Pearson Transit Hub | ?m | ?s | GTAA

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,665
Reaction score
2,896

Mrgeosim

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
14
Reaction score
17
I don't think it needs to be looked at quite so rigidly. If it's built as shown on the map then trains can be routed as required; some Kitchener line trains can go directly to the airport while others bypass it. With an upgraded, electrified Kitchener line having multiple train types, it would make sense to route at least some of them through the airport. It wouldn't add much travel time to through passengers.


In other parts of the world HSR trains routinely run on conventional tracks at conventional speeds. They slow down in major cities so they'll be going at conventional speeds through Mississauga and Etobicoke regardless. Plus any train that takes the diversion would be stopping at Pearson anyway, so the curves don't need to be built for high speed.
you're absolutely right about the feasibility of running HSR on conventional tracks but actually having HSR on that corridor isn't happening anytime soon. It was a boondoggle proposal by the Liberal government to win seat along the 401 and it was (thankfully) scrapped by the current Ford government.

I'd bet (pun intended) that the folks working on the Woodbine Racetrack GO station will try to find a way to be directly connected to the Pearson Transit Hub. The prospect of international visitors having seamless access to their casino is too lucrative to ignore. Perhaps the developers would even help fund an underground GO station to make it possible. Given the plan to overhaul the UP Express, it wouldn't surprise me to see drastic changes like that.
 

reteequa

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
113
Reaction score
263
you're absolutely right about the feasibility of running HSR on conventional tracks but actually having HSR on that corridor isn't happening anytime soon. It was a boondoggle proposal by the Liberal government to win seat along the 401 and it was (thankfully) scrapped by the current Ford government.

I'd bet (pun intended) that the folks working on the Woodbine Racetrack GO station will try to find a way to be directly connected to the Pearson Transit Hub. The prospect of international visitors having seamless access to their casino is too lucrative to ignore. Perhaps the developers would even help fund an underground GO station to make it possible. Given the plan to overhaul the UP Express, it wouldn't surprise me to see drastic changes like that.
I fail to see how you think cancelling faster, more reliable and environmentally friendly rail service in the busiest area of the country should receive a thanks. The ford government is not making anything better by cancelling multiple projects in the region. Who knows how much more damage he will do in the next two years.
 

Mrgeosim

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
14
Reaction score
17
I fail to see how you think cancelling faster, more reliable and environmentally friendly rail service in the busiest area of the country should receive a thanks. The ford government is not making anything better by cancelling multiple projects in the region. Who knows how much more damage he will do in the next two years.
Because a HSR line would divert much needed finances away from high priority projects, which is a lengthy list. And I'm not sure if you've been to London or Windsor, but they aren't exactly bustling metropolises (no offense meant to these cities at all). If we're going to build a HSR line, it would make far more sense to build it East towards Ottawa and Montreal, but again, there are bigger fish to fry.
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,625
Reaction score
1,154
Location
Burlington
I think the likely service plan with that type of configuration would be that both the current Kitchener Line track and the Pearson diversion track would be used. Express services (some GO trains from Kitchener, some HSR/HFR trains) would bypass it, while more local services (GO RER) as well as some HSR/HFR trips would utilize it.

Though I think from an alignment (both in terms of geometry and cost) it would make more sense to go underneath the Pearson lands instead of under Airport Rd. That way you could build that section mostly as cut and cover.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,100
Reaction score
7,298
^Let's leave the HSR/HFR/yes/no discussion for the proper thread. The point for the discussion of the hub is, if there is a Pearson Hub then any HFR/HSR that emerges ought to serve the airport, it's just too strong a potential market to do otherwise.
If one envisions RER as a frequent but not necessarily crush-loaded service, then it too should divert into the hub. But, there will be many peak trains carrying commuters to places further out which won't all need to stop at the airport. Maybe a few should, to serve airport employment needs, but some can just blast on by on the present main line.
I will make the pitch for using RER to serve the market between the airport and the intermediate stops which UPE has served to date, and having UPE not stop at those any more. Perhaps UPE will see merit in stopping at Liberty as well as Union, and maybe UPE will actually extend eastwards some day beyond Union.
I'm opposed to any arrangement that says, to get to the airport take train x to some point and transfer to train y. One seat service should be the standard. But there are plenty of ways to achieve that. That's especially important when one considers the steps of getting from the hub portal to the airplane gate, which is a fair distance. Let's not add discrete links outside the portal when there may be people movers or long moving sidewalks within the airport itself. However, a single people mover that takes one from the gate all the way to the present Malton station, or the new Woodbine station, is worth considering.... probably much cheaper than diverting the rail line.

