Pearson Transit Hub | ?m | ?s | GTAA

Filip

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
870
Location
Београд
I'm going to resurface just to comment on this plan... nice to see some outside the box thinking from our public institutions.

This solves a couple of problems for Pearson in one go:

1) consolidating transit services in one spot for both terminals (and including through heavy rail service).
2) centralizing central processor functions (security, customs, etc) for both terminals (allowing them to functionally act as one - huge operational win).
3) liberating significant new gate space by eliminating the landside roads/parking. This allows the airport to expand seamlessly within the existing terminal footprint.
4) liberating significant new retail space from what was formerly central processing areas. The vaulted area currently used for checkin could be quite the retail/public space.

Now of course this asks more questions:
1) is there only one landside/airside connection point? (to T3). I feel that's inadequate.
2) what is the routing of the trains? Is this a spur or a through line?
3) are they planning to redevelop or sell airport property to get some cash flow?
4) how will US cleared passengers be segregated from domestic/international? Landside in the new processor or airside in the existing terminals?

Anyway... this is a great plan that covers the bulk of the airport's pain points and sets it beautifully to be a global hub handling 80 million pax. Looking forward to more detail.
 

JohnnyRenton

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
54
3) are they planning to redevelop or sell airport property to get some cash flow?
In addition to that I could see them charging a small fee for each passenger that uses the airport station, or simply charging the agencies that use the station an annual fee in lieu of the GTAA covering a significant cost of the project. I am sure many people would not be behind such an arrangement but it could be a realistic and fair option.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,156
Reaction score
7,457
In addition to that I could see them charging a small fee for each passenger that uses the airport station, or simply charging the agencies that use the station an annual fee in lieu of the GTAA covering a significant cost of the project. I am sure many people would not be behind such an arrangement but it could be a realistic and fair option.
They kind of already do this via the fees charged when you buy a ticket.

I was going to suggest a toll on use of the curbside auto pickup/dropoff ...... too soon?

- Paul
 

animatronic

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
3,365
Reaction score
1,917
It's going to be a long way down from the terminal to the planes on the new inside aprons.

Movement of people will be very interesting - under the current model they'll need to segregate US from Can/Int'l passengers outbound and Can from US/Int'l inbound. Sounds like a two-storey pipeline between the landside and the terminals, one for each direction and divided in half.

Plus a massive luggage pipeline - presumably underground. If you thought it took a long time to get your luggage today, wait for the new world.

To get around that on outbound they'd need the US to give out pre-clearance "passes" on the landside and then collect them at the US gate entrances, if that's even possible. If they left inbound immigration in place there's still the luggage to deal with - right now they need to keep populations separate right up until leaving the luggage area.

Perhaps they plan to put all the transborder into T3 to keep it simpler, but regardless it'll be interesting to see how they plan to pull it off.
 
Last edited:

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
2,441
Any chance this is just the GTAA saying "mmmm, someday soon we will have paid for our last renovations.....we will either have to stop charging those user fees or we can keep charging them and build the empire we control even bigger"?
 

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
4,204
So what's the next step in this? Does Mississauga/Toronto/Brampton need to amend any of their Official Plans/Transit Master Plans/etc to adopt these requests/suggestions? Could we see these infra items show up in the spring prov/fed budgets? Wait for the HSR report to confirm it'll swing by the airport hub?
 

JohnnyRenton

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
54
They kind of already do this via the fees charged when you buy a ticket.
- Paul
I was thinking a fee for rail service that uses the terminal. A VIA passenger could have an additional $0.50 - $1.00 added per trip if their final destination was Pearson. And GO could simply pay an annual fee. Something along those lines could at the very least cover the operational costs associated with the new station.

