kEiThZ
Superstar
So $6 added to every round trip out of Pickering.
The $3 toll cost alone would cover half the gas to get to Pearson from Pickering.
|
|
|
Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)
- Thread starter wyliepoon
- Start date
So $6 added to every round trip out of Pickering.
The $3 toll cost alone would cover half the gas to get to Pearson from Pickering.
kEiThZ
Superstar
When a business case for a project relies on political favours, or starts getting dicey.
And I don't buy for a second that federal conservatives aren't immune to anti-airport lobbying from area residents opposed to it to Western GTA residents who will want an airport closer to them. And have the money and business traffic to make their case.
Also, the conspiracy mongering is getting tiresome. Saying the studying would be complete in 2019 is not the same as suggesting the study was complete on Jan 1st and is hidden away in Marc Gatineau's ministerial vault.
Friends of Pickering can always submit an ATIP to find out if the report is completed. Absent even a basic effort to find out that information, this conspiracist nonsense amounts to political trolling.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
Again. Comes down to the fundamental question. Is this airport being built to serve Pickering or the GTA and Southern Ontario?
There's no particular need for cargo in Pickering. In fact, Hamilton does a good bit of business in cargo. And is a budding logistics hub. Being close to more of the population has its advantage.
And with more of the Golden Horseshoe's population and growth in the West, there's an argument that Hamilton serves coming growth better.
Mark keeps putting up visions of economic doom without growth capacity. I don't buy it. The only injury is that Air Canada grows their Montreal hub.
micheal_can
Senior Member
If I have a choice to pay $3 toll or not, I pick not.
MarkBrooks
Active Member
Again, it’s not a competition, both airports are needed.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Another airport with the right infrastructure is needed. I still don't see a need for a new airport.
MarkBrooks
Active Member
Again, it’s all hands on deck. We need all existing airports and Pickering, and we are still going to get squeezed at some point.
If you had to drive two hours to get a flight, then two hours home after a long day, trust me, you would get it.
When you have to explain to your grand children why you needlessly heated the planet because you thought an extra half hour of jet A burn per flight caused by an inefficiency and congestion airport system was Ok, then you will get it.
Luckily we don’t have to wait for everyone to “get it”, just the majority. Given the pro-airport camps in both the major federal parties, we are there.
kEiThZ
Superstar
LOL. The constant goalpost shifting is entertaining.
From, "The Liberals suck. The Conservatives will save the Pickering Airport." To "All parties support this."
From, "Hamilton sucks. It's not up to the task." To, "we need all airports."
Add in the crazy assumption that most people will be driving 2 hrs to the airport. It's like Mark is oblivious to the tens of billions being spent on GTA transit that would even have the only people that count in his world (Pickering residents) be able to get to Pearson by transit in an hour. DRT-GO-UPE.
From, "The Liberals suck. The Conservatives will save the Pickering Airport." To "All parties support this."
From, "Hamilton sucks. It's not up to the task." To, "we need all airports."
Add in the crazy assumption that most people will be driving 2 hrs to the airport. It's like Mark is oblivious to the tens of billions being spent on GTA transit that would even have the only people that count in his world (Pickering residents) be able to get to Pearson by transit in an hour. DRT-GO-UPE.
micheal_can
Senior Member
So, Hamilton, which is at a low usage level is needed, at that level and then we also need a brand new airport?
You know what also causes more C02? More planes. Maybe we should build HSR to all our major cities and power it with Hydro, Solar, Wind and Nuclear. All are good at reducing CO2.
I am willing to make a bet that it does not get approved with whomever is elected in October.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I am open to the idea. And want to see what the KPMG report actually says on demand, alternatives like Hamilton and environmental issues in the area. I'm playing the skeptic because someone needs to call BS on Mark's propaganda.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
The catchment area for the current Pearson is not just the GTA. A lot of people are already two hours to the airport. I drove post-retirement for an airport shuttle; hourly service 24 hours a day - lots of business. There are even shuttles from places like North Bay, Owen Sound and Kincardine.
Perhaps my grandkids will wonder why I bothered to make the flight at all. If it was for business, why didn't I electronically conference. If it was to get a sunburn, why didn't I just stay home. I have to believe that the upcoming generation will eschew sun-seeking holidays; either out of economics or environmental consciousness (they will likely have less winter to 'escape' from).
kEiThZ
Superstar
Not really. There will still be demand for travel. It's just how you travel might change. Maybe you'll take the train more for Ottawa trips. And maybe instead of a frequent 100 seater, you end up flying larger aircraft with fewer frequencies. Maybe you'll connect in Montreal more for stone flights.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Consider YHM expansion -- there's still plenty of capacity there, and would be more attractive with a new airport terminal.
That can affect the business case, shifting some load from YYZ towards YHM, freeing up YYZ for other valuable service.
Longer term, there is the potential of full A-Line LRT buildout to Hamilton (YHM) connecting to 15-min all-day 2-way electrified commuter train service.
I'm not sure we need Pickering, when the budget is better spent on HSR.
MarkBrooks
Active Member
HFR ( high frequency Rail) is not direct competition , airports and rail support each other nicely if properly designed. But an airport is much cheaper to build and can be run at a profit.
Considering HSR ( high speed rail) as an long distance alternative just doesn’t work. A high speed rail line will chew up thousands of acres of class 1 farmland ( more than the airport), divide communities, cost 10x as much, provide service to 1/100 the destinations , never break even, and be obsolete before it opens thanks to this:
kEiThZ
Superstar
The lies......
"Chew up farmland".....seriously?
"Not a long distance alternative" .... guessing Mark has never talked to airlines in Europe or Japan facing stiff competition from rail.
And then there's this hybrid aircraft. Portraying a test by 2022 as some kind of fieldable tech. And those hybrid aircraft still won't come close to the per passenger fuel consumption of rail. And are over a decade from commercialization only for regional turboprops (<100 pax). The idea that any of this will drive your regular 150 seat short haul jet in the next 20-30 years is fantasy.
"Chew up farmland".....seriously?
"Not a long distance alternative" .... guessing Mark has never talked to airlines in Europe or Japan facing stiff competition from rail.
And then there's this hybrid aircraft. Portraying a test by 2022 as some kind of fieldable tech. And those hybrid aircraft still won't come close to the per passenger fuel consumption of rail. And are over a decade from commercialization only for regional turboprops (<100 pax). The idea that any of this will drive your regular 150 seat short haul jet in the next 20-30 years is fantasy.
Last edited: