Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[MarkBrooks]

Interesting how some do their best to ignore the inconvenient truth about passenger rail service in Canada. Today, and under every reasonable future scenario it requires a large government subsidy.

Some facts about rail in Canada. The Windsor to Quebec City corridor is VIAs most profitable route, requiring a subsidy of only 16 cents per passenger mile.

It accounts for 4.1 million PAX in 2018 in the Corridor, representing 94% of VIA
passenger traffic.

In 2018 Via sucked back almost $400 million in capital and operating subsidies from the tax payer.

See their annual report here:

https://media.viarail.ca/en/publications

That said, Via has a plan to push that to 12 million riders (8 million more ) by the 2030’s using 3 billion in tax payer dollars to implement high frequency rail. Depending on the phases of the moon, political tides, and how much subsidies VIA can get per passenger mile, to lower a ticket price, somewhere between 3-6 million of those passengers may be diverted from Pearson.

Considering that traffic at Pearson grew by 2.4 million passengers in 2018 ( GTAA annual report), that represents somewhere between 15 to 30 months of air passenger growth.

That said, VIA knows that this is its last gasp chance and is pulling out all the stops. It just got $70 million for the next phase of its HFR study, and from now to 2022 is receiving 1 billion in new rail cars.

Can it convince us tax payers to chip in billions more for a dedicated passenger rail network? Should we chew up thousands of acres of class 1 farmland and thousands more of forestlands for a dedicated passenger rail network?

Every bit helps, but Via was never a factor in the build/no build decision at Pickering. Indeed there is an argument that building Pickering can be a huge boost to Via.

A new feeder station at Pickering airport could feed a million or more passengers into VIAs only real passenger corridor.

Long term, short haul go train passenger rail service makes $$ sense. Long multi hour trips to Montreal dose not, except for tourist willing to pay for a Rocky Mountaineer style gig.

 

[MarkBrooks]

@MarkBrooks

You keep evading the inconvenient questions. So let's get some answers.

1. Your website says you need $900 million, the land and all the civil works funded by various levels of government. Is there a public estimate that is lower? You keep saying there's no government funding at all required. Do you need the above paid for by government or not?

2. You keep talking about the low fuel consumption of an A223/CS3. But an A321NEO is even more fuel efficient and rail is still better in per passenger-mile fuel consumption. Do you disagree with the fact that fuel consumption is inversely proportional to vehicle size?

3. You've failed to explain why the same capital could not deliver far more output at an existing airfield. Notably Hamilton. Do you disagree that the same amount of capital could create more capacity at an existing airfield?

I would appreciate if you can stick to facts instead of pulling numbers out of your backside or flat out lying as you did above. If you can't do that, I suggest you stop participating in this forum and move on to a more gullible audience.

Have I tweaked your nose? Was hopeful about a getting a better debate from you, not insults, but apparently not.

1) the P3 structure of the Picking Airport Authority can be structured in a number of ways. Let’s see what the Feds come back with and if they want to write a check Or just get out of the way.

2) this is a classic straw man argument so I will just let it sit there. Every new aircraft added to the fleet is significantly more fuel efficient per pax seat when it’s seats are full. Aircraft must be right sized for the route.

3) it’s not about capacity, it’s about accessible capacity. If you really have a background in aviation I should not have to explain that to you.

Hamilton is two hour away from the people who you are suggesting should be forced to use it once Pearson hits the wall. You might as well tell them to drive to Kingston, it’s has lots of capacity, it’s also 2 hours away for them via the 401 and they don’t have to suffer through Toronto’s unpredictable and building traffic congestion.

 

[micheal_can]

Snipped

Hamilton is two hour away from the people who you are suggesting should be forced to use it once Pearson hits the wall. You might as well tell them to drive to Kingston, it’s has lots of capacity, it’s also 2 hours away for them via the 401 and they don’t have to suffer through Toronto’s unpredictable and building traffic congestion.

Well, lets say YYZ has 10-20 years before it is no longer capable to add capacity.

How much could be done to Hamilton in those 10-20 years to expand it and make it a second major hub that people assume Pickering will be. If anything, the arguments for Pickering can be used almost equally for Hamilton. Or does Pickering already have mass transit to the site?

