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

[rbt]

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"?

GTAA finances are prepared in partnership with the airlines. Air Canada, WestJet, and others will have had significant input into this plan from a funding perspective and, presumably Air Canada decided their customers can deal with higher fees during construction in an effort to obtain higher growth in the future.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

For us to take GTAA's transit ambitions seriously, there needs to be some indication that they plan to solve the last-mile problem. The airport area is huge. This one transit hub will service a fraction of the airport's employment. How do they plan to serve the rest of the airport lands?

 

[JohnnyRenton]

GTAA finances are prepared in partnership with the airlines. Air Canada, WestJet, and others will have had significant input into this plan from a funding perspective and, presumably Air Canada decided their customers can deal with higher fees during construction in an effort to obtain higher growth in the future.

Interesting. Without knowing the exact details of what a rail connection to the airport would look like one could assume that the airlines have already, in essence, agreed to the idea of future HSR/HFR/RER being a key part of the transportation network at Pearson. It makes me even more curious now as to what kind of a role of a role the airlines might take in HSR development.

 

[crs1026]

I'm still trying to figure how anyone is going to fit a through rail line in this jungle of highways. HFR/HSR will need nice easy curves, too.

- Paul

 

[JohnnyRenton]

I'm still trying to figure how anyone is going to fit a through rail line in this jungle of highways. HFR/HSR will need nice easy curves, too.

- Paul
View attachment 98147

The question isn't really how, it's how much. Getting a line in and out of Pearson will be very expensive. If this was going to be purely funded with public funds it would probably never happen. But with the GTAA involved that greatly increases the chances of a project like that going forward.

 

[44 North]

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.

Hah, nobody is pedantic in this case. The area is probably the most hardcore transportation nightmare there is, and the render doesn't explain much at all. I was mostly being facetious, however I do enjoy the picture...mostly because it makes the Pearson area look less grotesque. And it includes an elevated Crosstown, which seems like a departure from the original tram-style route that never made much sense for such an area.

Their plans for HSR/HFR is still very much lost on me however.

 

[animatronic]

For us to take GTAA's transit ambitions seriously, there needs to be some indication that they plan to solve the last-mile problem. The airport area is huge. This one transit hub will service a fraction of the airport's employment. How do they plan to serve the rest of the airport lands?

An alternate view is that YYZ needs to get the last mile moved off their property, and they need someone to help pay for it.

By definition a mega-hub has lots of through traffic. That requires lots of international and transborder connection points, convenient international transfers and high-end on-site amenities. You also need space on the property for fleet ops, and YYZ isn't anywhere close to capacity there. If the mega-hub concept works, half the passengers (or more) won't even set foot in the transit hub building.

T1 reimagined as a shopping and services destination for layover travelers has a lot of potential. It has a compact terminal footprint with gates all relatively close together. There is lots of space for amenities and there's a critical element of US pre-clearance. In NA right now you have to rely on JFK, ATL, LAX and ORD, and none of them would be as attractive as this model. Still not as nice as a big new Asian airport but that's not the competition. Transit connections to Toronto and region are still important (esp. with a revitalized convention centre downtown) but that's not the main reason for YYZ to pursue the new model.

By moving all of the terminating passenger traffic and processing off campus they make things a bit more inconvenient for the Toronto traveller, but dramatically improve airside ops. YYZ makes more money on a connecting traveller than they do for a terminating traveller, so this is solid business for them. What they need to do to really make money is get government to pay for some of the changes, and the transit hub idea accomplishes that.

Now, there's nothing nefarious about this plan - the end result is an improved airport for everyone. But let's not forget the real driver for these proposed changes.

 

[gweed123]

Pretty interesting stuff. The biggest question I have is where the heck does the 409 go?! It looks like it has at least 3 lanes in each direction going into that tunnel. Is it doing a parking loop underneath? Connecting to the infield cargo area? Or is it being punched all the way under to the 401?

 

[animatronic]

Pretty interesting stuff. The biggest question I have is where the heck does the 409 go?! It looks like it has at least 3 lanes in each direction going into that tunnel. Is it doing a parking loop underneath? Connecting to the infield cargo area? Or is it being punched all the way under to the 401?

