jcam
Active Member
If you look at the previous study done, they thought that if Pickering were to open around 2030, the airport would be no larger than Hamilton well into the 2040s.
|
|
|
- Thread starter wyliepoon
- Start date
rbt
Senior Member
AC killed the Pearson <-> JFK route earlier this year and scheduled extra flights to LaGuardia and Newark. They didn't like the JFK timeslots they were being given (mostly off-peak).
Last edited:
dowlingm
Senior Member
Once US preclearance goes live at YTZ, one would think PD will seek to move at least some capacity from Newark to La Guardia, but that will depend on being able to obtain slot allocation. I don't know the mechanics of New York Port Authority slot allocation but it's possible AC could beat Porter to the punch by redirecting existing La Guardia capacity to beat Porter to the punch. With Hamilton having no services to NYC, I suspect Pickering might also find it difficult to make a business case for them.
As for transit - a bus along 407 would suit GTAA/Pearson because it could be an interconnector into both connecting air services but also their "transit hub" notions. A UPX frequency train on the other hand could bring Markham/Scarborough folks downtown as easily as to outer Pickering, which might not be to YTZ's door but certainly not unadjacent.
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Why are we fronting airport express trains as substitutes for the role GO trains should be playing? GO's mandate is to move commuters. A Union-airport express train should be moving people express between Union and an airport. Simple.
While the UPX price was way to high initially, now it matches that of a GO train, meaning commuters sometimes crowd those going to/from the airport. Not exactly the comfortable experience that was promised, unless the goal is to break in visitors for their experience on the TTC...
UPX is being used by commuters so much because there really isn't a GO alternative (aside from peak). Give it a few years, and with AD2W GO service on the Kitchener corridor, the commuter demand on UPX should shrink.
dowlingm
Senior Member
I think it's highly unlikely that a Union-Pickering train would not stop a few times en route, irrespective of routing, in order to interconnect with major transit lines. The difference is, hopefully, that the design decision at YYZ to forbid a train longer than 3 carriages will not be repeated.
Whether the airport experience is now "comfortable" with commuters competing for seats is a choice being made by Metrolinx, and seemingly without GTAA being inclined to make a public fuss about it - presumably because GTAA does not want to pay Metrolinx to increase staffing to provide better prioritisation of airport travellers, let alone additional capital to acquire DMUs so that all peak trains can be 3 car length.
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Which begs the question: why wasn't increased 2WAD GO service present to begin with?
Better prioritization for airport travellers is easy to implement: a slight price increase to make it more expensive than GO. No additional staffing required. That's the beauty of economics.
As for stopping en route to the airport, there needs to be a thorough analysis of it: what is the additional revenue you can collect from these mid-stop riders, vs. the revenue lost from people turning away from the service because of longer travel time. The more stops you add, the former decreases and the latter increases. I can see a case for one stop being made along Eglinton (for both Union-to-Pearson and Union-to-Pickering), as it is a good midway rapid transit connection. Any others do not make sense IMO: you're close enough to Union or a different transit service to get you there, and it adds too much travel time.
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
I've said this before, they should rebrand the UPX as the "GO Union-Pearson Line or GO UP Line" and call it the first RER Line.
(sorry to go off topic)
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
But the trains are not the regular GO trains, so people may get confused when the "real" RER trains are running.
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
And what, kill the original purpose of the project?
The province (both through Metrolinx and Cabinet) really futzed this up from the start. Instead of having one stop at Bloor, they caved to the rabble-rousers in Weston and put a station there too, adding time to the schedule as the train decelerates, dwells, and accelerates back up to speed. And then they priced it too high, killing ridership. And now it's too low, and commuters pack it.
UPX could be a 20 minute service with no stops inbetween for $15, easy. And, to try and keep this thread on subject, Pickering could easily have something similar.
dowlingm
Senior Member
I argued for graduated price differenciation by time and travel sector with further adjustment as demand shifted on this very forum. Metrolinx opted for a simpler to implement pricing model, albeit with the dopey "two different tap machine" method. Politically, it may be difficult for them to revert especially with "activists" claiming UPX - a premium service as much if not more so than 140 series bus routes - should only cost a token.
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
If people want to get to the airport for the price of a token, they need to get on board with building the Crosstown West extension.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Busier than Hamilton. But I'm not sure it'll get as much commercial service. It's catchments in the eastern GTA is just too close to Pearson and Billy Bishop and too low yielding to make it work.
Lot of general aviation, though, especially after Buttonville closure.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I disagree. Yes it will be small at the beginning but the catchement area of the eastern GTA currently face a 90 min+ trip to get to Pearson and that trip is getting longer. This population area is close to 1.5 million people, I think residents of the Eastern GTA will quickly realize what a convenience it is to have an airport less that 45 mins away.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Having an airport and having an airline offer commercial service are two different things. For example, the Waterloo region has half a million people and tons of higher yielding business travel. Should be a slam dunk right? However, the airport has one scheduled flight and two charter flights. The market has to be there. And quite frankly, I can't see what market will be there at Pickering, when Hamilton with a larger catchment population, manages only 3 flights to 3 cities from major scheduled carriers. Hamilton has only succeeded because it has become a charter reliever for Pearson. And while the two dozen charter flights look impressive, most aren't dailies. We're talking a handful of flights per day at peak season.
The thing is, the only portion that's really relevant is the population well east of Pickering, who would pick Pickering every time. But for the most of those in the middle? Pearson will be in contention, and if ever transit improves there, it'll be more attractive than Pickering. More frequency and more destinations and all the major alliances operating out of Pearson (really important for business travelers who actually fill airplanes).
There's a strong need for a new general aviation airport in the GTA. I say that as a PPL holder. Buttonville is closing. Markham's a hole suitable for nothing more than gliding and shooting practice approaches. And Oshawa is hemmed in by development. Consolidating that traffic at Pickering will reduce cost (in the long run), improve safety and airspace efficiency. But in terms of anybody looking at commercial service? Best case scenario is one of these new carriers like New Leaf ordering a handful of flights a day and maybe some charters.