Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[RedRocket191]

http://www.thestar.com/news/mississ...ssauga-sees-no-benefit-from-airport-link?bn=1

This project suffers from numerous flaws:
- The platforms on the airport rail link spur are too short to accommodate full-length 12 car GO trains, so there is no room for expansion to accommodate more passengers
- Fares will be outrageously high, discouraging usage
- Brampton gets little benefit. I think that they were promised a train every hour (compared to every 15 minutes on the airport spur).
- Communities in Toronto like Weston along the line get little benefit due to the high fares.

Mississauga has every right to complain, because it ought to be possible to take the train from downtown to the airport for a reasonable fare, transfer to a bus and access a number of employment areas near the airport in Mississauga. #7 bus already connects the airport to Square One, Airport Corporate Centre business park and Malton, and more bus routes could be added if demand warrants. I don't think that Square One is all that relevant here because it is more directly served by the Milton line, but there's tons of employment much closer to the airport than that.

On your first point, the GTAA has opposed the use of full sized trains from the getgo. Thus, it doesn't matter that a full sized train cannot access the platform. Ridership will never be high enough to justify the use of a full sized GO train anyway, as the line will only serve a limited market.

On your second point, why can't the GTAA subsidize employee fares? Any parking space that they do not need to reserve for an employee is a space they can allow the public to pay to park at.

On your third and fourth points, the upgrades to the line allow for all-day GO train service, which wasn't possible due to the nature of the line before construction began. This will provide a direct and tangible benefit to the people of the west end, Weston, Malton, Brampton, Georgetown and beyond.

The PR mistake that was made early on was to allow the line to be portrayed as just the air rail link. This project, as far as I'm concerned, is a GO expansion with the air rail link piggybacking onto it. The grand plan was to have the Finch LRT meet the regular GO trains at Woodbine Racetrack and connect passengers to the terminal. However we all know what happened to that plan.

 

[nfitz]

This project suffers from numerous flaws:
- The platforms on the airport rail link spur are too short to accommodate full-length 12 car GO trains, so there is no room for expansion to accommodate more passengers
- Fares will be outrageously high, discouraging usage
- Brampton gets little benefit. I think that they were promised a train every hour (compared to every 15 minutes on the airport spur).
- Communities in Toronto like Weston along the line get little benefit due to the high fares.

I think you are confusing the upgrade to the Georgeotown (now Kitchener) GO train line and the Air Rail Link. They are separate projects. Brampton will see full service as well - but obviously not as part as today's announcement to build a 3-km spur!

Mississauga has every right to complain, because it ought to be possible to take the train from downtown to the airport for a reasonable fare, ...

There is very little employment in Mississauga on the terminal side of the airport. Mississauga is also getting a brand new transitway that will see express buses going from Square One to the Airport - and theirs will only cost a regular fare. I don't see what Mississauga is complaining about ... they've never actually asked for anything ...

 

[drum118]

I think you are confusing the upgrade to the Georgeotown (now Kitchener) GO train line and the Air Rail Link. They are separate projects. Brampton will see full service as well - but obviously not as part as today's announcement to build a 3-km spur!

There is very little employment in Mississauga on the terminal side of the airport. Mississauga is also getting a brand new transitway that will see express buses going from Square One to the Airport - and theirs will only cost a regular fare. I don't see what Mississauga is complaining about ... they've never actually asked for anything ...

Mississauga (Hazel) is complaining about the transitway, as it is well over budget and they have to pickup the full cost of it. Last figure was $57m before the tenders were call and no idea what those tenders prices added up so far considering there is still a number of tenders to be call.

As for employment, the line would allow a faster way to get to the airport so riders can transfer to a route to get them to their job.

As for your comment on ARL and KW, you are right. The ARL is a sheep, that will allow GO to upgrade the corridor for all of its rail lines in that corridor as well improve service and attract new riders.

As for fare and other station not getting better service, I agree. By doing so, it will put more riders into the seats if one can be found and to improve the cost ratio.

