Pearson Transit Hub | ?m | ?s | GTAA

mikeydale007

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
53
Reaction score
82
In this scenario we would eliminate the UP Express, so the LINK train could use the current UP Express elevated spur to reach the GO station.
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,730
Reaction score
1,321
Location
Burlington
I used to be in favour of the extended LINK train option, but after having seen the plans for the transit hub, I think that option makes a lot more sense. If we want to change the modal split to Pearson, we need to locate the transit at Pearson, not just a short train ride away from Pearson. Every additional transfer hauling luggage makes people less likely to use it.
 

Coolstar

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
916
Reaction score
1,477
Location
Toronto
I used to be in favour of the extended LINK train option, but after having seen the plans for the transit hub, I think that option makes a lot more sense. If we want to change the modal split to Pearson, we need to locate the transit at Pearson, not just a short train ride away from Pearson. Every additional transfer hauling luggage makes people less likely to use it.
Highly Agree. Though extending the LINK train to Malton or Woodbine is a good back up plan if things go wrong.
 

EastYorkTTCFan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
2,952
Reaction score
955
Location
East York
I used to be in favour of the extended LINK train option, but after having seen the plans for the transit hub, I think that option makes a lot more sense. If we want to change the modal split to Pearson, we need to locate the transit at Pearson, not just a short train ride away from Pearson. Every additional transfer hauling luggage makes people less likely to use it.
Highly Agree. Though extending the LINK train to Malton or Woodbine is a good back up plan if things go wrong.
The problem with extending the link train is that any additional stop to it could reduce its's capacity significantly due to the existing technology it uses. Right now it has two trains on separate tracks that are pulled along by a cable and it's only good with two or three stations on it.

 

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
404
The problem with extending the link train is that any additional stop to it could reduce its's capacity significantly due to the existing technology it uses. Right now it has two trains on separate tracks that are pulled along by a cable and it's only good with two or three stations on it.

There are other versions of that technology that allow for more than one train per track, such as a setup where the cable moves continuously and the trains detach at each station, and are moved by a set of motors in the track,

i don't think I would have the Link extended south to Eglinton, but I would much rather there be an extension of it. or a shuttle of some kind to the railway corridor instead of doing much more work to divert the railway corridor to the Airport. Also I don't think the transit hub idea as planned is worthwhile, would their still not be a need for a shuttle from it to the terminals? And with T1 especially there would be way to much unused space with removal of the check in and baggage claim areas. Also they would lose the three parking garages and the Sheraton Hotel.

There is enough room at T1 for transit services, and the Link people mover from Woodbine Station to both terminals should be more economical, and with no more transfers would be needed than with trains diverted to the transit hub.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,293
The problem with extending the link train is that any additional stop to it could reduce its's capacity significantly due to the existing technology it uses. Right now it has two trains on separate tracks that are pulled along by a cable and it's only good with two or three stations on it.

There are upgrade kits for the Link train available using some tricks from high-speed chairlifts/gondolas. A "Pinched Loop" conversion installs a single common track at the ends for turnbacks, cable selection within the trains (see high-speed chairlift/gondolas which allow changing speed at stops; this goes further by changing the direction cable too), and as a result enables multiple trains per track. The downside is you can no longer operating each track individually.

In addition, the trains are extremely light and easy to lengthen. Quadroupling capacity to 10kpphpd is possible without a huge investment; although downtime of a few months would be required.

Oakland Airport uses the Pinched Loop mechanism with 4 trains on 5.1km of track @ 50km/h peak speed.
 
Last edited:

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
18,341
Reaction score
7,141
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Since they are in the planning stage, I can see them incorporating "social distancing" just in case for future pandemics. For example, I can see them having disinfecting stations for the taxis and limousines, between trips. Can see screen separating the backseat passenger and the driver being made mandatory.

See link.

As we continue to celebrate and support frontline healthcare workers who are sacrificing the most right now to fight COVID-19 under extremely dangerous conditions, we can't overlook others in public-facing positions who are taking risks with their health and safety to keep working, too.

Along with employees of essential businesses, cleaners, delivery and post office staff, public transit workers, those transporting essential goods and others are the drivers who are keeping residents moving where they need to go.

