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

I'm hoping they stick with trenching the tracks otherwise we will regret not doing it later. Federal law at this time still requires full grade separation for frequent heavy rail traffic (is the threshold one train crossing every 10 minutes or every 15 minutes?)

Either way, bi-directional GO traffic at 15 minute headways (7.5 minutes between crossings of a street) will require grade separation.
 
Earlscourt_Lad said:
It would be very close to Weston. IMO spacing like that makes sense for a subway, but not regional rail.
Click to expand...

It's just under 3 kilometres. The distance to Bloor would be 4.5 kilometres.

To compare, station spacing on the Bloor-Danforth line is about 600-700 metres apart. The long station spacing on the North Yonge line (between Eglinton and Lawrence and York Mills) is almost exactly 2 kilometres apart. It would be comparable to the 4 GO stations in Markham (Unionville-Centennial-Markham-Mount Joy), where station spacing is even closer together, using train sets not well suited to regional rail service.

It's on the low end of the ideal regional rail spacing, but I think Mount Dennis makes a lot of sense, partly as there will be that underground LRT line connecting there. GO did have plans for a station here if the Eglinton West subway was built.
 
rbt said:
I'm hoping they stick with trenching the tracks otherwise we will regret not doing it later. Federal law at this time still requires full grade separation for frequent heavy rail traffic (is the threshold one train crossing every 10 minutes or every 15 minutes?)

Either way, bi-directional GO traffic at 15 minute headways (7.5 minutes between crossings of a street) will require grade separation.
Click to expand...

There are numerous places on the lakeshore line through south etobicoke and eastern Mississauga that have level crossings, and the lakeshore line runs trains as frequently as 4 to 8 minutes at certain points of the peak hour.

I'm sure there is a formula, but frequencies are only one aspect of it.
 
ShonTron said:
It's just under 3 kilometres. The distance to Bloor would be 4.5 kilometres.
...

It's on the low end of the ideal regional rail spacing, but I think Mount Dennis makes a lot of sense, partly as there will be that underground LRT line connecting there. GO did have plans for a station here if the Eglinton West subway was built.
Click to expand...

That's actually a little farther than I had thought, but you're right it is on the low end.

The worry though, would be that they build an interchange station but the Eglinton LRT never gets completed (I mean, one would have thought the Eglinton subway was in the bag....). Should that happen, there would be a rather large station with limited passenger numbers using it, relative to it's design. Worse yet, they build a small Weston-esque station with plans to enlarge it and they never follow through, which results in an under-capacity station that serves as a regional hub with the LRT.

With the Airport link, I can't say for sure, but I somehow don't see it drawing a lot of passengers from Eglinton. That area is really a short taxi ride, and at worst a short drive on Black Creek/401/409. So $20 for a train, and the hassle of getting to the station, or $30 for a cab and door-to-door service.
 
But with a public line, it would not be $20... It would be whatever under $5 (GO fare).
 
RedRocket191: What, if any, insight do you have on Metrolinx's position on Blue 22? If I am not mistaken the plan was proposed before the former GTTA had any authority. Seems to me that Metrolinx would have a strong interest in connecting Pearson to a regional rail system, but perhaps you can give a few details about what, if anything, they might doing.
 
RedRocket191 said:
But with a public line, it would not be $20... It would be whatever under $5 (GO fare).
Click to expand...

That's true. The question then becomes: is saving an additional $15 enough to make people actively choose to take the train from that area though? I can't see it, especially in light of incresingly expensive flights. Would people want to significantly want to increase their travel time to the airport to save a relatively small amount?

I still maintain an Eglinton station constructed without the Eglinton LRT is not a good idea. I don't have the numbers to back up my supposition, but somehow I can't see bus and walk-up traffic generating enough passengers to justify the construction of a new station.
 
Earlscourt_Lad said:
That's true. The question then becomes: is saving an additional $15 enough to make people actively choose to take the train from that area though? I can't see it, especially in light of incresingly expensive flights. Would people want to significantly want to increase their travel time to the airport to save a relatively small amount?

I still maintain an Eglinton station constructed without the Eglinton LRT is not a good idea. I don't have the numbers to back up my supposition, but somehow I can't see bus and walk-up traffic generating enough passengers to justify the construction of a new station.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the second point. Building the LRT will maximize any potential a Mount Dennis / Eglinton West GO Station has, but so will true fare integration between the TTC and GO. If people think of it as an extension of the subway, they will use it as an extension of the subway.

On the first point, I think the expensive flights is exactly the reason why people will want to save money by taking the train. But, it won't be for everyone. A family with four suitcases going to Mexico for the christmas break won't have much choice but to take a taxi or get a ride.

AnarchoSocialist said:
RedRocket191: What, if any, insight do you have on Metrolinx's position on Blue 22? If I am not mistaken the plan was proposed before the former GTTA had any authority. Seems to me that Metrolinx would have a strong interest in connecting Pearson to a regional rail system, but perhaps you can give a few details about what, if anything, they might doing.
Click to expand...

