Cities to Ottawa: Let's get building now

[Archivist]

Your assumption (and Pearson's) is that travel demand will increase more or less as it always has. My assumption is quite different - I see demand for air travel decreasing for the next few years, as a result of the recession that we are in, and indeed this is happening.

Where you might assume recovery in a while, I assume that as soon as recovery begins, we will have many bumpy years as we discover that readily available sources of oil are depleting rapidly, and energy prices increase dramatically. Though I give little credibility to this agency (because it is overly conservative) the International Energy Agency in its most recent report, dramatically altered its outlook for oil production, and when pressed, foresaw peak oil occurring around 2020 (though they did not, and would not, print this in their report). All previous reports of the IEA actually estimated oil production simply by estimating oil demand and assuming that production would be equal. They were quite proud this year that they did actual "research" on production, and therefore dramatically lowered their production estimates, and dramatically increased the rate of depletion of existing sources. In my view, they are still out to lunch, but it is interesting to see what this conservative oil predictor coming around to a position that only a few years ago would have been considered loony.

When, not if, energy becomes dramatically more expensive, air travel will be the first to go. My feeling is that if we were to make a decision to start an airport in Pickering now, this very moment, it would be about 2115 or so before it really came on board, which I believe will be too late to be of any use at all. I don't imagine that this would convince you, and I have to admit I have no interest in really trying, but I would be virulently opposed to a single cent spent on a new airport in Pickering, even a small one.

 

[GTS]

. When, not if, energy becomes dramatically more expensive, air travel will be the first to go. My feeling is that if we were to make a decision to start an airport in Pickering now, this very moment, it would be about 2115 or so before it really came on board, which I believe will be too late to be of any use at all. I don't imagine that this would convince you, and I have to admit I have no interest in really trying, but I would be virulently opposed to a single cent spent on a new airport in Pickering, even a small one.

I agree with this fact. The price per barrel will equal and surpass last summer's $150 a barrel without a question. When fuel rises to those heights again the demand for flight will drop dramatically. I think instead of wasting the $2B on an airport in Pickering we should invest that money in commuter rail here in the GTAH. The New York City area- from in the north of Boston to the South of Washington DC has and extensive commuter rail network serving all the different metropolitan area independent transit agencies such as the MTA in NYC. I know the GTAH doesn't have the same high population but we deserve a much better commuter rail system serving our own transit systems from Hamilton to Oshawa and all points between.

 

[kEiThZ]

Archivist,

Yes the price of oil will increase. However, this does not mean the death of aviation. Modern aircraft are more efficient per passenger than a Prius. And airlines in Canada tend to have fairly modern fleets. Indeed Air Canada is one of the largest passenger's for the dreamliner. The CEO had stated in an interview that they took into account steady state operations 100+ dollar oil when planning their future fleet. So even if oil prices persist at 150 a barrel, I am fairly sure our aviation industry will adapt. The travelling public might have to adapt with lower luggage requirements, less frequent flights, etc but it does not mean the end of the industry.

Next, the global aviation industry is already testing synthetic and biofuels. And I would argue that the aviation industry is far more likely to adapt to peak oil that say the automotive industry simply because the industry is more centralized and has larger players who have the capital, r&d capabilities, etc to adapt and do it quickly. The US aviation industry may be suffering but the rest of the world's airlines are in no where near as bad a shape.

Lastly, the airport is still needed simply so that we can shut down Buttonville and Markham at minimum...and perhaps the Island and Oshawa as well. It's not going to be a 2 billion airport. It's going to be a few million dollars spent on a community airport. And it will free up some very valuable land in Buttonville and Markham for development. If as you point out, the demand does not exist, than we won't have a multi-billion dollar Pearson reliever. If the demand does happen, however, the federal government will have been prudent and anticipated Toronto's aviation requirements. And the best part of it is that the passengers will be paying to build the airport.

GTS,

It's ridiculous to compare aviation needs with transit needs. They are mutually exclusive. Regional rail is not going to get you to Montreal or Winnipeg or Halifax or Cancun. Nor is it going to bring businessmen in from New York or London. We need to meet our aviation capacity requirement to ensure that our tourist and business links are preserved and expanded. That's not to say we don't need adequate regional and local transit. But that's a different issue.

 

[Archivist]

Keith,

Re: Size of aviation industry. I think it will shrink dramatically. We will be worried about essential uses for fuel, such as heating our homes and moving about, and optional uses, which air travel is, will decrease. I am not predicting an end to air travel, but a gradual returns to volumes seen in the 1980's, then the 70's, then the 60's, then the 50's, etc. It is the wrong time to increase infrastructure.

Re: Alternate fuels. There is nothing even vaguely promising on alternate fuels for aviation, synthetic and biofuels are a joke for cars, and for airlines they are simply unthinkable. One estimate was that all of Britain's arable land would need to be devoted entirely to maintaining the current volume of BA flights. We will develop alternate fuels, but we will be using them for more necessary occupations rather than flight. In this point, I strongly disagree with you and I have seen nothing promising in this regard at all.

Re: Buttonville etc. I don't see why we should close them at all and replace them with something new, especially at a moment when air travel volumes are already decreasing. I don't find it ridiculous to compare aviation and transit. In an era of energy scarcity and financial scarcity, we need to allocate resources wisely, and in my opinion an airport in Pickering, plus the roads to get to it, etc., is not a wise allocation of resources.

 

[waterloowarrior]

here's the pickering airport draft plan

 

[kEiThZ]

^ That's for 2032 and if and only if the requisite demand is there.

 

[kEiThZ]

Back to the original discussion, I hope these funds are spent well. Funding decade long transit projects which will not generate jobs during this recession does not count....

 

[Hipster Duck]

I don't get the Pearson runway capacity argument. Heathrow gets by on 2 runways and somehow the 5 at YYZ are inadequate?

 

[allabootmatt]

I was going to say something similar. I am of course no expert, but it seems to me that we are drastically underestimating Pearson's long-term capacity. Its footprint is absolutely massive relative to European airports, and much of it empty. Five runways is a ridiculous number. Heathrow has two, as noted. Gatwick has one, and serves more passengers than Pearson.

Considering that improvements to intercity rail in the Quebec-Windsor corridor could significantly reduce the number of small aircraft using Pearson, a new airport seems like overkill to me, even in the very long run.

If anything, I would rather see Southern Ontario airport capacity handled on the western European model, whereby one large hub serves an entire region--or even an entire country--thanks to excellent ground transport links. If people in the eastern GTA have trouble getting all the way to Pearson, the solution is not to give them their own, extra-special airport, but rather to improve transport to Pearson. This would mean scrapping Blue 22 in favour of real regional rail integration for the airport. Look at the models of Frankfurt or Roissy. They have their own high-speed rail stations, for God's sake!

I write this with the caveat that I am not familiar with the general-aviation arguments, and it does seem reasonable that Buttonville, Oshawa etc. could need replacement for that purpose. But I am definitely opposed to a commercial Pickering airport.

Incidentally, isn't the Pickering site awful close to the Oak Ridges Moraine?

 

[waterloowarrior]

here's the FCM's list of 'Shovel Ready' projects

 

[nfitz]

What's the difference between $368 million to "Replace and Expand the LRT Vehicles - 204 vehicles" and $656 million to "Replacement of Existing Streetcar Fleet with New Light Rail Vehicles" ... well apart from $288 million ...