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 was comparing Malton station to CodeMonkey's theoretical station between Airport Road and Torbram Road.
Agreed. As you can see in the above image, Woodbine is closer than Malton, if we're planning on any future underground LINK II tunnel.

A very fast high-performance underground people mover can move you from Pearson Rail Hub to Pearson Airport (2.5km) in a mere 2 or 3 minutes. Why spend $5 to $20 billion on an underground HSR tunnel that requires long, gentle curves?

There are new high speed peoplemovers today that bring you the whole distance from Pearson Rail Hub at Woodbine, faster than today's slow LINK between Terminal 1 and Terminal 3!

Besides, UPX spur might need refurbishment by 2050...
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
2,441
Depends on where Woodbine is located. If all 700 acres are razed, and the station is built a little bit westwards, then Woodbine Station actually is closer to both Terminal 1 and 3 "as the crow flies". Obviously, the UPX spur has a lot of curves, but if a rail tunnel was done as part of a LINK II upgraded fast peoplemover project with a straight underground tunnel...

...then Malton is slightly further away:

View attachment 48505

See?
I doubt any extended/improved LINK is going to bypass the Viscount garage and the hotel they enticed there because it was linked to the terminal....so I always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the start point of any extension was there not completely changing the route of the LINK.
 

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
2,815
Location
Hamilton
I doubt any extended/improved LINK is going to bypass the Viscount garage and the hotel they enticed there because it was linked to the terminal....so I always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the start point of any extension was there not completely changing the route of the LINK.
Yes, but that's not the point:
LINK can be a straight line towards one of the concourses, then curve towards the other concourse, and THEN the parking garage and hotel, and THEN end at Malton.

So LINK II could actually connect BOTH Malton and Woodbine, as terminuses in a LINK route...

The garage, hotel, all terminals, etc, would all be on on a LINK II route -- like a mini-subway that goes through Pearson grounds. The LINK II lines would simply be mostly short straight-line tunnel to their first stops, e.g. Terminal 3. This would allow construction of LINK II without demolishing the original LINK and original UPX when both of them are decrepit decades in the future.

The first Pearson Hub doesn't need to have this right away, UPX operates as normal, but it is also why I think Woodbine makes a lot of sense, considering any redevelopment allows a favourable HSR station alignment nearly directly on the UPX spur at first, and well-aligned with any future LINK II tunnel (in theory).

I think it makes sense in the context of deciding if this provides faster and cheaper service from tomorrow's HSR to Pearson, versus an even-more-expensive curved HSR tunnel under Pearson which would slow the high speed train to LINK II speeds or below-LINK-II speeds.

Might as well move the LINK transfer point to Pearson Hub, give everyone at the Hub a one-seat transfer to both Terminal 1 and 3 without forcing a UPX-to-LINK transfer for anybody getting off at Woodbine station (HSR->UPX->LINK).

Since LINK II would be a tunnel, both the original LINK and original UPX can keep operating until LINK II opens. Then the UPX II would be the frequent HSR train that makes the Woodbine (Pearson Hub) stop, all day long, every few minutes.

Example progression:
Phase 1: Cheap shoestring GO RER (or SmartTrack) station at Woodbine just before UPX spur (2025)
Phase 2: Woodbine Racetrack razed for redevelopment (2020ish to 2035ish)
Phase 3: HSR construction begins, GO RER station upgraded to fancier HSR station. (2035)
Phase 4: After new HSR station operates for 15 years, LINK II tunnel begins construction (2045). UPX and LINK still runs during LINK II construction.
Phase 5: HSR service upgraded to all-day 2-way 15-min in the central commute segment, replacing all GO express trains (2045-2050)
Phase 6: In year 2045, both UPX and LINK is now worn and decrepit. HSR is shiny.
Phase 7: LINK II opens, original UPX and original LINK stops, HSR takes over as role of UPX II (2050).

By Phase 7, HSR station looks fancy like a billion-dollar world-class station, next to a buzzing high-end business/recreational development that replaces the low-density Woodbine Racetrack. And perhaps there'll also be a Terminal 2 built by then.

Switch a few phases around, adjust dates, but you get the rough idea. It could even be located a little further east, so the fancier station can be constructed slightly westwards without disrupting the original inexpensive GO RER station.

Or it could be a modification of the existing LINK right-of-way, but that would require LINK to be shut down (very disruptive).

The question is we have to decide the correct location for the starter shoestring GO RER station that will be labelled the vaunted "Pearson Rail Hub" for the future luxurious expansion it eventually gets. I think the best location for it is right before the UPX spur... Malton seems to make no financial sense (yet) as the Pearson Hub, that station will continue, though it might be better if we accelerate LINK II construction or a new spur.
 