If you had asked me this question two weeks ago, I would have told you that my money was on Blue 22 being down for the count. The news this past weekend caught me off guard, and I have no feel for where this project stands. I suspect that the most likely scenario is that Person will be connected by public regional rail and by Blue 22. I don't see the province giving them the exclusive right to run all Union-Pearson services, but I wouldn't be surprised if they won the exclusive right to express services only.

Of course, those are the thoughts of Andrae Griffith and not of Metrolinx, Metronauts or anything with Metro attached to its name.
 
RedRocket191 said:
There are numerous places on the lakeshore line through south etobicoke and eastern Mississauga that have level crossings, and the lakeshore line runs trains as frequently as 4 to 8 minutes at certain points of the peak hour.

I'm sure there is a formula, but frequencies are only one aspect of it.
Click to expand...

I dug around and found a great answer that is very very involved.

Essentially, there is a model called the Black Spot model for creating a "risk score" and there is a maximum allowable level of risk.

Risk factors include:
- Train speed
- Traffic speed
- Train angle
- Road geometry
- Weather/visibility
- etc.
- number of trains
- number of vehicles

So, you could change any one of those aspects. With a perpendicular crossing with high visibility, where you cannot reduce traffic, train count, or speeds of either of those -- then you simply eliminate the crossing entirely (grade separation).
 
i was a big proponent of a rail link until i realized how convienient the downtown express bus is.

even recently when I was flying out of JFK in ny, i could have taken the rail there... but it was quite inconvienient. instead I paid $15 for a coach and got to ride in comfort. samt thing with EWR.

as someone who lives and works downtown, and who drives often to the suburbs along the gardiner (and someone who used to commute daily using the gardiner), I can say that most of the complaining about our crazy traffic is massively overstated. i find the gardiner quite useable at any hour.

overall, a rail link would be nice, but im happy with the bus.
 
Earlscourt_Lad said:
That's true. The question then becomes: is saving an additional $15 enough to make people actively choose to take the train from that area though? I can't see it, especially in light of incresingly expensive flights. Would people want to significantly want to increase their travel time to the airport to save a relatively small amount?
Click to expand...

The airport and its immediate area is a major employment center. A large number of people going to the airport each day didn't pay any airfares and an extra $30 per day is a big deal ($7500 of their income per year eaten up).

In my opinion Blue 22 is a bad idea. The perfect plan is a passenger rail corridor diversion to a stop in a station below T1. The second best plan is a monorail / people-mover system which connects the terminals to a station on the existing rail corridor (either at Malton station or a new station near Woodbine racetrack) and to a station in the Eglinton Renforth area. Both of these plans provide ways provides ways for GO and VIA passengers to access the terminal on through-service trains rather than only special trains requiring transfer at Union station. The rail corridor diversion is much more expensive (likely a bit more than twice the cost of the rail spur planned in Blue 22) but delivers people directly to T1. With the rail corridor diversion it would make sense for the Mississauga BRT and Eglinton LRT to end at the airport. With the monorail / people mover plan passengers would transfer to the monorail / people mover system from GO and VIA but the system would be able to provide multiple stations on the airport property. With the monorail / people mover plan the Mississauga BRT and Eglinton LRT would end at the southernmost station on the monorail / people mover which would be at Eglinton and Renforth.

Use cases (based on Blue22 with Union stop only and no new VIA/GO services from east continuing through Union to the airport):

Kitchener to Airport
Blue22: Kitchener to Union (VIA) + Union to Airport T1 (Blue22) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 1 or 2 transfers, pays additional $20? + Union to Malton difference, longest route ]
Diversion: Kitchener to Airport T1 (VIA) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 0 or 1 transfers, pays nothing additional, shortest route ]
Monorail: Kitchener to Malton/Woodbine (VIA) + Malton/Woodbine to Aiport T1 or T3 [ 1 transfer, pays nothing additional, slightly longer than shortest route ]

Brampton to Airport
Blue22: Brampton to Union (GO) + Union to Airport T1 (Blue22) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 1 or 2 transfers, pays additional $20? + Union to Malton difference, longest route ]
Diversion: Brampton to Airport T1 (GO) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 0 or 1 transfers, pays nothing additional, shortest route ]
Monorail: Brampton to Malton/Woodbine (GO) + Malton/Woodbine to Aiport T1 or T3 [ 1 transfer, pays nothing additional, slightly longer than shortest route ]

Square One to Airport
Blue22: Not handled unless BRT plan modified to go to airport, would not tie in with Blue22 directly.
Diversion: Not handled unless BRT plan modified to go to airport, would not tie in with Diversion directly.
Monorail: Square One to Renforth (BRT) + Renforth to Aiport T1 or T3 [ 1 transfer, pays nothing additional ]

