kEiThZ
Superstar
The second airport would operate regional/continental flights. The long haul stuff would still be left at Pearson.
|
|
|
Downsview Airport (YZD)
- Thread starter sjc
- Start date
The second airport would operate regional/continental flights. The long haul stuff would still be left at Pearson.
noctis
Active Member
actually, that wouldnt be such a bad idea, they could do something like porter and conduct domestic flights. but then again, money is everything, and like i said before in other posts, no money, no talk...
col. forbin
Active Member
col. forbin
Active Member
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I don't mind the idea of using Downsview for a little more general aviation after Buttonville closes--after all, the airfield is there anyway--but I don't think it makes much sense as a commercial airport. It might be ideal for executive traffic. I've always been of the mind that as few commercial airports as possible is ideal, both because of the land use impacts and the negative effect on a hub.
Pickering makes absolutely no sense to me. I have nothing against keeping it in reserve since it would be pretty much impossible to expropriate all that land again today but I don't think it should be built in my lifetime. Pearson will be more than sufficient for decades to come with two independent runway pairs and a pair of crosswind runways. That's a better layout than LAX or CDG. If the number of movements is an issue, we should just encourage more GA and executive traffic to move to places like Brampton, Hamilton, or even Downsview. Short flights should be replaced by high-speed rail. I also think Pearson has an ace up its sleeve: the northern and southern runway pairs are far enough apart that there's room for a third independently-operated runway in the centre of the airfield. That would increase capacity by another 50%. If you used a shorter runway like the new third runway at Heathrow, you could fit it within the existing airport property. A full-length runway would just require a little earth-moving and acquisition of some of those warehouses on Netherhart Rd. No more difficult than the new Atlanta or Houston runway projects, let alone Heathrow. It might be a little awkward for operations but certainly no more than the third runways at Atlanta, Heathrow, and Frankfurt that are built across highways.
Pickering makes absolutely no sense to me. I have nothing against keeping it in reserve since it would be pretty much impossible to expropriate all that land again today but I don't think it should be built in my lifetime. Pearson will be more than sufficient for decades to come with two independent runway pairs and a pair of crosswind runways. That's a better layout than LAX or CDG. If the number of movements is an issue, we should just encourage more GA and executive traffic to move to places like Brampton, Hamilton, or even Downsview. Short flights should be replaced by high-speed rail. I also think Pearson has an ace up its sleeve: the northern and southern runway pairs are far enough apart that there's room for a third independently-operated runway in the centre of the airfield. That would increase capacity by another 50%. If you used a shorter runway like the new third runway at Heathrow, you could fit it within the existing airport property. A full-length runway would just require a little earth-moving and acquisition of some of those warehouses on Netherhart Rd. No more difficult than the new Atlanta or Houston runway projects, let alone Heathrow. It might be a little awkward for operations but certainly no more than the third runways at Atlanta, Heathrow, and Frankfurt that are built across highways.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
I think I'll reserve my judgement until I see the real development plans for Downsview. I think that it'll end up being a big midpoint in the dense uptown development from NYCC and then up the Spadina line to VCC, and if so it'll probably be best for residents and possibly airplanes too for it not to be a big airport in a lot of use. I think it'd be better to make it a general aviation airport and convert more of the surrounding land to parkland and space for development.
Interesting with a third runway at Pearson. After checking Google Earth, I guess that it's possible, and it wouldn't demand any impossible organization on the part of flight controllers. And if you do need to expropriate some land, it's not like the land around Pearson is particularly worth a lot or even near anyone who could complain about the noise from more planes or anything.
HSR would definitely be the key to managing things. It'd let Pearson remain the single major airport while Toronto and the GGH grows internationally and the rest of Ontario and Quebec grow too. Actually, how much would it cost to build Pickering, or convert an airport like Downsview to a proper state to be used for International flights, including the drop in land value around the airport? I'm guessing that conversion would be a lot cheaper, especially since the runway's already big enough for the biggest aircraft, but it'd probably mean a huge drop in land and housing value, especially land that's currently slated for development near future subway stations. Whichever is "more expensive," it could be a good HSR argument
Interesting with a third runway at Pearson. After checking Google Earth, I guess that it's possible, and it wouldn't demand any impossible organization on the part of flight controllers. And if you do need to expropriate some land, it's not like the land around Pearson is particularly worth a lot or even near anyone who could complain about the noise from more planes or anything.
