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

[ehlow]

I disagree that it's not a priority however. The airport area is one of the GTA's most job-intensive areas, and it's horrendously traffic-congested. Better transit has a big potential contribution here. As for air travellers, linkages that would reduce automobile traffic to the airport also have high priority. I'm not embarassed to be thinking about how to best utilise the lines that will be build anyways - ECLRT, RER, Finch LRT - but I agree that we should not be dreaming up new, additional, money-needing routings or infrastructure. Much of what is being dreamed of can be achieved with bus shuttles - not nearly as sexy, but an order of magnitude cheaper.

- Paul

When you say the airport area has lots of jobs, that area is quite different from serving the airport itself though. South of the airport, around Eglinton from Dixie to Renforth.

 

[gweed123]

Agreed that the importance of this hub is relatively low at the moment, but when it becomes a station on the high speed train route, then, now the ballgame changes.

The Pearson Hub(s) borders into the realm of a grand long-term plan -- considering the idea of 700 redevelopable acres right near the airport -- and the Pearson Hub stop of the high speed train.

So it's a white elephant idea today, but won't be in perhaps 2040. That said, it's never too early to begin planning for a simple RER platform that has the ability to interchange with other transit (e.g. UPX) with land provisions for large future expansions over the following 20-30 years.

The importance of the hub is relatively low now because there are only a handful of transit services that it would actually connect to. GO only runs through Malton during peak, the Mississauga Transitway is operational but far from finished, the Eglinton and Finch LRTs don't exist yet, and GO RER is still a while away. All you really have are a few TTC and MiWay routes serving Pearson.

IMO, the only outside transit service that should service Pearson directly should be UPX. For everything else, have them routed to the North or South Hubs and have them served by an upgraded LINK train. Getting off a flight and having to follow a single set of signage for the LINK train, figuring out which hub you need to go to for the service that you want, and then arriving at a coordinated and visually pleasant hub is a far better experience than following a clusterf**k of signage in Pearson and trying to navigate around the dark underside of the T1 or T3 pick-up loops. Honestly, waiting for a bus there is like waiting for a bus under the Gardiner. Not exactly a great first impression of the city.

Funnel all transit passengers (with the exception of UPX, but even then, they'd be right next to the LINK train) to a single point in the terminal, then they choose 1 of 2 directions on the LINK train depending on which service they're connecting to. Then at that hub, the choices and navigation around the hub are much simpler.

 

[TOareaFan]

The importance of the hub is relatively low now because there are only a handful of transit services that it would actually connect to. GO only runs through Malton during peak, the Mississauga Transitway is operational but far from finished, the Eglinton and Finch LRTs don't exist yet, and GO RER is still a while away. All you really have are a few TTC and MiWay routes serving Pearson.

IMO, the only outside transit service that should service Pearson directly should be UPX. For everything else, have them routed to the North or South Hubs and have them served by an upgraded LINK train. Getting off a flight and having to follow a single set of signage for the LINK train, figuring out which hub you need to go to for the service that you want, and then arriving at a coordinated and visually pleasant hub is a far better experience than following a clusterf**k of signage in Pearson and trying to navigate around the dark underside of the T1 or T3 pick-up loops. Honestly, waiting for a bus there is like waiting for a bus under the Gardiner. Not exactly a great first impression of the city.

Funnel all transit passengers (with the exception of UPX, but even then, they'd be right next to the LINK train) to a single point in the terminal, then they choose 1 of 2 directions on the LINK train depending on which service they're connecting to. Then at that hub, the choices and navigation around the hub are much simpler.

Exactly!

 

[mdrejhon]

The importance of the hub is relatively low now because there are only a handful of transit services that it would actually connect to. GO only runs through Malton during peak, the Mississauga Transitway is operational but far from finished, the Eglinton and Finch LRTs don't exist yet, and GO RER is still a while away. All you really have are a few TTC and MiWay routes serving Pearson.

IMO, the only outside transit service that should service Pearson directly should be UPX. For everything else, have them routed to the North or South Hubs and have them served by an upgraded LINK train. Getting off a flight and having to follow a single set of signage for the LINK train, figuring out which hub you need to go to for the service that you want, and then arriving at a coordinated and visually pleasant hub is a far better experience than following a clusterf**k of signage in Pearson and trying to navigate around the dark underside of the T1 or T3 pick-up loops. Honestly, waiting for a bus there is like waiting for a bus under the Gardiner. Not exactly a great first impression of the city.

One big pro of replacing LINK with a faster version that goes all the way to a Pearson Hub (on the main GO line) is that there's only one train to worry about wayfinding for most public transit. And everytime you go on a LINK train, you'll learn that it goes to more than just the other concourses, including downtown. Simpler wayfinding.

