Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[MarkBrooks]

Like I stated at the beginning, it’s important to examine some of the widely held assumptions around the new Pickering airport. Part of this is needed because of change created by long term growth in the region, some is due to intentionally created straw man arguments created by some profiting from the status quo.
I am a facts based guy, so facts speak.
Fact: 2.3 million people live with in a 30 km of the Pickering airport almost three times the passengers catchment area of Hamilton.

https://pickeringairport.org/where-are-the-major-airports-in-the-greater-toronto-area/

Because of “flow control” and Pearson building traffic congestion , Buttonville and Oshawa are seeing an increase of traffic overflow from Pearson. But due to runway restrictions only certain types of aircraft are able to use either Buttonville or Oshawa ( both are pre Jet age airports).
Pearsons slot capacity and thier cost and accessibility are now the driving force behind
Pickering, not GA.

https://pickeringairport.org/pearsons-slot-problem-explained/

This is a disappointment to me as Back in 2011 i had your GA assumptions as well. I was part of (in a nonpaying technical leadership role ) the proposed, Privately funded, not for profit Pickering Airpark. ( I was president of the Buttonville flying club that year). As you can imagine it was a shock walking through the looking glass to find that the need was huge, and the opposition was a multi billion dollar monopoly mega monopoly called the GTAA and its supporters that accounted for 6% of Ontario’s GDP.

Much larger privately funded proposals are now in the offering. I countinue to volunteer my time and experience/ expertise to fight for the greater good, to break the monopoly.

The current plan is for pickerings 10-28 runway to be a 9000 fter,
Raising Private funding via a triple P bond offering is a slam dunk, thanks to the business case and operational efficiency compared to Pearson. But ultimately we are back to the same challenge we had in 2013. It will need a cabinet level approval to go up against the GTAA and Canada needs a minister of transportation to grow a pair. The interesting part is that our current man on the spot has a set.

So wait for it, this is going to get fun! A report from KPMG will soon kick it off.

 

[kEiThZ]

This sounds like a weak sauce aviation version of MOOSE in Ottawa and the debate we are having there.

There's no business case for a second commercial airport in the GTA. If there was, Hamilton would be doing a lot better. Every time an airline sets up in Hamilton and they run to Pearson, we see how this works. We'll see what KPMG says. And we'll see who is willing to actually put up capital to build what you say is planned.

The GTA needs a large GA airport. With runways for bizjets and flight training. Essentially a larger Buttonville. But a second commercial airport? I expect, the Transport Minister will be asking what's wrong with Hamilton when that discussion comes up.

Fact: 2.3 million people live with in a 30 km of the Pickering airport almost three times the passengers catchment area of Hamilton.

It's interesting how you pick 30 km. What makes that the limit for catchment consideration? Why not 5 km? Or 100 km?

 

[MarkBrooks]

You think there is No business case for Pickering? Then just stand back, stop opposing it and watch, let private investors do what they do best, make money! Nothing but upside for the tax payer, all we have to do is get the mega monopoly opposing Pickering with political schnapps out of the way,

Btw A 30 minute, no traffic commute is a classical airport catchment area, Our volunteers used 60km per hour so not to rely on the 407, but you can play with that however you want, but the numbers always come up 2 plus times Pickering vs Hamilton. You are welcome to do the fact checking and math. I did, after listen to a presentation from someone renting the Pickering lands for pennies on the dollar. Funny how facts can cut thru self profiting spin .
The problem is people have forgotten how to think for themselves and instead have handed their mind over to some orange hair goon spouting tweets that “ sound right” or in our case the anti growth crowd with suspicions anti immigration overtones.

So what is it to be Neo, the red pill or the blue pill?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

How much of the air traffic at Pearson is GA? The times I've been plane-spotting there, it looks like nearly all of the flights out of Pearson (90%+) are commercial, and a tiny minority GA.

