News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

And god damned expensive.

I would bet my money that the GTAA would foot a large chunk of the project through landing fees. The connections will spur more flights as opposed to reducing them. You may loose some of the smaller distance flights, but opening up the airport to even more people from KW, London, etc would really make it the GO-to airport in Southern Ontario.
 
Why would you do that? You've got a perfect alignment right now, but you'll compromise it with lots of extra curves, and very expensive tunnels for a few passengers changing planes?

Not going to happen.

One tunnel and connection to the existing line? Maybe it'll be cheaper than having to extend the people Mover 2 or 3KM along with an upgraded GO station. I don't know, seems like it may be simpler
 
One tunnel and connection to the existing line? Maybe it'll be cheaper than having to extend the people Mover 2 or 3KM along with an upgraded GO station. I don't know, seems like it may be simpler
The existing line is very straight. The connection wouldn't be. And that would be one long tunnel to rejoin the line on the other side.

Not going to happen ...
 
I would bet my money that the GTAA would foot a large chunk of the project through landing fees. The connections will spur more flights as opposed to reducing them. You may loose some of the smaller distance flights, but opening up the airport to even more people from KW, London, etc would really make it the GO-to airport in Southern Ontario.
how much does GTAA contribute to infrastructure (other than on airport lands) now? Given the pressure on Porter/TPA over YTZ burdens there should be a serious examination of what it costs to service Pearson with roads and transit. But the feds will resist because of the massive sums they make from the main airports, and especially YYZ.
 
The existing line is very straight. The connection wouldn't be. And that would be one long tunnel to rejoin the line on the other side.

Not going to happen ...

And yet people said we'd never land on the moon...now look where we are!
 
how much does GTAA contribute to infrastructure (other than on airport lands) now? Given the pressure on Porter/TPA over YTZ burdens there should be a serious examination of what it costs to service Pearson with roads and transit. But the feds will resist because of the massive sums they make from the main airports, and especially YYZ.

It was my understanding most it not all of the funding for the T1 expansion, etc was footed through landing fees at the airport. I could be wrong.
 
It was my understanding most it not all of the funding for the T1 expansion, etc was footed through landing fees at the airport. I could be wrong.

It was....but infrastructure leading to the airport is a taxpayer responsibility...so the road improvements (up to the airport grounds itself) and the UPX are not funded by the airport and/or its users.

Very similar, actually, to what the folks at YTZ are proposing....runway, terminal, tunnel, etc. expansions paid for by users....any improvements to transit or roads leading to the airport are the responsibility of taxpayers (I think that is the theory behind their application to the feds for infrastructure money to go into those areas).
 
And yet people said we'd never land on the moon...now look where we are!
Oh sure, throw enough money at it and anything is possible. The moon landings cost about $200 billion in current dollars.

I don't think Ontario will be landing on the moon anytime soon either.
 
Oh sure, throw enough money at it and anything is possible. The moon landings cost about $200 billion in current dollars.

I don't think Ontario will be landing on the moon anytime soon either.

:eek:
 
It was....but infrastructure leading to the airport is a taxpayer responsibility...so the road improvements (up to the airport grounds itself) and the UPX are not funded by the airport and/or its users.

Very similar, actually, to what the folks at YTZ are proposing....runway, terminal, tunnel, etc. expansions paid for by users....any improvements to transit or roads leading to the airport are the responsibility of taxpayers (I think that is the theory behind their application to the feds for infrastructure money to go into those areas).

was not aware of this, thought if it was an integrated terminal within the terminal/ airport lands there's some cost-sharing.
 
was not aware of this, thought if it was an integrated terminal within the terminal/ airport lands there's some cost-sharing.

I think once you get onto the airport grounds there would be negotiation...but leading up to the airport it is not their cost. That said, I do think that the entire cost of the UPX (as an example) is being taken on by the province and, as we know, some of that infrastructure is on airport grounds.
 
Perhaps they could build a station for the HSR on the spur near the Viscount Garage. UPX would bring you right to T1, HSR you would need to hop onto the Link train.
 
Perhaps they could build a station for the HSR on the spur near the Viscount Garage. UPX would bring you right to T1, HSR you would need to hop onto the Link train.

For that though, that brings us back to the point of why not extend the Link to Malton GO then? That would surely be less expensive than having to go under the runway to deviate from the current rail line, and tunnelling to get back to it. The Link would likely need to be replaced with another type of technology (perhaps Mark III ICTS running single or paired vehicles?), but that cost would almost certainly be less than any kind of new rail deviation for the purposes of HSR.
 
For that though, that brings us back to the point of why not extend the Link to Malton GO then? That would surely be less expensive than having to go under the runway to deviate from the current rail line, and tunnelling to get back to it. The Link would likely need to be replaced with another type of technology (perhaps Mark III ICTS running single or paired vehicles?), but that cost would almost certainly be less than any kind of new rail deviation for the purposes of HSR.

Why extend the people mover when you have a perfectly good UPX spur?
 

Back
Top