Toronto Pearson International Airport

[Dan416]

Option 2 really does look awful.

 

[picard102]

Now I know who I wont be using.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just buy ad space from UT?

LOL Wow!

Not to mention the browser redirect to a fake "chrome update" page.

 

[jcam]

Option 2 really does look awful.

There is (or was) also an option of an island expansion, a-la new La Guardia.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

Why do I get the feeling that they are going to go with Option 2....

The very thought of that makes me shudder.

Because its the Toronto thing to do.

I hope they really meant this:

Decade-long Toronto Pearson airport expansion, renewal program underway

Officials say Toronto Pearson airport could see up to 65 million passengers a year by the early-2030s, up from 46 to 47 million in 2024.

toronto.citynews.ca

Our competition is not Vancouver, Montreal. Our competition is New York (and) Chicago. The U.S. government put $40 billion into infrastructure during COVID. Their terminals are fantastic.

This is what JFK and ORD are doing in the next 10 years:

(note the Studio Gang terminal for ORD was pushed back to phase 2, SOM will be doing the infield terminals in Phase 1)

From: https://businesstravelerusa.com/news/inside-new-york-jfk-transformation/

From: https://chicagoyimby.com/2024/09/69654.html

 

[rdaner]

Just a note about Pearson in that it has the second largest number of international flights in NA after Newark thus Chicago, though larger, has different demands.

 

[cd concept]

Because its the Toronto thing to do.

I hope they really meant this:

Decade-long Toronto Pearson airport expansion, renewal program underway

Officials say Toronto Pearson airport could see up to 65 million passengers a year by the early-2030s, up from 46 to 47 million in 2024.

toronto.citynews.ca

This is what JFK and ORD are doing in the next 10 years:

(note the Studio Gang terminal for ORD was pushed back to phase 2, SOM will be doing the infield terminals in Phase 1)

View attachment 601269
View attachment 601270
View attachment 601271
From: https://businesstravelerusa.com/news/inside-new-york-jfk-transformation/


View attachment 601272
View attachment 601273
View attachment 601274

From: https://chicagoyimby.com/2024/09/69654.html

If Pearson's passenger capacity only reaches the 46 to 47million mark this year being back to normal. Is not even close the last stats before covid having close to 50 1/2 million in 2019 on Wikipedia. And they anticipating 65 million by the early 2030s that'll be something to see lol!

 

[EnviroTO]

Essentially (although things have yet been finalized) the GTAA keeps reducing the scope of the expansion with each successive study they do. Pretty sad, especially when you take into account the original master concept:
View attachment 573928

Yes it is sad they are cheaping out and I suspect it won't even be substantially cheaper considering the engineering design of the full build out would have continued to use common structural elements and systems throughout. The existing design is de-risked from a deliverability and design validation perspective. A new design will need to rethink every element.

 

[guavadelic]

Because its the Toronto thing to do.

I hope they really meant this:

Decade-long Toronto Pearson airport expansion, renewal program underway

Officials say Toronto Pearson airport could see up to 65 million passengers a year by the early-2030s, up from 46 to 47 million in 2024.

toronto.citynews.ca

This is what JFK and ORD are doing in the next 10 years:

(note the Studio Gang terminal for ORD was pushed back to phase 2, SOM will be doing the infield terminals in Phase 1)

View attachment 601269
View attachment 601270
View attachment 601271
From: https://businesstravelerusa.com/news/inside-new-york-jfk-transformation/


View attachment 601272
View attachment 601273
View attachment 601274

From: https://chicagoyimby.com/2024/09/69654.html

The American renovations look amazing, but Pearson will need sizable federal grants to be able to compete like the U.S. airports receive.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

If GTAA goes with the Option 2 I'd be very very very disappointed with them. There was nothing wrong with the vision of the original Master plan.

 

[Streety McCarface]

How is Option 2 even on the table? Honestly, option 1 looks quite awful itself, but it at least is consistent with the existing terminal. The GTAA has so much land to play with over there, and all the major North American Airlines have a huge amount of expansion planned, and this is what they come up with?

 

[Tim MacDonald]

How is Option 2 even on the table? Honestly, option 1 looks quite awful itself, but it at least is consistent with the existing terminal. The GTAA has so much land to play with over there, and all the major North American Airlines have a huge amount of expansion planned, and this is what they come up with?

Hello Gatwick! But option two has a bridge. That's got account for something, right?
Having spent many years working at the old Terminals 1, 2, and 3 in a former lifetime, I have deliberately set that bar low.

 

[Dan416]

How is Option 2 even on the table? Honestly, option 1 looks quite awful itself, but it at least is consistent with the existing terminal. The GTAA has so much land to play with over there, and all the major North American Airlines have a huge amount of expansion planned, and this is what they come up with?

What's so awful about Option 1? Being consistent is a big plus. Besides, the general layout of T1 is still relatively modern I'd say. I don't think anything big has changed that would require a redesign

 

[guavadelic]

How is Option 2 even on the table? Honestly, option 1 looks quite awful itself, but it at least is consistent with the existing terminal. The GTAA has so much land to play with over there, and all the major North American Airlines have a huge amount of expansion planned, and this is what they come up with?

It's the usual Canadian allergy to anything requiring a semblance of ambition. The safe, cheaper option is always chosen if available.

 

[rbt]

It's the usual Canadian allergy to anything requiring a semblance of ambition. The safe, cheaper option is always chosen if available.

Indeed. It's hard to blame GTAA though as they gave high-end a crack with T1. We, as Canadians, bitched for about 8 years after T1 opened about how Pearson was the most expensive airport on the planet: without government subsidies it appeared that way on tickets.

As a result, the federal government completely restructured the governance layer of the GTAA (board seat distribution between various governments/civilian spots changed) and they adopted a priority to lower landing fees by going hard into retail and other sources of revenue outside of airline operations [Union West was all about land-lease revenue]; and a lower cap on capital debt was also put into place.