News   Nov 28, 2024
Wallace Emerson Community Centre Growing Beside Galleria on the Park
 61     0 
News   Nov 28, 2024
27-Storey Tower on Queen West Proposed North of Future King-Liberty GO
 487     1 
News   Nov 28, 2024
Drone Flights Capture Sub-Grade Construction at Cielo Condos
 564     0 

Toronto Pearson International Airport

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Except that it is a rather diffuse region and the locational decision of the transit hub should be driven by the airport. That's not to say the transportation network should not support the broader area, but it would not have made much, if any sense to put in a higher order service (HSR, metro, whatnot) that would not be in a position to support that.

AoD
Click to expand...

Certainly, and I don't advocate pursuing that "next employment cluster" for the sake of serving those commuters at the expense of a convenient connection to the airport. I do think, however, that there can be a happy medium between having an intermodal transit terminal at the airport and said terminal be convenient enough that workers in the area might consider taking transit to work everyday.

Looking at jcam's map with an extension of the people mover to a terminal located on airport road for an example. A location such as that would permit most transit options to congregate there (GO and Via are always going to be an issue in any solution) such a solution would put most of the businesses along Airport rd within a ~1km walk from the station (a distance most commuters coming from Union are comfortable with, if not more), combine this terminal with the proposed T1 hotel, add on an office component that fronts onto Airport rd and perhaps you have the beginnings of a less diffuse area.

However all of this should not turn it's back on the reason we are all here, the airport, and the need to get travelers all over the GTA to/from the airport.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Certainly, and I don't advocate pursuing that "next employment cluster" for the sake of serving those commuters at the expense of a convenient connection to the airport. I do think, however, that there can be a happy medium between having an intermodal transit terminal at the airport and said terminal be convenient enough that workers in the area might consider taking transit to work everyday.
Click to expand...

There is the question of sensitivity - and I would argue that airport users are probably more adverse to transfers than typical workers in the area, and besides, looking at jcam's map, there is nothing fundamental about transit servicing the workers having to be based on the notion of a hub - and I am not sure if densification would be dependent on the placement of the hub itself vs the increased availability of transit services at large.

I think the only serious barrier to having a hub at the airport is the price tag, given the cost of providing direct rail service instead of the existing ROW.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Filip said:
That's nice and all, but a true multimodal hub (Frankfurt, Amsterdam, CDG, Shanghai, etc) is on airport property.

I would never take an intermediate train to another station where I'd have to switch trains. This is why the JFK Air Train sucks, its ridership sucks, and NYC is debating how to tunnel it into Lower Manhattan.

In this case though, the GTAA is trying to use the Airport Corporate Centre (inconveniently located far from the terminals) as part of the value prop. You can't really serve both areas well, as there can only be one hub, and ideally located near the terminals. That is unless you start tunneling a whole wack of lines underneath the runways - which IMO from a future-proof perspective, would be the best move.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delayed reply. My response would be that many airports have people mover-type systems between the terminals and main areas (Orlando comes to mind). I don't see how a trip of roughly the same distance from the terminal to a ground hub is much different.

Tunnelling under the runways and stuff would be pretty expensive. Also, to be honest I don't really trust the GTAA, TTC, et al to get an integrated hub at Pearson right. I can see it becoming a jumbled, uncoordinated mess. At least if you use existing stations as hubs, you have something concrete to add onto. It would be a lot easier to modify Malton (I would like to see it renamed Pearson North Hub) to incorporate the Finch West LRT and Airport People Mover than it would be to build a new ground terminal from scratch at Pearson proper, or try to shoehorn one into the UPX/PM area at T1.

There's also the issue that, no matter where you place the transit hub, some passengers are always going to have to rely on some type of people mover to get between the hub and their terminal, since not everything is completely walkable from T1. For example, if you're coming from T3 and the new hub is at T1, you still have to take the People Mover to the ground hub. So for them, it doesn't make much difference if the ground hub is at Pearson proper or a KM or two away, since there's still a transfer involved.
 