The biggest problem GO has, it only think riders rider at peak time going to Toronto. By running bi-direction with more off peak, GO can generator more riders as well using its capital cost to the full value.

 

[andrewpmk]

Mississauga (Hazel) is complaining about the transitway, as it is well over budget and they have to pickup the full cost of it. Last figure was $57m before the tenders were call and no idea what those tenders prices added up so far considering there is still a number of tenders to be call.

As for employment, the line would allow a faster way to get to the airport so riders can transfer to a route to get them to their job.

As for your comment on ARL and KW, you are right. The ARL is a sheep, that will allow GO to upgrade the corridor for all of its rail lines in that corridor as well improve service and attract new riders.

As for fare and other station not getting better service, I agree. By doing so, it will put more riders into the seats if one can be found and to improve the cost ratio.

The biggest problem GO has, it only think riders rider at peak time going to Toronto. By running bi-direction with more off peak, GO can generator more riders as well using its capital cost to the full value.

The problems are though that:

(a) The Georgetown/Kitchener line is not being promised the same level of service improvements as the airport rail link. While the infrastructure improvements on Georgetown South allow for more capacity, I think GO is only promising hourly service like the Lakeshore line, which I consider to be a joke. Passengers at Weston and Dundas West will not be able to use the air rail link at a reasonable price to go downtown or the airport and will be unhappy about having to use an infrequent commuter train service instead. I seriously hope that political pressure forces 15 minute service at least as far as Bramalea (the need for expensive track upgrades west of there probably limits service frequency to Brampton).

(b) The airport is a more convenient transfer point for people who work in Mississauga and live in Toronto. I know that there are only a handful of business parks right beside the airport in Mississauga (though there are a few), but connecting buses could be provided, and already exist to Square One and Airport Corporate Centre in the form of MT route #7. If the air rail link is low capacity then passengers will be forced to use Malton station instead, which requires a longer bus ride to Airport Corporate Centre, and if service is infrequent on the GO train then there will be low ridership.

 

[nfitz]

The problems are though that:

(a) The Georgetown/Kitchener line is not being promised the same level of service improvements as the airport rail link. While the infrastructure improvements on Georgetown South allow for more capacity, I think GO is only promising hourly service like the Lakeshore line, which I consider to be a joke.

Given that the current off-peak service is far less than once an hour, I think most users would find that a significant improvement.

But why do you say this? GO 2020 called for peak service of every 15 to 20 minutes from Mount Pleasant into Union, with off-peak of once every 30 minutes.

The more recent electrification documents had similar numbers.

 

[TOareaFan]

Given that the current off-peak service is non-existent, I think most users would find that a significant improvement.

But why do you say this? GO 2020 called for peak service of every 15 to 20 minutes from Mount Pleasant into Union, with off-peak of once every 30 minutes.

The more recent electrification documents had similar numbers.

fixed your post slightly so that I could agree with it

If/when the service on this line gets to the same level as the Lakeshore lines, I would view it to be incredibly selfish/whiny of us served by the line if we complained that it was not enough......at least until the other lines got to that same level.

If it took the PanAms to spur the infrastructure improvements needed for the ARL and that leads to 7 day a week bi-directional service on the KitchenerGO corridor....that is a good thing (IMO).

 

[ssiguy2]

The issue is that the Air Link is a waste of funds in that it is public money being used to subsidize the business class.
Toronto could have a new rapid transit line if they simply electrified the line, added more stations, and made it part of the standard TTC service with a small surcharge for those going all the way to Pearson.
As the Air Link is proposed now it is a luxury liner taking up scarce rail ROW space/capacity at public expense.

 

[TOareaFan]

The issue is that the Air Link is a waste of funds in that it is public money being used to subsidize the business class.
Toronto could have a new rapid transit line if they simply electrified the line, added more stations, and made it part of the standard TTC service with a small surcharge for those going all the way to Pearson.
As the Air Link is proposed now it is a luxury liner taking up scarce rail ROW space/capacity at public expense.

