Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[micheal_can]

Unfortunately This is not Europe, so those figures are meaningless. Try Canadian figures for a Canadian solution to climate change and transportation.

keep in mind:

- we don’t have a preexisting trillion dollar train system, but it would be nice to buildout at least a few routes even if Ontario only has 1/15 the population density of Germany. We could at least do a few million more Pax by train on the Toronto to Montreal corridor, it will not make a huge difference but it is something .

- the average Canadian car does 8.9 litres per 100 km and that figure increased last year as people, in our free society, bought more SUVs so they could feel safer when driving.

- New Jets like the A220 which will dominate our skies when Pickering opens gets as low as 2 litres per 100 km per pax on domestic routes. That makes flying better than driving almost anywhere

- limited airport capacity does not reduce travel, it simple changes the mode of travel and adds GHG spewing congestion. such as tacking an SUV drive to buffalo onto every flight.


We need real world solutions for our growing nation, not more European fuzzy stats, or nice what if everyone changed sing a longs.

comeback to the real world, working together we can fight climate change, we don’t have time to waste.

Those numbers do not change continent to continent. the amount of GHG emitted is the same per km whether in Paris France, or Paris Ontario., or London England or London Ontario. An SUV is still less GHG than a plane. So, someone flying is emitting more than if they drove an SUV.

What I want to see when the report comes out is that although there may be a need for this, the government will not invest in it so as to lower the GHG emissions of Canada. What I really would like to see is that they decided on investing in passenger rail across Canada. Like you, i can dream.

 

[jaybe]

Unfortunately This is not Europe, so those figures are meaningless. Try Canadian figures for a Canadian solution to climate change and transportation.

keep in mind:

- we don’t have a preexisting trillion dollar train system, but it would be nice to buildout at least a few routes even if Ontario only has 1/15 the population density of Germany. We could at least do a few million more Pax by train on the Toronto to Montreal corridor, it will not make a huge difference but it is something .

- the average Canadian car does 8.9 litres per 100 km and that figure increased last year as people, in our free society, bought more SUVs so they could feel safer when driving.

- New Jets like the A220 which will dominate our skies when Pickering opens gets as low as 2 litres per 100 km per pax on domestic routes. That makes flying better than driving almost anywhere

- limited airport capacity does not reduce travel, it simple changes the mode of travel and adds GHG spewing congestion. such as tacking an SUV drive to buffalo onto every flight.


We need real world solutions for our growing nation, not more European fuzzy stats, or nice what if everyone changed sing a longs.

comeback to the real world, working together we can fight climate change, we don’t have time to waste.

You are correct that the A220 are more fuel efficient than the current fleet or airplanes in use today. They will still be less fuel efficient when compared with two or more passengers in a car. Further, if we use the future values for fuel efficiency of airplanes then we should apply the same benefit to vehicles. Bottom-line, it will likely be a marginal difference between a single passenger in a car and a flight.

So, lets get to my primary point - Rail is where there is potential for impact on climate change. We can reduce the burden on our airports by improving rail service in the Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal corridor. People will look at alternate transportation options when travel times are relatively equivalent. To use your phrase, in the "real world", where I live, I travel regularly to Montreal and Ottawa from Toronto. It takes roughly 40 minutes to get to Pearson (depending on time of day), I need to arrive 1 hour before my flight to clear security and get to the gate. The flight is one hour. It takes about an hour to de-plane and get to downtown Montreal. Total travel time is about 4 hours. If we had trains travelling at 150km per hour, the trip to Montreal, core to core, would be 3.5 hours. There is a market for this service. Building out a high speed rail service that is 160km per hour does not require the same investment as 200km+/hr rail infrastructure. It is a possibility. This is where our limited tax dollars should go.

Finally, I don't disagree that additional air capacity is needed in Southern Ontario. I think any investment should go to expanding either Hamilton's or K-W's airport. In the "real world" the west side of the GTA is where significantly more people live.

I agree - lets fight climate change by living in the real world!

 

[MarkBrooks]

Those numbers do not change continent to continent. the amount of GHG emitted is the same per km whether in Paris France, or Paris Ontario., or London England or London Ontario. An SUV is still less GHG than a plane. So, someone flying is emitting more than if they drove an SUV.

What I want to see when the report comes out is that although there may be a need for this, the government will not invest in it so as to lower the GHG emissions of Canada. What I really would like to see is that they decided on investing in passenger rail across Canada. Like you, i can dream.

