unimaginative2
Senior Member
That $875 million is certainly not just for service to the airport. It will improve service to the entire northwest GTA.
|
|
|
Time for a tunnel to airport island?
- Thread starter Build Up
- Start date
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
I really didn't like this being pitched as a 'bridge to the airport.' I'd like to see it more as a bridge to the island itself, with airport access as a secondary benefit.
When I went to the island a few weeks back I was struck by how unfair it is that this awesome PUBLIC part of Toronto is only available to those who can pay a relatively high fare (~$6/person?). That's a tough barrier for low-income families. It's akin to charging to access a public park.
When I went to the island a few weeks back I was struck by how unfair it is that this awesome PUBLIC part of Toronto is only available to those who can pay a relatively high fare (~$6/person?). That's a tough barrier for low-income families. It's akin to charging to access a public park.
kEiThZ
Superstar
But is SNC Lavalin pitching in for how much their business plan benefits by this public investment? I am not opposed to upgrading the Georgetown corridor. What I am opposed to is the hypocrisy of those who claim spending money that benefits a private rail service to enhance access to an airport serving several private airlines is somehow more acceptable than building a link to a public facility that could be used well after said public facility is gone.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I hope Deluce has a business case and builds the tunnel on his own. Then if his airline ever gets shut down he can offer to sell it to the city at an exorbitant sum.
Justin10000
Banned
You cannot access the islands from the airport. You will never be allowed to cross an active runway, and airfield. I am amazed no one even picked up on ths. If you want a bridge, you should be advocating one being built over the Eastern Harbour entrance. Makes a lot more sense, and much closer to the areas that people actually use.
nfitz
Superstar
That would be a great place for a pedestrian bridge! What is it ... about 250 m to 300 m? I wonder how much that would cost - especially if it has to clear shipping. Hmm, Millenium Bridge in London is about 370 metres long and cost about $40-million.
Justin10000
Banned
It is definitely much better than a tunnel on the Western Gap. I would think it would cost roughly the same as a tunnel, and it would provide a great alternative to the ferries, and relieve the ridiculous wait times you have to endure for the ferries. Heck, you can even impose a small toll to help pay for the bridge.
The main opposition will be the residents who live nearby of course.
nfitz
Superstar
The ones on the island? Would they really complain about being able to access the island without having to get on a ferry - particularily if it is a pedestrian-only bridge? There's no one on the other side to complain ... it's almost 2-km to the nearest residential dwelling that I'm aware of.
Justin10000
Banned
I think there were actually plans to build a bridge, but the residents opposed it. THey would have to be convinced that a bridge is not going to disrupt their(selfish, self-entitled) way of life.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
If your going to build a bridge there, might was well build room for a street car track/bed that can also be used for fire equipment. Then can shut down the island fire station if acceptable service can still be maintained.
Justin10000
Banned
No. Keep the bridge Pedestrian/Cylists only.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I think the answer to that is yes. Just running trains up the Georgetown corrider does not, in itself, provide access to the airport and, therefore, is not a great contributor to SNC's plan.
The link from the tracks, which I understand SNC's consortium is paying for, is what benefits their plan.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I have often wondered if we would still be discussing this if the original plan was for a pedistrian bridge only. So passengers would still arrive by car on the mainland and then walk across a bridge (probably a covered one like SkyWalk) to the airport.
sjc
Active Member
While I don't really like the idea of "stimulus" spending (spending borrowed money to build projects you wouldn't have otherwise funded that won't likely start until after the recession is over), I think this project is as good as any of the projects they are funding and better than most from the point of view of a Torontonian.
This project will benefit the hundreds of thousands of people each year that use the airport, probably half of them Toronto residents. The other half are visitors to Toronto, who are now beginning their visit in downtown Toronto and might start spending their money there. Isn't it better for Toronto that I give $25 to a Toronto cab to get home rather than $70 to a Mississauga cab? The $45 difference ($90 for a return trip) will almost certainly get spent near my home or office in Toronto. (NOTE: I usually use a Toronto cab to get to Pearson, and a Mississauga cab to get back, so the loss to Toronto is only $45. I believe many people use Mississauga cabs in both directions and few use Toronto cabs both ways -- I can call a Toronto cab at Pearson but it takes forever and is complicated).
Porter will be able to expand more quickly (or not have their planned expansion delayed) because they will be able to handle higher volumes. The ferry is starting to get very crowded lately and I can see people getting left behind on really busy days before too long. (The situation will improve when the new ferry arrives).
While it is possible that Porter will expand at the same speed regardless of the existence of the bridge (their schedule more dependent on airplane delivery than anything else), I doubt their original business plan included the high oil prices last year or the recession of this year.
Every airplane that Porter orders keeps jobs in Toronto in Downsview building the airplanes, and whatever related support jobs there are in neighbouring companies. Those Q400 workers have watched their coworkers on the jet side get laid off in the last year.
Porter employs 750 people and plans to have 1000 by next year. As much as half of those live in Toronto, and pay taxes and spend their pay in Toronto. Supporting Porter supports Toronto.
If the money is going to get spent anyways, I'd just as soon see it come to Toronto as see it go somewhere else.
Two basic problems with a pedestrian bridge:
- it would be pretty long walk for people with luggage, even if it is flat. It won't be flat because it has to go high enough to get over the ships that use the channel. I suppose they could make a lift bridge -- has anyone ever made a pedestrian lift bridge?
- there would still need to be a ferry for vehicles. While you could move the car parking to the mainland, there will still need to be utility vehicles of various types (Do they get fuel deliveries by truck?). No reason they couldn't do both (the tunnel wasn't going to make the ferry go away), but you now have twice the obstructions (ferry and bridge) in the channel and haven't really solved anything.
Last edited: