Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[lrt's friend]

Aw, Pickering Airport. The justification for Doug Ford's Pickering subway. At how many $Billion?

 

[lenaitch]

FWIW Dulles is 37 nautical km from downtown DC, so I guess DC is out of the catchment area for Dulles?
Secondly, Mark does run the Friends of the Pickering Airport fan club! https://pickeringairport.org/about/

What is a nautical kilometer?

 

[kEiThZ]

Starting in 2021, it is going to have a lot of construction vehicle traffic, so it’s a blessing in disguise. It’s my understanding that A non toll north south road is also in plan... but I don’t details off hand.

As usual Mark dodges the question. But it's a good one. Why would anyone want to access the airport by one of the most expensive toll highways on the continent?

one of the reasons why DCs passengers traffic is evenly dispersed among three separate airports ( the other two are Regan and BWI ) is the geography of the area. Although it is unique for each city, and the term “ accessible aviation “ is used loosely to describe a 30 min or less drive, there is no hard rule. The 30 km came from commute time studies.

More evasion

Makes up his own terminology, "accessible aviation" based on an irrelevant metric (commuting times). How are commuting radii/times applicable to infrastructure that even business travelers use less than weekly?

The key is determining what other infrastructure ( highways & roads) would need to be beefed up to enable longer commute distances.

Talks about what infrastructure government has to fund to make his project possible and then says this:

Or we could go America style and let each city have its own airport and let free enterprise have at it! What a concept!

Needs free land from the crown, low cost government financing and hundreds of millions to billions in civil works but says it's all free market.

Mark must be a card-carrying American Republican. The only folks I know whose idea of the "free market" is massively reliant on government support.

Mods. Call him out. Come on. Don't let him propagandize on here without consequence.

 

[micheal_can]

Here is a better look at the tryanny of geography. For passenger catchment areas the use the stats Canada database and derived info.. Here is what a 30km passenger area looks like.
View attachment 196369View attachment 196370

You notice how The Island and Pearson have the same general catchment area? You also see how they all will overlap Pickering?
Notice how Hamilton doesn't?

As mentioned before, I live in Sudbury. When I am looking for a flight to somewhere warm, I list Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and yes, Hamilton. If Hamilton had more options and were cheaper, I'd drive there and fly out of there. Most of us in Ontario are the same.

 

[pw20]

The reason that traffic is dispersed across DC's airports has more to do with Reagan only receiving domestic flights (or Canadian pre-clearance traffic) and Dulles being an international hub; BWI services an entire different catchment area (to your point?) and has become a hub for Southwest. Very few people who live in DC consider BWI an option; unless they are Southwest loyalists. 30KM is an arbitrary number to make a case for Picking Airport. Most large airport's use a 60KM catchment radium, here is a link to London's Ontario, as an example.

Historically, the reason why Pickering was chosen as the location for a proposed secondary airport was that the province felt the east side of the GTA was underpopulated vis-a-vis the west (you can look up some of the research around this - Guelph was actually the preferred location by the feds, originally); the province as part of their GTA planning wanted to push people into the less population eastern side. The hope was that Pickering would help spearhead industrial and population growth in the east.

This fundamentally alters the equation in this debate. Is Picking the right area because it services the GREATEST existing need (the factual answer, unless you're using a biased catchment area, is no)? Or does Picking make sense because there is a goal to try and stimulate growth in the East. I'd buy the latter, but not the former and you can't argue both at the same time!

 

[MarkBrooks]

The reason that traffic is dispersed across DC's airports has more to do with Reagan only receiving domestic flights (or Canadian pre-clearance traffic) and Dulles being an international hub; BWI services an entire different catchment area (to your point?) and has become a hub for Southwest. Very few people who live in DC consider BWI an option; unless they are Southwest loyalists. 30KM is an arbitrary number to make a case for Picking Airport. Most large airport's use a 60KM catchment radium, here is a link to London's Ontario, as an example.

Historically, the reason why Pickering was chosen as the location for a proposed secondary airport was that the province felt the east side of the GTA was underpopulated vis-a-vis the west (you can look up some of the research around this - Guelph was actually the preferred location by the feds, originally); the province as part of their GTA planning wanted to push people into the less population eastern side. The hope was that Pickering would help spearhead industrial and population growth in the east.

This fundamentally alters the equation in this debate. Is Picking the right area because it services the GREATEST existing need (the factual answer, unless you're using a biased catchment area, is no)? Or does Picking make sense because there is a goal to try and stimulate growth in the East. I'd buy the latter, but not the former and you can't argue both at the same time!

The idea that Pickering was not the best site is a myth promoted by those who oppose the airport. It has resurfaced over the years but was first started by the misunderstanding of the original site selection process that took place over several years and the Guelph sites role.
I have cut a couple pages from the original 1973 Gibson inquiry that can help you with this myth.
Guelph was the preferred site from the political screening process but transport nix it as well as the other 3 original sites nominated for an in-depth technical aviation review. Guelph was too close to Malton ( now Pearson ) to allow Malton to remain open. With transports refined criteria then driving the wagon Pickering was then chosen as the home of the second airport .