Last edited:

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
789
GTAA hinted at building a post security people mover/connector. I wonder what technology they wind up using and how that may wind up affecting their decision on the land side vis a vis an extended airport mover connecting Malton station, parking garage/Alt hotel, Terminals, additional hotels amenities East of the airport.
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
2,441
Yes, but that's not the point:
LINK can be a straight line towards one of the concourses, then curve towards the other concourse, and THEN the parking garage and hotel, and THEN end at Malton.

So LINK II could actually connect BOTH Malton and Woodbine, as terminuses in a LINK route...

I am, now, really confused..........if Malton is already connected to the terminals....and this fantasy (as it is now) Woodbine station is on the same corridor as Malton and if all the same services that would pass through Malton would also pass through Woodbine ......what is the value of building Woodbine?.....other than driving up the costs and needlessly reducing stop spacing on the KW line/corridor?
 

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
2,815
Location
Hamilton
I am, now, really confused..........if Malton is already connected to the terminals....and this fantasy (as it is now) Woodbine station is on the same corridor as Malton and if all the same services that would pass through Malton would also pass through Woodbine ......what is the value of building Woodbine?.....other than driving up the costs and needlessly reducing stop spacing on the KW line/corridor?
As I wrote in earlier post -- it's just conceptual.

The mere existence of LINK II is a completely separate subject of what stations becomes the terminuses for LINK II.

The LINK II could just connect to Woodbine, or just connect to Malton. Or it could connect Woodbine to Airport Corporate Centre. Or whatever Pearson Hub North is, and whatever Pearson Hub South is. Also if LINK II is a tunnel, a straight line can occur to the first stop (e.g. one of the Terminals) and avoids the need to shut down UPX/LINK during construction. Being a GTAA or Metrolinx or a partnership (whether it's called Airport Train, Airport Subway, LINK II, UPX II). Ignore the names for now, but it would solve the triple-transfer problem (HSR->UPX->LINK) dramatically slowing people down, and without super-expensively needing to curve the HSR underneath Pearson. Within airport grounds, all concourses would be served, as well as a people mover between two BIA's.

So, to reduce confusion -- let's break it down to address separate parts:
1. The mere existence of a theoretical LINK II (or UPX for now)
so that the HSR train doesn't have to curve expensively underneath Pearson.
2. Location of Pearson Rail Hub that becomes a LINK II terminus.
3. Whether LINK II should connect to a 2nd rail corridor station, and which?
4. How LINK II affects UPX in the future. (e.g. will HSR->LINKII replace UPX->LINK?)
etc.

These above questions can have separate answers. There are cost considerations. There are incremental construction considerations. If we build Pearson Hub at Malton first, we lose out on reusing UPX. If we build Pearson Hub at Woodbine first as a GO RER station, we can take advantage of UPX. So we might end up choosing to "build upon that station" incrementally, and it becomes a defacto Pearson Rail Hub. Alternatively, Pearson Hub location can change in the future (e.g. cheap RER station before UPX spur at first, *then* build the fancy HSR station at Malton). And there are people who say both Malton and Woodbine needs to be serviced by the airport, so comes the suggestions of LINK II connecting both. But it could easily be a different terminus, like somewhere to the south, like Airport Corporate, or another Pearson Hub South. These can all be separate topics that fork into multiple different directions.
 
Last edited:

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,918
Reaction score
4,108
Location
Toronto
Depends on where Woodbine is located. If all 700 acres are razed, and the station is built a little bit westwards, then Woodbine Station actually is closer to both Terminal 1 and 3 "as the crow flies".
To Terminal 1. Malton looks a bit closer to Terminal 3 than Woodbine.
 

CodeMonkey

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
669
Reaction score
38
Location
Greater Toronto Area
Depends on where Woodbine is located. If all 700 acres are razed, and the station is built a little bit westwards, then Woodbine Station actually is closer to both Terminal 1 and 3 "as the crow flies". Obviously, the UPX spur has a lot of curves, but if a rail tunnel was done as part of a LINK II upgraded fast peoplemover project with a straight underground tunnel...

...then Malton is slightly further away:

View attachment 48505

See?

Woodbine is closer, but I doubt the city or the province is going to agree with the idea of levelling half or even all of Woodbine. Granted my idea was without problems, but I don't think we're going to sell the idea of an rail hub if it require major demolishment of existing development around the airport.
 

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
2,815
Location
Hamilton
Woodbine is closer, but I doubt the city or the province is going to agree with the idea of levelling half or even all of Woodbine. Granted my idea was without problems, but I don't think we're going to sell the idea of an rail hub if it require major demolishment of existing development around the airport.
The hub doesn't require demolition. It does not even need to be redeveloped all at once. The 700 acres can be redeveloped gradually over a period of 30 years. The Hub might not be fancy till 2040-2050s anyway, considering HSR probably won't be running till the 2030s.

