Airport Courts Developers

[building babel]

Students, and the budget conscious, have always sought alternative methods of travel - I took the London to Athens hippie bus on several occasions in the late 1970's for precisely those reasons, just as some will carpool it to Buffalo for cheap flights now. Similarly, business travellers who can afford to take off but not to land would be better advised to stay home and do business by phone, or email, and have their samples sent by post.

Meanwhile, we're in an age of cheap air travel, mass tourism has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of travellers, and the building of more big new airports like Pearson is inevitable. Indeed, it will only be a matter of time, if present trends continue, before the expanded airport reaches capacity. Then what?

One alternative - a green one - is to double or triple the price of tickets and discourage air travel. The skies over North America were considerably less polluted for the week following 9/11. Eventually, pollution from air travel will be worse than from automobiles. Otherwise, a Pickering-like solution looks inevitable.

 

[EnviroTO]

I think the Federal Government asked GTAA to be involved in Pickering and it is the Federal Government that will decide when it will get built. It makes sense to me that the need for Pickering is tied to the limits of expansion at Pearson. It would also be nice that if Pickering is ever built that there be a rail link between the two so the hassles of airport transfers seen in other cities with two airports will not exist here.

 

[interchange42]

A rail link between the two would be nice, but seems twice as unlikely as a rail link from Pearson to anywhere.

42

 

[unimaginative2]

You don't have to worry about a casino: there already is one right there, at the Woodbine Racetrack.

I would expect that it would be international airlines like Aerosvit or Malev which would be most likely to eliminate service to Pearson if rents get too high. I'm also shocked that more airlines haven't moved service to Hamilton, since the landing fees must be dramatically lower.

Pearson is surprisingly less busy than one would expect considering the size of the city and vastness of the country, necessitating air travel. It's significantly less busy than, for example, Madrid, Detroit, and Phoenix.

 

[adma]

What, pray tell, is working against Hamilton as a potential preferrable alternative to Pickering?

 

[TdotTrickyRicky]

I don't really understand the hostility towards the future potential of developing the Pickering site for air travel. That is what it is designated for so it will sit vacant until someone thinks it makes sense to make a go of it. If they try and fail so what? By the time Pearson is maxed out (if ever) Pickering might make a good location for a space port.

 

[spmarshall]

Like I said, Pickering is a very unsuitable site, and was never to be Toronto's second international airport until federal and provincial bureaucrats and polticans liked the idea of the site (partly to help the now-abandoned Toronto-Centred Plan of the province). Only Transport Canada/GTAA and the sprawl-happy Roger Anderson and friends at Durham are pushing for it right now.

But we're stuck with it, but evictions of farmers who once owned the land and further demolitions are going on right now with no immediate need.

My perference would be to abandon the whole idea of Pickering and incorporate it into the Duffins Agricultural Preserve (land that was also blocked for airport development and later de-designated when the absurd size of the lands was reduced a tad) and Rouge Park, with active farming permitted.

 

[unimaginative2]

I think the problem with the Hamilton airport is that it's on the wrong side of that city. I'm sure that if it were in Flamborough (one of the first sites recommended for Toronto's second airport) it would be very successful, but right now, it's too far from everything. Even for people from Waterloo Region, Pearson is a shorter trip.

 

[simply Dan]

From ACT7 on Skyscrapercity:

According to Wikipedia, Pearson Airport has passed both LAX and Miami in terms of international passenger traffic as of Sept. 2006. Based on previous reports, that puts YYZ in second place in North America behind JFK. Not that long ago we were 4th in North America. Given the amount of new airlines and increased capacity slated for 2007, Pearson should be a comfortable second by next December. So much for landing fees being a deterent...

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

If Pearson starts to get maxed out, just spend some money on improving rail service along the Windsor-Quebec corridor. There's no need to spend billions on high-speed rail, just add more tracks so that VIA trains don't need to stop for freight. The travel times are very close as it is, so shaving just an hour off the travel time will make rail service much more attractive. VIA fares to Montreal are cheap, too.

Introduce service that runs straight to Pearson from Quebec/Montreal/Ottawa and we're set!

 

[spmarshall]

^ Bingo!

Transport Canada has this to say:

Q14. What is a regional or reliever airport?

A14. A regional or reliever airport can be defined as a public airport in a metropolitan region that is intended to reduce congestion and enhance the efficiency at the principal air carrier airport(s) serving that region by providing alternative aviation facilities serving primarily:

* international and domestic charters;
* niche commercial operations (e.g. triangle service between Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal; short-haul trans-border);
* air cargo/courier;
* general aviation;
* specialty air carriers (e.g. air taxi, low-cost carriers, etc.); and
* other air traffic that may not require or benefit from direct access to the principal air carrier airport; or which cannot be accommodated at the principal air carrier airport(s).

Charters can be accomodated at Hamilton and Pearson. I have the impression that charters really don't matter so much for having an eastern airport - these are mostly occasional vacation-goers to Europe, Vancouver, Mexico, Florida. There's no need for Pickering for this market.

Cargo is the same. Most growth is in the west and York, and that's where the freight is going. Pearson and Hamilton expansion will work for most of this. If High Speed Rail is built, that increases capacity for freight traffic as well by taking at least some of the trains off the main freight corridor.

General avation - the proposed Markham Airport expansion to replace Buttonville and Oshawa are suited to this traffic.

Short-haul flights - we should not be building an aiport for this. It would be cheaper to build high-speed rail to Ottawa, Montreal and Windsor/Detroit, and much more sustainable.

Transport Canada/GTAA is building this thanks to boneheaded decisions that took place in the 1970s by an overeager federal government who wanted shiny new airports in Toronto and Montreal (meanwhile maintaining that they could expand YVR, while YUL and YYZ could not handle any increased volume!). The bureaucratic dream still lives.

I'll gladly post the totally unrealistic claims that caused the feds to push a second airport, and why a terrible site, Pickering, was eventually chosen if people here still think it's a great idea.

(Unimaginative is right, Beverly-Flamborough was at one point the preferred location! So was SE Guelph and Orangeville too!)

 

[unimaginative2]

Flamborough would actually have been a pretty useful spot.

I just don't understand how Pearson's "ultimate" capacity is supposedly 50 million passengers on its site, with 6 runways and the mega-terminal. Heathrow is proposed to handle 120 million with two long and one new short runway, even with restrictive curfews and flight patterns. There's absolutely no reason why Pearson can't do 75 million, especially with a new infield terminal or extension of the megaterminal north of Terminal 3.

 

[yyzer]

I think Pearson's 'maximum capacity' will indeed be larger than 50 million.....as for Pickering, if it ever gets built, the logic is strictly one of geography...for all the folks living east of Yonge St., Hamilton, as a reliever airport, won't work.

 

[allabootmatt]

...and Gatwick handles more passengers than Pearson does now, with one--yes, one--runway.

 

[EnviroTO]

What, pray tell, is working against Hamilton as a potential preferrable alternative to Pickering?

Hamilton's airport is too far. It works for people living near it but it will be as sucessful as Mirabel for handling people living in Toronto. It also is nowhere near an existing railway line so the potential of creating a link to it is far more limited than Pearson and Pickering which have railway lines touching their property. If I have managed to drive as far as Hamilton to go to the airport I might as well continue on to Buffalo and save some money on the flight.