Voltz
Senior Member
There were pictures of the interior of the tunnel in ads placed by the airport in The Star and the Sun Today.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Ah, question answered. This is from the airport's website. I can't find a better picture.
Now all they need to do is provide more food options after security than shortbread cookies.
Now all they need to do is provide more food options after security than shortbread cookies.
TOareaFan
Superstar
They already do. The free food is the same but there is now a food to go area selling sandwiches, salads, etc.Ah, question answered. This is from the airport's website. I can't find a better picture.
Now all they need to do is provide more food options after security than shortbread cookies.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Ah, question answered. This is from the airport's website. I can't find a better picture.
That's OK. Seems to lack any unique flourishes, but is otherwise professional looking.
BurlOak
Senior Member
It appears that various planning experts decided that the bridge was the best solution. Then politicians over-rules that decision. This sounds awful similar to the Transit City debates.
The difference: More money is involved in the TC debate. But at least subways, which are more expensive, are otherwise a better option. With the airport, we are spending about 4 times more to get a tunnel, which is a worse solution since it still does not eliminate the need for a ferry, and the associated operating costs.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
They should at least put in a shuttle bus service, or at least a trolleyed version if they don't like gas.
sjc
Active Member
You will still be able to shuttle across on the ferry if you don't want to walk through the tunnel.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
But doesn't this airport cater to the white collar folk and the 1% that are too good to wait for and take slow ferries and certainly not walk and carry their own luggage.
There should be some form of ride in it.
There should be some form of ride in it.
jn_12
Senior Member
It caters to everyone. Porter's fares are similar to their competitors. They may have an upscale brand, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that they are only catering the the elites of the world. Furthermore, trust me when I say I've seen CEO's, Company presidents, the Premier, Cabinet Ministers at both levels, former Prime Ministers and so on use the ferry without any sort of complaint.
I've even taken the old Maple City ferry with some of the richest people in this city. If they're willing to take that without any complaints, then they'll be fine to take the tunnel or the current ferry.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
It's elevators on mainland and escalators/elevators on the island.
James
Senior Member
I see you haven't been to enough Maple Leaf or Star Alliance Lounges or flown Air Canada. Once you see the AC SuperElites who get all huffy because the flight attendant hasn't come around in business class with the morning paper, you'll appreciate Porter much more.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Im guessing that this tunnel is just the begining of a bigger picture... where in the future, the main terminal will probably be built at the foot of Bathurst, in which time the tunnel will only be used to getting to and from the departure/arrival gates on the island side.
.. There you will be boarding a Bombardier CRJ-Series or Embraer ERJ-Series (short takeoff and landing aircraft) to many other locations in Canada, USA, Caribbean or even Mexico that are not reachable now.
Of course, this will all happen after the 500-750 meter runway extension is built at YTZ...."It's Just a Matter of Time"
.. There you will be boarding a Bombardier CRJ-Series or Embraer ERJ-Series (short takeoff and landing aircraft) to many other locations in Canada, USA, Caribbean or even Mexico that are not reachable now.
Of course, this will all happen after the 500-750 meter runway extension is built at YTZ...."It's Just a Matter of Time"
Last edited:
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I don't see the island airport ever permitting jets. It's been a pretty firm rule and Porter's doing pretty well with the Q400s. The environmental permitting required for land reclamation, and the number of people that would need to sign of on it, would make a runway extension very difficult. Porter's great for short hops, but we don't need to cannibalize Pearson more than we have. Between Buffalo and the Island, Pearson hasn't grown much at all in the last five years. That's not good given the amount spent on the expansion.
It's fantastic to fly Porter, since you can arrive at the airport 30 minutes before the flight and easily make it as long as you have no checked bags. The problem, at least for the New York flight, is on the other end. Newark is a real pain to get to, especially if you're not flying during the day on a weekday. Late on a weekend, you could be waiting close to an hour for an NJ Transit train. Cabs cost a fortune and are always trying to rip off tourists with the round trip tolls (there is no round trip toll on the Hudson crossings). LGA is so much easier, especially from uptown. It's either a standard MTA fare for the admittedly grueling M60 or a reasonable $25 cab.
It's fantastic to fly Porter, since you can arrive at the airport 30 minutes before the flight and easily make it as long as you have no checked bags. The problem, at least for the New York flight, is on the other end. Newark is a real pain to get to, especially if you're not flying during the day on a weekday. Late on a weekend, you could be waiting close to an hour for an NJ Transit train. Cabs cost a fortune and are always trying to rip off tourists with the round trip tolls (there is no round trip toll on the Hudson crossings). LGA is so much easier, especially from uptown. It's either a standard MTA fare for the admittedly grueling M60 or a reasonable $25 cab.
sjc
Active Member
I don't think it is very likely in the near future, but in the longer term it really will depend on what sorts of governments are in place at the time the issue resurfaces. Certainly both the feds and local governments are more favourable towards the airport than certain previous governments were.
When the airport bridge was under discussion (in the Miller era), there was only limited support for the airport because hardly anyone had ever used it or even knew it was there. Since then, thousands of Torontonians have found it can be convenient (and relatively inexpensive) link to nearby cities.
At the moment, the focus needs to be on establishing the airport as an important transportation hub for both Torontonians and visitors to Toronto. Once people are used to having and using a convenient airport, public support for expansion will be easier to get.
Porter has talked in the past about opening a second New York route. LGA and Westchester County (HPN) were mentioned specifically. The problem with LGA (and I believe HPN) is that they don't allow international flights that are not pre-cleared through customs, which unfortunately you can't do at YTZ at this time. EDIT: I found an article (here) from December 2010 that mentions LGA and HPN as well a potential second airport in Massachusetts (BED).
As they build their US business with more flights and more destinations, maybe they will have better success in convincing the US government to open a preclearance center in YTZ.
On a different topic, Porter is adding a fourth daily flight to Washington (1120 to Washington, 1345 for the return), starting in May: https://www.flyporter.com/About/News-Release-Details?id=195&culture=en-CA
Last edited:
lynchpin
New Member
For an established international airport, Pearson's growth hasn't bee too bad, especially when you account for the dip that occurred in 2008/2009 worldwide:
2006 (Porter's first year): 30,794,58
2009 (Bottom of the downturn): 30,368,33
2010: 31,936,098
2011: 33,435,351 (+4.7%)
The island had 1,130,625 in 2010 and estimates 1.5M in 2011.
Certainly the island has had an impact, but the impact in growth is certainly less than 1% per year.