Toronto Pearson International Airport

[TransitBart]

From my reading of the document, Pier G is currently under construction in the form of a tripling of capacity of Gate 193. In short, it'll be a long time before you see wide-bodies in that particular location on the tarmac.

Either you are aliv or you are dead.
Either you are sick or you are well.
Either you are pregnant or you are not.
Either you are building Pier G or you are not.

What on earth does tripling the capacity of 193 mean?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Either you are aliv or you are dead.
Either you are sick or you are well.
Either you are pregnant or you are not.
Either you are building Pier G or you are not.

What on earth does tripling the capacity of 193 mean?

+1

No half measures. Build pier G, incorporate the current US Custom Border pre-clearance, and move trans-border (US) operations to pier G

 

[Filip]

This master plan seems different than what was presented over the past year.

Far less ambitious but then again a good move by the GTAA. The last time they were ambitious it took over a decade to get their finances in order b

 

[thethrows]

I would say this Masterplan has taken a completely different direction compared to the past two that I’ve seen. It’s more practical than visionary. And beyond talking about possibilities for a build-out in the “medium-to-long-term”, it doesn’t really get into details (“ we are evaluating multiple options”).

Focus is on quick wins with lower capital expenditures. In fact, they rather call it an expansion of the “Gate 193 Extension” than a new pier build-out. Any expansion will be based on a “just-in-time” approach. And generally, the aim is to get better utilisation and efficiencies of existing assets than grand schemes of expansion. It’s interesting that this Masterplan projects YOY growth higher than the previous iteration, but anticipates less/limited capital expenditure on the airside system and terminals (it doesn’t provide budget information, I am extrapolating based on their suggested build-out). I don’t have a problem with this approach, as prices for using the airport will likely go down. I just think that the passenger experience may suffer with the expected LOS.

Even the transit centre will proceed meekly. Perhaps first as a bus loop, then as a garage, with incremental build-out to the vision we’ve seen in other GTAA materials. Again, probably a prudent approach, as who knows what the timelines are for all this transit infrastructure.

Lastly, this Masterplan also seems less polished than previous, does anyone know who the authors are? I know Arup was involved in previous iterations, but perhaps they’ve gone with another Consultant this time.

 

[muller877]

I would say this Masterplan has taken a completely different direction compared to the past two that I’ve seen. It’s more practical than visionary. And beyond talking about possibilities for a build-out in the “medium-to-long-term”, it doesn’t really get into details (“ we are evaluating multiple options”).

Focus is on quick wins with lower capital expenditures. In fact, they rather call it an expansion of the “Gate 193 Extension” than a new pier build-out. Any expansion will be based on a “just-in-time” approach. And generally, the aim is to get better utilisation and efficiencies of existing assets than grand schemes of expansion. It’s interesting that this Masterplan projects YOY growth higher than the previous iteration, but anticipates less/limited capital expenditure on the airside system and terminals (it doesn’t provide budget information, I am extrapolating based on their suggested build-out). I don’t have a problem with this approach, as prices for using the airport will likely go down. I just think that the passenger experience may suffer with the expected LOS.

Even the transit centre will proceed meekly. Perhaps first as a bus loop, then as a garage, with incremental build-out to the vision we’ve seen in other GTAA materials. Again, probably a prudent approach, as who knows what the timelines are for all this transit infrastructure.

Lastly, this Masterplan also seems less polished than previous, does anyone know who the authors are? I know Arup was involved in previous iterations, but perhaps they’ve gone with another Consultant this time.

I was trying to figure out where the RapidAir gates will be relocated to once T1 and T3 are merged. But no indication if there would be a Cdn area in the Gate 193 or would they be shoved to T3. I agree...not a very comprehensive document and does not share the long-term vision for the airport.

But it will keep the rents low (and the cost of travel). One good thing!

 

[jje1000]

From pg. 64 for short-medium term expansions. Definitely not as ambitious- looks like G becomes a far smaller wing (for now), rather than the copy of E that was originally envisioned. A lot of the upgrades will apparently make better use of existing spaces, rather than create new ones. Of course, it doesn't stir feelings much, but is far more practical- I hope they bring back the original architects of T1 to integrate the new designs into the current architecture (rather than this being yet more typical airport aggregate).

Pg. 63:

Collectively, these technological advances and process changes have major implications for terminal design. In a future environment where passengers can check in remotely, send their bags in advance, use self-driving cars to get to and from the airport, and need fewer airline and security staff to make their way onto the aircraft, terminals will undoubtedly look very different. The need for large parking facilities, check-in counters, bulky kiosks, security screening infrastructure – and indeed many of the walls and physical barriers in place today– may no longer exist.