Last edited:
The thing I find odd, is that during the whole GTAA revamping/masterplanning process, there were to be provisions made to have roughed in spaces for future transit connections, like UPX. These spaces were meant for when the funding was available, and would provide direct access to transit directly below the airport?
 
p5connex said:
The thing I find odd, is that during the whole GTAA revamping/masterplanning process, there were to be provisions made to have roughed in spaces for future transit connections, like UPX. These spaces were meant for when the funding was available, and would provide direct access to transit directly below the airport?
Click to expand...

I believe those were dropped when there didn't seem to be any plans for transit connections to the airport.
 
What do you make of the TTC Board's latest proposal, "review the feasibility of connecting the Eglinton Crosstown West LRT to Finch LRT through the Toronto Pearson Airport campus"? I am asking both the TTC and City of Toronto for comment. Any idea what the route might be? They seem to have something in mind...
 
Recent news, Sunwing will be moving operations out of T1 and into T3 starting May 4. Personally I think this makes more sense as T3 is the unofficial charter/low cost airline terminal (what with WestJet, I believe Air Transat, and now Sunwing), while T1 focuses on mainline carriers and specifically Air Canada's Star Alliance partner airlines. Though I am going to miss flying out of T1 when vacationing with Sunwing.

I wonder if this is simply an organizational decision, with new gates available at T3 and if GTAA views T3 as a discount terminal (as noted above), than the decision to move Sunwing would follow with that vision. Or if they are experiencing constraints on international gates at T1 and had to move Sunwing out to make room for other international airlines/flights.

If it is the latter I would suspect they should be ramping up construction of Pier G at Terminal 1 to create more gates and a allowing more logical layout of gate types (international, domestic, USA)
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Recent news, Sunwing will be moving operations out of T1 and into T3 starting May 4. Personally I think this makes more sense as T3 is the unofficial charter/low cost airline terminal (what with WestJet, I believe Air Transat, and now Sunwing), while T1 focuses on mainline carriers and specifically Air Canada's Star Alliance partner airlines. Though I am going to miss flying out of T1 when vacationing with Sunwing.

I wonder if this is simply an organizational decision, with new gates available at T3 and if GTAA views T3 as a discount terminal (as noted above), than the decision to move Sunwing would follow with that vision. Or if they are experiencing constraints on international gates at T1 and had to move Sunwing out to make room for other international airlines/flights.

If it is the latter I would suspect they should be ramping up construction of Pier G at Terminal 1 to create more gates and a allowing more logical layout of gate types (international, domestic, USA)
Click to expand...
If T3 is a low cost/charter terminal....someone needs to get a memo to

British Airways, Aer Lingus, Alitalia, Air France, American Airlines, El Al.....etc etc etc :)
 
A lot of the Asian airlines also fly out of T3, especially those with infrequent flights. Personally, I find T3 to be an unfortunate experience but particularly as an arrival experience.
 
kEiThZ said:
My personal pick would be Woodbine. Both to support development there and because it's actually inside the 416....
Click to expand...

Yeah, heaven forbid that an airport outside of "the 6" spur development anywhere but inside it ;) Honestly, there may be reasons that Woodbine is a better place than Malton (although I struggle to think of any) but the application of some sort of "Toronto/Peel" border is not one I would apply any credence to.
 
TOareaFan said:
If T3 is a low cost/charter terminal....someone needs to get a memo to

British Airways, Aer Lingus, Alitalia, Air France, American Airlines, El Al.....etc etc etc :)
Click to expand...

All of which are non Star Alliance Airlines. I'm guessing they would love to be at T1 but are squeezed out by the fact that Pearson is beholden to Air Canada/Star Alliance.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
All of which are non Star Alliance Airlines. I'm guessing they would love to be at T1 but are squeezed out by the fact that Pearson is beholden to Air Canada/Star Alliance.
Click to expand...
I am not disputing the fact that T1 is a superior terminal...and that most would prefer to be there.....but the characterization of T3 as a low cost/charter terminal is just plain wrong.....I gave a short (6) carrier list of examples that prove that wrong....there are a whole bunch of other full service, full fare, airlines I could have added.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top