Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[micheal_can]

This argument seems basically identical to the people who argue that road diets raise GHG emissions due to having more cars idling at lights. A modicum of planning knowledge tells us this isn't true, because infrastructure induces demand -- a new, more remote airport opens up with cheaper fees so all the budget airlines relocate there, it becomes much harder to get to via transit so people are more likely to drive there, lower fees mean (at least theoretically) lower cost of air travel, so people are more likely to fly frivolously rather than approach it as the weighty decision it should be. Even more insidiously, short domestic/regional flights (which still emit tons of GHG due to takeoff and landing) become normalized and cheap and further undercut the market for passenger rail, in exactly the usage case where passenger rail belongs -- not the long intercontinental flights that trains physically can't make unless someone teaches them how to swim.

I would agree that we have this airport built, only if all major cities in Canada are served with daily passenger rail.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Every aircraft added to the air contributes more to GHG.So, if we are at max capacity for Pearson then we cannot add more planes, and not add more to the GHG.

The Substitute effect says the exact opposite, flying reduces GHG emmissions as it replaces a less efficient mode of transport such as driving. People are not going to stop traveling just because Pearson fills up. They simple find a substitution such as driving at 3 times the GHG per KM.

travelers will drive direct to a destination or to an airport further away and take a flight. Every unnecessary car trip from to Toronto to Buffalo airport just creates more GHG.

not building locally accessible aviation infrastructure as Toronto grows at 100,000 people a year is a recipe for soaring GHG emission.

We are not a communist or far right command control economy, you can stop people from traveling.

The only way to not need Pickering airport is to freeze immigration and other growth factors in the GTA.

 

[micheal_can]

The Substitute effect says the exact opposite, flying reduces GHG emmissions as it replaces a less efficient mode of transport such as driving. People are not going to stop traveling just because Pearson fills up. They simple find a substitution such as driving at 3 times the GHG per KM.

travelers will drive direct to a destination or to an airport further away and take a flight. Every unnecessary car trip from to Toronto to Buffalo airport just creates more GHG.

not building locally accessible aviation infrastructure as Toronto grows at 100,000 people a year is a recipe for soaring GHG emission.

We are not a communist or far right command control economy, you can stop people from traveling.

The only way to not need Pickering airport is to freeze immigration and other growth factors in the GTA.

What about a train? Lets use a place like Montreal. Would the GHG for a train to Montreal vs a plane be higher or lower?

 

[kEiThZ]

Mark's argument is akin to saying a 12 full cars is more efficient than a single transit bus because the bus burns emissions picking up passengers. It's bullshit. Everyone knows it. But they just hope that if they keep pushing it enough it'll work.

 

[kEiThZ]

People are not going to stop traveling just because Pearson fills up. They simple find a substitution such as driving at 3 times the GHG per KM.

Another boomer who still thinks bosses pay for flights when they can tell you to telecon/vidcon.....

 

[micheal_can]

Lets say we had good rail in Canada to all major cities currently served by Air Canada and Westjet That would cause a decreased need for air travel, keeping it for places that you need to cross water.

However, our rail has been gutted and now we are in a mess that will take trillions of dollars and decades to fix.

 

[kEiThZ]

What about a train? Lets use a place like Montreal. Would the GHG for a train to Montreal vs a plane be higher or lower?

And now we get to see Mark's evasive answer about how driving a car to Montreal is more gas, ignoring rail, electric cars, multiple occupancy gas cars or simply virtual presence conferencing.

 

[micheal_can]

And now we get to see Mark's evasive answer about how driving a car to Montreal is more gas, ignoring rail, electric cars, multiple occupancy gas cars or simply virtual presence conferencing.

It''s the only way he could argue for the airport.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And now we get to see Mark's evasive answer about how driving a car to Montreal is more gas, ignoring rail, electric cars, multiple occupancy gas cars or simply virtual presence conferencing.

I am still waiting for that electric airplane powered by nuclear fusion myself.

AoD

 

[MarkBrooks]

What about a train? Lets use a place like Montreal. Would the GHG for a train to Montreal vs a plane be higher or lower?

6.4 million travelers flew between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal In 2017. If all air travel was banned on these routes and rail service is heavily subsidize to encourage rail over driving, its only 3 years of growth at Pearson, so pickering is still needed ASAP.

This “corridor” has been described by VIA as the only viable rail route in the country Due to the close proximity of cities and population density and is the focus of its HFR proposal. It still requires a 10 cents per pax mile but can play an important role in reducing GHG emission. Rail needs to be developed in conjunction with Pickering, but will never replace it. See:

Via Rail and Pickering Airport – Harmony by the Numbers

Written by Ted Nickerson Sorry Folks, the Via Rail project for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City High Frequency Rail passenger service does not mean Pickering Airport is not needed nor can it be …

pickeringairport.org

 

[micheal_can]

6.4 million travelers flew between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal In 2017. If all air travel was banned on these routes and rail service is heavily subsidize to encourage rail over driving, its only 3 years of growth at Pearson, so pickering is still needed ASAP.

This “corridor” has been described by VIA as the only viable rail route in the country Due to the close proximity of cities and population density and is the focus of its HFR proposal. It still requires a 10 cents per pax mile but can play an important role in reducing GHG emission. Rail needs to be developed in conjunction with Pickering, but will never replace it. See:

Via Rail and Pickering Airport – Harmony by the Numbers

Written by Ted Nickerson Sorry Folks, the Via Rail project for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City High Frequency Rail passenger service does not mean Pickering Airport is not needed nor can it be …

pickeringairport.org

Lets say the ticket prices were the same, not having to deal with the security at the airport is a big thing. Besides, you keep touting this as a GA airport, which is exactly not what is needed by your own comments.

 

[kEiThZ]

Lets say the ticket prices were the same,

And this will never be true between air and rail, under any scenario where VIA controls its own tracks.

 

[micheal_can]

And this will never be true between air and rail, under any scenario where VIA controls its own tracks.

Since they are both subsidized, subsidize both so that they are the same price.

 

[kEiThZ]

Since they are both subsidized, subsidize both so that they are the same price.

Aviation is not substantially subsidized at all in Canada. It's why you so many fees on your air ticket. And it's why air travel is so expensive in Canada compared to the rest of the developed world. This is not going to change any time soon.

So absent any change in how we price these transportation services, any situation were VIA is given substantial capital to own its own tracks, it'll become vastly competitive with aviation. On price at minimum. Heck, it's pretty damn rare for air fare to beat out VIA in the Corridor today.

 

[micheal_can]

Aviation is not substantially subsidized at all in Canada. It's why you so many fees on your air ticket. And it's why air travel is so expensive in Canada compared to the rest of the developed world. This is not going to change any time soon.

So absent any change in how we price these transportation services, any situation were VIA is given substantial capital to own its own tracks, it'll become vastly competitive with aviation. On price at minimum. Heck, it's pretty damn rare for air fare to beat out VIA in the Corridor today.

That would be quite expensive for most of Canada. However, if the government subsidized VIA more so that the price was competitive to air travel, it would relieve all airports in cities that are serviced by VIA.