Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[Lone Primate]

It is time to bury the argument that farmland is somehow undeveloped. Farming is development and utilization and as important a resource to Canada and its citizens as any other. Much of the Pickering Airport site is Class 1 Farmland - the scarcest farming commodity in Canada, and the Class of farmland most under pressure from unrestrained envelopment in Southern Ontario. There is a long term and strong case for preserving and protecting agricultural lands for agricultural uses. And ensuring that the land is used for agricultural purposes, not outdoor storage yards, monster home set offs etc. That policy could and should be as strong and definitive a policy as the Greenbelt, provincial and national parks etc. (With time there are plenty of stats on Ontario and Canadian farmland, its use, abuse, and rates of disappearance)

This "Pickering" money could be better spent on improving Pearson, links to Pearson, facilitating the use of existing airports (Hamilton), and other regional transportation options.

There is simply no need for another airport, except in development community, which appears to be ably represented on this thread.

I'm sorry, and forgive me for saying this, but it ought to be self-evident. You're naive if you think for one minute that cancelling this airport, after 50 years, is going to result in that land being used for farming any longer than it takes for developers to snap it up and turn it into more subdivisions, and get rich off our NIMBYism. Growth is going to happen in the east end eventually no matter what. So I'd rather see us get something for the bargain amount of money we spent way back when I was born that's going to alleviate the congestion that people in Peel have to deal with so everyone else can get their goodies on time, rather than just add more buildings and people 50 miles from the one international airport we have to feed, clothe, and supply them. We have the land. Let's create a distribution network in the east end of the GTA to service the growth there and maybe even direct some of it away from the west end. As for expanding Pearson... to where? It's already stuffed to the gills with runways, terminals, parking, and distribution buildings. Dixie Road was a fairly pleasant drive when I was a kid growing up in Mississauga; it's slow-motion nightmare now. I don't even know why we're dragging our feet on this. We're the only major city in North America of our size with a single international airport, and all the arteriosclerotic distribution that entails. New York has 3. Chicago has 2. Los Angeles has 5. Let's get serious here.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm sorry, and forgive me for saying this, but it ought to be self-evident. You're naive if you think for one minute that cancelling this airport, after 50 years, is going to result in that land being used for farming any longer than it takes for developers to snap it up and turn it into more subdivisions, and get rich off our NIMBYism. Growth is going to happen in the east end eventually no matter what. So I'd rather see us get something for the bargain amount of money we spent way back when I was born that's going to alleviate the congestion that people in Peel have to deal with so everyone else can get their goodies on time, rather than just add more buildings and people 50 miles from the one international airport we have to feed, clothe, and supply them. We have the land. Let's create a distribution network in the east end of the GTA to service the growth there and maybe even direct some of it away from the west end. As for expanding Pearson... to where? It's already stuffed to the gills with runways, terminals, parking, and distribution buildings. Dixie Road was a fairly pleasant drive when I was a kid growing up in Mississauga; it's slow-motion nightmare now. I don't even know why we're dragging our feet on this. We're the only major city in North America of our size with a single international airport, and all the arteriosclerotic distribution that entails. New York has 3. Chicago has 2. Los Angeles has 5. Let's get serious here.

Very unusual post from you.

I think your tone is defeatist.

I also think your assessment of airports in other cities is problematic. LA, from a passenger point of view, has only 2 consequential airports; and even then the one in, amusingly, Ontario, California only has about 5,000,000 passengers a year, so not a robust airport in the mega-city sense.

To count LA as 5 is to count, the Island, Hamilton and Oshawa for Toronto.

Be that as it may; not only do I favour keeping this land as nature/farms in some mix; I see that as entirely plausible. The Feds already severed several thousand hectares and added that to Rouge Park.

The province has maintained an agricultural reserve just east of Rouge Park for decades

The Lined areas is the airport lands, the dark green is Rouge Park.

The light green is the Oak Ridges Moraine; the medium green is the Green Belt.

I see no reason these lands shouldn't be saved and divided between class 1 farmland and natural restoration as part of Rouge Park.

 

[Lone Primate]

Very unusual post from you.

I think your tone is defeatist.

Oh, anything but. Tossing in the towel after 50 years of planning, combined with holding the property and being on the verge of completing a major item of infrastructure... that's defeatist. I'm not here a lot these days, and I get a charge out of the posts that talk about what we're doing, what we're changing; how the city and the province are getting more active, more interesting, more exciting. What really gets me down is people who look back at 1980 or 1960 and pine for it and somehow think we hit the peak then, should have stopped, and it's all been downhill since then. That really wears me out, and sometimes, I just have to say so.

