Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[kEiThZ]

Given how London is governed, he'd have far less say than the Mayor of Toronto. And look at how well that worked.

Heathrow isn't going anywhere.

This.

There is no way a cash-strapped British government is going to spend 50 billion pounds on Boris Island, just to appease NIMBYs living near Heathrow. It'd be cheaper to buy out all the neighbourhoods beside Heathrow. And they'd still have enough to build the High-Speed Rail line that will also help relieve LHR.

 

[diminutive]

Comparisons to Heathrow are just bogus. They ignore so much context. Once again, people want Toronto to be like the other alpha cities of the world without actually building the infrastructure required. Pearson wishes it could be Heathrow, one of the highest yielding airports in the world. Instead, thanks to all around NIMBY culture in the GTA (which prevents a diffusion of air traffic) and a government policy of milking aviation, Pearson will be a low-yield destination for airlines while charging some of the highest fees to operators in the world.

How would a diffusion of air traffic (to Pickering) do anything to lower air travel costs at Pearson? Federal taxes will stay constant. GTAA fees would notionally rise to deal with the costs of building a new airport from scratch (assuming the GTAA built Pickering). Whatever fixed costs are hitched to Pearson would be spread over fewer passengers assuming there was any diffusion to Pickering.

I'm not trying to sound like some kind of NIMBY or anti-aviation; I just don't see what a Pickering airport would solve. Of all the various issues which hold Canadian air travel back I've never, *ever,* heard of lack of capacity at Pearson being a contributing issues. The airport ought to handle 60m pax/year and it's nowhere near that with relatively modest investments.

You start by claiming how comparisons to Heathrow are 'just bogus' then go on to point out how the London area has a whole range of big airports. Toronto sees, what, 1/4 of the air traffic London sees? There are hundreds of reasons why Toronto will never attract that much traffic none of which have to do with lack of airport capacity in the GTA.

Something I'd like to ask you, given your background in aviation and such, is at what point do you feel air carriers should change their fleet composition to reflect limited landing spots in a given area? HKG handles 50-60m pa/y on two runways, in large part because air carriers probably use bigger aircraft with more passengers per movement. Japan's probably the extreme of this, given its fleet of domestic 747s. I don't mean using A380s for every route or anything though, but even just upgrading from A320s to A321s or whatever should notionally yield ~20% more passengers per flight. I just checked Air Canada and all the YYZ-YUL flights were A319s or A320s. I understand the importance of service frequency on short to medium haul routes, but presumably on routes Toronto-Montreal or Toronto-NYC where there are already hourly flights there is room for larger aircraft. Wouldn't encouraging carriers to upgrade fleet size be a more cost efficient way to improve capacity?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

How would a diffusion of air traffic (to Pickering) do anything to lower air travel costs at Pearson? Federal taxes will stay constant. GTAA fees would notionally rise to deal with the costs of building a new airport from scratch (assuming the GTAA built Pickering). Whatever fixed costs are hitched to Pearson would be spread over fewer passengers assuming there was any diffusion to Pickering.

I'm not trying to sound like some kind of NIMBY or anti-aviation; I just don't see what a Pickering airport would solve. Of all the various issues which hold Canadian air travel back I've never, *ever,* heard of lack of capacity at Pearson being a contributing issues. The airport ought to handle 60m pax/year and it's nowhere near that with relatively modest investments.

You start by claiming how comparisons to Heathrow are 'just bogus' then go on to point out how the London area has a whole range of big airports. Toronto sees, what, 1/4 of the air traffic London sees? There are hundreds of reasons why Toronto will never attract that much traffic none of which have to do with lack of airport capacity in the GTA.

Something I'd like to ask you, given your background in aviation and such, is at what point do you feel air carriers should change their fleet composition to reflect limited landing spots in a given area? HKG handles 50-60m pa/y on two runways, in large part because air carriers probably use bigger aircraft with more passengers per movement. Japan's probably the extreme of this, given its fleet of domestic 747s. I don't mean using A380s for every route or anything though, but even just upgrading from A320s to A321s or whatever should notionally yield ~20% more passengers per flight. I just checked Air Canada and all the YYZ-YUL flights were A319s or A320s. I understand the importance of service frequency on short to medium haul routes, but presumably on routes Toronto-Montreal or Toronto-NYC where there are already hourly flights there is room for larger aircraft. Wouldn't encouraging carriers to upgrade fleet size be a more cost efficient way to improve capacity?

This feels like the Yonge subway discussion either the line/airport is nearing (at) capacity and needs a relief or it is not and no relief is needed.

