smallspy
Senior Member
GO commissioned a report about 12 or 13 years ago that suggested just that. For whatever reason, the Governments felt that what we are getting instead was more appropriate.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited
GO commissioned a report about 12 or 13 years ago that suggested just that. For whatever reason, the Governments felt that what we are getting instead was more appropriate.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Extending/revising the people mover and extending it out of the airport to, both, the north and south would appear to be a fairly low cost proposition and one that I have been a big fan of for a long time.
If you could get it to Renforth and Eglinton (presumably along Silver Dart as crossing the runways and taxiways is probably not advised
) in the south and Malton GO in the north you could create two airport transit terminals that would be accessible by any of the various transit bodies operating to those locations. You could, even, have check in desks there or car rental places there or anything really but the point is that the airport would have viable public transit options from a much wider area than the current ARL proposal offers (and I am not opposed to the ARL....I just think that exending/revising the people mover in conjunction with the ARL would make our airport very very accessible).TOareaFan
Superstar
Does anyone know how popular those airport express coach buses are? They charge somewhere between $25 and $30 don't they? Surely a direct train that is not subject to traffic conditions would be able to charge that much? Sure, it does not pick you up at the door of your hotel but if you are in the IC, RY or any of the other hotels within an easy walk of Union Station the ARL has to be a better option than one of these buses.....no?
Last edited:
fiendishlibrarian
Active Member
Depends when your flight is, but generally every time I've taken them they're pretty much full by the time they get on the Gardiner. And as you said, traffic conditions can pretty much make or break the trip. I think they will, over time, lose business to this new train.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,463
- Reaction score
- 9,255
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
I've never taken the airport express buses, but that they're fully-wrapped already turns me off the service. There's nothing I dislike more than riding on a fast moving wrapped bus with poor-to-awful views to the outside. I also heard that they play commercials and tourism videos inside. Is that true?
This is my preferred approach as well. It just seems so much clearer for travellers. There's a single mode of rapid transit at the airport (the shuttle), and depending on where you want to go you take it one way or the other. Want TTC bound for central Toronto? Renforth. Want Mississauga Transit? Renforth. Want GO service to Brampton or Union? Malton. Want TTC service to northern Toronto? Malton.
Pearson is confusing enough as it is. I'd much rather just have a single connection in and out, and then figure it out once I'm out of the zoo that is Pearson. You can even have customer service reps at both the Terminal 1 and Terminal 3 stations, telling people which direction to go for what type of service.
BMO
Senior Member
While this may be the cheapest, i've got to say that I would much rather have one central transit terminal in T1 that houses Local, Regional and inter-city transit, as opposed to having two transit terminals outside of the airport. I can see merit in extending the People Mover to the Milton GO so as to provide a conenction to GO transit and trains from the West without forcing them to make the trek into the new train station then back out again to continue eastwards.
If all of those services were located in one single easy to get to location, I would agree with you. But somehow I doubt that it's going to be that simple. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I think having "TTC LRT <- People Mover î Air-Rail Link ->" in completely different locations around the terminal would confuse quite a few people. At least if you're funnelling all rapid transit-bound passengers into a single area within the terminal, giving them further directions if needed at that location, and then dispersing them out to whatever hub they need to get to, that would be the better option.
Heck, even Union Station is confusing to a lot of people (GO Concourse, TTC Concourse, VIA Concourse), and those are all relatively well signed and close together. Terminal 1 IMO is even more confusing.
raptor
Senior Member
Union Station ARL location (Skywalk):
Updated rendering of the DMU:
From:
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/airraillink/arl.aspx
Updated rendering of the DMU:
From:
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/airraillink/arl.aspx
Dan416
Senior Member
Don't know why but I'm kinda underwhelmed.
TOareaFan
Superstar
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Another bad news story for Toronto commuters and the poor sould who live within 1 km of what will become the world's busiest diesel rail corridor. Torontonians won't be able to use the line but there is one good thing, they'll be paying for it.
I didn't really think that court would side with the citizens but I was hoping they would atleast tell Metrolinx that the noise and pollution are very valid concerns and give Metrolinx a defined amount of time {ie electrify with 2 years of opening} to electrify the line or the line would have to stop running. Much like many issues where citizens take their governments to task, the government is given a "reasonable" amount of time to phase in the new standards.
Now, Metrolinx has carte blanche authority to run diesel till the end of time and that is exactly what they will do. Metrolinx says it plans to electrify it in the "medium term" which at Toronto transit expansion timetables means atleast not for 25 years if ever.
By not electrifying the line it also means that more frequent stops and using it as standard Metro service is out of the question and that means there is no rail corridor west of Union to put a DRL ala OneCity.
I didn't really think that court would side with the citizens but I was hoping they would atleast tell Metrolinx that the noise and pollution are very valid concerns and give Metrolinx a defined amount of time {ie electrify with 2 years of opening} to electrify the line or the line would have to stop running. Much like many issues where citizens take their governments to task, the government is given a "reasonable" amount of time to phase in the new standards.
Now, Metrolinx has carte blanche authority to run diesel till the end of time and that is exactly what they will do. Metrolinx says it plans to electrify it in the "medium term" which at Toronto transit expansion timetables means atleast not for 25 years if ever.
By not electrifying the line it also means that more frequent stops and using it as standard Metro service is out of the question and that means there is no rail corridor west of Union to put a DRL ala OneCity.
BMO
Senior Member
Union Station ARL location (Skywalk):
Updated rendering of the DMU:
From:
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/airraillink/arl.aspx
OMG why would they build the platform all the way in the skywalk ?? Why wouldn't they just use the first platform closest to the station and closer to the actual Union Station so that better connections to GO and TTC could be had. As it stands this is at least a 5-10min walk (I know because I used to walk from Union to the CN Tower everyday when I was a tour guide there). This is going to confuse guests more. Who wants to be let off in the skywalk? At least in the main Union station they'd get off and be in the gran atrium and entrance which is an iconic landmark for tourists to remember how to get to. The glass-enclosed skywalk is pretty forgettable IMO.
Wrenkin
Active Member
You're probably thinking of Charter challenges, where you get that sort of delayed effect on occasion. While one might have been able to make some sort of long-shot health claim under section 7, it sounds to me like this was a typical administrative law case where some agency (Metrolinx) was said to have acted unreasonably. Thing is, courts don't like to intervene because what do they know about trains? Similarly, they don't have the political legitimacy of those people who appointed the supposed experts.
The case was probably never going to be about substituting a correct decision. Even if a judge thought Metrolinx acted unreasonably here, they would lack the technical expertise to set a "reasonable" deadline. Why would they have any idea how long it would take to electrify? Usually what happens is the court just sends an unreasonable decision back to the agency for a rehearing, with instructions to pay more attention to some detail (e.g. pollution).
It plans to electrify it in the medium term absent a DRL plan. So, no, the City doesn't get this one for free. But I imagine there are kinks in the plan that would take until the medium term to figure out, like freight trains on the line, etc. Or whether and how the trains would pass through Union (are you suggesting a Western-only DRL? Do we need that?)