News   Nov 25, 2024
Highwire Act
 162     0 
News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 822     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.4K     6 

Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

WislaHD said:
Midtown GO Corridor would improve the situation quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but unfortunately that's not going to happen until you find CP a bypass. There are good chances of building a freight bypass between Milton and Halwest, maybe you could get away with extending CP parallel with the Halton sub to the MacTier, but good luck trying to get them further east. CN will put up a fight.

Transit quick-wins could be extending the Viva rapidway or 407 Transitway. Maybe you could get a GO or UPX-style train that uses the Havelock sub and then ties into the GO Stouffville line. But I think anything that uses the North Toronto sub is off the table for a while yet.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Yeah, but unfortunately that's not going to happen until you find CP a bypass. There are good chances of building a freight bypass between Milton and Halwest, maybe you could get away with extending CP parallel with the Halton sub to the MacTier, but good luck trying to get them further east. CN will put up a fight.

Transit quick-wins could be extending the Viva rapidway or 407 Transitway. Maybe you could get a GO or UPX-style train that uses the Havelock sub and then ties into the GO Stouffville line. But I think anything that uses the North Toronto sub is off the table for a while yet.
Click to expand...
Since the province has to pay 100% to built the bypass and Ford in Office, not going to happen anytime soon.

If enough money is thrown at CP to built 2 more tracks, they may rethink their opposition of having GO in their corridor. It would also mean various crossing across the line will have to be grade separate or close, with the odd one as is.

The idea of a crosstown line been on the books over 30 years to the point some of the Milton Line has 3 track in place in various location, not all of it like it was supposed to be by 2011.

Even if you extend the 407 Transitway, you are taking riders too far north of where they want to go to be worth well for them to use it, let alone the decades to build and having the funds to do it.
 
JasonParis said:
Sort of off-topic, but is there a good quality map/image I can find somewhere of all the GTHA railway subs (and having them labelled by ownership)?
Click to expand...

There's this map of where all the lines in Canada are and who owns them, but it doesn't have the sub names unfortunately. I'm happy to clarify my post for those unfamiliar with the names.
 
There's also this one (basic, with a legend). It's dated since it still shows the Leaside connecting spur, but it gives you the basic idea.

http://www.trainweb.org/railsintoronto/bigmap.html

CP sold their eastern mainline thru Maine years ago and the ownership was broken up into several companies, including Montreal Maine and Atlantic (of Lac Megantic infamy). Other eastern branch lines were mostly abandoned - some sold - many, many years ago.
 
kEiThZ said:
This isn't as much about Pearson as it is about general aviation.
Click to expand...

I find this thread fascinating, but maybe not for the obvious reasons.

One of the biggest challenges we all have today, in a media/online world that appears to have fractured into a set of tribal bonfires, is getting to the heart of facts. I have been reading your thread and I am struck by the number of underlining assumptions being made over the years that, although these assumptions are being sponsored and repeated by some large and powerful groups such as the GTAA, are either no longer valid or fly in the face of facts.

I would like to suggest that you might want to revisit who/ what/ why of some of these assumptions.

I do need to point out one assumption that you need to challenge, that the GTAA is in favor of the airport. They are not and never will be again, they do not want the competition.
Structural and business changes means that they are no longer the benign managers that they where original set up to be. Since the GTAA change its business strategy, it has been lobbying hard against Pickering Airport for a decade.
See
https://pickeringairport.org/will-the-gtaa-be-hurt-when-pickering-airport-opens/

Also if you are interested there is a group based inside the Buttonville flying club, called the Friends of Pickering Airport, ( pickeringairport.org ) that has been chewing over the pros and cons of the airport for years, as well as a number of aviation related safety issues this missing airport is creating for the traveling public. Yes, we are mostly pilots but perhaps it is time to climb over the garden walls erected by our profession to take on the lobby guys at the GTAA and those profiting from the status quo for a better look at this issue.

Your input/ point of view on the website or forum is welcome.

An yes I am a volunteer and a commercial pilot, not a Lordy clueless lobby guy or one of the self annotated few renting the Pickering airport lands on the cheap.
 