Keithz is probably in a better position to respond to this, however I will give it a shot.

By simply off loading the GA traffic and substituting in regular passengers will see an increase in passenger traffic. Also I am pretty sure that Pearson charges more for commercial airliners which use the terminals than said GA aircraft that would be headed to the North aviation centre (on Derry rd.). So again remove the GA traffic sub in commercial traffic, passenger numbers and revenues increase.

 

[diminutive]

By simply off loading the GA traffic and substituting in regular passengers will see an increase in passenger traffic. Also I am pretty sure that Pearson charges more for commercial airliners which use the terminals than said GA aircraft that would be headed to the North aviation centre (on Derry rd.). So again remove the GA traffic sub in commercial traffic, passenger numbers and revenues increase.

I very much doubt this would have large impacts on Pearson's passenger throughput. In an earlier post Keithz estimated that would result in ~4m pa/year more at Pearson. Overall that's a relatively small increase, smaller than could be expected from developing airport like Hamilton or Waterloo.

I don't even think that's a realistic number. According to these Statscan tables for August 2012, over 97% of flights at Pearson were by commercial operators. Building a new airport to offload such a low portion of YYZ's demand seems misguided. Maybe August 2012 wasn't representative of typical patterns?

 

[zaindo]

Property Value Impact - on Markham and Stoufville

So knowing the latest decision about this airport's future in the next 15 years and its tentative flight paths - would it be a stupid decision to buy a home for long term living reasons in Cornell (markham) or Stoufville area then as i believe this will most certainly impact the property values with the loud planes flying in and out of the backyard ?

 

[innsertnamehere]

flightpaths of the airport run between Stouffville and Markam, no planes will be over the towns. It would be like buying a home in large parts of Brampton, Mississauga, and Etobicoke today. People are really over dramatizing the impact of this airport, and this comes from someone who lives relatively close and drives by the site 2 or 3 times a week. regardless, the airport probably won't be open for another 15 years at least.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

So knowing the latest decision about this airport's future in the next 15 years and its tentative flight paths - would it be a stupid decision to buy a home for long term living reasons in Cornell (markham) or Stoufville area then as i believe this will most certainly impact the property values with the loud planes flying in and out of the backyard ?

Based on the draft plan from 2004 the runways would be configured in a 15/33 and 10/28 orientation and flight paths would be well North of Markham, and closer to but still South of Stoufville, you will see planes but they certainly won't be right overhead. Also keep in mind that these communities would be nearly 10 Km from the airport, any plane that might fly overhead would be well over 5000 ft above ground from that point.

 

[TOareaFan]

Based on the draft plan from 2004 the runways would be configured in a 15/33 and 10/28 orientation and flight paths would be well North of Markham, and closer to but still South of Stoufville, you will see planes but they certainly won't be right overhead. Also keep in mind that these communities would be nearly 10 Km from the airport, any plane that might fly overhead would be well over 5000 ft above ground from that point.

Caution: As the crow flies....my backyard is 11.5km from the runways at Pearson......we can see and hear planes very clearly. As discussed in another thread (Porter/YTZ I think) changes in flight patterns over the last few years are very noticable to the point we now pause conversations during summer bbqs.

That said, it has not forced us to move nor has it had any discernible impact on property values that I can see.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Transportation to Pickering Airport

Since the federal government has said it is going ahead with the Pickering Airport, I wish to start discussing transportation that could be provided in and out of it.

For background, there is a link to the most recent land use designations from 2013. Out of the entire area owned by the federal government, portions west of York Durham Line will become part of Rouge Park (assuming Ontario doesn't scuttle all those plans). The aiprot lands is roughly bounded by CP's Havelock sub, Brock Road, and Highway 7. The remainder will be for 'economic development'; I'm assuming warehouses etc.

Two potential public transit projects stick out to me at this time:

1. Union Pickering Express?

If Metrolinx wants to provide an express train to Pickering airport, it certainly has some rights of way to do so. Currently, they own the former CP spur running from the USRC to Leaside (Leaside spur, Don branch, I always forget its name). From there, trains can go to CP's yard to the Havelock and Belleville subs.

This is where it gets tricky. As is, the Havelock sub beside the yard is a tight area, and trying to fit passenger train operations in there without conflict is a challenge. In fact, GO trains were supposed to run there as part of The Big Move, but this challenge made Metrolinx bump it from the 15-year to the 25-year plan during the 5-year review. Extending GO trains along the Belleville sub to Seaton (Brock Road at Taunton Road) is still within the 15 year plan. The Pickering Airport is anticipated to be needed between 2027 and 2037, so that places developing the Havelock sub out of range. But the announcement of Pickering Airport was out of the blue and well after all of the work on the 5-year review was done.

