Mississauga Pearson Transit Hub | ?m | ?s | GTAA


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 ...

This railway project is almost exactly like the UPX and goes to the edge of the airport property (not under any runways). Terminal 5 was built on the edge while Terminal 2/3 are built in the middle of the runways.
http://maps.heathrow.com/index.php?zoom=12&lat=51.471974958120704&lng=-0.489589989923259&pindrop=1

Right now if you want to come from the west (Reading lines) you have to either take the RailAir bus or take the train into Paddington and go back on the same line via the Heathrow Express. A pain. The RailAir bus is every 15 minutes or so...they are basically replacing this.
 
This railway project is almost exactly like the UPX and goes to the edge of the airport property (not under any runways). Terminal 5 was built on the edge while Terminal 2/3 are built in the middle of the runways.
http://maps.heathrow.com/index.php?zoom=12&lat=51.471974958120704&lng=-0.489589989923259&pindrop=1

Right now if you want to come from the west (Reading lines) you have to either take the RailAir bus or take the train into Paddington and go back on the same line via the Heathrow Express. A pain. The RailAir bus is every 15 minutes or so...they are basically replacing this.
In case the point on tunnelling is getting lost, it's that in the case of Heathrow and a number of other major airports, heavy rail connections are put through tunnel *not just because of runways* but because the approach to the airport is far better achieved by tunnelling rather than cut and cover. A lot will have to do with soil condition (already detailed in general in the Eglinton Crosstown studies) and the economics or not of obtaining or building a TBM(s) for such a relatively short stretch of tunnel. In the event, I believe Crosstown does just happen to have some TBMs surplus. And of a diameter capable of accommodating UIC loading gauge, I don't know what Metrolinx' bore cross-section requirement is for the yet ordered EMUs....a discussion in itself. If they are European based, the Crosstown TBMs (with a refit) would do it.

What remains beyond curious is the aspiration of "High Speed Rail" and the (IIRC) '$8B proposed for that. That might have to be revisited, loose PR talk before they consulted the engineers. That exact point is going to be the stuff of much discussion shortly.
 
Putting things in perspective...


Screen Shot 2017-04-11 at 9.05.31 AM.png

C9FcFbiW0AYztSN.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-04-11 at 9.05.31 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-04-11 at 9.05.31 AM.png
    30.8 KB · Views: 300
  • C9FcFbiW0AYztSN.jpg
    C9FcFbiW0AYztSN.jpg
    153.2 KB · Views: 437
Putting things in perspective...
Something isn't jibing:
upload_2017-4-11_23-47-24.png

https://www.torontopearson.com/uplo...pact/RPT-TorontoPearsonEconomicImpact2016.pdf

Edit to Add: Errr....the term "Megazone" is truly lending itself to marketing hype. This is reminiscent of selling kids toys on TV: "Big enough to impress all your friends".

Reading through the study, I saw one map with a huge swath covering Ottawa and more. WTF? Oh yes, all part of the massive, huge, gargantuan, stupendous *Megazone*! (Batteries not included).

I've gone suddenly sour on this, and the lingo-jingo hip-hype planner platitudes really doesn't help. An engineering report it isn't. Sales brochure?

Yes kids! Get yours today (coming to a city near you!)(Limited time offer only)
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-4-11_23-47-24.png
    upload_2017-4-11_23-47-24.png
    177.2 KB · Views: 525
Last edited:
Right now if you want to come from the west (Reading lines) you have to either take the RailAir bus or take the train into Paddington and go back on the same line via the Heathrow Express. A pain. The RailAir bus is every 15 minutes or so...they are basically replacing this.
From Reading, would it not make more sense to take the train from Reading to Hayes & Harlington, and then take Heathrow Connect from Hayes & Harlington to Heathrow?

Looking at Google Maps, Paddington is the preferred route, because it's faster, but it requires the expensive Heathrow Express service, along with a much more expensive train trip from Reading (especially during peak). But changing at Hayes & Harlington only takes about 10 minutes longer, and the travelled distance is a lot shorter.

Once the Elizabeth line services start, you'd do exactly the same routing, but take two Elizabeth line trains run by Transport for London, instead of the current Great Western Railway trains.
 
It includes the "Pearson Airport Megazone", if you read the tweet. This is the second largest concentration of jobs in the country, but it's spread over an enormous area. A sobering reality check in case anyone tries to claim that any particular transit line will be a silver bullet solution for serving the area.
OK, then I see your point. I must admit, I got sold on this idea without reading the fine print, although the "HSR" reference cued my sixth-sense immediately. Anyone talking "HSR" hasn't got the memo in this part of the world.

