Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[AlvinofDiaspar]

There is a overwhelming bias pushed by the anti globalization crowd against aviation ( for obvious reasons). Your link is hilarious.

Try a real green source like treehugger.com:

Transportation

From public transportation to telecommuting, learn the impact of your vehicle choice and the benefits of walking, biking, and mass transit.

www.treehugger.com

Did you read the details? You're comparing transcontinental and regional travel on jets compared to "average trains" - i.e. diesel.

Oh and the infographic is actually from EEA - European Environment Agency:

CO2 emissions from passenger transport

Grams of CO2 per passenger kilometre

www.eea.europa.eu

Obviously, some anti-globalization crowd.

AoD

 

[micheal_can]

The long term Global warming trend is real and we need to do something about it, starting with reducing travel when possible and if you are a solo traveler flying to any destination more than 500 km away. It’s more efficient to fly than to drive, and trains or buses are usually not an option in Canada. But the most important thing we can do that will reduce the amount of green house gas we are emitting is to build new aviation infrastructure like Pickering Airport. Decongesting Pearson will increase efficiency and reduce emissions.

And yes, it also sets us up for the new world of hybrid electric engines now being developed. Aviation is becoming the predominant way to move people on the planet, and that’s a good thing.

Time to Get Real About Aviation and Global Warming - Friends of Pickering Airport

Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱 For the first time since humans have existed on Earth, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has topped 415 parts per million. Transportation contributes significantly to global warming. We can take concrete actions today to reduce those emissions through more efficient...

pickeringairport.org

That's a really odd way of reducing CO2 emissions:

View attachment 190333

Holiday plans – Plane or Train? Planes are about 20 times as bad for the climate – per kilometre

Yes. We don't like to talk about it – but it's high time we did: CO2 emissions of air travel are 20.5 times higher than train, per kilometer*, per passenger, according [...]

www.bitsofscience.org

The most effective way - I bet - would be to build HFR/HSR along the Windsor-QC corridor using whatever funds planned for Pickering and electrifying GO alongside, instead of worrying about planes waiting to land while doing nothing to shift mode in the forementioned corridor.

AoD:

Want to reduce cO2 emissions the fastest? Bring back passenger rail service. It is sad when cities like Calgary and Regina are not connected to rail. If we invested in rail infrastructure instead of subsidies for airports, we would see an overall drop in CO2 emissions.

 

[MarkBrooks]

The European Report stats your are referencing is valid for Europe, the report can be found here:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/term-report-2014/download

You will note the info graphic designer is separate and plays a couple of tricks with his assumptions. First dividing a European compact car emissions by 4 (assuming 4 passengers ) then 1.5, then as compared to a single short haul airline seat.
The 285 grams per passenger km is huge and not in line with ICAO emissions calculation which can be found here:

ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator

www.icao.int

A typical Canadian flight between Toronto and Vancouver is 253 kg per passenger over 3344km or 75 grams per km per passenger.

Even a short haul flight, Toronto to Ottawa is 65kg over 362 km, or 179grams per passenger km.

Why warp the stats?

Ask them.

The tree hugger uses a one passenger assumption and current North America numbers.
They lean left but do not follow an anti globalization mantra.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Can more rail help? Absolutely and we should be building and encouraging high frequency rail. Sadly we do not have high speed passenger rail service or the spare $10 of billions in public dollars needed to build it. We also do not have cities close enough together except for the Windsor to Montreal route, to make a Europe style high frequency comparison valid. More high frequency rail, especially feeding Pearson, Pickering, Waterloo and even Hamilton is needed.

Building high speed rail on this route could take out more than 3 Million passengers a year off the load at Pearson. Or about 2 years worth of growth. It would not solve our congestion problem or remove the need for more aviation capacity.

Pickering must be built, and luckily we have an able free enterprise system ready to employ private investment dollars to build it for us.