Northeast of the CP Yard, the Havelock sub is the only rail sub that enters the designated airport lands. The alternative would be to run a new spur from the Belleville subdivision. There's going to be an evaluation of competing forces here: freight requirements and ROW space vs. property requirements and projected cost. In terms of freight requirements, I suspect the federal government is planning for Pickering airport to be intermodal, served by CP via the Havelock sub; the northeast/southwest boundary is oriented to it. Using a new spur off of the Belleville sub may be the only option.

2. Extension of viva purple

I think this is a sure bet. Currently, viva purple rapidways are to end at Cornell Centre Boulevard. To provide a good, cheap rapid transit connection to flyers in northern Toronto and York Region, as well as airport workers, it would be logical to just extend rapidways and/or bypass lanes east and north to the airport.

----

Feel free to discuss public transit, rapid transit, freight rail, or roads/highways to the future airport!

 

[Electrify]

I'd like to see the Scarborough LRT/subway extension reach it, perhaps help to get the line through Malvern.

BTW, it is Viva Purple that goes into Markham, not Blue.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Way, way too far away for a metro connection to make sense. GO rail connection is the only reasonable connection.

A highway interchange with the 407 is a given and probably that plus a Viva blue connection and connection to the highway 407 GO bus service is likely all there will be for the first decade or two.

It'll probably mostly be a freight facility for the first little while, and Pearson still has a ton of growth left in it. It can still essentially double its pax before it runs into issues.

 

[ShonTron]

I'm still opposed to the Pickering Airport. But the GTAA's subsidy to Buttonville (which came about when Pearson banned general aviation) came to an end, and it's now going to be redeveloped. With Transport Canada owning so much land (and now accelerating its demolition and land clearances there), it's almost inevitable.

But Pickering will be (in more ways than one) a Mirabel. At least there's no short-to-medium plans for it to handle major commercial passenger flights. There will be some cargo operations and FBOs (though UPS and FedEx are both comfortably based at Pearson).

All that will be needed are local bus services to the scattered employment areas, likely from the east end of the Highway 7 Viva Route, and from Pickering GO Station.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

BTW, it is Viva Purple that goes into Markham, not Blue.

Thanks for pointing that out, I have fixed it, it's confusing when all buses are coloured blue.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I'm still opposed to the Pickering Airport. But the GTAA's subsidy to Buttonville (which came about when Pearson banned general aviation) came to an end, and it's now going to be redeveloped. With Transport Canada owning so much land (and now accelerating its demolition and land clearances there), it's almost inevitable.

But Pickering will be (in more ways than one) a Mirabel. At least there's no short-to-medium plans for it to handle major commercial passenger flights. There will be some cargo operations and FBOs (though UPS and FedEx are both comfortably based at Pearson).

All that will be needed are local bus services to the scattered employment areas, likely from the east end of the Highway 7 Viva Route, and from Pickering GO Station.

Stating that Pickering WILL be another Mirabel and then going to to state that commercial air traffic is not expected for another 20 yrs is a bit confusing. Mirabel was practically built out to full size (to my knowledge) and never had the demand to fill the capacity. Pickering is FIRST being built to handle the GA and smaller airplane traffic to absorb both from Pearson and from airports that have closed such as Burlington. The plan is only to expand once traffic/demand warrant it. That's a different scenario from Mirabel.

That being said with commercial air traffic not expected for at least 20 yrs (from airport opening) RT connections really won't be a concern for that time frame and perhaps even longer. So I think we are jumping the gun a bit with this kind of talk, as Insertnamehere has said.

 

[jcam]

The 2010 Needs Assessment done by the GTAA assumed that Waterloo and Hamilton would build out to their capacities, THEN you'd need Pickering, and even then, at a capacity only similar to Waterloo and Hamilton.

So transit-wise, you're probably looking at an LRT to Hamilton's airport first, then maybe a secondary station on Kitchener GO line to link to a shuttle or something to that airport, THEN something to Pickering.

The potential GO stop is part of the Peterborough Line, last reviewed in 2010. It had stations (east to west) in Peterborough Downtown, Peterborough West, Pontypool, Myrtle, Claremont, Locust Hill, Steeles, and Agincourt. The Pickering Airport would be just east of Locust Hill station. They had a couple options for the end of that line...either right into Union, or crossing midtown at Summerhill and Spadina on the TTC.

So yes, dedicated rail to the airport would be a long way off, and would just be part of the GO network expansion, with perhaps a spur.