As to TigerMasters question about Hwy access, here is an updated layout from one of the private proposals. It gives a bit more clarity than the generic one from transport and shows the Hwy 412 connection ( lake ridge road to the east) to the 407.
3208B001-4438-4081-927E-53B6BDEFB0C0.jpeg

Don’t like a toll road, then take hwy7 or one of the other side roads. But with over 1 million people expected to move into Durham region over the next two decades, the toll road will be busy. An interesting related note, the triple P partnership structure that was pioneered to solve the 407 issues, is one of the options Being considered to raise the funds needed to build the airport. ( the Pickering Airport Authority will be structurally similar to the GTAAs organization, including raising funding with private bond offerings).

See:

https://pickeringairport.org/will-the-pickering-airport-cost-tax-payers-billions-of-dollars-a-year/
3208B001-4438-4081-927E-53B6BDEFB0C0.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I dont think the gtaa was EVER pro Pickering airport, except in the unlikely case that they build and operate it. Even the 2000 ish pickering report they released was actually requested by the governement of the time.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
What do we expect Pickering to look like initially? Would all four runways be built at once? Will it serve the same long-haul flights as Pearson?
Click to expand...

The general plan is for three runways in two phases. Phase one is expected to be runways 10L-28R and 14-32 plus the GA section and the first terminal. The second phase would be 10R-28L , additional gates etc, as demand increased.
The airport is expected to be focused on low cost carriers and logistics as well as the smaller traffic being squeezed out of Pearson. The closing of the small GA only airports ( pre Jet age Buttonville and Oshawa) is a factor but hopefully at least one of these will stay open to off load some of the under 10,000lb non-complex traffic able to use thier short runways and for flight training.
Here is an example why Pickering will be attractive to the LLCs
https://pickeringairport.org/how-pi...-a-winning-destination-for-low-cost-carriers/
 
MarkBrooks said:
I am struck by the number of underlining assumptions being made over the years that, although these assumptions are being sponsored and repeated by some large and powerful groups such as the GTAA, are either no longer valid or fly in the face of facts.
Click to expand...

MarkBrooks said:
I do need to point out one assumption that you need to challenge, that the GTAA is in favor of the airport. They are not and never will be again, they do not want the competition.
Click to expand...

I've never suggested that the GTAA was particularly interested in the airport.

My starting assumption is simple. The GTA needs more GA capacity with Buttonville closing down. And Pickering is ideal. It's even better positioned on the VTA than Buttonville. And I've said earlier, would let them consolidate Oshawa and Markham too.

MarkBrooks said:
The airport is expected to be focused on low cost carriers and logistics as well as the smaller traffic being squeezed out of Pearson.
Click to expand...

Past reports I read suggested that commercial traffic might be an eventual goal. I don't see anything more than GA for a long time to come. You won't get anything more than a 5000 ft runway at launch. And if lucky maybe a parallel 3000 ft runway. Enough to shut down Oshawa. Anything more grandiose would be quite the change. And where's the capital coming from for that?

As an LCC airport, it's worse than Hamilton, since most of the GTA lives west of Pickering. And cargo is not some huge driver for airport construction. Now that so much is carried in the belly of commercial carriers. What cargo carrier would want to move from Pearson to Pickering? I don't see Pickering working out for LCCs or cargo.
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
I've never suggested that the GTAA was particularly interested in the airport.

My starting assumption is simple. The GTA needs more GA capacity with Buttonville closing down. And Pickering is ideal. It's even better positioned on the VTA than Buttonville. And I've said earlier, would let them consolidate Oshawa and Markham too.



Past reports I read suggested that commercial traffic might be an eventual goal. I don't see anything more than GA for a long time to come. You won't get anything more than a 5000 ft runway at launch. And if lucky maybe a parallel 3000 ft runway. Enough to shut down Oshawa. Anything more grandiose would be quite the change. And where's the capital coming from for that?

As an LCC airport, it's worse than Hamilton, since most of the GTA lives west Pickering. And cargo is not some huge driver for airport construction. Now that so much is carried in the belly of commercial carriers. What cargo carrier would want to move from Pearson to Pickering? I don't see Pickering working out for LCCs or cargo.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top