Comments on: Airport Trains Suck. Will REM Too?

By: JB

JB — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 20:01:47 +0000

Why such a big focus on the North American airport trains?
I understand that it helps compare, but at the same time it limits the re-imagining the airport train.

In other articles about the REM, you wrote about how VIA Rail wants to increase frequency and speed by building a new network for it. And with the Turcot project reserving tracks for passenger trains next to the new A20, Montreal has a unique chance to make things right.

Whether it will be AMT or VIA Rail (or both), we can build a better airport rail connection than what REM proposes and what the AeroTrain proposed a few years ago. If we’re lucky we maybe even get rid of the Lucien L’Allier station that is just so inefficient because trains have to turn around.

Call me a dreamer, but I’d like to see YUL get a rail tunnel like the one under Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport (maybe not 6 lines, but 3 or 4 to be ready for future expansion).
It may split off around after Gare Valois. Pine Beach may be rendered useless though. After the stop at YUL, it can resurface around HW13 to reduce cost. Then create a new underground station at Montreal-West and from there reconnect with the to-be-built tracks on the new HW20 site. We’ll need to say goodbye to the tracks Lucien-L’Allier – Vendome – Montreal-West, but those have been splitting neighbourhoods up in two for decades (>century), which will surely benefit general traffic in Montreal West, NDG and the west of Ville-Marie.

After Turcot, St-Henri has always been a hell for motorists when trains come through. Courcelles and St-Ambroise crossings block off a lot of rush hour traffic daily.
At this point we should be inspired by the old train tracks to the first Bonaventure station (currently the Dow Planetarium stands on this site) and the Antwerp Central Station tunnel: if we create another tunnel, which roughly follows the old train tracks (Parc du Premier-Chemin-de-Fer), create a smart new transfer station at Lionel-Groulx, swing back under the 720 before it goes too deep, create a new station between the Bell Centre and the 720, platforms under De La GauchetiÃ¨re to integrate a stop to Gare Central with a better transfer channels to the bus station and metro station. We can add another stop around the Palais de CongrÃ¨s (maybe under the parking lot in front of the courthouse, with station facilities where they want to cover the 720). From there, going further east as an AMT LTR will offload some pressure from the green metro line and may even extend further.

As for VIA Rail, it will still want to connect to the current Gare Central infrastructure to be able to connect towards Laval for its new corridor to Quebec City. Updating all of this, including a great new rail infrastructure in Trois-Rivieres, may boost business for Dorval Airport, potentially attracting even move passengers from Quebec regions around Quebec City and Ottawa by being connected to an efficient rail service.

By: ant6n

ant6n — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:22:28 +0000

@palm
That’s good news. Do you have a source?

It’s still an expensive project. And one does have to wonder how many of those new riders are actually not doing any trips related to the airport. That you say it was very full around peak hours may indicate that it’s people travelling between the few other stations. In my numbers, I tried to consider only the ridership of the airport connection itself.

For cost, also consider that a bunch of upgrades were done along the commuter rail corridor the UP runs. If you look at the Metrolinx annual reports, you’ll see hundreds of millions spent on that line to make it reader for improved service of the line and UP. Maybe we need some more numbers to evaluation this project better.

By: plam

plam — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:55:25 +0000

Newest UP numbers are 8,200/weekday, which brings the per-rider cost to $55k. At these numbers it may be reaching capacity, though. Felt that way when I was on it, but that was probably close to peak hours.

By: ant6n

ant6n — Sun, 29 May 2016 20:54:49 +0000

@Joshua
Price is important — unfortunately we have very little information about the fare structure of REM, which is actually a big issue for the line as a whole. Pearson Express was sold with 20$ fares, but then they opened it with 27.50$. It was also sold as being profitable — they now have brought the ridership in line with (later) projections, but only by giving profitability all together.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Fri, 27 May 2016 22:46:05 +0000

Consistent with price elasticity being important: Canada Line fares are low (and until a few months ago, were even lower). There is an airport surcharge but it’s only applied in one direction; the effective round trip fare is between $9.20 and $13, depending on time of day and fare instrument. That’s less (per direction) than Montreal’s airport bus.

Commuting use is a good thing unless it makes the trains uncomfortably crowded, but as you point out, the much more common problem is low ridership.

By: ant6n

ant6n — Fri, 27 May 2016 12:02:18 +0000

@plam
Well, we got that figure of 5000 riders now, up from the 2200 before, that I posted in the article. Commuting on the Airport Express is actually a _good_ thing. It’s the whole point of my article, that whatever transit line serves the airport should serve non-airport trips first.

By: plam

plam — Fri, 27 May 2016 08:23:09 +0000

I was just on the Toronto Union Pearson Express yesterday. They recently slashed the prices from $19 to $9 for those with a presto card (like opus) and ridership seemed way higher. Last time I was in there were like 3 other people. This time it was pretty full. Might be a price elasticity issue. Surprising because the old price was still cheaper than a taxi.

I haven’t seen revised ridership numbers after the price cut yet.

I also saw a handful of people get off before the airport. There are 3 other stops. They wanted to discourage commuting use but here we are.