 

[kEiThZ]

Interesting how some do their best to ignore the inconvenient truth about passenger rail service in Canada. Today, and under every reasonable future scenario it requires a large government subsidy.

Talking about future passenger demand based on today's rail numbers is a lot like talking about tomorrow's passenger output for Pickering based on today's numbers. Remind us again, what the output is for Pickering?

Here's VIA proposed ridership by 2030 for HFR: 9.9 million.

Should we chew up thousands of acres of class 1 farmland and thousands more of forestlands for a dedicated passenger rail network?

That's rich. Coming from a proponent of airport that wants to pave over 8700 acres for an airport.

A new feeder station at Pickering airport could feed a million or more passengers into VIAs only real passenger corridor.

Where exactly is this feed for VIA coming from if passengers are flying out of your airport to places like Montreal?

ong multi hour trips to Montreal dose not,

Classic response of a Boomer who does not take climate change seriously at all.....

Addressing the rest of your nonsense is pointless. But you aren't here for facts.

 

[kEiThZ]

Let's get from you weak red herring on rail to the questions I asked you:

1) the P3 structure of the Picking Airport Authority can be structured in a number of ways. Let’s see what the Feds come back with and if they want to write a check Or just get out of the way.

Your proposal on your website says $900 million, the land and the civil works are the governments' contribution as part of the P3. Your website says nothing about "get out of the way". So which is your website wrong ore are you wrong here?

You're now shifting goalposts with "structured a number of ways", but all of those way involve some funding from government, highly valuable land given over at no cost, and a massive investment in civil works. Doesn't sound like no impact to the taxpayer. Sounds a lot like tax dollars going to make this business case feasible. If your partner really wanted to have the government "get out of the way", they'd offer to buy the land, finance the whole airport and pay for the civil works. But there's no business case for that right?

2) this is a classic straw man argument so I will just let it sit there. Every new aircraft added to the fleet is significantly more fuel efficient per pax seat when it’s seats are full. Aircraft must be right sized for the route.

If you want fuel efficiency (something you claim to be concerned about), the most fuel efficient movement of a given amount of passengers is with the largest aircraft and fewest movements. Conversely, the most profit comes from having a higher frequency operation using smaller and less fuel efficient aircraft.

If 200 passengers want to go from the GTA to Winnipeg every day. What is more fuel efficient, a single A321NEO carrying 200 pax or two A221s/E2-190s from Pickering carrying 100 pax each? You don't need to get out your wiz wheel or flight computer to answer this one.

You are hiding behind the fuel efficiency of new aircraft while pushing for higher overall frequency on city pairs. This is great for your investors but poor for the environment. At least have the courage not to be deceptive about it.

3) it’s not about capacity, it’s about accessible capacity. If you really have a background in aviation I should not have to explain that to you.

Making up definitions isn't going to get you off the hook. $1B spent in Pickering barely gets me an airfield and a barebones terminal. $1B spent on Hamilton builds their fuel access pipeline, parking structures, access roads and a terminal that could support passenger numbers in the top 5 nationally. Alternatively, $1B in YYZ gets them the sixth runway and a good chunk of terminal expansion and given their penchant for widebodies, they'll push out more actual passengers with that than Pickering would at launch.

Hamilton is two hour away from the people

No. Hamilton is 2 hrs away from some people. Hamilton is plenty convenient for all of the western Golden Horseshoe and a good bit of Southwestern Ontario.

You keep assuming that people in Mississauga would be happy to spent 2 hrs on the 401 at rush to access Pickering.

people who you are suggesting should be forced to use it once Pearson hits the wall

No. I rightly assume we'll see a tightening of catchments. People from Pickering with only use YYZ and YTZ. Southwestern Ontario and the Western GTA will split with YYZ and YHM. This is exactly like how Long Island residents tend to only use JFK and LGA, while business traffic to Manhattan uses EWR. There's nothing that says Pickering residents have to fly out of YHM.

You might as well tell them to drive to Kingston, it’s has lots of capacity, it’s also 2 hours away for them via the 401 and they don’t have to suffer through Toronto’s unpredictable and building traffic congestion.

You have no issues compelling residents from say London or Guelph to keep driving to YYZ. And you have a lot of disdain for rail solutions that would improve their access there. Yet complain that a 50 km drive and increasing transit options from Pickering to Pearson is onerous. Talk about double standards.