Union to Airport
Blue22: Union to Airport T1 (Blue22) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 0 or 1 transfers, pays $20?, tied for shortest route ]
Diversion: Union to Airport T1 (GO/VIA) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 0 or 1 transfers, pays GO fare $6?, tied for shortest route ]
Monorail: Union to Malton/Woodbine (GO) + Malton/Woodbine to Aiport T1 or T3 [ 1 transfer, pays GO fare $6?, slightly longer than shortest route ]

Y&E to Airport
Blue22: Y&E to Union (subway) + Union to Airport T1 (Blue22) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 1 or 2 transfers, pays $20?, tied for longest route ]
Diversion: Y&E to Union (subway) + Union to Airport T1 (GO/VIA) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 1 or 2 transfers, pays GO fare $6?, tied for longest route ]
Monorail: Y&E to Renforth (LRT) + Renforth to Aiport T1 or T3 [ 1 transfer, pays nothing additional, shortest route ]

Oshawa to Airport
Blue22: Oshawa to Union (GO) + Union to Airport T1 (Blue22) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 1 or 2 transfers, pays additional $20?, tied for shortest route ]
Diversion: Oshawa to Union (GO) + Union to Airport T1 (GO/VIA) ( + additional people mover to T3 if required ) [ 1 or 2 transfers, pays additional GO fare $6?, tied for shortest route ]
Monorail: Oshawa to Union (GO) + Union to Malton/Woodbine (GO) + Malton/Woodbine to Aiport T1 or T3 [ 2 transfers, pays nothing additional, slightly longer than shortest route ]

Note that the Blue22 could have additional stops at Woodbine and/or Eglinton which would improve trip lengths in some cases but would not change the number of transfers and would not likely be free. Also note that with GO and VIA being part of a larger network there are opportunities to reduce Union station transfers by ending some routes from east of Union at the airport instead of Union station.

Summary:
Kitchener to Airport: Diversion 4 points, Monorail 3 points, Blue22 1 points
Brampton to Airport: Diversion 4 points, Monorail 3 points, Blue22 1 points
Square One to Airport: Monorail 2 points, Blue22 1 point, Diversion 1 point
Union to Airport: Diversion 4 points, Blue22 3 points, Monorail 2 points
Y&E to Airport: Monorail 4 points, Diversion 2 points, Blue22 1 point
Oshawa to Airport: Diversion 4 points, Blue22 3 points, Monorail 2 points

Total: Diversion 19 points, Monorail 16 points, Blue22 10 points.

Cost to implement would skew the numbers drastically in favour of the Monorail / People Mover option.
 
Very interesting way of looking at the various options Enviro, and well thought out. One comment I would make though is that transfers are largely avoidable, unless you happen to live next to a train station and happen to be dropped off right at your departure point. And it is also one thing to make a transfer when you are carrying a briefcase or backpack, it is another when you are hauling luggage around. For that reason additional transfer when travelling to the airport are going to drastically reduce the attractiveness of taking a train/transit there.

Take a case of someone travelling to Pearson from Oshawa, or Kitchener, just as an example, under the scenario of a diversion with a station at T1. They have to get to their GO/VIA station, which already accounts for one transfer from their car, taxi, or a bus/lrt. Then they arrive at Pearson. If they are going to T3 then they are going to have to make a small trip to get there, but being on airport grounds already, and given the nature of airports, this is not too bad. And if say 1/3 trips requires that additional transfer, but the others offer the benefit of direct drop off, most travellers might not find an extra trip that bad. But in the end, it still amounts to another transfer to the people mover. Under this scenario I think most travellers, given the option, would likely see this as not too inconvenient from the point of lugging suitcases around, and convenient in terms of time to get their and cost. And with a multi-service station at Pearson, many points across the GTA could get just this kind of service.

Of course there other options. Blue 22 has been discussed endlessly so it is clear that while it offers good service, serving only one point in the GTA is not acceptable. The other much discussed option is a people-mover from Malton. For those travelling out of T3, there would be no real difference. For those travelling from T1, which I believe is a large majority of travellers now, you have just added another transfer and greatly reduced one of the primary advantages of a on site Pearson station.

Even an on-site, multi-service station has its issues that would need to be worked out, depending in part on the long term plans of the GTAA. But these can easily be worked out, if the chance was actually given to develop such a plan. Basically I see rail service to Pearson working if a large number of people can do the trip with only one transfer (including taking your car to your initial station as a transfer). And putting a multi-service on-site would make that possible for a large amount of the population across the GTA. Also as you mentioned this is the most expensive option, but, in terms of passengers per dollar spent on such a project, I would suspect that this would produce a far better return than the investment planned for Blue 22.

Edit: There is also the possibility that a main station could be built at T1 that would see GO/VIA/and Blue 22 service. Since GO and VIA are likely only going to want to make one stop at Pearson they would have little interest in a second station at T3. But Blue 22, as was in its original plan, would have an interest in such a station. A small station could be built there that would offer Blue 22 service, at least offering those travellers a direct Union-Pearson connection without needing the people mover. And since, if I recall correctly, most international goes in and out of T3, which would include a lot of business people and tourists, Blue 22 would be a service that would appeal to a lot those travellers.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top