LA, from a passenger point of view, has only 2 consequential airports

Which is still goes to my point. I wouldn't argue for three; I don't think we'd need that for a very long time. But two, given the evidence, strikes me as in no way unwarranted nor excessive.

The province has maintained an agricultural reserve just east of Rouge Park for decades

Good. Then I think we're okay to build an airport with other land we've earmarked for that purpose since the Leafs were still winning Stanley Cups.

I see no reason these lands shouldn't be saved and divided between class 1 farmland and natural restoration as part of Rouge Park.

Well, I do. And I've stated them. I mean, you've pointed out that we have both an agricultural reserve on the east end of the city, and the Oak Ridges Moraine. I could add to that huge tracts of land that have been bought and permanently set aside by the TRCA. And I'm all in favour of that. Wouldn't change a thing about it or give up an inch. I also think there's room in this gigantic province of ours for another airport for a metropolitan area closing in on 7 million, if not there already; and increasingly obvious reasons for having it.

 

[lenaitch]

Ontario is roughly 226.8 million acres. According to OMAFRA, there is roughly 12.6 million acres of farmland (2011), so roughly 5.5% and most of that is in south-central and south-western Ontario. I couldn't find a breakdown by land class (1-3 out of 7 is considered 'prime' - desirable for economic production) but roughly 20% of all farmland in the province is considered Class 1, so roughly 2.5 million acres. Between Approximately 50% is considered 'prime',, so roughly 6.3 millions acres. Interestingly, the majority of the Oakridge Moraine is not considered prime agricultural land.

 

[kEiThZ]

The airport will get built if there's a business case. It won't if there isn't any. Absent direction from the GTAA, none of the major airlines would voluntarily more from Pearson to Pickering. And for all the carping and advocacy from Mr. Brooks nobody really wants to cut a cheque. That is his problem.

The region faces a massive infrastructure shortfall that is easily tens of billions of dollars. Meanwhile there are several airports that are under-utilized or could have capacity boosted for substantially less capital than even an early phase of Pickering. No government is going to sign up to spend precious capital on this for decades. Especially not after doubling their debts from just dealing with Covid.

And can stop the out-of-context comparisons to other cities? The LA-Long Beach CSA is nearly 19 million residents. It's the first major American city when approaching from the South Pacific. London, UK has 14 million in their metro. It's the capital, largest city and sole commercial centre of arguably one of the 5 most powerful countries globally. And the first major metro crossing the Atlantic. There's valid reasons for those cities to have several large airports. The GTA isn't close to there yet.

 

[gweed123]

And can stop the out-of-context comparisons to other cities? The LA-Long Beach CSA is nearly 19 million residents. It's the first major American city when approaching from the South Pacific. London, UK has 14 million in their metro. It's the capital, largest city and sole commercial centre of arguably one of the 5 most powerful countries globally. And the first major metro crossing the Atlantic. There's valid reasons for those cities to have several large airports. The GTA isn't close to there yet.

Same things can be said for New York and Tokyo. Massive population + geographic advantage for long-haul flights.

 

[micheal_can]

I don't see a reason to build this airport yet. Especially with the drop in air travel these days, It may take several years before Pearson gets back to 2019 levels. There will be stimulus money thrown around for the next few years. Via HFR likely will be built with it. That will take a big bite out of the Pearson traffic. If Hamilton's airport has shovel ready projects that will allow them to increase their traffic carrying capacity, that will also lower the Pearson demand. That means that it may take even longer to get back to 2019 levels there. That makes a less reason to build on the farmland.

In short, now is not the time to do anything with the land outside of what is already being done to it.

 

[kEiThZ]

Nobody has to worry about this airport getting built because literally nobody has a plan to pay for it. Let alone all the servicing infrastructure that also has to be built.

This is why boosters have resorted to whining, conspiracy theories and appeals to ... envy of other cities. If they had a business case and funding, that is what they would be pushing.

 

[micheal_can]

Nobody has to worry about this airport getting built because literally nobody has a plan to pay for it. Let alone all the servicing infrastructure that also has to be built.

This is why boosters have resorted to whining, conspiracy theories and appeals to ... envy of other cities. If they had a business case and funding, that is what they would be pushing.

The business case is that it is taxpayer funded and it will be underutilized since no air carrier will want to willingly switch.

 

[MarkBrooks]

I don't see a reason to build this airport yet. Especially with the drop in air travel these days, It may take several years before Pearson gets back to 2019 levels. There will be stimulus money thrown around for the next few years. Via HFR likely will be built with it. That will take a big bite out of the Pearson traffic. If Hamilton's airport has shovel ready projects that will allow them to increase their traffic carrying capacity, that will also lower the Pearson demand. That means that it may take even longer to get back to 2019 levels there. That makes a less reason to build on the farmland.

In short, now is not the time to do anything with the land outside of what is already being done to it.

wake up.
The convenient assumption that you are promoting, that nothing needs to be changed at our airports for air travel To return to normal, we have everything we need except a vaccine etc, is wrong.

it is a self serving myth undermining the important work being done at aviation organization like ICAO and closer to home by the GTAA.
New social distancing means more terminal space, new aircraft hygiene standards means more time on gate for each aircraft for orderly spaced loading/ unloading of passengers and cleaning . Ultimately this means Toronto may never return to its 2019 levels in passenger experience or volumes without new gate and terminal infrastructure.

As we speak airport operators around the world are grappling with dramatic changes to process, procedures and ultimately thier maximum capacity. It is early days But watch the work being done at ICAO CART and eventually the updated post recovery travel standards adopted by transport Canada.

Is the passenger experience you enjoyed in 2019 at terminal 1 in Pearson history ? Time will tell, but without new terminal space, the only way to make space is with a spartan makeover.. Gates however are a bigger problem.
without new gates, 2019 may be remembered as Pearson maximum Passenger volume year. The question now is simply where to build the new capacity. Pearson did not even have the space for the new gates recommended in the prepandemic KPMG ASA report.

Note: last time I post a comment to counter false aviation pandemic assumptions it was removed and I was banned. Let’s see how badly the moderator wants to keep this difficult problem quiet Inside this bubble of misinformation.

just remember that I am going out of my way to include this odd collection of souls in an important discussion. I derive no benefits from doing so other than spreading enlightenment.

 

[rbt]

I derive no benefits from doing so other than spreading enlightenment.

You're spreading "enlightenment" in the wrong place.

The federal government is not paying for a large commercial Pickering; they'll lease the land for a low initial price but that's it. You need to convince private investors to lease the land from the government, build the airport; and they're not going to do that without a customer to actually pay for it. That customer will not be Air Canada (Terminal 1 is their purpose built solution) and probably won't be West Jet. So, you need to find a major airline interested in competing with Air Canada that a purpose built Pickering is their solution; then take that commitment to investors to build it out for them.

Nobody on this forum will be investing into Pickering Airport (especially on speculation); and frankly the few million that individuals here might invest won't do it anyway.

To reiterate, if you want to make progress on a commercial Pickering (rather than a small general aviation airport); find a potential customer looking at 50+ flights/day and a potential investor and then execute on their behalf.


Spreading you flavour of enlightenment here is about the same as yelling about the end of the world at some random downtown intersection; it makes zero progress on the task you've taken on for yourself.

 

[MarkBrooks]

You're spreading "enlightenment" in the wrong place.

The federal government is not paying for a large commercial Pickering; they'll lease the land for a low initial price but that's it. You need to convince private investors to lease the land from the government, build the airport; and they're not going to do that without a customer to actually pay for it. That customer will not be Air Canada (Terminal 1 is their purpose built solution) and probably won't be West Jet. So, you need to find a major airline interested in competing with Air Canada that a purpose built Pickering is their solution; then take that commitment to investors to build it out for them.

Nobody on this forum will be investing into Pickering Airport (especially on speculation); and frankly the few million that individuals here might invest won't do it anyway.

To reiterate, if you want to make progress on a commercial Pickering (rather than a small general aviation airport); find a potential customer looking at 50+ flights/day and a potential investor and then execute on their behalf.


Spreading you flavour of enlightenment here is about the same as yelling about the end of the world at some random downtown intersection; it makes zero progress on the task you've taken on for yourself.

You are way off base, and are distracting from the topic of my comment, which is what our economy and Aviation needs to recover after the Pandemic given the expected changes in International standards And Toronto’s ongoing growth.

But since Your comment is an astonishing embarrassment of Accusing remarks and misinformation I will address it.

For starters , I am not “ looking for money” from Anyone. I am volunteering my time., I am Not being paid for sharing my insights, the contrary is true. I would personally be better off just letting you shrink into your information bubble. However our country and the good governance of our democracy will be harmed by your misinformation and potential shortages of infrastructure so I feel I should at least try and speak up.

to recap, Toronto continues to grow by 100,000+ people a year, but our aviation infrastructure Is not keeping up, and now new standards may mean that we will not be able to handle even the pre pandemic traffic levels Of 50 million at Pearson.

trying to shout down the obvious or censor discussion is not an appropriate response to this serious problem.

 

[Northern Light]

@MarkBrooks Stop.