 

[micheal_can]

Can more rail help? Absolutely and we should be building and encouraging high frequency rail. Sadly we do not have high speed passenger rail service or the spare $10 of billions in public dollars needed to build it. We also do not have cities close enough together except for the Windsor to Montreal route, to make a Europe style high frequency comparison valid. More high frequency rail, especially feeding Pearson, Pickering, Waterloo and even Hamilton is needed.

Building high speed rail on this route could take out more than 3 Million passengers a year off the load at Pearson. Or about 2 years worth of growth. It would not solve our congestion problem or remove the need for more aviation capacity.

Pickering must be built, and luckily we have an able free enterprise system ready to employ private investment dollars to build it for us.

Look at the small planes flying into Toronto. They are from smaller cities. If those cities were connected by rail, we might need less aircraft. If we had HSR, we would need even less aircraft. If there was a HSR a la TGV type between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, you would see the need to drop even more. The only reason Pearson is so crowded, and there is a need for a Pickering Airport exists is our crappy rail system.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Want to reduce cO2 emissions the fastest? Bring back passenger rail service. It is sad when cities like Calgary and Regina are not connected to rail. If we invested in rail infrastructure instead of subsidies for airports, we would see an overall drop in CO2 emissions.

More rail is better, but one of the reason for aviations domination is that many airports and airlines make money. What subsidies are you thinking off? The GTAA , although a not for profit, is building a mini real estate empire and paid the tax payers $ 173 million in ground lease rent last year. It has a great credit rating that allows it to borrow billions for infrastructure improvements..
Perhaps what is needed is a new financial model on the railroad side that follows aviations profit driven example.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Calgary-Regina is such a large distance for such a small city (less than 300k), even in Europe that train wouldn't make much sense.

Complain if you want about a Calgary-Edmonton train.. that should probably exist, but Calgary-Regina? That's a 700km+ trip for a town of 300k..

Air is efficient and way faster than the train - if that is the market preference, even at a premium price, let it be so. Canada is spread thin enough as it is. It could use some high quality trains on some high volume routes like Toronto-Montreal and Calgary-Edmonton, but nobody is going to want to take a train from Toronto to Timmins.

Lets work on getting airline fares down for those types of trips first so they become more accessible.

 

[ShonTron]

Calgary-Regina is such a large distance for such a small city (less than 300k), even in Europe that train wouldn't make much sense.

Complain if you want about a Calgary-Edmonton train.. that should probably exist, but Calgary-Regina? That's a 700km+ trip for a town of 300k..

Air is efficient and way faster than the train - if that is the market preference, even at a premium price, let it be so. Canada is spread thin enough as it is. It could use some high quality trains on some high volume routes like Toronto-Montreal and Calgary-Edmonton, but nobody is going to want to take a train from Toronto to Timmins.

Lets work on getting airline fares down for those types of trips first so they become more accessible.

Calgary-Regina only works for all the intermediate markets, like Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Medicine Hat. That adds another 250,000 to the corridor. But of course, Greyhound kept cutting back on that route until there was nothing left, and the conservative government in Saskatchewan destroyed the feeder system there. A higher-speed train making limited stops could do the route in 4-5 hours, but that's a lot of cost for not a lot of gain. Better to subsidize an effective and efficient bus system, rebuilding what was left behind by Greyhound and STC.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Calgary-Regina only works for all the intermediate markets, like Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Medicine Hat. That adds another 250,000 to the corridor. But of course, Greyhound kept cutting back on that route until there was nothing left, and the conservative government in Saskatchewan destroyed the feeder system there. A higher-speed train making limited stops could do the route in 4-5 hours, but that's a lot of cost for not a lot of gain. Better to subsidize an effective and efficient bus system, rebuilding what was left behind by Greyhound and STC.

Oh for sure a ground based system for more cost sensitive travellers is needed.. but a train is not going to return much better travel times than a bus without a ridiculous investment.

The prairies are so auto dependant anyway that very very few people live without a car. That trip is a fairly relaxing, albeit 7 hour drive. If people are too cost sensitive to fly I imagine most drive.. and if not that, a bus should be available. Just don’t see the case for trains on that corridor.