I confirmed this when I interviewed one of the original members of the transport team, Paul Hayes.

Master of Ceremonies Brig. Gen.(Ret’d) Paul Hayes OMM CD

Master of Ceremonies Brig. Gen.(Ret'd) Paul Hayes OMM CD

torontoaviationhistory.com

Your catchment area assumptions are interesting. A 30 minute Drive time, falling off at an hour is the usual delimitation, I would be interested in any reference data that contradicted the 30 km radius. If We could find a reasonable excuse to increase it that would greatly increase our numbers and be a tremendous help to the business case.

 

[micheal_can]

The reason that traffic is dispersed across DC's airports has more to do with Reagan only receiving domestic flights (or Canadian pre-clearance traffic) and Dulles being an international hub; BWI services an entire different catchment area (to your point?) and has become a hub for Southwest. Very few people who live in DC consider BWI an option; unless they are Southwest loyalists. 30KM is an arbitrary number to make a case for Picking Airport. Most large airport's use a 60KM catchment radium, here is a link to London's Ontario, as an example.

Historically, the reason why Pickering was chosen as the location for a proposed secondary airport was that the province felt the east side of the GTA was underpopulated vis-a-vis the west (you can look up some of the research around this - Guelph was actually the preferred location by the feds, originally); the province as part of their GTA planning wanted to push people into the less population eastern side. The hope was that Pickering would help spearhead industrial and population growth in the east.

This fundamentally alters the equation in this debate. Is Picking the right area because it services the GREATEST existing need (the factual answer, unless you're using a biased catchment area, is no)? Or does Picking make sense because there is a goal to try and stimulate growth in the East. I'd buy the latter, but not the former and you can't argue both at the same time!

The idea that Pickering was not the best site is a myth promoted by those who oppose the airport. It has resurfaced over the years but was first started by the misunderstanding of the original site selection process that took place over several years and the Guelph sites role.
I have cut a couple pages from the original 1973 Gibson inquiry that can help you with this myth.
Guelph was the preferred site from the political screening process but transport nix it as well as the other 3 original sites nominated for an in-depth technical aviation review. Guelph was too close to Malton ( now Pearson ) to allow Malton to remain open. With transports refined criteria then driving the wagon Pickering was then chosen as the home of the second airport .

I confirmed this when I interviewed one of the original members of the transport team, Paul Hayes.

Master of Ceremonies Brig. Gen.(Ret’d) Paul Hayes OMM CD

Master of Ceremonies Brig. Gen.(Ret'd) Paul Hayes OMM CD

torontoaviationhistory.com

Your catchment area assumptions are interesting. A 30 minute Drive time, falling off at an hour is the usual delimitation, I would be interested in any reference data that contradicted the 30 km radius. If We could find a reasonable excuse to increase it that would greatly increase our numbers and be a tremendous help to the business case. View attachment 196608View attachment 196607View attachment 196606

So, let us ask the real question.

Today, if you had, lets say $10 billion to build/expand an airport as a relief for Pearson, where would that money be better spent: Pickering or Hamilton?

Pickering is prime farmland, not on any current rail route, no major or even minor highway going to it from Toronto.

Hamilton has an established airport that is underutilized. Rail to it is a few km away and it is an established rail line with passenger service. (GO Lakeshore and Via). Highway 403 is close to it, Highway 6 goes almost to it and has room to be expanded.

So, what excuse besides the 30km distance could you argue?

You want to make Buffalo and Detroit a non starter? Have a lower airport fee, and have low cost carriers fly through Hamilton.

 

[MarkBrooks]

So, let us ask the real question.

Today, if you had, lets say $10 billion to build/expand an airport as a relief for Pearson, where would that money be better spent: Pickering or Hamilton?

Pickering is prime farmland, not on any current rail route, no major or even minor highway going to it from Toronto.

Hamilton has an established airport that is underutilized. Rail to it is a few km away and it is an established rail line with passenger service. (GO Lakeshore and Via). Highway 403 is close to it, Highway 6 goes almost to it and has room to be expanded.

So, what excuse besides the 30km distance could you argue?

You want to make Buffalo and Detroit a non starter? Have a lower airport fee, and have low cost carriers fly through Hamilton.

I believe I have answered this before, but just to be clear:
- it’s not a choice, we need both airports completely built out ASAP to avoid the coming economic face plant and to improve the efficiency of our transportation system ( see climate crisis).
Private capital is available and interested in investing in Pickering due to its profitable location. Let’s utilize it to reduce or remove the tax payer burden of Pickerings $3 billion dollar cost. I have never seen any estimates of more than $3 billion. The $10 billion You quote is a red herring floated by an anti airport group.
- Pickering is hands down the best site for new aviation infrastructure, it has both rail and jet A pipeline access ( Hamilton has no rail, it’s line is miles away on the other side of an escarpment, it has no pipeline) and better weather.
Pickering is a shorter commute for passengers from the underserved side of the region.

Pickering is easier to finance, Hamilton will need more tax dollars to fix its access issues.
Hamilton needs a vastly improve fuel farm with a pipeline for starters.
Both are large projects , Pickering will take 10 years, rebuilding Hamilton could take just as long or longer, have grater political hurdles and cost more tax dollars. Do we rip down Hamilton’s terminal and start over? Or rebuild it on the north east side by expropriating private homes on glen caster road?
Politically Hamilton needs to expropriate land for a pipeline right of way, the old rail access needs to be purchased and repurposed.
Hamilton need to get rolling on this. Pickering is just waiting on the word from the Feds.

The clock is ticking, let’s get started.

 

[micheal_can]

I believe I have answered this before, but just to be clear:
- it’s not a choice, we need both airports completely built out ASAP to avoid the coming economic face plant and to improve the efficiency of our transportation system ( see climate crisis).
Private capital is available and interested in investing in Pickering due to its profitable location. Let’s utilize it to reduce or remove the tax payer burden of Pickerings $3 billion dollar cost. I have never seen any estimates of more than $3 billion. The $10 billion You quote is a red herring floated by an anti airport group.
- Pickering is hands down the best site for new aviation infrastructure, it has both rail and jet A pipeline access ( Hamilton has no rail, it’s line is miles away on the other side of an escarpment, it has no pipeline) and better weather.
Pickering is a shorter commute for passengers from the underserved side of the region.

Pickering is easier to finance, Hamilton will need more tax dollars to fix its access issues.
Hamilton needs a vastly improve fuel farm with a pipeline for starters.
Both are large projects , Pickering will take 10 years, rebuilding Hamilton could take just as long or longer, have grater political hurdles and cost more tax dollars. Do we rip down Hamilton’s terminal and start over? Or rebuild it on the north east side by expropriating private homes on glen caster road?
Politically Hamilton needs to expropriate land for a pipeline right of way, the old rail access needs to be purchased and repurposed.
Hamilton need to get rolling on this. Pickering is just waiting on the word from the Feds.

The clock is ticking, let’s get started.

Doesn't really sound like Pickering is a clear choice. Lets start with a highway access. How would you get from Downtown Toronto driving to it?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Doesn't really sound like Pickering is a clear choice. Lets start with a highway access. How would you get from Downtown Toronto driving to it?

DVP>404>407... not tough..

doesn't mean it isn't nowhere close to where industry or people want to locate. Pickering is one of the most affordable GTA municipalities for a reason. It's far from employment and industry.

Pearson will continue to take as many passengers as humanly possible with some ancillary growth at Hamilton and Billy Bishop. Pickering may get built to service general aviation and *maybe* some freight operations, but I really don't see passengers becoming too common in my lifetime.

 

[micheal_can]

DVP>404>407... not tough..

doesn't mean it isn't nowhere close to where industry or people want to locate. Pickering is one of the most affordable GTA municipalities for a reason. It's far from employment and industry.

Pearson will continue to take as many passengers as humanly possible with some ancillary growth at Hamilton and Billy Bishop. Pickering may get built to service general aviation and *maybe* some freight operations, but I really don't see passengers becoming too common in my lifetime.

You meant o tell me I have to pay a toll to use a highway to an airport?
You just lost many customers.

Hamilton is cheap for homes too.

And, oh, Hamilton is, take the Gardiner which becomes the QEW. Exit onto the 403 towards Woodstock. Exit highway 6., which could become 406. None of this route is tolled.

 

[MarkBrooks]

DVP>404>407... not tough..

doesn't mean it isn't nowhere close to where industry or people want to locate. Pickering is one of the most affordable GTA municipalities for a reason. It's far from employment and industry.

Pearson will continue to take as many passengers as humanly possible with some ancillary growth at Hamilton and Billy Bishop. Pickering may get built to service general aviation and *maybe* some freight operations, but I really don't see passengers becoming too common in my lifetime.

You are entitled to your viewpoint, I prefer facts. The inconvenience truth is that the KPMG report will be the launch point for the Pickering airport. That is why they are withholding it until the ducks are lined up Politically. So before or after the October election?

My bet is after Spring 2020. Assuming the liberals survive. The conservatives will build it in a heart beat. ( they are not fans of the Air Canada Monopoly or its dominance at Pearson )

 

[treplow]

If the Pickering Airport goes ahead, either the tolls on the 407 will need to be eliminated east of the DVP, or another 412 style spur highway (but free) would need to be constructed off of the 401. Not sure which one is more likely.

 

[Isotack]

You meant o tell me I have to pay a toll to use a highway to an airport?
You just lost many customers.

Hamilton is cheap for homes too.

And, oh, Hamilton is, take the Gardiner which becomes the QEW. Exit onto the 403 towards Woodstock. Exit highway 6., which could become 406. None of this route is tolled.

DVP-401-412 (at 7km the 412 will only cost you about $3.00)

 

[kEiThZ]

If the Pickering Airport goes ahead, either the tolls on the 407 will need to be eliminated east of the DVP, or another 412 style spur highway (but free) would need to be constructed off of the 401. Not sure which one is more likely.

Neither. Giving up revenue on the 407 or building another highway are billion dollar efforts. And the former is particularly complicated by the fact that a private consortium owns part of the stretch you want to make toll free.

This is all more expensive than simply improving existing access roads and building the short fuel pipeline Hamilton would need.