News   Dec 13, 2019
 1K     16 
News   Dec 13, 2019
 1.7K     4 
News   Dec 13, 2019
 801     1 

Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,000
Reaction score
2,175
That would be quite expensive for most of Canada.
We aren't talking about most of Canada. We are talking about specific highly trafficked corridors....incidentally which also have a fair bit of air traffic. The Corridor is the highest density of air traffic and most profitable aviation market in Canada. Calgary-Edmonton is close behind that. And both of these markets are most certainly candidates for intercity rail investment in some form (HPR/HFR, HSR, Commuter Rail, etc.)
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
788
We aren't talking about most of Canada. We are talking about specific highly trafficked corridors....incidentally which also have a fair bit of air traffic. The Corridor is the highest density of air traffic and most profitable aviation market in Canada. Calgary-Edmonton is close behind that. And both of these markets are most certainly candidates for intercity rail investment in some form (HPR/HFR, HSR, Commuter Rail, etc.)
You are missing my point. For example I live in Sudbury. There is a train to Toronto. Now, if the cost were the same as airfare, then more people might take it. However the schedule is a whole other thing.

I seriously think Canada needs to invest in passenger rail before a dime is spent on another airport in Toronto area.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,000
Reaction score
2,175
You are missing my point. For example I live in Sudbury. There is a train to Toronto. Now, if the cost were the same as airfare, then more people might take it. However the schedule is a whole other thing.

I seriously think Canada needs to invest in passenger rail before a dime is spent on another airport in Toronto area.
Not going to happen. There's so business case for regular rail service to places like Sudbury. At least not by VIA. Arguably, in such circumstances, we're better off using air service. What we should be doing is reducing the number of corridor flights to hopefully create room at Pearson for more services to places like Sudbury.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
788
Not going to happen. There's so business case for regular rail service to places like Sudbury. At least not by VIA. Arguably, in such circumstances, we're better off using air service. What we should be doing is reducing the number of corridor flights to hopefully create room at Pearson for more services to places like Sudbury.
And there is a business case for Pickering Airport? At least more rail transport fits with the federal government's goal of lowering carbon output.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,000
Reaction score
2,175
And there is a business case for Pickering Airport?
Depends entirely on what the proposal is. I don't believe that what Mark is proposing here has a business case. A much smaller airport? Possibly.

At least more rail transport fits with the federal government's goal of lowering carbon output.
Sure. But rail transport isn't feasible everywhere. The goal should be to invest where those investments make sense.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
788
Depends entirely on what the proposal is. I don't believe that what Mark is proposing here has a business case. A much smaller airport? Possibly.



Sure. But rail transport isn't feasible everywhere. The goal should be to invest where those investments make sense.
Then why are Calgary and Regina left out of passenger rail? And why is there no rail link between Calgary and Edmonton?

We are in a crisis. We have problems meeting our climate goals. We have western alienation ripping us apart, and instead of putting in meaningful transportation to our major cites, lets just build an airport in the biggest city that is not needed.
 

Woodbridge_Heights

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
2,703
Reaction score
487
In my opinion it's not so much that there is not a market case for an airport in the Easter GTA, I think there is a population base there to support it. However I just don't see an existing or future domestic airline (AC, Westjet, etc) that would operate out of that airport.

- AC is entrenched at Pearson and so are it's subsidiaries (Rouge, AC Express, Air Georgian)
- WestJet now fancies itself as a competitor to AC and so is sticking around at Pearson. It's subsidiary, swoop would probably do the same.
- Porters business model is built on being on the island, they aren't moving
- So who will be the domestic airline at Pickering? The current crop of ULCC's (Canada Jetlines, etc) are having trouble just getting off the ground, no pun intended. Without a domestic airline as a lead tenant Pickering is dead.
 

tmlittle

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Messages
79
Reaction score
104
Not going to happen. There's so business case for regular rail service to places like Sudbury. At least not by VIA. Arguably, in such circumstances, we're better off using air service. What we should be doing is reducing the number of corridor flights to hopefully create room at Pearson for more services to places like Sudbury.
As someone from Sudbury who takes coaches there regularly, it's great to hear these flippant opinions from people who are seemingly not familiar with rural Canada. I've taken flights from Sudbury before too (to connect to Pearson). A focus on flights over rail and bus favours wealthy business travellers or vacationers over ordinary people who just want to get to other cities in their own province, and kills the bottom of the intercity transit market. It's not a solution for areas that are pretty poor, and arguing that cities like Sudbury which were built as a consequence of the CPR, have a long history of rail travel, and which in Sudbury's case is the terminus of a rural passenger service, aren't suitable for regular passenger service, is incredibly ignorant and insulting to the people who live there. Please learn more about places before you make judgements about them. Sudbury has regular passenger service, it's just subpar and totally unsuitable for most people who live in the north and want regional connections or intercity connections to the south, and as a result, they end up taking cramped coaches instead.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,000
Reaction score
2,175
Then why are Calgary and Regina left out of passenger rail? And why is there no rail link between Calgary and Edmonton?
Because VIA has never gotten the capital to build such a service. There absolutely should be service between those two cities. And it should be their second highest priority aside from the Corridor. VIA has said in their last publish Q&A that this is something they are studying. I hope it goes somewhere.

Without a domestic airline as a lead tenant Pickering is dead.
Yep! Which is why proponents don't have a massive public campaign. They don't have an anchor carrier for this.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
788
Because VIA has never gotten the capital to build such a service. There absolutely should be service between those two cities. And it should be their second highest priority aside from the Corridor. VIA has said in their last publish Q&A that this is something they are studying. I hope it goes somewhere.
Then lets use government money for passenger rail before a new airport that no one needs.
 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
10,036
Reaction score
2,943
Location
Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
In my opinion it's not so much that there is not a market case for an airport in the Easter GTA, I think there is a population base there to support it. However I just don't see an existing or future domestic airline (AC, Westjet, etc) that would operate out of that airport.

- AC is entrenched at Pearson and so are it's subsidiaries (Rouge, AC Express, Air Georgian)
- WestJet now fancies itself as a competitor to AC and so is sticking around at Pearson. It's subsidiary, swoop would probably do the same.
- Porters business model is built on being on the island, they aren't moving
- So who will be the domestic airline at Pickering? The current crop of ULCC's (Canada Jetlines, etc) are having trouble just getting off the ground, no pun intended. Without a domestic airline as a lead tenant Pickering is dead.
In addition, UPS and FedEx built new large airside terminals at Pearson in recent years. I could see some cargo moving to Pickering, plus general aviation as well as some regional air shuttle traffic (Montreal, Ottawa, and/or New York), and possibly some charter flights and Flair, if it decides to come east. At most, it'd be Hamilton East. And that's not worth it.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,246
Reaction score
1,716
In addition, UPS and FedEx built new large airside terminals at Pearson in recent years. I could see some cargo moving to Pickering, ...
They're paying a premium to be at Pearson due to proximity to international passenger flights they can toss a cargo container onto; not because of proximity to Toronto (several cheaper options for that).
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,000
Reaction score
2,175
Then lets use government money for passenger rail before a new airport that no one needs.
I would assume any new airport would not be fully funded by government. At best a loan from the CIB. Airports are cash cows for the feds after all. And I would think they would expect any new airport to pay for itself.

I could see some cargo moving to Pickering
As mentioned before, cargo carriers now generally locate at major passenger airports so that they can ship cargo in the bellies of passenger jets. Look at Air Canada or Westjet's operations out of Pearson. UPS, Fedex, DHL, etc will never have that kind of frequency to that many destinations in Canada on their own. This is why their large jets land at major airports in Canada. So they can put those packages onto flights to Sudbury, Timmins, Ottawa, Windsor, etc.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
788
I would assume any new airport would not be fully funded by government. At best a loan from the CIB. Airports are cash cows for the feds after all. And I would think they would expect any new airport to pay for itself.
They may be cash cows, but they also have large carbon footprints, and with the majority of MPs elected having a climate plan that is about reducing carbon output, I doubt this airport will get built in the next decade.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
9,000
Reaction score
2,175
They may be cash cows, but they also have large carbon footprints, and with the majority of MPs elected having a climate plan that is about reducing carbon output, I doubt this airport will get built in the next decade.
When has carbon footprint ever stopped development. We don't have any policy restricting the growth of aviation in this country, last I checked. And if the CIB does want to loan money to build an airport, who's going to stop them? After all, they are supposed to be an arms length agency and independent. Directing them to halt a project would destroy their credibility completely.

The only issue here is whether the government releases the land to build an airport. And to date, no government, Liberal or Conservative, has changed the designation of the land or allowed any development that would exclude future development of an airport in Pickering.
 

Top