So what's the next step in this? Does Mississauga/Toronto/Brampton need to amend any of their Official Plans/Transit Master Plans/etc to adopt these requests/suggestions? Could we see these infra items show up in the spring prov/fed budgets? Wait for the HSR report to confirm it'll swing by the airport hub?
If the GTAA is serious about a transit hub then the various levels of government need to get involved quickly to ensure that this is something that will suit their needs in addition to that of the GTAA. This is a big project so it won't happen overnight but within a year, or two at most, an official plan should be in place.
 

DonValleyRainbow

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,893
Location
Kay Gardner Beltline Trail
If you look closely you can see the orange line you identified as the FWLRT/ECLRT curl around the office buildings and then run alongside airport rd
Yup, like on this map from the GTAA

Yeah, I was aware of that but I was lazy with my line drawing on paint.

The link train is gone. One assumes lots of people movers instead. Maybe underground train like ATL?
Well, let's look at the distances we're talking about:
  • Rail/LRT platform to southeast end of T3: ~620m
  • SE T3 to middle of T1: + ~720m
  • Middle T1 to end of south extension: ~720m
So let's do the maths. If you took transit to this hub and needed to get to a gate at (T3 end - T1 middle - T1 end):
  • Walking (5 km/h): 7m 26s - 16m 5s - 24m 43s
  • ThyssenKrupp Express Walkway (7km/h):
  • Stationary: 5m 19s - 11m 19s - 17m 19s​
  • Walking: 3m 6s - 6m 42s - 10m 18s​
  • People Mover (35 km/h): 1m 4s - 2m 18s - 3m 32s
 

JohnnyRenton

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
54
It will be interesting to see if this proposal by the GTAA brings about any kind of a response from the airlines. They have historically been cold to the idea of HSR in Canada. But, if the GTAA is serious about creating a transit hub that could benefit the TKL high speed service, VIA HFR, and increased GO service, it could give the concept of HSR a sense of inevitability that has never actually existed before that could make airlines reconsider their position on it.

Having the airlines no longer be oppositional to the idea would be a big boost to the idea of HSR in itself. And if they decided that they wanted a piece of it, in some form or another, that could really be a major turning point, and a potential source of some amount of funding for infrastructure and/or equipment as well.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,156
Reaction score
7,457
Renderings are still fun. If a picture is worth a thousand words, rendering is worth maybe 10,000.
Renderings are constructive if they generate detailed thinking of all the issues and ideas and problems that need to be worked out. Less so if they are simply pretty artwork for an imaginary case.

Call me pedantic, but whenever a trendy buzzword is slapped on a proposal we are entitled to test whether the proposal fits the title. Does this idea actually deliver better transportation to the surrounding employment area? Does it bring transit from more directions effectively? To me, the LRT routing is awkward and roundabout. If HSR/HFR is not routed through this hub, then the hub doesn't help much. Same with UPE/RER.

It's interesting that GTAA is spinning this as a "transit hub" rather than just a plain airport expansion. The underlying focus seems to be that Pearson is reaching capacity and the best solution is to turn the existing termini into somewhat enlarged "islands", with a new central entry/exit portal. That's sensible, and the transit agenda and the capacity agenda are complementary, so this is all good. But - I'm not seeing the transit improvements yet.

After all, a six-bay sawtooth concrete slab platform with some roofing is a transit "hub" if the right routes meet there. This is a whole lot more money than that.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

JohnnyRenton

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
54
It's interesting that GTAA is spinning this as a "transit hub" rather than just a plain airport expansion. The underlying focus seems to be that Pearson is reaching capacity and the best solution is to turn the existing termini into somewhat enlarged "islands", with a new central entry/exit portal. That's sensible, and the transit agenda and the capacity agenda are complementary, so this is all good. But - I'm not seeing the transit details yet.
Very true. This doesn't cry out as a well fleshed out plan, at least in terms of the transit details. What it does come across as is the GTAA spreading the message that "We know there are lots of transit agencies that want to bring their service to Pearson and we are now ready to play ball. So give us a ring and lets work this out."
 

dunkalunk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
61
The CBC article mentioned renderings. Was there moe than the one that's designed to convey "ooh, shiny"?
 

Top