have to rebuild so much of it from scratch you may as well scrap the cable drive and get another vendor to retrofit it with a more conventional traction method).
Voltz
Senior Member
There is a newer version of this type of CableLiner people mover where the cable moves continuously and the trains detach when arriving at a station, allowing for multiple trains on each track with short headways. It can't be impossible to retrofit this to an existing system, between stations the system would not require any changes.