Of course the other way to look at it is that roughly $1B of public money is going into the corridor....all but, say, 15% of it is for the benefit of GO's regular service expansion and that small amount is going into a premium service offering that gives direct service to the airport.....if it was the direct service to the airport that got the other 85% of the money flowing...then there is already an indirect, but substantial, benefit to the public at large.

This notion that it is "subsidizing the business class" is a bit bothersome. Is it subsidizing business? Quite possibly as direct links between financial centres and airports are becoming the "norm" around the world....if that helps Toronto remain competitive as a business centre...that is good, no? If it maintains the city/region's competitveness does that not lead to maintenance of the economy...and jobs for the rest of us?

I have said it before, this link to the airport should not be considered a done job and our only link to the airport. It would not even be the first one that I would have built but as part of an integrated strategy/plan to connect the airport to the populace/city, there is nothing wrong with it.

I would have preferred extension/expansion of the current people mover to the Malton GO station in the north (with an airport transportation terminus there containing the link to GO and the car rental people currently in the airport) and to the south to the Renforth/Eglinton area to link with TTC and MT......that may happen in the future as might a direct TTC LRT/subway connection but in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with the rail link and, to be fair, at the incremental cost associated to the spur it is not really that expensive.

 

[mpd618]

Is there anything that requires GO to operate the Air Rail Link as an ultra-premium service? Apart from current intentions, and that perhaps being the most profitable way.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Is there anything that requires GO to operate the Air Rail Link as an ultra-premium service? Apart from current intentions, and that perhaps being the most profitable way.

Well, the goal was to keep net cost to the tax payer to the minimum. If people are worried about high fares and about subsidizing business class passengers, they are trying to have it both ways. If the fare was artificially low from the airport, think about all those business class passengers that would be paying much less. Plus likely capacity would need to increase, increasing the base cost.

Would have to look at the GTAA access agreement - I would guess there is soemthing in there to prevent the airport from becoming the defacto transfer point between buses to Square One, etc, and a train to downtown, vs. one of the existing or to be built Go Station.

 

[k10ery]

The issue is that the Air Link is a waste of funds in that it is public money being used to subsidize the business class.
Toronto could have a new rapid transit line if they simply electrified the line, added more stations, and made it part of the standard TTC service with a small surcharge for those going all the way to Pearson.
As the Air Link is proposed now it is a luxury liner taking up scarce rail ROW space/capacity at public expense.

The cost of the spur, station, and rolling stock is about $200 million. If they charge $20/trip and get a million riders a year, then they will cover ALL the costs including capital costs. There is no subsidy.

But hopefully somebody will figure this out and drop the fare to about $10. The revenue loss would be small because passenger volumes would rise a lot - at least according to the KPMG study. And then there is some hope the line could be used by ordinary folks for within-city trips, as you said.

 

[Darwinkgo]

The cost of the spur, station, and rolling stock is about $200 million. If they charge $20/trip and get a million riders a year, then they will cover ALL the costs including capital costs. There is no subsidy.

But hopefully somebody will figure this out and drop the fare to about $10. The revenue loss would be small because passenger volumes would rise a lot - at least according to the KPMG study. And then there is some hope the line could be used by ordinary folks for within-city trips, as you said.

Depends how the incremental Georgetown Corridor improvements were booked ie: does some of the ARL operating surplus go towards that cost.

There is also the matter of the Union Station West (where Goodlife is) renovations needed for the ARL - has a cost of that been announced?

 

[k10ery]

^Does anybody get why a train that comes every 15 minutes requires a dedicated waiting lounge at Union Station?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

What rail cars will be used for the ARL?

 

[nfitz]

What rail cars will be used for the ARL?

They've ordered 12 brand new DMUs from Nippon Sharyo; presumably they'd run in 6 two-car trains: