Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

^ In this case users of a shuttle would be exclusively airport users. Anybody, can take the bus to/from Rosedale and we subsidize that mobility the same as we would any neighbourhood. We shouldn't however, subsidize transport that the general public would not regularly use particularly, if we aren't applying that subsidy evenly. Porter pays for its buses. Why can't the GTAA?
 
kEiThZ said:
^ In this case users of a shuttle would be exclusively airport users. Anybody, can take the bus to/from Rosedale and we subsidize that mobility the same as we would any neighbourhood. We shouldn't however, subsidize transport that the general public would not regularly use particularly, if we aren't applying that subsidy evenly. Porter pays for its buses. Why can't the GTAA?
Click to expand...

I think I understand what you are saying but the difficulties I have with it are:

1. GO currently serves a lot of other "attractions" that you could view that way (ie. they run a lot of buses to Wonderland when it is open, and Universities, etc.) people going there are exclusively users of those places and I don't think York University or Canada's Wonderland cover any of the costs. If you view the airport as a spur destination off of the Georgetown line (as Orangville is and Caledon is) does it not make sense that there be buses at Malton to connect Georgetown GO transit riders with a link to their final destination - Pearson....just as Trinity Common Mall in Brampton has (how much does RioCan subsidise those buses?);

2. A recurring theme on this thread (not sure if you have supported it or not so I am definitely not attributing it to you) is that Blue 22 is bad but regularly scheduled GO trains into and out of the airport so that we can all ride them is good.......would you be of the opinion that that would only be good if Pearson (GTAA) paid the way (or am I totally misunderstanding your point).
 
It could, but they just raised there per passenger fee to $25 from $20 because of the drop in volume - and having to make money. So in this case it would have to go up to $30 month per passenger.
 
TOareaFan said:
I think I understand what you are saying but the difficulties I have with it are:

1. GO currently serves a lot of other "attractions" that you could view that way (ie. they run a lot of buses to Wonderland when it is open, and Universities, etc.) people going there are exclusively users of those places and I don't think York University or Canada's Wonderland cover any of the costs. If you view the airport as a spur destination off of the Georgetown line (as Orangville is and Caledon is) does it not make sense that there be buses at Malton to connect Georgetown GO transit riders with a link to their final destination - Pearson....just as Trinity Common Mall in Brampton has (how much does RioCan subsidise those buses?);
Click to expand...

Fair enough. In my most humble opinion however, GO should not be providing subsidized service to Wonderland either. That's effectively a taxpayer subsidy to a theme park. How would the public take it if the Ontario government had instead handed money to Wonderland to run its own buses from Yorkdale? That's essentially what's being accomplished here in my opinion.

TOareaFan said:
2. A recurring theme on this thread (not sure if you have supported it or not so I am definitely not attributing it to you) is that Blue 22 is bad but regularly scheduled GO trains into and out of the airport so that we can all ride them is good.......would you be of the opinion that that would only be good if Pearson (GTAA) paid the way (or am I totally misunderstanding your point).
Click to expand...

I dunno if that line can bear two services to the airport without making both suffer. Anyway, rail is a different ball game. Nobody expects the airport to subsidize either service. So then the question becomes, should the taxpayer subsidize Blue 22? I think not. No more than we would subsidize a rail link to Wonderland.

From a practical standpoint, I would rather not have too many lugging their luggage on the GO to get to the airport. That would seriously degrade service for the rest of the riders on that train. Let's put all those folks on a separate train.
 
kEiThZ said:
Fair enough. In my most humble opinion however, GO should not be providing subsidized service to Wonderland either. That's effectively a taxpayer subsidy to a theme park. How would the public take it if the Ontario government had instead handed money to Wonderland to run its own buses from Yorkdale? That's essentially what's being accomplished here in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Think of it another way (it might make it more pallatable)....it is a public service/utility providing the public a way to get somewhere that they clearly desire to go to. At the end of it all, most transit lines take people to some commercial venture (wether it is offices, stores or theme parks) to, either, enjoy or work at.......wonderland and the airport are no different than a bus terminal at Yorkdale (IMO).





kEiThZ said:
I dunno if that line can bear two services to the airport without making both suffer. Anyway, rail is a different ball game. Nobody expects the airport to subsidize either service. So then the question becomes, should the taxpayer subsidize Blue 22? I think not. No more than we would subsidize a rail link to Wonderland.

From a practical standpoint, I would rather not have too many lugging their luggage on the GO to get to the airport. That would seriously degrade service for the rest of the riders on that train. Let's put all those folks on a separate train.
Click to expand...

I wished I had not asked as, now, I am more confused than before. You are opposed to the public ponying up the cash to take more busses (keep in mind TTC and GO buses already serve the airport) but if it were a really big cheque to get trains in there you would be ok with it?

As for GO versus another service...I agree....I have been (and continue to be) an advocate for the current compromise....a direct/limited stop service from Union into the terminals and GO trains running more frequently and stopping (as they do now) at station(s) close to the airport which allow transfer to some connector (people mover or shuttle buses or moving sidewalks....whatever) to the airport.

As far as I know, there is no direct subsidy proposed to Blue 22. Some have suggested that the +/- $875 million investment in the corridor itself is a subsidy....but that would have been a necessary expenditure just to bring the every day two way GO service that is coming so that is a hard sell as a subsidy....as far as I know (and I may be wrong) the private sector is responsible for building the spur line from the GO tracks to the terminals and for all of the operating costs of the service (thus the perceived high fare of $20 each way).
 
TOareaFan said:
Think of it another way (it might make it more pallatable)....it is a public service/utility providing the public a way to get somewhere that they clearly desire to go to. At the end of it all, most transit lines take people to some commercial venture (wether it is offices, stores or theme parks) to, either, enjoy or work at.......wonderland and the airport are no different than a bus terminal at Yorkdale (IMO).
Click to expand...

It depends on how one views the 'directness' of the service provided I suppose. Sure, Yorkdale has service. But we didn't build the YUS so it could exclusively serve Yorkdale. That's what I was getting at.

TOareaFan said:
I wished I had not asked as, now, I am more confused than before. You are opposed to the public ponying up the cash to take more busses (keep in mind TTC and GO buses already serve the airport) but if it were a really big cheque to get trains in there you would be ok with it?
Click to expand...

Sorry the confusion. I can accept GO/TTC buses which are provided at a marginal cost and can service riders along the way who aren't necessarily bound for the airport. Likewise, TC LRT lines servicing the airport have it as a destination not a raison d'etre. That's the difference with Blue 22 or any other shuttle that exclusively serves a destination. If Wonderland is acceptible than why not Casino Rama? Once we accept that the taxpayer should provide subsidies for purpose built lines than are we expected to get into the judgement game of what is and is not an acceptable activity to be supported by a subsidized line?


TOareaFan said:
As far as I know, there is no direct subsidy proposed to Blue 22. Some have suggested that the +/- $875 million investment in the corridor itself is a subsidy....but that would have been a necessary expenditure just to bring the every day two way GO service that is coming so that is a hard sell as a subsidy.....
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
kEiThZ said:
It depends on how one views the 'directness' of the service provided I suppose. Sure, Yorkdale has service. But we didn't build the YUS so it could exclusively serve Yorkdale. That's what I was getting at.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more about GO (to be honest) and they run a lot of service to Yorkdale...yes it is a good logical connector for GO to link with other transit services (TTC) but could you not make the same comment about an airport (ie. if you think of planes as another form of transit....GO service to the airport makes as much sense as GO service to Union Station and GO Service to Yorkdale/York Mills).


kEiThZ said:
Sorry the confusion. I can accept GO/TTC buses which are provided at a marginal cost and can service riders along the way who aren't necessarily bound for the airport. Likewise, TC LRT lines servicing the airport have it as a destination not a raison d'etre. That's the difference with Blue 22 or any other shuttle that exclusively serves a destination. If Wonderland is acceptible than why not Casino Rama? Once we accept that the taxpayer should provide subsidies for purpose built lines than are we expected to get into the judgement game of what is and is not an acceptable activity to be supported by a subsidized line?
Click to expand...

I don't want to get all hung up on Wonderland (or any particular destination)...I only raised it because it was an easy example (there are others) of a destiantion point that we run public transit to (in response to yoru idea that if you run transit to destinations like the aiport that it should be paid for by the users or the destination).

To turn it back to the whole Malton station shuttle issue (I think that is how we got on this path).....perhaps the easiest way to do this would be to recognize that Malton is a GO train desitnation......there are already GO buses that run nearby that go into the airport (I think the web page talks about how they serve the International Centre)....why not do some route and schedule tweaking to make sure that every time a train stops at Malton, one of these airport destined buses that we already have is there at the station waiting for passengers and that those people who are headed for the International Centre get used to getting to it through the tunnel that connects the International centre and the Malton GO station.

I am pretty sure you could introduce some folks to the idea of GO to the airport while not raising expenses too much (ie. using existing buses/runs) and test the whole thing out!
 
Not to dredge this old thread but...

I find it interesting how 2 different neighborhoods in the city have reacted to rails in their regions. The juncion seems to have embraced it's rail history almost to the point where they want trains in their neighborhood. While Weston seems to use the rails as a touchstone for everything that is wrong with their neighborhood. Both regions are relativley 'poor' areas in the city. Both regions will be affected by any increase of rail traffice along the Georgetown corridor. The Junction would also be affected by the creation of a crosstown GO line as well. Yet I haven't heard much from the Junction with regards to Blue22/GO Georgetown improvements, increase in service. Granted there wasn't going to be any roads shut down in the Junction.

Just an interesting contrast if you ask me.
 
It _is_ an interesting contrast and worth looking at the reasons for it. At first glance, I'd point out that the bulk of the Junction isn't split by the railroad tracks the same way that Weston is. The area to the north of the tracks are part of the Slaughterhouse lands, and northeast of the diamond, the neighbourhood there isn't considered part of the Junction.

I also note that Weston has been an independent entity for longer the Junction was. The Junction was absorbed into Toronto around the turn of the century, wasn't it? Whereas Weston had a functioning village council right up to 1967.

BTW, I know the two neighbourhoods aren't traditionally considered one, but do some of you folks now lump in the Junction neighbourhood to the south of the tracks with the redeveloping Slaughterhouse north of the tracks as a single neighbourhood? And, if so, do you call it "The Junction Slaughterhouse"? :)

...James
 
TOareaFan said:
Think of it another way (it might make it more pallatable)....it is a public service/utility providing the public a way to get somewhere that they clearly desire to go to. At the end of it all, most transit lines take people to some commercial venture (wether it is offices, stores or theme parks) to, either, enjoy or work at.......wonderland and the airport are no different than a bus terminal at Yorkdale (IMO).
Click to expand...
I agree. Expecting Wonderland or Pearson to pay for a GO connection is no different from expecting RBC, TD, etc. to pay for service to Union Station. It's effectively a taxpayer subsidy to the banks, after all.
 
jamesbow said:
BTW, I know the two neighbourhoods aren't traditionally considered one, but do some of you folks now lump in the Junction neighbourhood to the south of the tracks with the redeveloping Slaughterhouse north of the tracks as a single neighbourhood?
Click to expand...

Traditionally neighbourhoods do not consist of the employment lands that are adjacent to them. IMO, the area around Keele and St Clair is NOT a neighbourhood at all and is in a grey zone for determining neighbourhoods. The Junction has two very strong edges which are the rail corridors.
 
I contend that the area north of the CP tracks is definitely a part of the Junction, which is more of a district name than a neighbourhood name. To understand it, one must understand the historical boundaries of West Toronto. Keele and St. Clair is an industrial neighbourhood which defies the traditional middle class image of the purely residential neighbourhood. There are houses between factories, and the industry was spurred by the railway. Some might conceptualize the Junction as a neighbourhood north of Dundas, or north of Annette, but the terms was born out of West Toronto, a municipality which included several neighbourhoods. As such, the Junction represents quite a large area and several neighbourhoods. ("West Toronto" is no longer a useful name because of its ambiguity in what is a huge city today.)

Therefore, the many people who live north of the Canadian Pacific corridor can identify the Junction as their area. Some do, while others use the nearest intersection.
 
If there were some plan to cul-de-sac Old Weston Rd, or Osler, then we would have something closer to a Weston-style community ruckus. As it stands, there's relatively little to "cut off", a better buffer-zone factor, etc.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top