[Monarch Butterfly]

Because of the multiple terminals, most airports use some sort a train shuttle to move passengers from terminal to terminal to parking garage to transit station.

As the Pearson airport grows, I can see them expanding their current "TERMINAL LINK" train. It might be better if they extend the "TERMINAL LINK" south down to the Crosstown LRT, north up to the Finch West LRT (wherever they route those lines), and GO Train. The UPX station could remain, however it ends up being in the future.

 

[dowlingm]

There is an intention in the GTAA master plan to extend the Link to the far end of T1. There is also an intention to convert to "self propelled" vehicles at some point also (presumably the same time?) Given the dimensions of the Link and how it is now hemmed in by UPX, I doubt we will see full size LRVs on that guideway.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If ECLRT did go there, we'd probably see a transfer similar in style to the LINK UPX transfer

 

[TheTigerMaster]

And building a grade-separated bus transitway along Eglinton West runs the same expense as building a grade-separated LRT minus the trackbed

The Transitway extension to Mt. Dennis doesn't need to be grade separated.

 

[salsa]

There's also this part from the article:

The so-called western spur of his proposal has long been the most problematic. The Globe reported exclusively in November that, according to still-unreleased parts of a report for the city, running SmartTrack as a heavy-rail option to the airport area would cost $3-billion to $5-billion. An LRT serving the same area would cost $1.3-billion.

So the LRT would cost $1.3 Billion. Looks like they're taking it into the airport.

Smart Track doesn't go to the airport, so when the paragraph you quoted says "an LRT serving the same area would cost $1.3-billion", it might not necessarily mean that the LRT will go all the way to the airport.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Good catch. All we can say is that they were evaluating the idea. What will be selected is anyone's guess.

 

[Steve X]

The Transitway extension to Mt. Dennis doesn't need to be grade separated.

Maybe they should grade separated the Martin Grove/Eglinton intersection. The original plans call for the left turns from Eglinton to Martin Grove (eastbound to northbound) to routed to it's own lane a block south. Tory plans to this intersection as part of the 10 most congestion intersection too. It would help to grade separate the intersection where Eglinton and the highway too. Traffic is really bad here in rush hour.

 

[georgevicbell]

What's the business case for going to the airport? The line we have currently doesn't attract any riders...why would another one improve things?

There is a much more reasonable argument that square one or Hurontario might be a better target to aim for...how often do people go to an airport (twice a year?)...it'd be way better to send the kids to the mall once a week, or centennial park or Hershey center...there is a way more at that mall of interest than at the airport...

Why not go south on kipling or islington and over to Sherway...or down to Lakeshore and Long Branch Go....these routes would serve way more people and have way more utility and network effects than another line to the airport...unless we are building some movie theatres and schools up there that I don't know about it seems crazy to cater to one-off trips...

 

[crs1026]

Why not go south on kipling or islington and over to Sherway...or down to Lakeshore and Long Branch Go....these routes would serve way more people and have way more utility and network effects than another line to the airport...unless we are building some movie theatres and schools up there that I don't know about it seems crazy to cater to one-off trips...

I'm biting my tongue on the existing airport service until there is at least a full year's ridership data to trend from. By then, planning SmartTrack up the Weston will be further along. Continued weak UPX ridership data suggesting need to revisit the UPX fare strategy, plus SmartTrack line to downtown terminating just a short track segment away.....I won't go there yet.

TTC just announced a new Rocket service on Kipling South. I suspect that many people coming from the north end do carry on south to employment areas further south, and/or to Humber College on the Lakeshore. Same issue, however....so far the numbers don't reach the threshold for anything other than better bus service, and there is no one north-south route that is a preeminent choice for RT.

Connectivity between the north end and the Eglinton busway makes intuitive sense, given all the employment areas west of Renforth. I would bet that an Airport Rocket bus from Mount Dennis would be well used. The number would be greater than zero but not necessarily LRT level. Once the Mount Dennis hub becomes real, with both ST and ECLRT coming to it, travel patterns may change considerably. Development east of Mount Dennis on Eglinton will change things too, we may see airport area workers living along there. It may just take a while.

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What's the business case for going to the airport? The line we have currently doesn't attract any riders...why would another one improve things?

There is a much more reasonable argument that square one or Hurontario might be a better target to aim for...how often do people go to an airport (twice a year?)...it'd be way better to send the kids to the mall once a week, or centennial park or Hershey center...there is a way more at that mall of interest than at the airport...

Why not go south on kipling or islington and over to Sherway...or down to Lakeshore and Long Branch Go....these routes would serve way more people and have way more utility and network effects than another line to the airport...unless we are building some movie theatres and schools up there that I don't know about it seems crazy to cater to one-off trips...

Yeah, well that's the wonderful thing about the Transitway. We can easily serve both the airport and Sherway and any other destinations , as busses offer unlimited route flexibility. The Transitway extension could be the trunk of several Etobickoe bus routes.

 

[Rainforest]

What's the business case for going to the airport? The line we have currently doesn't attract any riders...why would another one improve things?

There is a much more reasonable argument that square one or Hurontario might be a better target to aim for...how often do people go to an airport (twice a year?)...it'd be way better to send the kids to the mall once a week, or centennial park or Hershey center...there is a way more at that mall of interest than at the airport...

There is a large employment area around the airport. UPX does not serve it at all, but the LRT would.

Why not go south on kipling or islington and over to Sherway...or down to Lakeshore and Long Branch Go....these routes would serve way more people and have way more utility and network effects than another line to the airport...unless we are building some movie theatres and schools up there that I don't know about it seems crazy to cater to one-off trips...