 

[MarkBrooks]

@MarkBrooks

You keep evading the inconvenient questions. So let's get some answers.

1. Your website says you need $900 million, the land and all the civil works funded by various levels of government. Is there a public estimate that is lower? You keep saying there's no government funding at all required. Do you need the above paid for by government or not?

2. You keep talking about the low fuel consumption of an A223/CS3. But an A321NEO is even more fuel efficient and rail is still better in per passenger-mile fuel consumption. Do you disagree with the fact that fuel consumption is inversely proportional to vehicle size?

3. You've failed to explain why the same capital could not deliver far more output at an existing airfield. Notably Hamilton. Do you disagree that the same amount of capital could create more capacity at an existing airfield?

I would appreciate if you can stick to facts instead of pulling numbers out of your backside or flat out lying as you did above. If you can't do that, I suggest you stop participating in this forum and move on to a more gullible audience.

Have I tweaked your nose? Was hopeful about a getting a better debate from you, not insults, but apparently not.

1) the P3 structure of the Picking Airport Authority can be structured in a number of ways. Let’s see what the Feds come back with and if they want to write a check Or just get out of the way.

2) this is a classic straw man argument so I will just let it sit there. Every new aircraft added to the fleet is significantly more fuel efficient per pax seat when it’s seats are full. Aircraft must be right sized for the route.

3) it’s not about capacity, it’s about accessible capacity. If you really have a background in aviation I should not have to explain that to you.

Hamilton is two hour away from the people who you are suggesting should be forced to use it once Pearson hits the wall. You might as well tell them to drive to Kingston, it’s has lots of capacity, it’s also 2 hours away for them via the 401 and they don’t have to suffer through Toronto’s unpredictable and building traffic congestion.

Let's get from you weak red herring on rail to the questions I asked you:



Your proposal on your website says $900 million, the land and the civil works are the governments' contribution as part of the P3. Your website says nothing about "get out of the way". So which is your website wrong ore are you wrong here?

You're now shifting goalposts with "structured a number of ways", but all of those way involve some funding from government, highly valuable land given over at no cost, and a massive investment in civil works. Doesn't sound like no impact to the taxpayer. Sounds a lot like tax dollars going to make this business case feasible. If your partner really wanted to have the government "get out of the way", they'd offer to buy the land, finance the whole airport and pay for the civil works. But there's no business case for that right?



If you want fuel efficiency (something you claim to be concerned about), the most fuel efficient movement of a given amount of passengers is with the largest aircraft and fewest movements. Conversely, the most profit comes from having a higher frequency operation using smaller and less fuel efficient aircraft.

If 200 passengers want to go from the GTA to Winnipeg every day. What is more fuel efficient, a single A321NEO carrying 200 pax or two A221s/E2-190s from Pickering carrying 100 pax each? You don't need to get out your wiz wheel or flight computer to answer this one.

You are hiding behind the fuel efficiency of new aircraft while pushing for higher overall frequency on city pairs. This is great for your investors but poor for the environment. At least have the courage not to be deceptive about it.




Making up definitions isn't going to get you off the hook. $1B spent in Pickering barely gets me an airfield and a barebones terminal. $1B spent on Hamilton builds their fuel access pipeline, parking structures, access roads and a terminal that could support passenger numbers in the top 5 nationally. Alternatively, $1B in YYZ gets them the sixth runway and a good chunk of terminal expansion and given their penchant for widebodies, they'll push out more actual passengers with that than Pickering would at launch.



No. Hamilton is 2 hrs away from some people. Hamilton is plenty convenient for all of the western Golden Horseshoe and a good bit of Southwestern Ontario.

You keep assuming that people in Mississauga would be happy to spent 2 hrs on the 401 at rush to access Pickering.



No. I rightly assume we'll see a tightening of catchments. People from Pickering with only use YYZ and YTZ. Southwestern Ontario and the Western GTA will split with YYZ and YHM. This is exactly like how Long Island residents tend to only use JFK and LGA, while business traffic to Manhattan uses EWR. There's nothing that says Pickering residents have to fly out of YHM.




