Pearson Transit Hub | ?m | ?s | GTAA

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
2,815
Location
Hamilton
I don't think he's saying the whole thing has to be a tunnel. Just the station at Pearson has to be underground and hence you would need to tunnel a section of it.
Where would you propose the tunnel start, and the tunnel ends? It's a worthy debate.

If the tunnel is short, those are rather sharp curves away from the existing surface rail corridor that forces a high speed train to slow down significantly. Best to not bother building the tunnel, if it is going to slow down the HSR train. Waste of money if the tunnel causes the HSR train to arrive later, no? You can make up the speed difference using a high-performance fast LINK upgrade, versus a tunnel curve forcing a HSR train to go slow. Look at how straight the railroad is north of Pearson. A high speed train takes 15 kilometers to accelerate to 300kph, and that's a straight line.
 
Last edited:

wopchop

Building Toronto
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
343
Location
Oakville
The spur and station at Pearson only cost $128m, so that's hardly a huge advantage.

Disadvantages;
- Woodbine would have terrible connectivity to everything south of Pearson.
- Woodbine station doesn't exist, Malton does.
- New grade separation at Carlingview Drive OR close Carlingview and create new road & sewer network for this new entertainment/convention hub. Lack of grade separation at Carlingview would also limit connectivity to the south.
- 427/407 Transitway Connections; Malton could easily be served by '407/427 Transitway' buses via Airport Road or Derry Road interchanges that already exist.
- Finch West LRT at south-side of Woodbine doesn't serve Malton, where some people actually live. A routing along Rexdale/Derry could still serve Woodbine Centre & Racetrack.
- International Centre is already a convention hub. Woodbine is not.
- Woodbine Live! and all previous Woodbine redevelopment proposals seem to be lacking 1 thing .... people who actually want to invest in this and make it happen.
- No public land at Woodbine. We already own land at Malton and at Renforth.
 
Last edited:

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,870
Reaction score
4,042
Location
Toronto
With so much of employment west and south of the airport, I'm not sure a hub in the northeast corner of the airport is that much better. A small improvement over Woodbine.

Though everything is a major challenge. The last mile issues are huge. I'd almost think you'd need to take the Finch LRT (or something) down 27, and right into Pearson somehow ... then keep going under the runways, down Britannia (under the 401) and out to Hurontario. And combine with the Eglinton LRT, which would go to Renforth intersect with the first LRT at the airport somehow, and keep going - perhaps to Malton GO.

I don't see whatever they do being a simple hub. It needs more.
 

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
2,815
Location
Hamilton
Yeah, very huge last-mile issues. It's certainly wholly possible Pearson warrants 2 multimodal hubs, and transit that connects the two, via some massive LINK upgrade or some other transit (like one of the LRTs). That idea is coming up a lot.
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
2,441
You're missing the spur. Woodbine would need station & platforms, while Malton would need a whole new spur to get to the terminals. So you'd be building a new spur and mothballing a perfectly good one. Cost advantage - Woodbine
Finch West LRT connection - Woodbine
dedicated BRT ramps from 427 (and from proposed 407 & 427 transitways) - Woodbine

If you're worried about public vs. private land...you trade planning approvals for land sale at Woodbine.

Woodbine is better from a connectivity standpoint and existing infrastructure into the airport. Development on the rest of the lands might not be imminent, but you've got more opportunity for an entertainment/convention hub there than you would building out the International Centre.
I would not be mothballing it....I would leave it as is...running a direct premium service from Union ....we could call it UPe.

all the other options, whether it is at Malton or Woodbine seem to require a change of train to a people mover type vehicle...that will never be something that puts the direct train link we have now out of business.
 

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
2,815
Location
Hamilton
all the other options, whether it is at Malton or Woodbine seem to require a change of train to a people mover type vehicle...that will never be something that puts the direct train link we have now out of business.
It doesn't have to.
The Pearson Rail Hub is not mutually exclusive of UPX, which could still go directly to Pearson for now. Basically the Weston transfer could change to a Woodbine Racetrack transfer.

What happens to UPX later after 2o, 30, 40 years can be decided later (e.g. HSR becoming UPX II)
 

DonValleyRainbow

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
1,894
Location
Kay Gardner Beltline Trail
Okay, so to clarify, my original post coould involve a tunnel, but wasn't committing to it. If we did find money for a tunnel, I'd advocate for one all the way between Renforth Gateway and Humber College, intersecting Malton. Dig it all at once, even though it would be for two lines. This is just rough, but at least gets the point across.

MZNL6P8.png


VIA/HSR, UPX and GO would stay in the same corridors.
 

AnarchoSocialist

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
447
Reaction score
0
To me any HSR Plan screams for a tunnel and underground station, this would also allow for service to the airport from communities to the West and North West of the airport. A multi modal terminal can then be incorporated into the ground level transit curb, routes served could be Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Finch West LRT, 427 GO, 407 GO, YRT Viva/Brampton Zum, Mississauga transit - Airport rd, ttc - Lawrence, airport express.

Couldn't agree more. If your goal is to make Pearson a truly multi-modal hub that captures all transit and all the various regional and intercity rail services it needs to be via a tunnel. Anything else will just be a janky user experience that people will not use. UP express will succeed because it's fast and simple. If you create a new station that is not at least as fast and simple as that you will fail and it will be a total waste of money.