Air traffic in and out of Toronto is expected to roughly double in the coming decades. If that prediction holds true, and assuming that the bulk of that increase is commercial flights, does it not logically follow that those commercial flights would have to be accommodated at Pickering, since Pearson is full? Where else could they possibly go?

The only way we wouldn't be seeing significant commercial activity at Pickering is if somehow all the growth in Toronto air traffic was GA. That seems incredibly unlikely to me though.

I'm no expert in aviation though, so if I'm wrong please do enlighten me.

 

[kEiThZ]

How much of the air traffic at Pearson is GA? The times I've been plane-spotting there, it looks like nearly all of the flights out of Pearson (90%+) are commercial, and a tiny minority GA.

Very, very little. It's very hard to fly into Pearson for most of the useful hours.

Air traffic in and out of Toronto is expected to roughly double in the coming decades. If that prediction holds true, and assuming that the bulk of that increase is commercial flights, does it not logically follow that those commercial flights would have to be accommodated at Pickering, since Pearson is full? Where else could they possibly go?

First off, you don't need a new airport to accommodate growth. Depending on where that growth comes from, it can be accommodated by shifting modes (hence GTAA's support for HSR). Next, if it's growth from existing destinations, nearly all of it could be accommodated by upsizing aircraft. And you see both Air Canada and Westjet doing this in their fleet renewals. Going from 120-150 seat narrowbodies to 160-190 seat narrowbodies and going from 200-250 seat widebodies to 300-400 seat widebodies. Lastly, a combination works to increase slots. 4 flights of 120 to ABC? Run 3 flights of 160 pax each and free up a slot for service to DEF.

Pearson is busy. Won't dispute that. But it's not London Heathrow or something like that. It's fairly typical of large hub airports elsewhere. There's a lot of room to use larger aircraft and rejig frequencies to accommodate growth. And that should suffice for a long time.

The only way we wouldn't be seeing significant commercial activity at Pickering is if somehow all the growth in Toronto air traffic was GA. That seems incredibly unlikely to me though.

With the closure of Buttonville the real lack of aviation capacity in the GTA is GA. There's a massive shortage of both airspace and facilities in the GTA for GA.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Very, very little. It's very hard to fly into Pearson for most of the useful hours.



First off, you don't need a new airport to accommodate growth. Depending on where that growth comes from, it can be accommodated by shifting modes (hence GTAA's support for HSR). Next, if it's growth from existing destinations, nearly all of it could be accommodated by upsizing aircraft. And you see both Air Canada and Westjet doing this in their fleet renewals. Going from 120-150 seat narrowbodies to 160-190 seat narrowbodies and going from 200-250 seat widebodies to 300-400 seat widebodies. Lastly, a combination works to increase slots. 4 flights of 120 to ABC? Run 3 flights of 160 pax each and free up a slot for service to DEF.

Pearson is busy. Won't dispute that. But it's not London Heathrow or something like that. It's fairly typical of large hub airports elsewhere. There's a lot of room to use larger aircraft and rejig frequencies to accommodate growth. And that should suffice for a long time.



With the closure of Buttonville the real lack of aviation capacity in the GTA is GA. There's a massive shortage of both airspace and facilities in the GTA for GA.

Actually, Pearson is our version of london heathrow, but without nearby Gatwick or stanstead to help out. And no, unless you want to cut off half of the smaller Canadian destinations served by Pearson upsizing doesn’t solve the runway capacity problem. Not to mention, the bigger the plane, the bigger the wake turbulence separation standard. With only two runways able to handle simultaneous landing traffic and a night curfew, Pearson has half the capacity of Atlanta.

https://pickeringairport.org/what-d...ngestion-at-pearson-mean-for-torontos-future/

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Ive never flown out of munro but from what i have read, part of the problem there is accessibility. The airport is up on the mountain and is not easy to get to when looking at other options like pearson or buffalo niagara.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Ive never flown out of munro but from what i have read, part of the problem there is accessibility. The airport is up on the mountain and is not easy to get to when looking at other options like pearson or buffalo niagara.

