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

[crs1026]

^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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[crs1026]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Coolstar]

No argument - hauling suitcases on the Heathrow Tube is its own little version of Hell

If you think that's bad, just imagine hauling your suitcase on a Flexity Freedom or Alstom train and sitting in one of those seats that face each other.

 

[Islington Express Bus]

IMO the best thing is to extend the Link Train in both directions. Have it terminate at the new GO station at Highway 27/Woodbine in the north and terminate at Renforth Station in the south. That way the Eglinton line can be extended west into the transitway in the future if it needs to, and no diversions of HSR/RER/Kitchener Line are necessary. That tunnel idea looks veeeeery expensive.

 

[north-of-anything]

IMO the best thing is to extend the Link Train in both directions. Have it terminate at the new GO station at Highway 27/Woodbine in the north and terminate at Renforth Station in the south. That way the Eglinton line can be extended west into the transitway in the future if it needs to, and no diversions of HSR/RER/Kitchener Line are necessary. That tunnel idea looks veeeeery expensive.

Sounds like something to make into a map!

 

[crs1026]

If you think that's bad, just imagine hauling your suitcase on a Flexity Freedom or Alstom train and sitting in one of those seats that face each other.

The silver lining is - there is so much wasted space in a low floor design, Alstom or Bombardier, that one can find a place to tuck a suitcase. You just can’t sit in a quad.

I do think that any transit line that feeds an airport ought to turn its mind to stowing luggage. That may well sacrifice a seat or two per railcar. It’s surprising how few actually do this.

- Paul

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Sounds like something to make into a map!

Assuming it drops the Convair Dr detour I'd expect it to look pretty much like this

As for my opinion on it... I actually lean toward liking the alignment and an independent service, but thinking it should probably be an Etobicoke north/south line from Kipling to Humber with free service on the Renforth/Woodbine section and TTC fares elsewhere... Which would also incentivize the airport to build an airside transit system.