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

A subway would be the best option I think, it would add a new route plus more stops in the city, but it does cost a lot of money and the city don't got money to spend apprently.

$20 a ride isn't bad considering the bus from downtown cost $15 I think. The express airport bus that is.
 
This is crying out for an S-Bahn-type service, which could be put in place even in an ad-hoc fashion. Electrify two tracks, throw in some basic intermediate stations (say, Spadina, Liberty, Queen, College, Bloor, Junction, Weston, Rexdale) and you've utterly transformed transit on the west side. Or if they're really serious about airport service, electrify four tracks and run a union-dundas west-woodbine express with a link to the GTTA people mover. Presto.

Sadly, this makes too mcuh sense to ever happen.
 
Sadly, this makes too much sense to ever happen.
Click to expand...
Indeed, either S-Bahn-like and run by GO or a new subway line operated by the TTC. Miller shouldn't be so quick to discount this option as "too expensive" either and show some more leadership and vision on this. A subway option on this corridor would be cheaper to built than traditional subway building in T.O. and would have a huge bang for the buck. I don't think it would be an overstatement to say it would transform transportation in much of the city's west-end.

My TTC stations would be as follows: Union ==> RogersCentre ==> Fort York (Liberty Village) ==> Parkdale (Queen) ==> College West ==> Dundas West (with an underground link to the B-D portion of Dundas West) ==> Junction ==> Black Creek (Eglinton) ==> Weston ==> Etobicoke North (same as the Go Station) ==> Woodbine.

At Woodbine people would either switch to the Pearson people-mover or perhaps new tracks would be built to take the subway right into Pearson.

If this was a Go Transit project, I'd cut a bunch of the stations, but it's still easily "doable" and wouldn't take billions either. Vision people!

Also, if tracks were built from the Georgetown line into Pearson, there's no reason why eventually TTC, GO and VIA couldn't all one day use this new R.O.W. and all service Pearson at whatever levels make sense for them.
 
I am going to tick a few of your off with my pessimistic predictions:

1) Weston residents will hate any outcome that means more trains, regardless of fuel types;

2) Any type of rail link to the airport is dead for 10 years. It will be too expensive to buy the rights, there is no money and the residents now feel empowered (see above).
 
I don't think there is any basis that the Weston residents are simply being NIMBYs.

The Weston Community Colation has consistently stated that they support improvements that 1. benefit the community and 2. don't split the community in half. They have even produced their own proposal, calling for frequencies on the line even higher than those proposed for the Blue 22.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Toronto can learn from Cleveland - the first North American city to get a rapid transit line to the airport.

Now, the RTA's frequencies suck. The Red Line runs 1-2 car "trains" every 15 minutes on Saturday, the two Shaker Heights lines every 30 minutes each on Saturdays. But seeing a electric transit line adjacent to a underused rail corridor gives one ideas.

RTA1.jpg


RTA2.jpg


Though Cleveland is no model for transit-oriented development.

RTA3.jpg


Picture at Airport Station, from world.nycsubway.org. With the short section downtown, this is the only underground station.

img_21549.jpg


This could work for Weston (well, at least the idea of a simple rapid transit line, but with proper service). This is because the railway closely follows Weston Road and passes through areas that can easily be revitalized and intensified, unlike say Allen Road. Stations are simple.

And at Woodbine, a station can be built for GO and VIA for passengers from the west, just transfer to the RT.
 
In terms of size and population of the region the airport serves and the traffic that Pearson itself experiences, I really think that the Weston needs to be able to offer a number of choices for destinations and speed of service.

In 10 or 15 years time (about how long it will take for any line to be constructed after EA's, planning, and construction), Pearson will probably have passenger traffic of 35 + million people and the Golden Horseshoe will be approaching 10 million people (about 7 million for the GTA alone and a little over 3 million for Toronto). These are not small numbers and in terms of comparisons that may be roughly equivalent the one that comes to mind is Schiphol (42 million passengers in 2004) and serving Amsterdam, surrounding metros and other cities in Holland, the number of residents it serves is roughly equal, if not a little higher than the Golden Horeshoe will be in 15 years.