Keeping the requisite two-metre distance from others is difficult within the confines of a vehicle, and given that we now know that the virus can remain suspended in the air for hours and can be transmitted through normal breathing, taxi or rideshare drivers without proper personal protective equipment are susceptible to infection every time they accept a customer.

It may come as no surprise, then — especially because the outbreak began with recent travelers, though is now in the stage of community spread — that a number of taxi and limousine drivers who work out of the Toronto Pearson International Airport have in fact caught and succumbed to the infectious disease.

See link for UV light in cars and taxis.
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
2,484
Reaction score
2,011
Since they are in the planning stage, I can see them incorporating "social distancing" just in case for future pandemics. For example, I can see them having disinfecting stations for the taxis and limousines, between trips. Can see screen separating the backseat passenger and the driver being made mandatory.

See link.

See link for UV light in cars and taxis.

I used to drive for an out-of-town van service to/from PIA. While a physical barrier might work in passengers cars, it would be quite a challenge in a van, primarily because of airflow disruption and any Transport Canada regulations. That might even be a problem with many standard passenger vehicle-based limos and taxis, as opposed to Lincoln Town Cars that have a more robust rear seat ventilation system. I don't know if any of the devices in the link along with the effectiveness and long-term health issuesof UV light and other offerings have been proven. The purchase, installation and maintenance costs of any aftermarket UV filtration system is going to have to be factored into the owner.operator costs, as well as lost revenue down-time if decontamination procedures are mandated. If it becomes too onerous and the fares go up or companies exit the business, it would drive passengers to transit (those who have that as an alternative) where they will sit cheek to jowl with other passengers anyway or private vehicles.

Serious Tesla, protect against a military-grade bioweapons attack?
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,911
Reaction score
3,511

These are some of the conditions being imposed on airline bailouts elsewhere. Worth considering further rail integration as part of our plans here.
 

blaixx

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Messages
88
Reaction score
117
I used to be in favour of the extended LINK train option, but after having seen the plans for the transit hub, I think that option makes a lot more sense. If we want to change the modal split to Pearson, we need to locate the transit at Pearson, not just a short train ride away from Pearson. Every additional transfer hauling luggage makes people less likely to use it.
Won't people have to haul their luggage from the Pearson Transit Hub to the terminals anyways? The expanded Link Train proposal would basically require 2 well built transfer stations rather than 1.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
2,293
Won't people have to haul their luggage from the Pearson Transit Hub to the terminals anyways? The expanded Link Train proposal would basically require 2 well built transfer stations rather than 1.

For Pearson, the Transit portion of the plan is a bonus. What they really want is a significantly larger and consolidated customs/checkin area, which is shifting to the Transit Hub building. T1/T3 would largely be converted to mall/food court and additional gates.
 
Last edited:

Coolstar

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
916
Reaction score
1,477
Location
Toronto
For Pearson, the Transit portion of the plan is a bonus. What they really want is a significantly larger and consolidated customs/checkin area, which is shifting to the Transit Hub building. T1/T3 would largely be converted to mall/food court and additional gates.
Where did you find that T1/T3 would be converted? And if so, is it really worth it to do so?
 

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
404
Where did you find that T1/T3 would be converted? And if so, is it really worth it to do so?

The renderings of the plan did show the parking garages and vehicle pick up/drop off roads being removed and replaced with aircraft gates on that side of the terminals, which I have never thought is worthwhile since with T1 especially there is more than 10x the space needed for passenger gates, the check in and baggage claim halls would be way to much space for shopping areas. As well there would only be a few gates built there anyway. and they would lose the parking garages, and have to build this new transit terminal building to replace functions that the terminals already serve.
 

jje1000

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,822
Reaction score
2,271
Since they are in the planning stage, I can see them incorporating "social distancing" just in case for future pandemics. For example, I can see them having disinfecting stations for the taxis and limousines, between trips. Can see screen separating the backseat passenger and the driver being made mandatory.

Honestly I do wonder what the landscape will resemble emerging from the pandemic, especially with travel dampened, airlines under heavy stress, and public fears of infection.

Just as the need for security screenings post 9/11 forced the compartmentalization of airports, the necessity of 'social distancing' in pandemic situations may force further changes- it could be the addition of small elements like the forementioned UV lights, or it could be larger changes to airport infrastructure.

Can definitely see a push towards more kiosks in terminals, and changes to airplane air circulation.
 

Top