News   Nov 12, 2019
 1.4K     10 
News   Nov 12, 2019
 951     4 
News   Nov 12, 2019
 1.4K     4 

Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

Lone Primate

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
907
Reaction score
60
Location
Don Mills Willowdale Park Forest something I dunno
Any responsible government would not overbuild.
Overbuild? We're a city of 6.5 million people with essentially the same single, notable international airport we had in 1965 when there were just 2 million of us. Let's be realistic. Ottawa started planning Pickering around the time I was born, and I'm 51 now. It should have built by the time I was in university. Yes, it would have been a little ahead of its time then, but as has been said elsewhere here, it's not the Canadian style to prepare for the future; just scramble in catch-up mode later on. Well, this later on. Much later on. If they started building it now, it might just be ready to serve a city that, by then, would be pushing 7.5 million. And they're not. When do you suggest we get our second airport? When we're the size of London, which currently has five, but only 2 million more people than us? Come on, now. Let's stop kicking the can to future generations and actually provide them something instead.
 

treplow

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
65
Reaction score
57
Overbuild? We're a city of 6.5 million people with essentially the same single, notable international airport we had in 1965 when there were just 2 million of us. Let's be realistic. Ottawa started planning Pickering around the time I was born, and I'm 51 now. It should have built by the time I was in university. Yes, it would have been a little ahead of its time then, but as has been said elsewhere here, it's not the Canadian style to prepare for the future; just scramble in catch-up mode later on. Well, this later on. Much later on. If they started building it now, it might just be ready to serve a city that, by then, would be pushing 7.5 million. And they're not. When do you suggest we get our second airport? When we're the size of London, which currently has five, but only 2 million more people than us? Come on, now. Let's stop kicking the can to future generations and actually provide them something instead.
I agree with a lot of this, especially the unfortunate "build only when we have absolutely no choice" Canadian ethos. The thing is, we tried constructing an airport for the future once and got the white elephant of Mirabel. (Though with Trudeau/Dorval reaching capacity Montreal might soon regret giving up on that one). This is the main reason why I'm in favour of a Hamilton expansion first.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
2,101
Overbuild? We're a city of 6.5 million people with essentially the same single, notable international airport we had in 1965 when there were just 2 million of us. Let's be realistic. Ottawa started planning Pickering around the time I was born, and I'm 51 now. It should have built by the time I was in university. Yes, it would have been a little ahead of its time then, but as has been said elsewhere here, it's not the Canadian style to prepare for the future; just scramble in catch-up mode later on. Well, this later on. Much later on. If they started building it now, it might just be ready to serve a city that, by then, would be pushing 7.5 million. And they're not. When do you suggest we get our second airport? When we're the size of London, which currently has five, but only 2 million more people than us? Come on, now. Let's stop kicking the can to future generations and actually provide them something instead.
After we've built a proper rail line to the East, and bulked up Hamilton a bit. At that point, we'll have a much better gauge of demand from the East. Diverting federal funds to build an airport before HFR would be some truly foolish thinking.
 

Lone Primate

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
907
Reaction score
60
Location
Don Mills Willowdale Park Forest something I dunno
Yeah, I agree with you guys; I think I'd tend to want to strengthen a hand we hold, yes. Mt. Hope EXISTS. There's a lot of open land around it that, honestly, should be zoned for light industry before it's simply filled up with more residential ticky-tacky and it's too late to do anything. (FWIW, my parents currently live on the literal fringe of Hamilton's southern suburban growth; next stop, abandoned farm houses and then the airport.) Rail connections, more capacity, serving the larger population in the western Horseshoe, all good. I just don't want to lose sight of the other goal, have some granola-muncher sell off the land to developers, and we wind up with no way to service the inevitable needs in the east of the GGH. While I do agree with prioritizing, I don't want to fall into the trap of either/or. As far as I'm concerned, it's "and".
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
2,101
I don't think there's any risk of the Pickering airport lands being turned over to developers any time soon. We've now had several governments from both parties. Neither has yielded to developers. That land is either going to be an airport or end up as greenspace in some form (park or agricultural reserve).
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,543
Reaction score
1,016
Location
Burlington
Yeah, I agree with you guys; I think I'd tend to want to strengthen a hand we hold, yes. Mt. Hope EXISTS. There's a lot of open land around it that, honestly, should be zoned for light industry before it's simply filled up with more residential ticky-tacky and it's too late to do anything. (FWIW, my parents currently live on the literal fringe of Hamilton's southern suburban growth; next stop, abandoned farm houses and then the airport.) Rail connections, more capacity, serving the larger population in the western Horseshoe, all good. I just don't want to lose sight of the other goal, have some granola-muncher sell off the land to developers, and we wind up with no way to service the inevitable needs in the east of the GGH. While I do agree with prioritizing, I don't want to fall into the trap of either/or. As far as I'm concerned, it's "and".
The bulk of the lands surrounding YHM are designated as an employment growth district. It's only the area immediately surrounding Mount Hope that's being zoned for residential.
 

MarkBrooks

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
188
Reaction score
86
Welcome to silly season. With the federal election being called it will be interesting to watch the response from the different parties on the call to build the airport. Several candidates believe they can continue to obscure or dodge the decision. With five out of six local city /town councils now supporting the airports construction it is of note to look at the arguments made against the airport by the key hold out, Whitchurch-Stouffville.


Regardless of who you Vote for, our democracy needs your vote!
 

Attachments

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
2,101
With five out of six local city /town councils now supporting the airports construction it is of note to look at the arguments made against the airport by the key hold out, Whitchurch-Stouffville.
The most important council in the region hasn't weighed in yet: Toronto.
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
788
My guess is that the parties will promise the sun, moon and starts during local campaign stops then, whoever forms the government will throw some money at a study via high profile media show, then quietly walk it back a few months later, probably on a Friday.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
2,101
My guess is that the parties will promise the sun, moon and starts during local campaign stops then, whoever forms the government will throw some money at a study via high profile media show, then quietly walk it back a few months later, probably on a Friday.
I would bet even less. Politicians claiming they support the project doesn't in any way indicate broad public support. And why would anybody poke the Hornet's nest on this unless necessary?

Also, if the proposed privatization of Pearson goes through, the buyers will most certainly insist on the feds not building a competing airport 50 km away.
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
788
A cynic would say that the undying support of most of the surrounding municipalities has less to do with regional or even national air transportation and more with other, more local, considerations. They'd probably be equally as thrilled if it was a proposal for a large tire factory.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
2,101
A cynic would say that the undying support of most of the surrounding municipalities has less to do with regional or even national air transportation and more with other, more local, considerations. They'd probably be equally as thrilled if it was a proposal for a large tire factory.
Probably. I am just pointing out that Mark Brooks' insinuation that support for the airport is broad due to political support, is probably not true. I'll bet if there was more in the press about it, public support would be mixed at best.

Also, the feds don't give a fig. They own the land. They are the regulatory authority on airports. The likelihood that they are deeply concerned about what eastern GTA politicians think is low. They might care what voters thinks. That's a different matter....
 

Top