Schiphol is served by NS-Reizigers, which is the passenger division of the old Dutch Railways. The station itself is very minimal, directly under the airport itself. It connects to Amsterdam Centraal primarily but has trains that make local stops as well and will also be served by the new HSL that is opening in 2007.

What makes the Dutch example ideal for Toronto is its simplicity and flexibilty. All trains run on traditional rail (designed for passenger and freight needs) and of course electrified. However by using a variety of rail stock it becomes very easy to offer local, regional, or intercity service. Below are some pictures of the stock that is used on the Dutch railway, all of which I do believe (except for the ICE) serve Schiphol.

EMU DM'90 Buffel. Primarily for local service (ideal for Union to Pearson local service).
p.jpeg


EMU set known as Koploper. Primarily used on intercity trips.
p.jpeg


p.jpeg


Newest EMU NS Sprinter. Largely used for commuter and regional service (and some local I believe). Very quick trains. Can reach 125 km/h in 75 seconds.
p.jpeg


Older model NS Sprinter.
p.jpeg


NS Sprinter next to a German rail vehicle (possibley a Talent).
p.jpeg


EMU Regionrunner Commuter trains. What an electrified GO train might look like (and made by Bombardier).
p.jpeg


p.jpeg


EMU ICE for all your long distance, high speed, intercity needs.
p.jpeg


What is of little concern is who actually operates on the tracks. If GO, VIA, and the TTC want offer various services, great. If Mississauga wants to continue its rebelious ways and offer its own rail service to Pearson, go ahead. I dont even see a problem with a private operater running a $20 Pearson to Union express service so long as everyone else can operate too. But for a city and region the size of Toronto and the Golden Horeshoe respectively, I really hope the solution is reflective of its immense and growing size.
 
Antiloop:
I would tend to agree with you, but is there enough room in the rail ROW to accomodate another track for passing purposes? I assume that these tracks would remain separate from the CN tracks, where freight trains would continue to run as diesels...
 
Anti,

That is a Talent. Ottawa is currently using 3 for its first line. Maybe we will sell ours when we convert to Siemens electrics.
 
^Good question. That I am not sure about. It would really depend on the kind of agreement that could be made between CN and any rail authority that would oversee train traffic. If all freight traffic was able to be moved at night than there wouldnt be much of a problem. If they wanted to be able to run trains all day, that would obviously be a larger challenge.
 
From what I understand the Talents are heavy rail but have not been certified by Transport Canada or the US equivelent. They have only sold 3 in North America. So to use them they have the classified as "light rail". They can not be used concurrently with heavy rail trains.
 
The whole idea of not being able to mix heavy and light rail on the same tracks is becoming a bit of a joke. Why is it okay then to have a bicycle, moped or smart car on the same road as a H2 Hummer or a transport truck?

That's the other thing about Cleveland. The heavy rail Red Line shares tracks and stations with the light rail ex-Shaker Heights Rapid Transit Green and Blue lines. Platforms are split between high-floors for the Red Line and low-floors for the LRVs.
 
I honestly think that Cleveland's light rail cars are heavier than their heavy rail "subway" cars. The light rail cars seem designed to take a collision with a truck, which the red line has no need for. As long as they run only 1 and 2 car trains, it's not really a useful comparison.

Transport Canada might be convinced to allow mixing if an Automatic Train Protection (ATP) system, such as the trainstops underneath the subway cars, was installed on all trains serving the line to prevent the running of red signals. This is what is done in London where tube trains share tracks with mainline trains.
 
Where's ARE BE when you need him? Oh ya banned from every forum. Actually he hasn't been banned here for a while. Just doesn't like us as a soapbox anymore I guess.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top