micheal_can
Senior Member
That is just it, if multiple LCCs open in a different, cheaper airport, they can expand their service. Then, they could compete for the same type of flights.
|
|
|
Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)
- Thread starter wyliepoon
- Start date
That is just it, if multiple LCCs open in a different, cheaper airport, they can expand their service. Then, they could compete for the same type of flights.
knlaruw
New Member
A major issue with Hamilton is it's proximity to Buffalo and the cheap US domestic flights available there. Durham doesn't have the same problem.
micheal_can
Senior Member
So, you are saying that someone wouldn't drive an hour more to get to Buffalo? Well, if that's the case, there isn't a problem with Pearson due to their proximity to Buffalo too.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Hamilton already has an airport and is within easy reach of Pearson. It's the folks from Scarborough to Kingston who have no airport access.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
The Western GTA/South West Ontario also suffers from a bit of "every little city has an international airport syndrome". If we are using the 1 hr drive time metric than Kitchener/Waterloo, St Catherines/Niagara, and London (Barely) airports are all within a 1 hr drive of Hamilton. Each is bleeding ridership off the other, where a combined airport might be a better option.
knlaruw
New Member
No, I am saying that people would (and do) drive to Buffalo to fly to US destinations opposed to driving to Pearson through GTA traffic.
micheal_can
Senior Member
So, if the government focused their efforts on one, say Hamilton's, it might be a good thing for Pearson?
As I see it, if they could extend rail to it and even have a VIA stop at it, the airport could draw more away from Pearson.
So, then we don't need another one....
MarkBrooks
Active Member
Happy new year! It’s going to be an amazing year,the start of something big is in the air.
Here are four key aviation emissions facts every one on this forum needs to understand in the age of climate anxiety:
pickeringairport.org
Here are four key aviation emissions facts every one on this forum needs to understand in the age of climate anxiety:
Surprising Aviation facts in the age of Climate Anxiety - Friends of Pickering Airport
Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱By: Mark Brooks, Phil Lightstone We all agree that climate change is an inevitable reality of carbon emissions and other forms of pollution. The Australian bush fires, amplified by climate change, have created unbearable devastation and impacted climates as far away as...
pickeringairport.org
NotAToy
New Member
Great pun. It's so funny.
Instead of driving or flying, let's take the train!
kEiThZ
Superstar
If emissions is a major driver, than the best path forward is to increase aircraft size, and hold or reduce frequencies. The larger (and newer) the aircraft, the lower per passenger-mile emissions. Replace the three 50-seat Q300 flights per day to North Bay with one 137-seat A220-300 or one 169-seat 737 MAX 8 rotation and your emissions will be even lower.
MarkBrooks
Active Member
Great if we could, but given the size and population density of our country, its not practical for most travelers except in a few specific corridors. But by all means lets build out and use trains where we can.
been a big promoter of HFR for a while. In theory it could take almost 3 years growth from Pearson. That could give us the breathing room to build and open pickering before Pearson chokes on its own congestion.
here are the numbers:
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
Senior Member
Great if we could, but given the size and population density of our country, its not practical for most travelers except in a few specific corridors. But by all means lets build out and use trains where we can.
been a big promoter of HFR for a while. In theory it could take almost 3 years growth from Pearson. That could give us the breathing room to build and open pickering before Pearson chokes on its own congestion.
here are the numbers:
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 …
Back before WW2, cross Canada travel was done by rail. It was slower, but it was how it was done. Eventually the government subsidized air travel, and less people took the train. Now, there is a higher GHG emission level for planes and not as high for trains. So, if the Government of Canada wants to lower GHG emissions, the last thing they should do is invest in airports.
jaybe
Active Member
Happy new year! It’s going to be an amazing year,the start of something big is in the air.
Here are four key aviation emissions facts every one on this forum needs to understand in the age of climate anxiety:
Surprising Aviation facts in the age of Climate Anxiety - Friends of Pickering Airport
Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱By: Mark Brooks, Phil Lightstone We all agree that climate change is an inevitable reality of carbon emissions and other forms of pollution. The Australian bush fires, amplified by climate change, have created unbearable devastation and impacted climates as far away as...
I did a quick search and found this at https://youmatter.world/en/plane-or-cars-which-means-of-transport-pollutes-the-most/
The “problem” is that doing these predictions (trying to creat a comparison of gag per km for different modes of transit) means taking (a lot of) assumptions. For instance, the number of traveled kilometers, the vehicle model or the number of passengers are taken as standard values even though they’re not. In the end, all these assumptions affect the final result. Below we can find the pollution figures of the European Environment Agency report (EEA):
- 14 g of CO2 / passenger/km for the train
- 42 g CO2 / passenger/km for a small car
- 55 g of CO2 / passenger/km for an average car
- 68 g CO2 /passenger/km for a bus
- 72 g CO2 /passenger/km for a two-wheel motor
- 285 g CO2 /passenger/km for a plane
This study has its flaws. It is based on 4 passengers in a car, for example. Bottom line, on a long trip planes can be more efficient than a single person driving. Thing is, for distances like Toronto to Montreal, where we might travel alone, rail is by far, the best option and should be where Governments subsidize travel.
MarkBrooks
Active Member
Unfortunately This is not Europe, so those figures are meaningless. Try Canadian figures for a Canadian solution to climate change and transportation.
keep in mind:
- we don’t have a preexisting trillion dollar train system, but it would be nice to buildout at least a few routes even if Ontario only has 1/15 the population density of Germany. We could at least do a few million more Pax by train on the Toronto to Montreal corridor, it will not make a huge difference but it is something .
- the average Canadian car does 8.9 litres per 100 km and that figure increased last year as people, in our free society, bought more SUVs so they could feel safer when driving.
- New Jets like the A220 which will dominate our skies when Pickering opens gets as low as 2 litres per 100 km per pax on domestic routes. That makes flying better than driving almost anywhere
- limited airport capacity does not reduce travel, it simple changes the mode of travel and adds GHG spewing congestion. such as tacking an SUV drive to buffalo onto every flight.
We need real world solutions for our growing nation, not more European fuzzy stats, or nice what if everyone changed sing a longs.
comeback to the real world, working together we can fight climate change, we don’t have time to waste.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
A bit disingenuous to include all of Ontario in that density comparison since about 95% of Ontarians live in the southern section which is the only stretch being considered for HFR/HSR. S. Ontario density is about 2/5 that of Germany--and if you include the bookends of Montreal and Detroit then the corridor definitely has density similar to most of Western Europe.