A fancy high-speed peoplemover (possibly underground) that connects all concourses to one or two Pearson Hubs, may actually be attractive in the day of high-speed rail.

This is better than curving the HSR to go under Pearson, and would prevent slowing the HSR down. (Remember Kitchener and London heading to either Pearson or Union. We are not spending billions dollars to install a tunneled curve under Pearson to intentionally slow down a Kitchener commuting to Toronto. More than 90% of those people aren't going to get off at Pearson). The rail between Georgetown and Pearson Hub, is straight enough to do 250kph, and we DO NOT want to install a 100kph curve on that (two additional curves slower than the Weston Curve). This is why we DO NOT want to do a HSR tunnel under Pearson -- it slows Kitchener-Union commuters with the addition of TWO new curves slower-than-Weston. unless it's a stupendously expensive straighter arrow from Union that also speeds up commuters to Kitchener.

As long as Pearson Hub is made to be very fancy and nice looking, so that it feels like you're almost arriving at the airport, and you get the pro of direct one-seat to any common location on airport property.

This is independent of whether UPX continues, or whether UPX is replaced by the high speed train -- or only decades later when UPX is a 40-year-old run down train, old and falling apart.

 

[gweed123]

One big pro of replacing LINK with a faster version that goes all the way to a Pearson Hub (on the main GO line) is that there's only one train to worry about wayfinding for most public transit. And everytime you go on a LINK train, you'll learn that it goes to more than just the other concourses, including downtown. Simpler wayfinding.

A fancy high-speed peoplemover (possibly underground) that connects all concourses to one or two Pearson Hubs, may actually be attractive in the day of high-speed rail.

This is better than curving the HSR to go under Pearson, and would prevent slowing the HSR down. (Remember Kitchener and London heading to either Pearson or Union) As long as Pearson Hub is made to be very fancy and nice looking, so that it feels like you're almost arriving at the airport, and you get the pro of direct one-seat to any common location on airport property.

This is independent of whether UPX continues, or whether UPX is replaced by the high speed train -- or only decades later when UPX is a 40-year-old run down train, old and falling apart.

Very good points. Yes, a deviation from the Kitchener corridor in order to hit Pearson would slow the line down, not to mention be extremely expensive. I'd rather take 1/10th that money and turn Malton GO into a really nice multi-modal station instead. If someone was worried about the optics of arriving at the station and not being "at Pearson", it would be very doable to simply rename the Malton station "Pearson Terminal 2". Terminals 1 and 3 would be for airplane trips, Terminal 2 would be for inter and intracity rail trips.

 

[44 North]

If anyone here wants to put the effort into making a map of the area and the different ideas being discussed, it'd be much appreciated. Even though I know the airport area, it's still a very confusing place. Interchanges of numerous expressways twisting around, weird roads, Terminals 1 + 3 which are very hard to reach, not mention that all this is smack dab in the middle of where the concession road system switches from being NNW-SSE to NW-SE.

 

[CodeMonkey]

I think the area between Torbram Rd and Airport Rd circled in red would be the logical choice for an Person Rail Hub. It closest to the airport for an LINK connection, it has access to existing rail lines, especially if HSR is desired, since it would be unlikely new land for an new rail corridor would be purchased.

 

[crs1026]

I think the area between Torbram Rd and Airport Rd circled in red would be the logical choice for an Person Rail Hub. It closest to the airport for an LINK connection, it has access to existing rail lines, especially if HSR is desired, since it would be unlikely new land for an new rail corridor would be purchased.

Here's one showing the GO, UPX, LINK, Finch LRT, Smarttrack, and Transitway. Also the potential hub at Renforth. I have added dotted lines for LINK to Malton GO, a UPX wye, and a Finch LRT extension. The routings may not be exactly as per published plans.

Keep in mind that Bramalea GO is pretty much a Mobility Hub already, by virtue of the number of bus routes using this location.

This sure sells me on Malton as the place to put the connection to GO/VIA. Everything else looks much longer and lacks a direct route. I guess elevated is out of the question, the planes come in pretty low up along Airport Road.

- Paul

 

[CodeMonkey]

Here's one showing the GO, UPX, LINK, Finch LRT, Smarttrack, and Transitway. Also the potential hub at Renforth. I have added dotted lines for LINK to Malton GO, a UPX wye, and a Finch LRT extension. The routings may not be exactly as per published plans.

Keep in mind that Bramalea GO is pretty much a Mobility Hub already, by virtue of the number of bus routes using this location.

This sure sells me on Malton as the place to put the connection to GO/VIA. Everything else looks much longer and lacks a direct route. I guess elevated is out of the question, the planes come in pretty low up along Airport Road.

- Paul

I originally thought of having the hub in the airport. But it will require major reconstruction of the airport itself to fit all the rail lines, and room for additional platform space.