Absolutely not, the numbers say you are dead wrong. today a Q400 does 3.4 litres per 100 km per passenger seat and flys straight as an arrow Asphalt free. Depending on the route that can take up to another 40% off.

but the big issue is how to reverse the shift to SUVs. People are buying SUVs because they feel the need for a big safe, do all, go anywhere vehicle.
how about this for a vision , everyone driving around our cities in EVs, not worried about range anxiety because they fly instead of drive between cities and where possible they take a train.

with road traffic creating 20% of Canada carbon emissions And growing ( compared to only 3% for aviation) the SUV is our real problem. How to beat the urge of so many to feel the need to be cocooned in a monster SUV guzzling gas is our real problem.

 

[micheal_can]

Absolutely not, the numbers say you are dead wrong. today a Q400 does 3.4 litres per 100 km per passenger seat and flys straight as an arrow Asphalt free. Depending on the route that can take up to another 40% off.

but the big issue is how to reverse the shift to SUVs. People are buying SUVs because they feel the need for a big safe, do all, go anywhere vehicle.
how about this for a vision , everyone driving around our cities in EVs, not worried about range anxiety because they fly instead of drive between cities and where possible they take a train.

with road traffic creating 20% of Canada carbon emissions And growing ( compared to only 3% for aviation) the SUV is our real problem. How to beat the urge of so many to feel the need to be cocooned in a monster SUV guzzling gas is our real problem.

If you are suggesting that this is the plane that should be used on high traffic routes, then you really are not worth talking to. Why not talk about current aircraft. The Airbus A320 is the main one that Air Canada uses. Even West jet uses 737s. Yes, bt have some flights with them, but they are not the main aircraft used between Toronto and Montreal.

And, unless you drive an EV, you are part of the problem.

 

[MarkBrooks]

If you are suggesting that this is the plane that should be used on high traffic routes, then you really are not worth talking to. Why not talk about current aircraft. The Airbus A320 is the main one that Air Canada uses. Even West jet uses 737s. Yes, bt have some flights with them, but they are not the main aircraft used between Toronto and Montreal.

And, unless you drive an EV, you are part of the problem.

this is what you call a teachable moment, don’t waste it, and don’t feel bad, a lot has changed in the last 15 years When it comes to jet fuel consumption.

yes I do drive a EV since October 2011, one of the very first chevy volts. I have also written extensively On the subject as well:

The Oil Sands’ Surprising New Nemesis: Plug-in Vehicles - HybridCars.com

My first look at the oil sands was in 1978 when I was still in high school. I was lucky enough to be part of a tour of the then-experimental and heavily subsidized Syncrude operation near Fort McMurry Alberta. Like most Canadians I have been cheering for years for the oil sands to be successful. …

www.hybridcars.com

And here are current numbers for aircraft used on most regional routes:

west jet 737fleet is usually a bit better than the Q400 but I use that example to remove any doubt.

Fuel economy in aircraft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

here is a snap shot of some key numbers.

 

[micheal_can]

this is what you call a teachable moment, don’t waste it, and don’t feel bad, a lot has changed in the last 15 years When it comes to jet fuel consumption.

yes I do drive a EV since October 2011, one of the very first chevy volts. I have also written extensively On the subject as well:

The Oil Sands’ Surprising New Nemesis: Plug-in Vehicles - HybridCars.com

My first look at the oil sands was in 1978 when I was still in high school. I was lucky enough to be part of a tour of the then-experimental and heavily subsidized Syncrude operation near Fort McMurry Alberta. Like most Canadians I have been cheering for years for the oil sands to be successful. …

www.hybridcars.com

And here are current numbers for aircraft used on most regional routes:

west jet 737fleet is usually a bit better than the Q400 but I use that example to remove any doubt.

Fuel economy in aircraft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

here is a snap shot of some key numbers.

View attachment 225948

Now, what are their CO2 emissions? It isn't just fuel mileage. CO2 emissions are key. What do they compare to an SUV, a car, and of course, a train?

 

[MarkBrooks]

I t

You are correct that the A220 are more fuel efficient than the current fleet or airplanes in use today. They will still be less fuel efficient when compared with two or more passengers in a car. Further, if we use the future values for fuel efficiency of airplanes then we should apply the same benefit to vehicles. Bottom-line, it will likely be a marginal difference between a single passenger in a car and a flight.

So, lets get to my primary point - Rail is where there is potential for impact on climate change. We can reduce the burden on our airports by improving rail service in the Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal corridor. People will look at alternate transportation options when travel times are relatively equivalent. To use your phrase, in the "real world", where I live, I travel regularly to Montreal and Ottawa from Toronto. It takes roughly 40 minutes to get to Pearson (depending on time of day), I need to arrive 1 hour before my flight to clear security and get to the gate. The flight is one hour. It takes about an hour to de-plane and get to downtown Montreal. Total travel time is about 4 hours. If we had trains travelling at 150km per hour, the trip to Montreal, core to core, would be 3.5 hours. There is a market for this service. Building out a high speed rail service that is 160km per hour does not require the same investment as 200km+/hr rail infrastructure. It is a possibility. This is where our limited tax dollars should go.

Finally, I don't disagree that additional air capacity is needed in Southern Ontario. I think any investment should go to expanding either Hamilton's or K-W's airport. In the "real world" the west side of the GTA is where significantly more people live.

I agree - lets fight climate change by living in the real world!

Totally agree with you, we need every last slot at Pearson and Pickering airport operational, plus HFR in the southern Ontario to Montreal corridor just to have a hope to keep in front of the passenger aviation growth curve.
a rebuild rail service in Ontario could take up to 6 million passengers (2-3 years of growth at Pearson) out of the air, that would give us the breathing room we need to get pickering up and running by. 2028.
we have not a moment to lose , let’s get to it!

 

[MarkBrooks]

Now, what are their CO2 emissions? It isn't just fuel mileage. CO2 emissions are key. What do they compare to an SUV, a car, and of course, a train?

Been there done that , see ICAO emissions calculator that used real world load factors, aircraft and route data. If you recall we discuss this earlier in this forum. An SUV is more than double.
road emissions is also 20% of Canadas total emissions, 7x aviation 3%, so everything we can do to reduce it has a huge impac.

here is the aviation calc:

ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator

www.icao.int

 

[micheal_can]

Been there done that , see ICAO emissions calculator that used real world load factors, aircraft and route data. If you recall we discuss this earlier in this forum. An SUV is more than double.
road emissions is also 20% of Canadas total emissions, 7x aviation 3%, so everything we can do to reduce it has a huge impac.

here is the aviation calc:

ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator

www.icao.int

We did discuss it, and it showed my full size V8 truck emits less CO2 if I am alone vs per passenger in a plane.

You may not know this, but I have an in depth knowledge of the gas turbine engine, so, trying to argue with me about emissions is like arguing with the Pope about God.

 

[MarkBrooks]

We did discuss it, and it showed my full size V8 truck emits less CO2 if I am alone vs per passenger in a plane.

You may not know this, but I have an in depth knowledge of the gas turbine engine, so, trying to argue with me about emissions is like arguing with the Pope about God.

Sure kid, all the experts at ICAO, Transport Canada , GM, FAA, EPA are all wrong and your are right , what ever you need to tell yourself to justify driving your monster V8 and rolling coal . Some day your will open your mind and you will realize the damage you are doing to our environment, but I guess that’s not today .

 

[micheal_can]

Sure kid, all the experts at ICAO, Transport Canada , GM, FAA, EPA are all wrong and your are right , what ever you need to tell yourself to justify driving your monster V8 and rolling coal . Some day your will open your mind and you will realize the damage you are doing to our environment, but I guess that’s not today .

I know a smaller car emits less. That is why my truck isn't my DD. But, to argue that the CO2 emissions of a plane are less than a car or train, well, you are blind to the truth.

What do you fly? What is it's CO2 emissions?

 

[kEiThZ]

Per passenger emissions isn't going to decide whether Pickering gets an airport.....

 

[klireland]

Here is a link to a thread about an area that was previously expropriated for the Pickering Airport. Never materialized.

Gated community in Rouge Park?

The area just southeast of Reesor Road and Steeles Avenue, and north of the track of Passmore Avenue, today looks like the attached image from Google Maps. But in 1971, the three captures from the City's aerial photos seem to show a lot of homes in there. Are these homes in some private...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[micheal_can]

Per passenger emissions isn't going to decide whether Pickering gets an airport.....

But @MarkBrooks likes to think it will.

 

[micheal_can]

Let's stop comparing Pickering to Mirable. At least the Pickering Airport will be a reasonable distance from the city.

Let's instead compare it to the brand new airport in Berlin, the Berlin Brandenburg Airport. It was built in 2006. It is still not open. Basically it has had multiple construction and engineering problems.

Berlin Brandenburg Airport - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org