They have, but now they seem to have started to focus on noise/smell and not-in-my-backyard complaints.
That seems fair - but then do you hit them with another $109 a month to take the bus to the train station? Somehow though, I don't see the Union Pearson Group going for it - have you seem many subsidized tolls for those who have to take the 407 to get to low-paying jobs?
I too have travelled by rail a lot in Europe; most of the trains I was on were diesel. Heck, even TFL is currently rebuilding some lines as diesel, because electrification is too expensive and difficult.
I'll simplify it. If one moves next to the widest rail corridor, leading to the biggest city in the nation, in an era of increased public transportation, then one isn't going to be taken seriously when one complains that service is going to be increased.
I too have travelled by rail a lot in Europe; most of the trains I was on were diesel. Heck, even TFL is currently rebuilding some lines as diesel, because electrification is too expensive and difficult.
I'll simplify it. If one moves next to the widest rail corridor, leading to the biggest city in the nation, in an era of increased public transportation, then one isn't going to be taken seriously when one complains about the noise and smell when service is going to be increased.
How many airport workers would need a train from downtown anyway? Most would live in Etobicoke or Mississauga near the airport. I could see the Weston station getting some worker traffic, but that's getting close enough to the airport that there are feasible alternatives like the Malton bus (and eventually the Finch West and Eglinton LRTs).
The question was asked before but I don't think you answered - why shouldn't people using the airport have a subsidized fare like everyone else? Because they can afford to fly? By that logic people with high paying jobs in the financial district (GO's primary market) should be able to afford the full unsubsidized fare downtown...so we should stop subsidizing GO Transit altogether. Of course that argument makes no sense. Pearson is going to become a major transportation hub even for people who aren't flying, like many other airports around the world. So even if the argument about being able to afford to fly were valid, it's moot.
I was thinking Weston, and those who would change at Bloor-Dundas more so than downtown. But also with all the GO trains heading to Union, going a couple of stations to Union from Scarborough, and then a couple of stations to Pearson, is still only a 50-minute or so commute, if there are frequent trains.
It does already doesn't it?
Ah, but they seem to be using the use of trains (thus eliminating tonnes of automobile emissions) a bad thing. If they are so concerned about diesel fumes, why aren't they out there fighting the Mississauga BRT, which is upwind of Weston.
I'd say it is far less attainable than trying to deal with the split between the CP and CN, or pushing the Liberal government on the 407-like Union Pearson Group. It changes the entire economics of the whole thing, requiring quick electrification from Union Station to Kitchener (to where GO is running an EA to expand the Georgetown line by 2011).