There's no visible parking so I assume there are a few floors underneath everything - does looks like that from a few of the renderings

 

[crs1026]

By moving all of the terminating passenger traffic and processing off campus they make things a bit more inconvenient for the Toronto traveller, but dramatically improve airside ops. YYZ makes more money on a connecting traveller than they do for a terminating traveller, so this is solid business for them. What they need to do to really make money is get government to pay for some of the changes, and the transit hub idea accomplishes that.

Now, there's nothing nefarious about this plan - the end result is an improved airport for everyone. But let's not forget the real driver for these proposed changes.

Thank you. This fills in a whole lot of gaps for me.

By "the real driver", you mean the airport reconfiguration, right? So as usual the public pitch is the opposite of what is stated....just like a "Right to Work" state is one where workers have fewest rights. We build a billion dollar air terminal to house the terminating travel interface, then we put some bus stops outside and call it a "transit hub". And send the bill to government, conveniently overlooking that airports are supposed to be financing their own operation without subsidy.

I'm OK with Pearson working to be a major international air hub for North America - that means Toronto travellers get the greatest number of direct flights to the greatest number of destinations. But there has to be transparency around the impact on the Toronto air traveller. If the new configuration makes their departure cheaper (lower user fee) or more convenient (faster onboarding and customs clearance), then sell it on that basis. If the impacts are otherwise - longer walk to the gate, the existing parking garage is demolished, etc - that has to be on the table.

Also, if this is going to charge a billion dollars or more to the public purse - then presumably we have the opportunity to mull over whether a true HSR between Windsor and Quebec City could pull enough regional air travellers out of Pearson to cover its costs - and could we achieve that for less public investment than a Pearson makeover. And if we remove that many travellers, will the current air terminals suffice.

Meanwhile, Miway, BT, and TTC are pressured to put together a service plan for the employment area around the airport that doesn't cost a fortune....and we run a free shuttle bus from T1 and T3 to the Malton GO station to connect with RER and HSR. And LRT happens, but without a billion dollar stop at the Airport.


- Paul

 

[TransitBart]

And - what's the inside walking distance from the transit bays to the farthest gate at Terminal 1?

- Paul

Long. Newark long.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Yes, this would be a terrible airport to fly out of from the city. Move the existing transit connections about 700 meters further from the gates, don't build any people movers, and tell folks to walk a couple of kilometres through a single route of bridges. What could go wrong?

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

…and in fact we've put up a second story on the plan, focusing more on the transit:

GTAA Unveils Vision For Multi-Modal Transit Hub at Pearson

That first one is more about changes to the airport itself.

42

"When Toronto Mayor John Tory proposed extending the Crosstown LRT to the airport area last year..."

Uuuuggghhhh....Transit City blah blah blah...

 

[urbanfan89]

The longest walking distance - from the Viscount Road LINK station to the end of the easternmost pier in Terminal 1 - is 2.0 km. A normal person, walking non-stop, requires 20 minutes. Literally no other airport in the world - even Beijing Terminal 3 - requires walks of such distances.

Also, doesn't funnelling all passengers through a single security checkpoint create a single point of failure? All it takes is one person to yell bomb at the checkpoint and 10000+ journeys will be disrupted.

Another thing - the spread of self-serve baggage drops will drastically reduce floor space required for check-in within the existing terminal. There simply won't be a need for remote check-in, as it will require massive fixed costs with marginal benefit.

 

[jje1000]

The question isn't really how, it's how much. Getting a line in and out of Pearson will be very expensive. If this was going to be purely funded with public funds it would probably never happen. But with the GTAA involved that greatly increases the chances of a project like that going forward.

I would imagine that the majority (if not all) of the new transit lines into the hub would be funded by public dollars- hence the reason why the GTAA is getting this organized and asking governments to move this along.

I would also imagine that though not shown in this plan, a new (undeground?) shuttle system would be implemented to replace the LINK train. It would be insanity to imagine funneling everyone to the gates by foot.