Pearson rail link won't be electrified by 2015

Unless you live along this link I don't understand why people get so mad about it. So we don't have a link to the airport. So what. Let's think realistically. You and your family are going for a two week vacation. Are you really going to be taking transit?

Secondly, this money could actually help people on a daily basis on a busier route.

Thirdly, if it is heavily used for air transport; do commuters want to fight with huge pieces of luggage?

You might be right about people who live here, who have access to friends, regular ttc and cabs...And if you don't live right downtown it doesn't make much sense to go all the way to Union to get out to Pearson.

However, for people visiting Toronto, this link is huge. It takes you right downtown to a hub that can get you anywhere. Ive taken a link like this from Newark to Manhattan and the bags are not an issue. In London, the tube stops right at Heathrow. If you are a visitor, you are probably weary of cabs and would like a simple solution to get the hell out of the 'sauga. ;)

Wow, over FIFTY commies showed up to protest!? That is massive!!! MASSIVE!
Get real, guys, jump back on your fixie bicycles and go hug your favourite tree. This city has much bigger transportation problems than electrification of 20km of rail. How about we make some road investments and get all those cars moving again, rather than have them idling in traffic jams.

We *don't* have a rail link to the airport. So business travelers coming into Pearson (how many per day?) have to pay out 40 - 60$ for a cab/limo into the city, and spend 40 minutes in a car just after a plane ride. If traffic on the Gardner is jammed, the 427 is jammed, and you're heading to Pearson for a business trip or your heading into town for a conference, you want a rail link to the city.

Not having a rail link is costing lots of people time and money. It's that simple. This isn't an issue about families taking vacations, as you yourself suggest. It's about a faster way to & from the airport for everyone who needs to use it, which is thousands of people each day. This talk of luggage and space and family just muddies the waters.

The thing that upsets me is that taking the dinasour route will endup costing us (taxpayer) more in the end. Fuel will shoot up through the roof and dated dirty diesel will bumble like it usually does, and thus electrification will happen from diesels shortfalls.

Maybe in 2023 but it will happen regardless because of the failure to see long term and we will re-visit this same boondoggle only for it to cost 4 times as much to do it.

Its not the question of not having a rail link vs. having one. Toronto needs one, its pathetic A nations largest city has no direct rapid link to its major airport.

The question is do we want to piss away money now and later( leave electrification for when its to late and costly).. or just now(biting the bullet and just getting done right the first time).


Just electrify the damn thing..sigh.

It seems like Metrolinx are picking up Nippon Sharyo vehicles Sonoma-Marin can't afford to buy in the numbers they wanted. How a commuter train for California is going to be a premium airport vehicle in an Ontario winter is going to be interesting.

I used to think a rail link was necessary - but New York doesn't have one (Geither JFK or LaGuardia), LA doesn't, Orly in Paris doesn't and quite frankly, neither do over 90% of major world cities. They are spending billions of our tax dollars for what they call a "Premium" service that will only affect about 5000 people a day - "mostly tourists and business people". That's only 18 per train car and actually will use more fossil fuel than having all of them cab it in individually. You can currently use the TTC and handily get from Pearson to Union in an hour and it costs $3. This will cost about $25 and will get you there in 25 minutes. So not only is it NOT for use by 99.999% of people in the GTA (as it does not hook up with the TTC anywhere), but we, the taxpayers, pay for it. It's a complete disaster financially and environmentally.

Mr. Simuls, with all due respect sir, I beg to disagree with your analysis. To begin, New York has rail service from JFK to Jamaica subway station. Secondly, If you know Paris you know there is a train station at Orly served by TGV and Thalys fast train service to the rest of France, Brussels, Cologne and Amsterdam. Brussels has the airport shuttle trains (electric) that run every 15 minutes to downtown Brussels. Amstardam has a train station right underneath the main terminal where you can catch a train to Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The hague and even to Brussels. Vancouver now has the sky train that gets you to/from the airport to/from downtown. You cannot pride yourself as a world-class city and yet cannot claim the existence of an efficient,affordable and reliable service from your main airport to the city centre. Come to think of it we were thinking of hosting big events like the Olympics... Road transportation has so many limitations and can never be reliable/affordable in such a fast paced environment, where time is of the essence. In fact tax payers stand to gain a lot when governments make real investments in 21st century infrastructure and will definite loose when they embark on such half baked 20th century measures as Metrolinks is doing.