Pg. 64:

Building on many of the initiatives outlined in earlier sections, in the short and medium term we plan to increase Toronto Pearson’s capacity by physically expanding our terminals and making technological and process changes to improve throughput of passengers and baggage. Figure 7-4 illustrates our plans to develop the following aspects of physical infrastructure:

• In the area east of Terminal 1, we plan to expand the Gate 193 Extension, expand the terminal processor and construct a new Concourse H, as well as extending the apron areas to the east and northeast.
• We plan to add gate capacity between Pier A and Terminal 3, and subsequently develop the areas west of Pier A.
• We expect to link Terminal 1 and Terminal 3 by expanding their existing structures to the west and the east, respectively. Construction of the proposed regional transit centre to the north of the existing terminals (see“Chapter 8. Ground Access System”) would allow us to start incremental development of additional passenger-processing capacity.

For the transit centre on pg. 88:

Development to 2027.

We’ve proposed that phase one of the regional transit centre would commence operations in conjunction with the earliest potential light rail connection to Toronto Pearson: the extension of the Eglinton Crosstown/West LRT. Discussions with Metrolinx indicate that the LRT extension will take from seven to 10 years to design and build following a funding decision. We therefore expect it to be in place by 2027. The facility will be built to accommodate at least one additional light rail link – potentially the Finch West extension. However, we don’t expect that connection to be developed until after 2027.

We’re currently protecting lands for a new transit- only bridge over Hwy 401 to serve the proposed Eglinton LRT extension. The bridge would cross the highway parallel to Renforth Drive, running from the new Renforth Station on Eglinton Avenue, up Commerce Boulevard to the area adjacent to the GTAA Administration Building (on Convair Drive).

In the near future, even before the first Eglinton LRT line connects to Toronto Pearson, we plan to begin facilitating bus connections to the new service. While construction of the initial phase of the regional transit centre is underway, we’ll provide either an off-street bus terminal or enhanced bus stop facilities on Viscount Road (or possibly in Area 6A) for passengers travelling to the westernmost Eglinton LRT station. This will provide near-term connectivity to the TTC while helping to seed demand for the transit options to come.

In our plan, the initial phase of the regional transit centre will be built in conjunction with the first phase of the proposed T-New facility. Air passengers who reach the regional hub by transit will have the option of completing check-in at T-New before proceeding to their departure gates in Terminal 1 or 3.

In addition to offering light rail connectivity, the transit centre’s first phase will be designed to
accommodate a heavy-rail station for RER and HSR services along the Kitchener GO corridor. As discussed above, this RER/HSR connectivity will require realignment of existing tracks or a new branch of the main line; we project that this work can be completed as early as 2027.

During the initial phase of construction, we don’t anticipate major changes to nearby roads. We may modify traffic signals at some intersections to facilitate increased bus movements and
growth in traffic volume. We’ll also consider localized road improvements on Viscount Road and in Area 6A, proceeding with modest adaptations if our analysis indicates that this will help to accommodate increased bus movements and associated on-street passenger loading and unloading.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I was trying to figure out where the RapidAir gates will be relocated to once T1 and T3 are merged. But no indication if there would be a Cdn area in the Gate 193 or would they be shoved to T3. I agree...not a very comprehensive document and does not share the long-term vision for the airport.

But it will keep the rents low (and the cost of travel). One good thing!

Couldn't the rapidair gates go into the portion connecting terminal 1 and terminal 3?

Also keep in mind this is also a draft of the master plan. Presumably the full master plan will be released and have a bit more meat to the bones.

 

[jcam]

Looks to me that by building H new around the back of G, they've decided to hold off on investing in a large pier for G but at the same time are future-proofing to eventually do it.

 

[Streety McCarface]

With this type of setup, you wouldn't be able to accommodate anything larger than an Embraer Regional Jet in the new Pier G. Don't half of the flights to the US use 737s, A321s or 767s (777s to Honolulu and West US during peak periods)? The pier G may be able to accommodate flights to New York and Philadelphia might be fine, but not throughout the rest of the US. Part of Pier F would still be needed for many transborder flights.

 

[Ahmet Kul]

Link:
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases...656467843.html


Détails:
A total of 36.0 million passengers travelled through Toronto Pearson International Airport in the first nine months of 2017 as the international sector increased by 1.7 million passengers or 8.0 per cent and the domestic sector increased by 439,000 passengers or 3.4 per cent over the same period in 2016. A total of 13.6 million passengers travelled through the Airport during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 as the international sector increased by 414,000 passengers or 5.3 per cent and the domestic sector increased by 166,000 passengers or 3.2 per cent over the same period in 2016. Both the third quarter and first nine months of 2017 recorded the highest number of domestic and international passengers.

YYZ approaching 48M + for 2017 and could hit 50M next year..Time to build the hub now..

36 million passengers is a crazy number for today. I think we will need an another international airport soon.

 

[superman]

That gate 193 area is awful currently, parts of the hallway isn't even like 3 meters wide / run of out seats for waiting passengers with little amenities. I hope if they're planning to expand capacity, they at least make that area more palatable and tied in with the overall terminal aesthetic.

See the back of the hall and the seating: http://www.ledcor.com/getmedia/e2dc...width=960&height=600&ext=.jpg&maxsidesize=960

 

[TransitBart]

What a disappointment.

 

[allabootmatt]

That gate 193 area is awful currently, parts of the hallway isn't even like 3 meters wide / run of out seats for waiting passengers with little amenities. I hope if they're planning to expand capacity, they at least make that area more palatable and tied in with the overall terminal aesthetic.

See the back of the hall and the seating: http://www.ledcor.com/getmedia/e2dc...width=960&height=600&ext=.jpg&maxsidesize=960

Wasn’t the hall depicted in that image *just* replaced by a more-permanent structure? I can’t say first-hand but that looks like the old (circa 2010?) US commuter concourse, which was indeed a pretty grim joint.

Upgrading the facilities for those small-city US flights really deserves to be a GTAA/Air Canada priority. AC is talking a lot about marketing Toronto’s huge longhaul network in American cities without many international flights, but to do so you need the two legs of the journey to be at least broadly equivalent in standard.

As for the new plan as a whole, I am very surprised there won’t be a real Pier G, at least for now, though perhaps GTAA didn’t want to lose the existing space for US commuter gates. One hopes that the Gate 193 extension will allow somewhat more of F to be used for international flights, relieving the crazy evening crowding in the hammerhead. Air Canada is flying very, very big and dense planes to a large number of destinations, and the impact on the terminal facilities when they’re trying to load three or more 400+ seat 777s at once around 6-7pm is pretty extreme, before you even consider all the foreign carriers at T1.

Interesting the plan doesn’t state what H will be used for. I could see it being a new transborder facility, allowing all of F to go international, not unlike the situation in Montreal where US flights are sort of off to the side, rather than in the middle as at Pearson T1. In that circumstance GTAA could in theory make all of D, E, and F one huge connected concourse, again as in Montreal, where you can walk freely between all the departure gates except the transborder ones. Since Canada doesn’t do outbound passport control, there’s no reason that international and domestic passengers need to be segregated on departure. It would simplify passenger flows and might allow greater economies of scale for security, etc.

 

[TransitBart]

Wasn’t the hall depicted in that image *just* replaced by a more-permanent structure? I can’t say first-hand but that looks like the old (circa 2010?) US commuter concourse, which was indeed a pretty grim joint.

Upgrading the facilities for those small-city US flights really deserves to be a GTAA/Air Canada priority. AC is talking a lot about marketing Toronto’s huge longhaul network in American cities without many international flights, but to do so you need the two legs of the journey to be at least broadly equivalent in standard.

As for the new plan as a whole, I am very surprised there won’t be a real Pier G, at least for now, though perhaps GTAA didn’t want to lose the existing space for US commuter gates. One hopes that the Gate 193 extension will allow somewhat more of F to be used for international flights, relieving the crazy evening crowding in the hammerhead. Air Canada is flying very, very big and dense planes to a large number of destinations, and the impact on the terminal facilities when they’re trying to load three or more 400+ seat 777s at once around 6-7pm is pretty extreme, before you even consider all the foreign carriers at T1.

Interesting the plan doesn’t state what H will be used for. I could see it being a new transborder facility, allowing all of F to go international, not unlike the situation in Montreal where US flights are sort of off to the side, rather than in the middle as at Pearson T1. In that circumstance GTAA could in theory make all of D, E, and F one huge connected concourse, again as in Montreal, where you can walk freely between all the departure gates except the transborder ones. Since Canada doesn’t do outbound passport control, there’s no reason that international and domestic passengers need to be segregated on departure. It would simplify passenger flows and might allow greater economies of scale for security, etc.

Could not agree more. I am choosing flights at more unusual times to avoid the slam in the Hammerhead when AC is loading multiple 777 flights. And I also agree that bringing someone from the US to land in a Quonset hut and then get mashed into the Hammerhead can't really be in AC's best interest. It will be interesting how this shakes out.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I think that there might be some logic in building Pier G but make it practically identical to Pier F. Have the hammerhead ends for international flights (One for transatlantic and one for transpacific/South American flights) and have the inner corridors for transborder flights (maybe keep some swing gates in the hammerheads to accommodate an extra large transborder plane like a 77W bound for LA or Honolulu). Since pretty much all international flights use extremely large planes (767-300ER or larger), this would be an advantage as the hammerheads can more easily accommodate these types of large planes. Having the inner corridors slated for transborder makes sense because they use midsize planes (B737, MD 80, A320) on most of these routes. Small commuter routes can be left to Pier H. This makes sense for preclearance because you can keep them in the same location and people wouldn't have to walk any further to get to a gate in the transborder area. International flights would just require a minute journey on a rapid moving walkway to reach the hammerheads (For pier F and H).