That would be a separate service, feeding into the Bloor subway and the Lakeshore West GO RER. There is no point brinding the LRT from Eglinton, 4 km north of Bloor, south across Bloor to serve those areas.

 

[Rainforest]

This isn't something we have to guess about.

Eastbound at peak hour, ridership at jane is 2,900 pphpd. This section between Mt. Dennis and Jane, less than 1 km, is the only section of the line that is solidly in LRT technology.

Moving west to Scarlett Rd, 2 km from Mt. Dennis, ridership drops to 2,100, which is the approaching the lowest I personally would support building an LRT, and is the lowest the TTC recommends.

So in a 2 km stretch, this LRT loses nearly 1/3 of it's ridership.

Continuing on to Royal York, 3 km from Mt. Dennis, ridership drops to 1,700 pphpd, well below acceptable demand for an LRT. It's lost 41% of it's ridership in a 3 km stretch, only 23% of the proposed extension length.

Moving on to Widdecombe, 6 km from Mt. Dennis and well below half the distance of the proposed extension, ridership plummets to 900 pphpd, which isn't anywhere near LRT territory.

First of all, ridership never falls below 1,500 pphpd according to this map. At Widdecombe, it is 900 eastbound, but 1,500 westbound.

1,500 pphpd is above the peak ridership of all bus routes in the city, except a few busiest routes. Assuming that an LRT train comes every 6 min on this section (10 trains an hour), each LRT train will carry 150 riders. That's a half-full train, not an almost-empty one.

Operating expenses needed to carry such load might actually be lower with LRT than with buses (you would need 15 - 18 artics or 20 - 25 regular buses per hour, all with drivers, instead of 10 LRT trains).

Furthermore, the outer section of LRT on almost every major arterial will have ridership similar or less than that on Eglinton West. I am not sure about Finch LRT east of Humber Colledge, but its extension further south down Hwy 27 certainly will have less than 1,500 pphpd. Yet, nobody seems to doubt the viability of extending Finch LRT to Woodbine or Pearson.

If the Mt Dennis bus-to-LRT transfer is made permanent, then it will be very hard to sell LRT to residents of any other arterial street, as they will expect a similar transfer introduced on their street.

 

[andrewpmk]

The ridership "projection" seems insanely low relative to the large amount of employment in the airport area (hundreds of thousands of jobs) and traffic problems on Highway 401.

The only reason that the UP Express is underused is because it has very high fares.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

First of all, ridership never falls below 1,500 pphpd according to this map. At Widdecombe, it is 900 eastbound, but 1,500 westbound.

Usage is lower than 2,000 pphpd everywhere west of Scarlett. That's about 2 km of the proposed 8 to 13 km extension.

1,500 pphpd is above the peak ridership of all bus routes in the city, except a few busiest routes.

Which is why I think it should be a candidate for an upgrade to BRT. That mode can carry up to about 4,000 pphpd.

Operating expenses needed to carry such load might actually be lower with LRT than with buses (you would need 15 - 18 artics or 20 - 25 regular buses per hour, all with drivers, instead of 10 LRT trains).

Operating expenses would undoubtedly be lower. The question is how long do we have to wait for the savings to be amortized.

The Sheppard-Finch LRT benefits case has the annual operating cost of those two LRT lines as being $10.3 million/year. An ECLRT extension to Pearson is about 40% the length of the combined length of Sheppard and Finch, so lets say it will have a annual operating cost of $4.12 Million/year. Now lets assume a BRT costs 50% more to operate, $6.18 Million/year. Thus, the LRT is $2.06 Million cheaper to operate than the BRT per year.

An LRT extension to Pearson should cost about a billion more than a BRT to Renforth. That means it will take 486 years for the additional capital cost to exceed the lower operating costs of LRT.

We can nitpick about the numbers, but regardless the time to see the savings of cheaper LRT operations is on the time scale of centuries. This is well beyond the useful lifespan of either a BRT or LRT. Heck, Toronto might not even exist 500 years from now (knock on wood).'

 

[Rainforest]

Operating expenses would undoubtedly be lower. The question is how long do we have to wait for the savings to be amortized.

The Sheppard-Finch LRT benefits case has the annual operating cost of those two LRT lines as being $10.3 million/year. An ECLRT extension to Pearson is about 40% the length of the combined length of Sheppard and Finch, so lets say it will have a annual operating cost of $4.12 Million/year. Now lets assume a BRT costs 50% more to operate, $6.18 Million/year. Thus, the LRT is $2.06 Million cheaper to operate than the BRT per year.

An LRT extension to Pearson should cost about a billion more than a BRT to Renforth. That means it will take 486 years for the additional capital cost to exceed the lower operating costs of LRT.

We can nitpick about the numbers, but regardless the time to see the savings of cheaper LRT operations is on the time scale of centuries. This is well beyond the useful lifespan of either a BRT or LRT. Heck, Toronto might not even exist 500 years from now (knock on wood).'

Well, that calculation does not take into account:

1) Ridership growth beoynd the target date. The ridership forecast was for a 15-20 year period. It is conceivable that the ridership of such a central route will continue to grow after that, and will reach a level unsuitable for BRT much sooner than in 400 years

2) Land value and property taxes; many people assume that LRT increases the land value and promotes highrise development more effectively than BRT.

3) Inflation; at 2% yearly, operating expenses will cost twice as much in nominal dollars 40 years down the road.

But perhaps most importantly, the same logic applied to almost any other planned LRT line will force us to declare that the outer section is not needed at all. Finch West south of Humber college, or SMLRT north of Eglinton, will certainly have less than 1,500. Same goes for almost every other arterial (Jane may be the only exception as its northern section would feed into York U and the subway).