So I went digging, and found I'm not the only one to not see the Emperor's Clothes:
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2016/03/02/hub-of-war/

McCuaig's comments (gist) "this is an apt candidate as the first test of the Infrastructure Bank" takes on a cynical nature to it. And here I was thinking REM is a band, not another hyped money-grab in Montreal besmirching the rationale of the Infrastructure Bank.

I must be honest, I immediately got rubbed the wrong way reading the ridiculous promo jingo that only planners and some architects speak, like "wayfinding, placemaking. gravitational centre oblong boomerangs of additory relevance". OK, I just made up the last one. I was practising...

Engineers and accountants would use this study for toilet paper...
 
What makes the Meadowvale Business Park a "knowledge intensive district" while Guelph (with a pretty decent university is just a "key centre"?
 
What makes the Meadowvale Business Park a "knowledge intensive district" while Guelph (with a pretty decent university is just a "key centre"?

Just because MS and a few other firms has their Canadian HQ there, perhaps. We will see how long they will stay there for.

AoD
 
Today's Globe and Mail, Parliamentary Reporter:
Most Canadians think privatizing airports is a bad idea: poll
Bill Curry
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Apr. 26, 2017 5:00AM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Apr. 26, 2017 7:38AM EDT

Canadians aren’t sold on airport privatization, according to a new poll that found most people think it’s a bad idea.

The federal Liberals continue to study options for privatizing Canada’s largest airports, based on the advice of two government panels that urged Ottawa to consider the idea as a way to raise billions in revenue that could help pay for new infrastructure.

However, a survey by the Angus Reid Institute found 53 per cent of Canadians said privatizing Canada’s eight largest airports would be either a bad or very bad idea. Only 21 per cent said it was a good or very good idea, while 26 per cent said they didn’t know.

Globe editorial: Privatization isn’t the only way to fix problems at Canada’s airports

“There are some concerns. The initial hot take on this in the minds of Canadians is, ‘No, thank you. We would prefer not to see our airports privatized. We don’t think that’s a good idea,’” said Shachi Kurl, executive director of the Angus Reid Institute. Ms. Kurl said that further questioning found Canadians believe privatization would hurt the quality of air travel and security while making it more expensive to fly.

The online survey of 1,508 participants of an Angus Reid Forum was conducted from April 7 to 10. A survey sample of this size would carry a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The Globe and Mail has previously reported that internal focus-group polling on the issue conducted by the federal government last year also found unease with the concept of airport privatization.

Canada’s eight largest airports – which operate as not-for-profit airport authorities – are divided on the merits of the proposal. Airport authorities in Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver have organized a campaign to oppose the move. However, Toronto’s Pearson Airport has recently expressed openness to the idea as a potential way to raise billions that would go toward building a “mega hub” of transit infrastructure – that would bring workers and passengers to the airport.

Last year, the federal government commissioned Credit Suisse AG to conduct a study of privatization options for Canada’s eight largest airports. The work is now complete, but the Finance Department is refusing to release the report. The department says it signed a confidentiality agreement with Credit Suisse and the company has indicated that it does not want its work released to the public.

One important finding from the survey is that the issue is not top of mind for most Canadians, even though it has been reported for months in the media that the federal government is studying the idea.

Slightly more than half of respondents – 51 per cent – said they hadn’t heard anything about the issue until they took the survey.

Ms. Kurl said that low level of awareness suggests there is an opportunity for people to be swayed by arguments for or against airport privatization.

“This is a very initial temperature-taking of an issue that is not necessarily top of mind for Canadians,” she said. “In order for either side – proponents or opponents – to move the needle, they really need to start talking to Canadians.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-airports-is-a-bad-idea-poll/article34811639/
 
Thought this may be of interest to this thread:

Finch West LRT Extension Business Case Analysis Executive Summary (2015)

Key findings:
  • Cost of FWLRT extension to Pearson: $551 million
  • 14 new LRVs required
  • Long-term costs $268 million
  • $13 million n annual operating costs
  • The resulting 2031 forecast shows some 3,600 riders on the extension in the morning peak period, or some 1,600 in the peak hour. Line flow peaks at around 900/hour, below the typical demand considered appropriate for LRT. Transfer from car is accounts for 22% of the LRT demand
  • The Business Case analysis does indicate a reasonable case for an extension
 
Thought this may be of interest to this thread:

Finch West LRT Extension Business Case Analysis Executive Summary (2015)

The ridership, not surprisingly, is projected to be employment related as opposed to air travellers.

I wonder if the GTAA has analysed the impact of using the proposed transit hub as a transfer point for employment ridership as well as air travellers. Nothing wrong with having the hub serve both, but that puts a whole lot more people through it. And it would demand access and capacity for all the local bus routes, which is a different proposition than just linking to regional transit like RER or HxR or UPE....as well as LRT.

- Paul
 

Back
Top