- Paul
 

MisterF

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,214
Reaction score
1,549
I guess what I was getting at is that if at some point in the future an HSR system is developed, it could use the airport spur and it could also use the existing line. Both conventional and high speed trains would be running at slower speeds through the city so the spur doesn't have to be designed for 250 km/h. But it does have to be designed for through service.

The current plans are for major upgrades as far as Kitchener, and those upgrades are happening even with no high speed plan. The now cancelled HSR plan made use of those upgrades and most of the significant high speed infrastructure was going to be between Kitchener and London. Maybe once the currently planned Kitchener line upgrades are finished it will be easier to justify the HSR plan.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,276
Reaction score
2,485
I'd offer a different proposal. Don't send RER to the airport. Only HFR/HSR and UPE. Extend UPE to Bramalea to allow transfers from the West on RER. In effect, the UPE fare becomes the airport transit premium.

Sending RER to Pearson means pax with luggage on the trains. And being served at a lower fare. And more than likely the death of UPE. If the corridor can handle the traffic, it makes sense to separate regular commuter traffic and airport bound pax.
 

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
2,807
Reaction score
599
I'd offer a different proposal. Don't send RER to the airport. Only HFR/HSR and UPE. Extend UPE to Bramalea to allow transfers from the West on RER. In effect, the UPE fare becomes the airport transit premium.

Sending RER to Pearson means pax with luggage on the trains. And being served at a lower fare. And more than likely the death of UPE. If the corridor can handle the traffic, it makes sense to separate regular commuter traffic and airport bound pax.
GTAA would have us believe that they can attract the office/light industrial workers in the area out of their cars and onto transit.
 

Coolstar

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
463
Reaction score
519
Location
Scarborough,ON
I'd offer a different proposal. Don't send RER to the airport. Only HFR/HSR and UPE. Extend UPE to Bramalea to allow transfers from the West on RER. In effect, the UPE fare becomes the airport transit premium.

Sending RER to Pearson means pax with luggage on the trains. And being served at a lower fare. And more than likely the death of UPE. If the corridor can handle the traffic, it makes sense to separate regular commuter traffic and airport bound pax.
Could we instead have UPE not stop at Weston, Mount Dennis and Bloor and have it be an actual express service like the Heathrow Express?
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
16,879
Reaction score
5,575
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Could we instead have UPE not stop at Weston, Mount Dennis and Bloor and have it be an actual express service like the Heathrow Express?
Not everyone starts or want to start at Union Station. Bloor and Mount Dennis would be at major transit hubs for transferring from the east-west rapid transit lines. The Weston station could be replaced by Mount Dennis for the UPX. GO could continue to use Weston, and add Mount Dennis and St. Clair stations once they become available.
 
Last edited:

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,100
Reaction score
7,298
I'd offer a different proposal. Don't send RER to the airport. Only HFR/HSR and UPE. Extend UPE to Bramalea to allow transfers from the West on RER. In effect, the UPE fare becomes the airport transit premium.

Sending RER to Pearson means pax with luggage on the trains. And being served at a lower fare. And more than likely the death of UPE. If the corridor can handle the traffic, it makes sense to separate regular commuter traffic and airport bound pax.
You are bringing tears of disappointment to my beloved Samsonite carryon suitcase, which I have schlepped to and from the airport on standard regional rail/subway/LRT in, let’s see..... London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Trondheim, Newark, Chicago, Portland, Manchester, Vancouver....etc..... It really hoped to ride regional and local transit rail to its home city airport some day. Not to mention Montreal.

Should we cancel Eglinton LRT to the airport because suitcases have no place on commuter trains? Maybe there is still time to dial back REM also. No taking it to Trudeau with luggage, it’s transit! And some day, Ottawa?

I solidly believe that two seats with transfer is less marketable than a one-seat ride on a commuter train. We know that RER will mean new equipment. The provision for luggage ought to be there. If TTC can accomplish that for the 900 Airport Rocket bus, then RER can also. Obviously I’m laying on the sarcasm (hard week, sorry) but I really question the assertion that public transit to the an airport must be segmented over the issue of luggage. Common practice worldwide says otherwise.

- Paul
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
16,879
Reaction score
5,575
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
GTAA, Metrolinx Working Together on Pearson Transit Plan
You are bringing tears of disappointment to my beloved Samsonite carryon suitcase, which I have schlepped to and from the airport on standard regional rail/subway/LRT in, let’s see..... London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Trondheim, Newark, Chicago, Portland, Manchester, Vancouver....etc..... It really hoped to ride regional and local transit rail to its home city airport some day. Not to mention Montreal.

Should we cancel Eglinton LRT to the airport because suitcases have no place on commuter trains? Maybe there is still time to dial back REM also. No taking it to Trudeau with luggage, it’s transit! And some day, Ottawa?

I solidly believe that two seats with transfer is less marketable than a one-seat ride on a commuter train. We know that RER will mean new equipment. The provision for luggage ought to be there. If TTC can accomplish that for the 900 Airport Rocket bus, then RER can also. Obviously I’m laying on the sarcasm (hard week, sorry) but I really question the assertion that public transit to the an airport must be segmented over the issue of luggage. Common practice worldwide says otherwise.

- Paul
Take at look at GTAA, Metrolinx Working Together on Pearson Transit Plan at this link from 2018.



Not all the trips will be to fly in or out of Pearson, but to actually "work" at the airport or around it.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,276
Reaction score
2,485
You are bringing tears of disappointment to my beloved Samsonite carryon suitcase, which I have schlepped to and from the airport on standard regional rail/subway/LRT in, let’s see..... London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Trondheim, Newark, Chicago, Portland, Manchester, Vancouver....etc..... It really hoped to ride regional and local transit rail to its home city airport some day. Not to mention Montreal.

Should we cancel Eglinton LRT to the airport because suitcases have no place on commuter trains? Maybe there is still time to dial back REM also. No taking it to Trudeau with luggage, it’s transit! And some day, Ottawa?

I solidly believe that two seats with transfer is less marketable than a one-seat ride on a commuter train. We know that RER will mean new equipment. The provision for luggage ought to be there. If TTC can accomplish that for the 900 Airport Rocket bus, then RER can also. Obviously I’m laying on the sarcasm (hard week, sorry) but I really question the assertion that public transit to the an airport must be segmented over the issue of luggage. Common practice worldwide says otherwise.

- Paul
I've traveled in many of those places. And you know what taking the suitcase on the subway sucks. Best direct comparison I have is Heathrow Express vs. Heathrow Connect vs. Tube. And it sucks going on the Tube with your suitcase.

In our particular case why kill UPE to slow down RER, reduce frequencies and reduce revenue? In our particular case, I think it makes sense to have RER bypass the airport and have the UPE run more of a semi-express service that only stops at connecting stations. And the only reason I'd suggest this because the RER and UPE parallel each other. I'm not suggesting cutting Eglinton and Finch LRTs to the airport.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,100
Reaction score
7,298
I've traveled in many of those places. And you know what taking the suitcase on the subway sucks. Best direct comparison I have is Heathrow Express vs. Heathrow Connect vs. Tube. And it sucks going on the Tube with your suitcase.

In our particular case why kill UPE to slow down RER, reduce frequencies and reduce revenue? In our particular case, I think it makes sense to have RER bypass the airport and have the UPE run more of a semi-express service that only stops at connecting stations. And the only reason I'd suggest this because the RER and UPE parallel each other. I'm not suggesting cutting Eglinton and Finch LRTs to the airport.
No argument - hauling suitcases on the Heathrow Tube is its own little version of Hell.

What I can’t see is the premise of riding some sort of regular regional train to Bramalea and then transferring to the “premium” train for a short leg to reach the airport. I would rather see a Link-style people mover extended to the existing line, or even a free bus shuttle from Malton GO. That’s a much more customer friendly model...one train and then a people mover, versus two trains and a shorter people mover anyways.

I can’t naysay premium express service as a thing, it is clearly viable in many cities. But I would say, use it in the most advantageous manner which implies fastest timing and minimal stops. Using it as a local service at either end provides no advantage to the traveller in time or cost. Let RER perform there.

The adjustment that I would like to see is to extend UPE eastwards from Union, making it a runthrough at Union, and adding coverage eastwards into Durham Region. Remove the local stop at Weston. The challenge would be to improve RER so that “ordinary” Durham commuters don’t shift to UPE just to get the express trip from Union.... either charge them more for that advantage, or merge UPE and GO Express somehow, perhaps trains skipping local stops west of Pickering, and using the same train for both purposes.

Or, build a RER line from Pearson across North Toronto, serving Weston instead of UPE but carrying on through Leaside to north Durham. Maybe terminate it at Pickering Airport. There may be a separate market segment that has no need to go to Union and would prefer a faster crosstown trip to stations further north.

If RER stays on its existing route, it will serve a racetrack/casino but skip the airport. That just seems like the wrong set of priorities.

- Paul
 

Top