News   Apr 19, 2024
Lifetime Helping Craft the Future of Toronto's Neighbourhoods
 238     0 
News   Apr 19, 2024
Shimmering Skyline
 593     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Long Term Care Facility to be Built at Hennick Bridgepoint Hospital
 1.3K     2 

Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

kEiThZ said:
Any responsible government would not overbuild.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lone Primate said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lone Primate said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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".
 
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).
 
Lone Primate said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

pickeringairport.org

Whitchurch-Stouffville Oddball Justifications for Opposing Pickering Airport

On August 27, 2019, the Development Services staff of Whitchurch-Stouffville issued Report DS-037-19, “Pickering Airport Update (D26)”. The town council then quickly voted on a resolution o…
pickeringairport.org pickeringairport.org

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

Attachments

  • 1568197829115.png
    1568197829115.png
    3.2 KB · Views: 376
MarkBrooks said:
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.
Click to expand...

The most important council in the region hasn't weighed in yet: Toronto.
 
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.
 
lenaitch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
lenaitch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top