A tunnel and station will be very expensive even if it takes the shortest necessary routes possible. And there is far better uses for money right now then that. In 20 years you this idea will make perfect sense in everyway.
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
2,441
It doesn't have to.
The Pearson Rail Hub is not mutually exclusive of UPX, which could still go directly to Pearson for now. Basically the Weston transfer could change to a Woodbine Racetrack transfer.

What happens to UPX later after 2o, 30, 40 years can be decided later (e.g. HSR becoming UPX II)
Can trains coming from the west even get onto that spur? Doesn't it curve from an WB track onto a,generally, SB spur?
 

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,362
Reaction score
2,050
Where would you propose the tunnel start, and the tunnel ends? It's a worthy debate.

If the tunnel is short, those are rather sharp curves away from the existing surface rail corridor that forces a high speed train to slow down significantly. Best to not bother building the tunnel, if it is going to slow down the HSR train. Waste of money if the tunnel causes the HSR train to arrive later, no? You can make up the speed difference using a high-performance fast LINK upgrade, versus a tunnel curve forcing a HSR train to go slow. Look at how straight the railroad is north of Pearson. A high speed train takes 15 kilometers to accelerate to 300kph, and that's a straight line.
HSR trains typically only reach their top speeds in the countryside and slow down significantly in major urban centres. I recall seeing somewhere that the Weston sub rebuild supports 120 km/h (not totally sure on that number), so HSR trains won't be going any faster than that anyway. There's no reason that a tunnel through the airport couldn't be built to the same standard.
 

urbanfan89

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
641
Reaction score
8
Location
North York
I don't think it's feasible to shut down and extend the Link Train. The cost of effectively building a brand new system would be prohibitive. Instead, I think the Eglinton LRT should have one branch end at Renforth, and another following Carlingview. It *should* fit into the ground level of T1 and a tunnel would be needed to fit under the T3 parking. Then it winds up to Woodbine. From here, the Finch LRT will be extended from Humber College. Some Finch West LRT trains will run until Renforth, while some Eglinton LRT trains will run until Woodbine. A new hub at Woodbine allows GO/Via passengers to transfer easily with one stop.
 

jamincan

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
230
Reaction score
78
Location
Kitchener
If the GTAA is spearheading building a multimodal hub at Pearson, I'm quite sure that means the hub would actually be at Pearson and not somewhere else. Maybe if it were a Metrolinx initiative, but the OP is about the GTAA wanting to turn Pearson into a multimodal hub.

With that in mind, I think the most likely thing would be that the UPX tracks would be reused to connect Pearson the the Georgetown corridor and then a new multimodal hub be connected to it somewhere in the vicinity of the two terminals. Yes, high speed trains would have to slow down to turn onto the spur, but they'd be slowing down to stop at the station anyway, so the lost time is less than it otherwise would be. Incidentally, reusing the UPX spur is probably also a lot cheaper than most of the ideas being thrown out there as well.
 

urbanfan89

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
641
Reaction score
8
Location
North York
^ I think that opportunity is simply gone, unless the GTAA and Metrolinx play Sim City like China or Dubai. It's simply not politically justifiable to rip up a spur which is still brand new. But it's definitely within GTAA's interest to reduce congestion on surrounding roads and thus improve transit options beyond a dinky bus stop in the basement.

But what *does* it have to gain by hosting a transit hub on its own land? The hub will not generate by itself any revenue (aside from a convenience store on the platform). As long as travel times are reasonable, YYZ has no need to become a (ground) transit hub by itself. It has a near-monopoly of travel options of 8 million people.
 

TheTigerMaster

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
12,947
Reaction score
5,855
Location
Best Toronto
I don't think it's feasible to shut down and extend the Link Train. The cost of effectively building a brand new system would be prohibitive. Instead, I think the Eglinton LRT should have one branch end at Renforth, and another following Carlingview. It *should* fit into the ground level of T1 and a tunnel would be needed to fit under the T3 parking. Then it winds up to Woodbine. From here, the Finch LRT will be extended from Humber College. Some Finch West LRT trains will run until Renforth, while some Eglinton LRT trains will run until Woodbine. A new hub at Woodbine allows GO/Via passengers to transfer easily with one stop.

I'm not a big fan of extending ECLRT through the airport. It would be expensive and not move many people. The ECLRT Travel Demand Forecasting Report had only 500 eastbound riders at AM peak hour at Martin Grove.
 

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
2,815
Location
Hamilton
Couldn't agree more. If your goal is to make Pearson a truly multi-modal hub that captures all transit and all the various regional and intercity rail services it needs to be via a tunnel. Anything else will just be a janky user experience that people will not use. UP express will succeed because it's fast and simple. If you create a new station that is not at least as fast and simple as that you will fail and it will be a total waste of money.
With the current UPX, you still have to hop onto a LINK train to get to the other concourse. We're just shifting the transfer point a little further away. You'd still end up at your favourite Pearson concourse faster than today's UPX, if running a HSR connecting to an upgraded faster LINK train. A compromise could be a straight LINK tunnel, and UPX could still continue over the spur, so there's no shutdown of existing services for a few decades until superior services (e.g. all day frequent high speed trains)
 

Top