HSR would definitely be the key to managing things. It'd let Pearson remain the single major airport while Toronto and the GGH grows internationally and the rest of Ontario and Quebec grow too. Actually, how much would it cost to build Pickering, or convert an airport like Downsview to a proper state to be used for International flights, including the drop in land value around the airport? I'm guessing that conversion would be a lot cheaper, especially since the runway's already big enough for the biggest aircraft, but it'd probably mean a huge drop in land and housing value, especially land that's currently slated for development near future subway stations. Whichever is "more expensive," it could be a good HSR argument
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I'll have to look at the map again but IIRC there are a number of infield buildings that would have to be moved in order to accomodate a third N/S runway (De-Icing facility, cargo, IFT, food), and I'm not sure if it would be economically feasable. It might make more sense to build a third runway to the west of the runway pair. That said I don't think those runways are used more than 20% of the time and don't cause a significant capacity constraint on operations.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Downsview can't handle commercial traffic for a myriad of reasons (not in the least, because Bombardier requires a lot of flexibility for flight testing its aircraft). One huge reason is that it's just too close to Pearson and lies with approaches that are perpendicular to Pearson's. This makes for an airspace deconfliction nightmare with large commercial aircraft. GA might be more feasible at Downsview. But there's no way Bombardier would tolerate it getting as busy as Buttonville.
Pickering is being built not just because of the closure of Buttonville. Oshawa will probably be closed too. And Markham as well. If and when the Island does move, all that traffic will move away as well. Keep in mind that Pickering is slated to be a glorified GA and light commercial airport for decades to come. So even if they do build it, the airport is not going to be huge and will probably only use up a percentage of the reserved lands for a while yet. The real issue only comes when Pickering becomes a full blown port of entry and major commercial airport (a la Hamilton). That eventuality could be staved off with HSR and keeping the Island open, leaving Pickering a small GA airport.
Pickering is being built not just because of the closure of Buttonville. Oshawa will probably be closed too. And Markham as well. If and when the Island does move, all that traffic will move away as well. Keep in mind that Pickering is slated to be a glorified GA and light commercial airport for decades to come. So even if they do build it, the airport is not going to be huge and will probably only use up a percentage of the reserved lands for a while yet. The real issue only comes when Pickering becomes a full blown port of entry and major commercial airport (a la Hamilton). That eventuality could be staved off with HSR and keeping the Island open, leaving Pickering a small GA airport.
kEiThZ
Superstar
It would cost a lot. It's not as easy as it looks. The airspace issue would also be very complicated (though manageable). Pearson does not need any additional runways yet. And the issue driving the Pickering airport doesn't just have to do with runway capacity (which includes far more than having another runway....people always forget about the airspace and ramp space issues).
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Then why not just keep the others open? If Buttonville's losing money, I don't really get how Pickering would be any better off.
Also, keeping Buttonville open would mean densification in the 404/407 area instead of the suburban office parks moving northward.
kEiThZ
Superstar
^ Development is encroaching on the other 3. And with Buttonville being privately owned, I am sure the owners have reasoned that it's far better to take the windfall from developing the land then run a money losing airport (a status due largely to its inability to handle commercial traffic). The others of course lose money because they are GA airports. And GA airports lose money just like public transit loses money.
dowlingm
Senior Member
I think an opportunity was missed when Boeing closed the Douglas plant at YYZ to move out Bombardier and close YZD entirely. It would have made a huge difference to how that area could be redeveloped. The Air Museum could have been moved to the Island Airport where it would have fit nicely with the Air Show - especially if the facility had a viewing platform
kEiThZ
Superstar
I think an opportunity was missed when Boeing closed the Douglas plant at YYZ to move out Bombardier and close YZD entirely. It would have made a huge difference to how that area could be redeveloped. The Air Museum could have been moved to the Island Airport where it would have fit nicely with the Air Show - especially if the facility had a viewing platform
It's not exactly cheap to move an aircraft manufacturing facility. And it wouldn't be a simple re-zoning issue. Aside from that, there is no way Bombardier would agree to setting up at Pearson, unless they had access to another airfield nearby to conduct flight testing. It's an operational nightmare to have to build and test aircraft at one of the busiest airports in the world. The equivalent would be asking a LRT manufacturer to test the brakes on a very busy TGV line.
And beyond that, the airfield remains semi-active for military, security operations use. There is no other airfield in the GTA with a 7000 ft runway that could handle emergency diversions, forward deploy CF-18s, etc. so close to the city. Sometimes having such facilities nearby matters.
The only way YZD would be closed is if the government offered to pay for Bombardier to move to a new location (like Pickering for example).
FLYFLY
New Member
Private planes
So i`m a private pilot, and i`d like to know if i can use the airport. anybody know for sure
So i`m a private pilot, and i`d like to know if i can use the airport. anybody know for sure