Cities have boomed faster than that in 30 years -- even certain parts of Toronto (just look at Mississauga 1980-2010 as an example).

Observe that the buildings on the 700 acres are mainly related to Woodbine Racetrack, such as the massive number of stables near the Racetrack. If we keep the Racetrack facilities, it needs to be kept viable, but there has been some calls to shut down the Racetrack, and if so, then we don't need the horse stables.

This isn't a 10 year plan -- it's really much farther out.

What will probably happen initially is a cheap GO RER station (for the current RER Bramalea line) something that interchanges with the existing UPX spur.

That automatically requires a Woodbine station. If that happens, then having simultaneous UPX and GO RER is an automatic $-increaser for slow gradual redevelopment at Woodbine, and when HSR construction gets shovels in the ground, redevelopment accelerates.

That way, in 30 years, we'll have already redeveloped half of Woodbine as a result. Malton is just one quick RER stop away from Woodbine Pearson Hub anyway. It's not like Malton won't benefit from the Woodbine HSR Pearson Hub. You can just transfer trains at Malton after a quick short subway-style wait.

But I'm certainly not opposed to Malton being the HSR Pearson Hub. But there's sequencing tradeoffs. Where do you propose we put the cheap GO RER station near Pearson, for minimal cost? Something that can get people quickly into Pearson? No demolition is required for a simple GO RER station at Woodbine. Any suggestions of a different sequencing or progression that makes financially more sense? Something that serves Kitchener, Brampton, Toronto, every station in both directions on the main rail line?

Eventually, whatever cheap GO RER station for Pearson occurs, automatically becomes a strong candidate of becoming the future Pearson HSR Hub (at least as an adjacent fancy station constructed right next to it). aka "GO Pearson" (cheap concrete platform at Woodbine). Later, that station area becomes a super-strong candidate to receive the vaunted "Pearson Hub" name. I can't figure out where else this cheap GO RER station / simple starter HSR lite station is going to be built, that can utilize existing infrastructure such as UPX.

At the very beginning Woodbine is a betting man's bet for Pearson Hub because of these financial mathematics- even as a commuter I also prefer it to be at Malton (preference versus economics are two different things). At least initially. But as a taxpayer, I would prefer it be at Woodbine -- much, much cheaper and better long-term potential. Taxpayer preference and commuter preference are two different things.

A bigger and fancier station could theoretically relocate later to Malton once an alternative to the UPX spur becomes available.
 
Last edited:
D

Duck

Guest
I keep seeing all this talk of an "upgraded" LINK train. Let's get one thing straight: the current system can't reasonably be extended. It's a delete and replace situation. This is because of the technology choice - it's cable hauled, and replacing the winch rooms/return wheels, tensioners, etc. would be an absolute nightmare. Doppelmayr builds excellent ski lifts and gondolas. Trains, not so much.

I would recommend rebuilding the system as Bombardier INNOVIA 300 APM - the latest in their APM offering (Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix, London Heathrow, Munich). Or even Siemens VAL 208 or Cityval/Airval. All high speed with high capacity and strong acceleration.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,643
That would make it compatible with what should have been built for Eglinton and SRT. Maybe this could have been used for the DRL as well where the small diameter tunnels and tighter curve radii would come in handy.
 

TOareaFan

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
2,441
At the very beginning Woodbine is a betting man's bet for Pearson Hub because of these financial mathematics

As my old financial mathematics teacher often said "show your work"....stating something strongly and repeatedly does not make it so.......your post makes a lot of bold statements like they are facts....eg:

in 30 years, we'll have already redeveloped half of Woodbine

If you are going to rely on such statements in your support of a Woodbine transfer....can you give us some hint how these facts are actually supported?
 

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
2,815
Location
Hamilton
As my old financial mathematics teacher often said "show your work"....stating something strongly and repeatedly does not make it so.......your post makes a lot of bold statements like they are facts....eg:
For the former, it's obvious.

Let's look at the starter station. (The shoestring go RER station I'm talking about). We don't currently (For the purposes of this paragraph) care yet about what it will become. Just that it'll be a station closer to the airport than Weston, that serves all rail transit users coming from either direction (Kitchener, Toronto). Let's call this "GO Woodbine" or "GO Pearson". For the moment, we're temporarily ignoring HSR, we're temporarily ignoring development (existing or future), for the purposes of just getting a RER infill station that services Pearson.

Brand new GO stations are typically in the the neighborhood of very roughly $50 million (Examples: $44M for James North). Sometimes it's lower like the $35M station portion of the $150M Stoney Creek rail extension (extra parallel track, etc). Numerous budgets show GO stations typically cost well under $50M each, with only a few larger complex station projects breaking through, or massive addons like Oakville's beached cruseship for cars (aka parking garage) but the government won't be providing free parking for airport travellers. Even the Weston unmanned UPX platform, smaller than a GO platform, is just a line-item in a ~$50M station budget including the slightly fancier Weston UPX waiting room.

Any basic starter GO station that gains the standard station name "GO Pearson" would obviously need to have a way to service Pearson quickly, and the best candidate would be the Woodbine racetrack simply because UPX spurs off to Pearson right after Woodbine.

Let's, for the moment, focus on where a GO (RER) station that contains "Pearson" in its name, and costs only $50M to build, will not be able to afford the cost of relocation of the UPX. No spur at Malton, no Pearson terminal relocation.

I now turn the tables -- how do you propose to install an equally inexpensive starter Pearson station that's not located near Woodbine racetrack?

This question is relevant because once "GO Pearson" station exists between "GO Weston" and "GO Malton", is relevant because, once this happens, it becomes one of the many possible candidates to be upgraded to a HSR station. They need the RER station much sooner than HSR, possibly two decades sooner. Many considerations occur, and by the time HSR arrives, it becomes more attractive (space for adjacent station without shutting down existing 15-min-RER service, some kind of developments already occurring, etc) it is likely whatever is named "GO Pearson" becomes the primary candidate if no UPX/LINK replacement occurs in a sequence before HSR (that connects to Malton, etc).

Metrolinx has a habit of replacing placeholder names. GO Woodbine is probably likely to be renamed GO Pearson if it interchanges with the UPX spur. See GO James North renamed to GO West Harbour (a geographical feature located further away). Metrolinx, also, happens to own and run the corridor and the UPX. So they call the shots on what cheap GO station receives the name "GO Pearson" -- that name becomes a neodynium magnet for future station expansions.

Sure, the Pearson Hub could relocate to Malton but before the HSR Pearson Hub, there may be 5 years, 10 years, 20 years of some kind of a Pearson-servicing GO station before HSR finally arrives to it. By then, it'll be a much stronger candidate than today, especially if the HSR station can be built adjacent to it without shutting down the existing station. I'm not betting HSR will be on time, so I feel there's quite a time window between GO Pearson and the HSR Pearson Hub.

Another scenario is if everyone can suddenly afford to build a $1bn station all at once, then yes, bulldoze Malton for I care and also build the new spur for whatever (UPX or LINK II or another link). But if we do that now, it will be empty, with so much redundant infrastructure. Best to start small, start a GO RER station, and go from there. While GTAA and Metrolinx (who brings the rail services) is hashing out details for any future megastation master plan, a RER infill is far more likely to occur many, many years before HSR service.

The starter station may be a completely independent location of what becomes the big HSR Pearson Hub (separate locations) but once a starter station exists, becomes named "GO Pearson", and starts being a magnet, it is already a much stronger candidate to be selected as the HSR station. And when we've gone that far, it might as well be the Pearson Hub.

But the question here, is specifically addressed to "which station becomes the starter Pearson station of some sort" (Tiny GO station? HSR station? Big Pearson Hub?), and I think the answer is obvious -- both from a financial and infrastructural sense from the Pearson perspective.

If you are going to rely on such statements in your support of a Woodbine transfer....can you give us some hint how these facts are actually supported?
For this latter part, a correction:
"in 30 years, we'll have perhaps already redeveloped half of Woodbine"

Which of course, implies it could be a little, could be a lot. Similiar statements I've said in that post here (if I didn't word them correctly), should be interpreted as such. It's meant to help you understand. A progression, an incremental station expansion, since there's a gap between RER and HSR. If you built Pearson Hub all at once, sure, raze Malton -- as part of a megaproject to do RER+HSR+new spur. But if you're doing it incrementally, in the most inexpensive progression possible at first, that pretty much strongly limits station location choices.
 
Last edited:

WislaHD

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
7,846
Location
Midtown Toronto
http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/episodes/2015/06/16/pearson-transit/
Now that the Union-Pearson Express is up and running, city planners face the challenge of getting commuters out of their cars as they head to work in the area. Matt Galloway spoke with Ed Sajecki. He is the Commissioner of Planning and Building for the City of Mississauga.

One thing that surprised me is that some 230,000 people work in the area of AAC. Sajecki spoke of potential for SmartTrack and other rapid transit options.

He also confirms that SmartTrack is essentially GO-RER with more stations.
 

Top