You have no issues compelling residents from say London or Guelph to keep driving to YYZ. And you have a lot of disdain for rail solutions that would improve their access there. Yet complain that a 50 km drive and increasing transit options from Pickering to Pearson is onerous. Talk about double standards.

wow just wow, you are way out of line with everything, and not even trying to hide it.
If you like talking to Yourself then have at it. But you are contributing nothing to the conversation except cutting off your own nose.

 

[kEiThZ]

If you like talking to Yourself then have at it. But you are contributing nothing to the conversation except cutting off your own nose.

@AlvinofDiaspar

Mods note @MarkBrooks evasiveness. Refuses to answer questions honestly while shilling for a private entity. Outright misrepresents or deceives on other proposals (like VIA's proposals) or even on information from his entity's own website. And then plays the victim when called out. How is this not trolling?

 

[kEiThZ]

Well, lets say YYZ has 10-20 years before it is no longer capable to add capacity.

How much could be done to Hamilton in those 10-20 years to expand it and make it a second major hub that people assume Pickering will be. If anything, the arguments for Pickering can be used almost equally for Hamilton. Or does Pickering already have mass transit to the site?

Mark is okay with Hamiltonians driving 2 hrs to Pickering. He's just not okay with Durham residents driving 2 hrs to Hamilton. He's okay with spending a billion dollars to get less infrastructure at Pickering than that same money would get in Hamilton. And he's okay with all that because his investor buddies get more out of it. He's not here for some great sense of concern for the GTA or even Pickering. He's paid to push the concerns of the moneyed interests in this airport.

Notice how he's never once discussed the possibility of putting a small GA airport there like I've long brought up. That wouldn't make his buddies money. Although it would be great for the region's aviation capacity, in conjunction with Hamilton.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Well, lets say YYZ has 10-20 years before it is no longer capable to add capacity.



How much could be done to Hamilton in those 10-20 years to expand it and make it a second major hub that people assume Pickering will be. If anything, the arguments for Pickering can be used almost equally for Hamilton. Or does Pickering already have mass transit to the site?

Note: 2027-2037 according to the 2010 capacity study, the updated capacity study is being done by KPMG and will be out shortly. We already know that pax numbers are well above the original forecast so we expect the airport to get an immediate green light as it will take 10 years to build.

The plan is to build out all the Toronto region airports as needed to provide locally accessible aviation capacity. The Vancouver Airport Authority currently runs Hamilton and has a growth plan in place for cargo and local passenger service. For every passenger inside Hamilton’s passenger catchment area, Pickering will have three. Pickering is expected to predominantly be a passenger airport.

Below is the current passenger catchment areas as of today.

A rail line does access the site but will need to be rehabilitated and no agreement is in place for gotrain service but it would seem logical.

A fuel pipeline ( the same one that feeds Pearson is just south of the airport site) so Pickering will note have the fuel farm restrictions of Hamilton.

Billy bishop is expected to cap out around 2024. Pearson by 2026-2030. So for several years long drives to Hamilton and Waterloo and soaring ticket prices could be the norm

until Pickering opens. (2028).

 

[MarkBrooks]

Mark is okay with Hamiltonians driving 2 hrs to Pickering. He's just not okay with Durham residents driving 2 hrs to Hamilton. He's okay with spending a billion dollars to get less infrastructure at Pickering than that same money would get in Hamilton. And he's okay with all that because his investor buddies get more out of it. He's not here for some great sense of concern for the GTA or even Pickering. He's paid to push the concerns of the moneyed interests in this airport.

Notice how he's never once discussed the possibility of putting a small GA airport there like I've long brought up. That wouldn't make his buddies money. Although it would be great for the region's aviation capacity, in conjunction with Hamilton.

I think you are trolling here, ( or using a flood the field technique to shout down real conversation?) . In your rambling You even posted a passenger graphic showing 3 million less rail passengers than my statement. either way have fun talking to yourself.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think you are trolling here, ( or using a flood the field technique to shout down real conversation?) . In your rambling You even posted a passenger graphic showing 3 million less rail passengers than my statement. either way have fun talking to yourself.

A number you pulled out of ...

I get it though. You're not used to being challenged with facts. Your little comments on community newspapers and websites around the GTA don't get this level of scrutiny for your claims. This forum won't give you a pass.

 

[kEiThZ]

Below is the current passenger catchment areas as of today.