Oakville kid here and it is super convenient from there. But not from the rest of the GTHA. I totally see a need for Pickering (or as I see it being called, the William G. Davis International Airport). Also, there should be a VIA HFR stop there from day 1.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Also, there should be a VIA HFR stop there from day 1.

I'm less than convinced of the merits of that to be honest. The site layout suggests that rail service will need to either terminate at the airport or require a peoplemover of some sort. It seems to me like the most practical arrangement would be through running UPX to NE Scarborough and terminating at the new airport. Yes, this means some backtracking for passengers from the East, but I suspect that HFR is more a competitor than a feeder to Pickering.

 

[ShonTron]

Oakville kid here and it is super convenient from there. But not from the rest of the GTHA. I totally see a need for Pickering (or as I see it being called, the William G. Davis International Airport). Also, there should be a VIA HFR stop there from day 1.

Please, there are enough things named for Bill Davis - a public school,a college campus, and a courthouse in Brampton, as well as a waterfront park at Ontario Place. His more recent legacy has been to oppose LRT in Brampton and support Patrick Brown's bid for mayor there.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Please, there are enough things named for Bill Davis - a public school,a college campus, and a courthouse in Brampton, as well as a waterfront park at Ontario Place. His more recent legacy has been to oppose LRT in Brampton and support Patrick Brown's bid for mayor there.

Yes, you are 110% right that his recent actions in Brampton aren't great. It is honestly too bad since he was a great Premier in my opinion, full disclaimer that I wasn't alive for it (don't want to start a political debate in this forum). My grandpa ran against him twice in the 60s in the riding of Peel, and evidently he was a good guy behind the scenes. Also, I am getting way ahead of myself proposing names for an airport that isn't even in the proper planning stages.

I'm less than convinced of the merits of that to be honest. The site layout suggests that rail service will need to either terminate at the airport or require a peoplemover of some sort. It seems to me like the most practical arrangement would be through running UPX to NE Scarborough and terminating at the new airport. Yes, this means some backtracking for passengers from the East, but I suspect that HFR is more a competitor than a feeder to Pickering.

VIA seems enthusiastic to be planning intermediary stations for HFR, like the one at Eglinton that they are proposing. I could see them doing a Pickering station for the airport just to try to squeeze any type of extra ridership out of the line. But you're right that a people mover would be needed for that. I guess the HFR vs flying debate boils down to what type of flights would be mainly leaving out of Pickering. HFR Toronto-Ottawa is projected to be 3:10, Toronto-Montreal 4:45 (tweet). I wonder how flight times would compare to that, when considering security, arriving early, and travel to the city centre via other modes of transportation. I could potentially even a scenario where an Ottawa resident takes the train to Pickering to get an international flight not offered there, as their pickings seem kinda limited.

I am curious to see what type of infrastructure VIA is planning (where tracks are doubled, where they are singled), especially along the CP North Toronto sub and in the Don Valley. For UPX service at 15-mins, it would need to be all double tracked. Even at half an hour UPX service, with hourly HFR trains, I assume that double track from Union to the airport would still need to be built. But HFR and UPX offer distinct services, and I could never see HFR filling the gap for a UPX-type service. But I really hope that a Union-Pickering Express (UPX also haha) train is available from day 1 to the airport.

 

[kEiThZ]

I could see them doing a Pickering station for the airport just to try to squeeze any type of extra ridership out of the line.

If there's an actual larger commercial airport being built at Pickering. There's no public proposal put forward for that yet.

I guess the HFR vs flying debate boils down to what type of flights would be mainly leaving out of Pickering. HFR Toronto-Ottawa is projected to be 3:10, Toronto-Montreal 4:45 (tweet). I wonder how flight times would compare to that, when considering security, arriving early, and travel to the city centre via other modes of transportation.