 

[wopchop]

I think the area between Torbram Rd and Airport Rd circled in red would be the logical choice for an Person Rail Hub. It closest to the airport for an LINK connection, it has access to existing rail lines, especially if HSR is desired, since it would be unlikely new land for an new rail corridor would be purchased.

View attachment 48480

I don't understand the advantage of putting a rail terminal between Torbam Rd and Airport instead of just putting it at Malton ...

The area you circled would be farther for a LINK / People Mover connection than a station at Malton.

 

[CodeMonkey]

I don't understand the advantage of putting a rail terminal between Torbam Rd and Airport instead of just putting it at Malton ...

The area you circled would be farther for a LINK / People Mover connection than a station at Malton.

Malton is too small for an multi-rail station to handle GO, VIA and any HSR option. It's unlikely an new rail corridor will be built just for the Pearson Hub, they'll reuse existing rail corridors. Plus the fact that UPX is already serving traffic from the downtown to the airport, making any passenger traffic from Malton to Union nill.

The location I pointed out already links up with the Georgertown line, has an link with an existing rail corridor that runs parallel to the 407 going east, where new rail stations can be built and bring in passengers traffic from across the top of the city into the Pearson Hub, and it can be all linked to the airport via an dedicated elevated LRT/ICTS rail line than can run down the centre of Airtport Rd.

 

[wopchop]

Malton is too small for an multi-rail station to handle GO, VIA and any HSR option. It's unlikely an new rail corridor will be built just for the Pearson Hub, they'll reuse existing rail corridors. Plus the fact that UPX is already serving traffic from the downtown to the airport, making any passenger traffic from Malton to Union nill.

The location I pointed out already links up with the Georgertown line, has an link with an existing rail corridor that runs parallel to the 407 going east, where new rail stations can be built and bring in passengers traffic from across the top of the city into the Pearson Hub, and it can be all linked to the airport via an dedicated elevated LRT/ICTS rail line than can run down the centre of Airtport Rd.

Everything that you said can be accomplished at Malton without any private expropriation of businesses between Torbram and Airport Road.

Malton is surrounded by parking lot. You could, quite literally, build whatever sized station that you wanted.

Malton already links up with the Georgetown corridor, as it is on the Georgetown corridor.

Given that you suggested a station between Torbram and Airport Road, your station has the same level of connection to the CN York Sub as a station at Malton would. Any theoretical trains that were to switch into your station (or Malton) would have to use the wye that is west of Torbram road to switch onto the Georgetown corridor. So really, that isn't an advantage at all.

Any LINK/ICTS rail line connecting your terminal to Pearson would be 1-2km longer than a rail terminal at Malton.

 

[mdrejhon]

Very good points. Yes, a deviation from the Kitchener corridor in order to hit Pearson would slow the line down, not to mention be extremely expensive.

A tunnel of several kilometers under Pearson would cost roughly as much as the whole corridor from Union to London being upgraded to high-speed trains (after the RER electricifation upgrade costs are already spent through to Kitchener, of course).

I'd rather take 1/10th that money and...

Bingo! And with enough money left over for a much cheaper, smaller-bore LINK tunnel. And that still leaves money left over to do other things, like, say... build a 2nd Pearson Hub south of Pearson to help serve the business parks near there, while still having an easy way to Pearson.

But that said, the Terminal 2 naming idea for the Pearson Rail Hub, while attractive, doesn't seem to have much precedent elsewhere in the world. It would probably have to be significantly GTAA-owned for it to be called Terminal 2, with some GTAA hands in the rail money pot of some kind. But that appears to be what the TorontoStar article suggests -- they might actually spend a bit of funds into this. That would be interesting, considering they once wanted to charge every UPX passenger $2 for revenue loss from parking...

 

[mdrejhon]

Any LINK/ICTS rail line connecting your terminal to Pearson would be 1-2km longer than a rail terminal at Malton.

Depends on where Woodbine is located. If all 700 acres are razed, and the station is built a little bit westwards, then Woodbine Station actually is closer to both Terminal 1 and 3 "as the crow flies". Obviously, the UPX spur has a lot of curves, but if a rail tunnel was done as part of a LINK II upgraded fast peoplemover project with a straight underground tunnel...

...then Malton is slightly further away:

See?

 

[wopchop]

Depends on where Woodbine is located. If all 700 acres are razed, and the station is built a little bit westwards, then Woodbine Station actually is closer to both Terminal 1 and 3 "as the crow flies". Obviously, the UPX spur has a lot of curves, but if a rail tunnel was done as part of a LINK II upgraded fast peoplemover project with a straight underground tunnel, Malton is slightly further away.

I was comparing Malton station to CodeMonkey's theoretical station between Airport Road and Torbram Road.