An all but irrelevant point because the definition of catchment changes according to access. Pearson argues their catchment includes most of Southern Ontario. And given all the passengers who drive, bus, train or take RJ flights into YYZ to then fly somewhere else, they aren't wrong.

A 30 km radius is particularly bunk from PIckering since it overlaps substantially with a 30 km radius from YYZ and YTZ. Here's a great map to help you visualize all the overlaps:

A map from the Great Circle Mapper

A map from the Great Circle Mapper

www.gcmap.com

Hamilton doesn't overlap with any other major airport's catchment. The most telling bit from this map might be how much Pickering needs Billy Bishop to close to have a shot....

A rail line does access the site but will need to be rehabilitated and no agreement is in place for gotrain service but it would seem logical.

The same rail line you deride as inadequate to serve Montreal and Ottawa.....Who's going to pay to develop that if VIA's HFR doesn't go through?

A fuel pipeline ( the same one that feeds Pearson is just south of the airport site) so Pickering will note have the fuel farm restrictions of Hamilton.

A real strawman given that Hamilton is literally 20-30km away from accessing that pipeline. You act as though putting a pipeline down the side of a rural highway is going to require some great national undertaking.

Billy bishop is expected to cap out around 2024. Pearson by 2026-2030.

A talking point of yours not backed up at all by the authorities who run those places. Why should we believe you over the executives of Pearson who say they can keep growing into the 2040s? What makes your assertion more credible than theirs?

 

[MarkBrooks]

One of the most important shifts in the Pickering airport debate happened this spring.

Howard Eng, CEO of the GTAA (Greater Toronto Airports Authority) described the problem. Pearson airport is now a slot-constricted airport and can no longer be all things to all people.

Mr. Eng urged existing airports to work together to maximize the utilization of existing infrastructure, but then went further.

Mr. Eng, said: “A new airport in Pickering will be needed. We need to start planning, developing and marketing the airport, the community and the businesses around the community.”

This was a careful spoken statement with a single message. The GTAA will not invoke article 44 of its land lease to attempt to stop the new Airports construction.

More about his speech can be found here:

SOMAC announced, GTAA joins voices calling for Pickering Airport. - Friends of Pickering Airport

Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱On May 27th, 2019, at a Toronto Region Board of Trade event, the municipal leaders of Southern Ontario came together to solve a problem. After a short video message from the Honorable Marc Garneau, federal Minister of Transport, Howard Eng, CEO of the GTAA (Greater Toronto...

pickeringairport.org

And about article 44 in the Pearson land lease here:

Why and how will the GTAA oppose Pickering airport? - Friends of Pickering Airport

I am a long time fan of the rapid growth and success of Malton airport , now Toronto Pearson International…

pickeringairport.org

 

[robmausser]

Should we chew up thousands of acres of class 1 farmland and thousands more of forestlands for a dedicated passenger rail network?

First, the Via Rail HFR plan will use existing rail corridors. No to very few trees or farmland will be affected.

Secondly, if you are comparing the environmental impact of even diesel rail vs passenger air, even ignoring electric rail, I literally laugh so hard I pop a blood vessel.

Thirdly, you speak of hour long trips. Minute to mintue comparison, my trip from Toronto to Montreal on the fastest VIA train we have now, 4h40m, was comparable to the flight.

What? How could that be? By the time I got to Pearson, got to my gate, boarded the plane, got off the plane at Dorval, got my luggage and got to my hotel in Montreal, it was about 4 and a half hours.

You cant beat the Union to Garre Central direct link and comfort that the train offers over flying.

Increase the speed of the train through the HFR program, and that becomes even more lucrative.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The biggest hurdle to Pickering becoming a viable airport is having a domestic airline willing to operate out of there.

Air Canada is locked into a long term lease at Pearson and won't be leaving
Westjet has now grown out of it's LCC roots and competes directly with AC. It's current international expansion plans means it probably needs to stay at Pearson for the connections.
Porter might be the airline to operate out of Pickering however a) moving operations out of Billy Bishop removes it's major competitive advantage, and having a second hub at Pickering spreads it's resources thin

Is there a market for a LCC/ULCC (Jetlines, Flair? I'm looking at you) to replace what Westjet has left behind?

I do believe the population base is there to support it if there is an airline, or group of airlines, that would operate out of it.