Travelling from downtown Toronto, it's either 2 hrs when traveling from the Island or 2.5 hrs when traveling from Pearson with UPE. And once you get to Ottawa, you're facing a 20 min ride cab ride to the core. Vs. 3:10 on the train and a 10 min LRT ride to the core. So the savings are about an hour give or take for Ottawa. Is that worth the difference between airfare and trainfare? I doubt it for most travelers.

For Toronto-Montreal, the travel times till Dorval are about the same. And you're looking at a 30-40 min cab ride to the core. So flying would save about 2 hrs. It's substantial enough that I could see a lot of business travelers sticking with air for Montreal.

VIA will need an HFR station in the Eastern GTA. But catchment area for a VIA station is very different from that of an airport. What's good for the airport may not necessarily be good for VIA in this case.

I could potentially even a scenario where an Ottawa resident takes the train to Pickering to get an international flight not offered there, as their pickings seem kinda limited.

Um. No. Ottawa residents already drive to Montreal to catch flights. And some airlines actually provide coach bus services from Ottawa to Montreal. HFR with hourly frequencies and a stop at Dorval would see Ottawa residents traveling from there. It would be around 1.25 hrs from Ottawa to Dorval, vs. 2.5 from Ottawa to Pickering. And Dorval will be a larger airport than Pickering will be for a long time to come. Heck, it's entirely possible that HFR could end up creating the situation where Ottawa is the LCC airport for Montreal.

 

[MarkBrooks]

The tyranny of geography and logistics makes the rail line and the pipeline access to Pickering Airport a key to its success.

An existing rail line already goes through the western edge of the airport lands and is expected to be used initially to feed it’s fuel farm. As traffic picks up the pipeline just to the south ( the same one that feeds the Pearson fuel farm) can be linked in.

This rail line is good for low speed service but, like many rail lines, would need to be rebuild to be useful to a high speed rail system.

It should be noted that lack of access to rail and a pipeline is a key limitation for Hamilton airport compared to Pickering.

Find out more here:

https://pickeringairport.org/is-bui...rport-better-than-building-pickering-airport/

 

[micheal_can]

The tyranny of geography and logistics makes the rail line and the pipeline access to Pickering Airport a key to its success.

An existing rail line already goes through the western edge of the airport lands and is expected to be used initially to feed it’s fuel farm. As traffic picks up the pipeline just to the south ( the same one that feeds the Pearson fuel farm) can be linked in.

This rail line is good for low speed service but, like many rail lines, would need to be rebuild to be useful to a high speed rail system.

It should be noted that lack of access to rail and a pipeline is a key limitation for Hamilton airport compared to Pickering.

Find out more here:

https://pickeringairport.org/is-bui...rport-better-than-building-pickering-airport/

What is preventing them building a rail line and a pipeline to the Hamilton Airport?

 

[SaugeenJunction]

The tyranny of geography and logistics makes the rail line and the pipeline access to Pickering Airport a key to its success.

An existing rail line already goes through the western edge of the airport lands and is expected to be used initially to feed it’s fuel farm. As traffic picks up the pipeline just to the south ( the same one that feeds the Pearson fuel farm) can be linked in.

This rail line is good for low speed service but, like many rail lines, would need to be rebuild to be useful to a high speed rail system.

It should be noted that lack of access to rail and a pipeline is a key limitation for Hamilton airport compared to Pickering.

Find out more here:

https://pickeringairport.org/is-bui...rport-better-than-building-pickering-airport/

Glad to hear about the fuel farm by rail. Just a heads up, VIA Rail is currently proposing buying that line and upgrading it to run trains hourly electrified trains in both directions to connect to Ottawa and Montreal. The project is called “High Frequency Rail/Dedicated Tracks”. It is currently being studied, but the Transportation Minister Marc Garneau says that he would like to have a decision on it by the end of the year. It is also considered a candidate for Infrastructure Bank funding. The goal is to have it running by the mid-2020s, if all goes as planned. It would be great to have a passenger rail connection to the future Pickering Airport.