Even people here who agree with you (are proponents of a Pickering Airport in the nearer term) are tired of hearing from you.

Its unending.

You're a one-issue guy.

We all understand your position, some are completely opposed to the airport, for a wide variety of reasons; some are open to the idea but may debate the scale or the timeline; while others are happy to concur.

But repetitive posting, making by and large the same points over and over again; or trying to utilize each event in a news cycle to bring this issue back to the fore creates more opponents of the airport, not less.

It comes off as genuinely antagonizing, not merely to airport opponents to but to anyone not in complete agreement with you; and to those its merely tedious.

You need to spend less time on this forum and/or diversify your interests.

You need to accept that it is possible to have different priorities from yourself even with a completely identical set of facts.

You need to note that the future carries uncertainty. This may work to make your case better, or worse; because so many things may vary.

But either way it means assumptions you make in your position, even if well-founded based on present trends, are not immutable.

Breathe.

We all got it, you want this airport more than anything else in the world.

Not one thing motivates you more in life.

Swell.

But we don't need you to remind us of that daily.

 

[MarkBrooks]

@MarkBrooks Stop.

Even people here who agree with you (are proponents of a Pickering Airport in the nearer term) are tired of hearing from you.

Its unending.

You're a one-issue guy.

We all understand your position, some are completely opposed to the airport, for a wide variety of reasons; some are open to the idea but may debate the scale or the timeline; while others are happy to concur.

But repetitive posting, making by and large the same points over and over again; or trying to utilize each event in a news cycle to bring this issue back to the fore creates more opponents of the airport, not less.

It comes off as genuinely antagonizing, not merely to airport opponents to but to anyone not in complete agreement with you; and to those its merely tedious.

You need to spend less time on this forum and/or diversify your interests.

You need to accept that it is possible to have different priorities from yourself even with a completely identical set of facts.

You need to note that the future carries uncertainty. This may work to make your case better, or worse; because so many things may vary.

But either way it means assumptions you make in your position, even if well-founded based on present trends, are not immutable.

Breathe.

We all got it, you want this airport more than anything else in the world.

Not one thing motivates you more in life.

Swell.

But we don't need you to remind us of that daily.

an interesting comment, Thankyou.
I have made a half dozen posts in this forum on the airport in 4 months. I have lots of other interest other than airports although Aviation is my current career ( teaching and flying ). I do like posting on this forum to get an alternative view point. That is the point to an exchange of ideas. It is not my intention to over power anyone else’s viewpoint.

It is a forum on Pickering airport so I stay on topic as require.

I do like to debate when the opportunity arises, ignoring the trolls of course.

but ok, I will let it rest for a bit.

 

[micheal_can]

wake up.
The convenient assumption that you are promoting, that nothing needs to be changed at our airports for air travel To return to normal, we have everything we need except a vaccine etc, is wrong.

it is a self serving myth undermining the important work being done at aviation organization like ICAO and closer to home by the GTAA.
New social distancing means more terminal space, new aircraft hygiene standards means more time on gate for each aircraft for orderly spaced loading/ unloading of passengers and cleaning . Ultimately this means Toronto may never return to its 2019 levels in passenger experience or volumes without new gate and terminal infrastructure.

As we speak airport operators around the world are grappling with dramatic changes to process, procedures and ultimately thier maximum capacity. It is early days But watch the work being done at ICAO CART and eventually the updated post recovery travel standards adopted by transport Canada.

Is the passenger experience you enjoyed in 2019 at terminal 1 in Pearson history ? Time will tell, but without new terminal space, the only way to make space is with a spartan makeover.. Gates however are a bigger problem.
without new gates, 2019 may be remembered as Pearson maximum Passenger volume year. The question now is simply where to build the new capacity. Pearson did not even have the space for the new gates recommended in the prepandemic KPMG ASA report.

Note: last time I post a comment to counter false aviation pandemic assumptions it was removed and I was banned. Let’s see how badly the moderator wants to keep this difficult problem quiet Inside this bubble of misinformation.

just remember that I am going out of my way to include this odd collection of souls in an important discussion. I derive no benefits from doing so other than spreading enlightenment.

Global passenger traffic not expected to return to pre-COVID-19 levels until 2024

The IATA notes that recovery in short haul travel is expected to happen faster than for long haul travel

www.sudbury.com

You are the one needing the wake up call. WE do not need the capacity. WE need to expand that which already exists first. The land will always be there. It is not like they are selling it off for townhomes. Leave it as farmland till the other airports are expanded and we need more capacity. Till then, maybe you should not waste your time posting your propaganda. We are not naive to it.