 

[micheal_can]

Calgary-Regina only works for all the intermediate markets, like Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Medicine Hat. That adds another 250,000 to the corridor. But of course, Greyhound kept cutting back on that route until there was nothing left, and the conservative government in Saskatchewan destroyed the feeder system there. A higher-speed train making limited stops could do the route in 4-5 hours, but that's a lot of cost for not a lot of gain. Better to subsidize an effective and efficient bus system, rebuilding what was left behind by Greyhound and STC.

Oh for sure a ground based system for more cost sensitive travellers is needed.. but a train is not going to return much better travel times than a bus without a ridiculous investment.

The prairies are so auto dependant anyway that very very few people live without a car. That trip is a fairly relaxing, albeit 7 hour drive. If people are too cost sensitive to fly I imagine most drive.. and if not that, a bus should be available. Just don’t see the case for trains on that corridor.

Calgary - Regina is about 750km. If passenger trains ould do about 100km/h it would match driving time. Doing that route and stopping, lets say it does that in 9 hours. Sounds like a great overnight train for the business people.

 

[kEiThZ]

Calgary - Regina is about 750km. If passenger trains ould do about 100km/h it would match driving time. Doing that route and stopping, lets say it does that in 9 hours. Sounds like a great overnight train for the business people.

LOL. Businesspeople don’t take overnight trains. Some of you have clearly never traveled professionally. No employee is going to be happy to overnight on a train away from their family, just to take a train. They’ll demand compensatory time off or pay. And that would add up to more than the fare difference between train and plane.

HSR only works between large metros that are 500-800 km apart. Most corridors in Canada probably can’t support regular rail service let alone HSR. There’s only two corridors in Canada where substantial intercity rail investment really makes sense: Windsor-Quebec and Calgary-Edmonton. But in places like Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, there’s really no reason why flights between those cities can’t be cutback substantially with rail.

 

[nfitz]

There’s only two corridors in Canada where substantial intercity rail investment really makes sense: Windsor-Quebec and Calgary-Edmonton

Pretty much - Regina-Saskatoon would be the only other thing that comes to mind ... but probably easier to drive. People are going to fly before taking a 9-hour train trip on business.

 

[ShonTron]

Pretty much - Regina-Saskatoon would be the only other thing that comes to mind ... but probably easier to drive. People are going to fly before taking a 9-hour train trip on business.

Perhaps a few daily Halifax-Moncton-Saint John trains, with buses connecting to Fredericton, Charlottetown and New Glasgow-Antigonish-Sydney. VIA has been mulling additional Halifax-Moncton trains to complement the Ocean, but there are no concrete plans.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps a few daily Halifax-Moncton-Saint John trains, with buses connecting to Fredericton, Charlottetown and New Glasgow-Antigonish-Sydney. VIA has been mulling additional Halifax-Moncton trains to complement the Ocean, but there are no concrete plans.

I was tempted to also suggest Moncton-Halifax, but with the new expressway, and winding railway track, I just don't see how buses aren't more effective.

Is Sydney even an option any more? I thought that there wasn't any service other than just across the causeway. Globe and Mail says it was abandonded in 2015 -https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/railway-shuts-down-cape-breton-line-after-135-years/article22472332/

 

[p_xavier]

I was tempted to also suggest Moncton-Halifax, but with the new expressway, and winding railway track, I just don't see how buses aren't more effective.

Is Sydney even an option any more? I thought that there wasn't any service other than just across the causeway. Globe and Mail says it was abandonded in 2015 -https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/railway-shuts-down-cape-breton-line-after-135-years/article22472332/

The main CN rail line should be used for Montréal-Moncton. It would be so much faster. I'm always hoping that the CN discontinues the Newcastle sub. In 2014 the NB government agreed to finance repairs. CN said it will continue operating the line for 5 years (this year) to see if the sub line would be financially viable again, traffic has decreased from the last thing I've read on it. VIA had mentionned in 2012 that they would reroute through to the mainline if it happens.