Pickering Airport (Transport Canada/GTAA, Proposed)

[MarkBrooks]

YHM has two issues:
1. The road network to it is up a twisty mountain which is just nasty in the winter. There's a reason why UPS all but abandoned it and moved to Pearson.
2. Competition from BUffalo/Niagara airports. If you're up for Hamilton you may as well drive to BUF/IAG depending on your final destination. I only did this once in the PeopleExpress days of 1982/1983 but a buddy of mine does it all the time.

For those that remember, YHM has hosted many carriers who have launched and then discontinued service in short order to a variety of destinations - domestic, transborder and trans atlantic. since before deregulation.

Sadly, Hamilton is not the answer. There is only one Mothership and that is Pearson.

While all of that is true, we need all hands on deck, Hamilton needs to be built out as much as is practical. It will not help residents two hours away in Eastern Toronto, but every ounce of Capacity will help in the coming aviation infrastructure crunch.

 

[Tim MacDonald]

Saying it louder doesn't make it any more true, Mark. By your very logic, if we all adapt electric cars the greenhouse argument is moot and it won't matter. No matter how you slice it, a five billion dollar airport doesn't make sense in the near future, especially when there is still capacity at pearson and technological improvements which will increase throughput at existing airports.

At the very least, if Pearson maxes out, move all the OD vacay charter stuff to Hamilton to free gates and slots for connecting traffic. A five billion dollar airport is not going to be saleable in the current political climate given the spending deficits at the provincial and federal level. You can try and 3P this all you like but at the end of the day the taxpayer still has to come up with a large chunk of the money.

There is no aviation infrastructure crunch in southern ontario and there won't be for generations to come.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Saying it louder doesn't make it any more true, Mark. By your very logic, if we all adapt electric cars the greenhouse argument is moot and it won't matter. No matter how you slice it, a five billion dollar airport doesn't make sense in the near future, especially when there is still capacity at pearson and technological improvements which will increase throughput at existing airports.

At the very least, if Pearson maxes out, move all the OD vacay charter stuff to Hamilton to free gates and slots for connecting traffic. A five billion dollar airport is not going to be saleable in the current political climate given the spending deficits at the provincial and federal level. You can try and 3P this all you like but at the end of the day the taxpayer still has to come up with a large chunk of the money.

There is no aviation infrastructure crunch in southern ontario and there won't be for generations to come.

There are now two separate multi million dollar needs assessment/capacity studies that disagree with you. The 2010 study and the new KPMG one. The first one say we will need a new airport by 2027 ( base line) or 2037( lowest growth projections). The new KPMG one appears to back up what everyone can see for them selves, we are 10% above the highest growth level of the 2010 needs assessment.

We are at capacity before 2027. And where exactly did u get $5 billion?

 

[MarkBrooks]

Well, if you must.
FACT: The International Air Transport Association (IATA) predicts that the number of passengers worldwide will double to 8.2 billion by 2037.

Does not mean that Canada, or even the GTA, will experience this type of growth. Yo

Consider: Toronto’s booming growth, improving aviation technology and efficiency are combining with consumer trends to make aviation the cornerstone of long distance travel in Canada and across the world.

This has been the case since the dawn of jet travel; nothing new here.

Consider: Pickering Airport will reduce aviation noise pollution for millions of Canadians . It will reduce aircraft noise by removing the pressure to increase flights (especially at night) into urban-locked Pearson Airport. Approach paths into Pickering are partly over parkland and green space.

This just ain't gonna happen! Any traffic that moves from Pearson will be backfilled by new entrants. There will be no net reduction in noise levels just because Pickering opens. and you will not claw back overnight operations.

Consider: Freedom of movement is a right in Canada, not just for the rich. The new airport will improve access and reduce the pending aviation infrastructure crunch that could send Toronto travel costs soaring.

This is just an intrinsically ridiculous statement stuck in an early 1960s travel mindset. No one in southern Ontario is having difficulty accessing a commercial airport.,

Consider: Pickering airport will improve flight safety. Air travel is the safest mode of transportation in Canada, but as congestion builds the pressure is on to cut corners to increase capacity at Pearson and Billy Bishop airports. The new airport removes this pressure.

Again, no one is cutting corners , especially from an ATC or movement perspective. These are some of the best aviation professionals in the biz and they don't cut corners.

The Nav Canada folks are great and doing their best. I know a number of them ( I am also a top face book fan) but they are not happy campers...and yes they are as worried as the flight crews about the building pressure.

Pearson runway 'incursions' pose serious crash risk: safety board

Air safety authorities say the runway setup at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport poses a serious risk of crashes. The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) said there were 27 runway incursions between June 2012 and November 2017. Incursions occur when an aircraft finds itself on the wrong...

toronto.citynews.ca

Time will tell if we can get Pickering online in time...

 

[Tim MacDonald]

Passenger enplanement/deplanement is a straw argument though since it covers more than just Pearson. Additionally, terminal expansion and a new runway can handle the growth.

Five billion is a conservative estimate of the cost. You're probably looking at north of $900million for each of the two runways. Factor in even a modest ten gate terminal and associated infrastructure and it you're at 5B pretty fast.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Passenger enplanement/deplanement is a straw argument though since it covers more than just Pearson. Additionally, terminal expansion and a new runway can handle the growth.

Five billion is a conservative estimate of the cost. You're probably looking at north of $900million for each of the two runways. Factor in even a modest ten gate terminal and associated infrastructure and it you're at 5B pretty fast.

It depends on the winning RFP but one of the estimate Is $2.9 billion for the first two runways and a terminal all in, and the government doesn’t have to write a check, just sign a lease and get out of the way. Not sure if that’s the best deal for the tax payers as It may have to wait for a few years to collect serious rent ( like they did with Pearson) but it’s blue skies for the tax payer any way you cut it over the status quo.
Compare that for a new runway at Pearson that will add only 12 movements an hour and cost $mega plus a millions is flight disruptions and it’s not even a contest.

Is building Pickering better than building a sixth runway at Pearson ? - Friends of Pickering Airport

Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱Should Pearson build a sixth runway, or is it better for regional capacity to instead build Pickering airport? Today Pearson airport has five runways but can only use two of them for landings at once. This is due to their close proximity to each other and Transport Canada...

pickeringairport.org

 

[Tim MacDonald]

That very same GTAA Masterplan report states that:
a) They have no need for the sixth runway through the end of the twenty year master plan (2017-2037)
b) They forecast that even in 2037, "the most likely annual number of aircraft movements projected for 2037 is just below the middle of our system capacity range."

Still a lot of room at Pearson for decades to come.

 

[MarkBrooks]

That very same GTAA Masterplan report states that:
a) They have no need for the sixth runway through the end of the twenty year master plan (2017-2037)
b) They forecast that even in 2037, "the most likely annual number of aircraft movements projected for 2037 is just below the middle of our system capacity range."

Still a lot of room at Pearson for decades to come.

You might want to read that report again.

Here I will make it easier for you, here is the summary from the end of the report. , point 2, airport needed 2027-2037.
We are now well above the highest previous forecast and it will take 10 years to build the airport, we have not a moment to lose.

 

[lenaitch]

It depends on the winning RFP but one of the estimate Is $2.9 billion for the first two runways and a terminal all in, and the government doesn’t have to write a check, just sign a lease and get out of the way. Not sure if that’s the best deal for the tax payers as It may have to wait for a few years to collect serious rent ( like they did with Pearson) but it’s blue skies for the tax payer any way you cut it over the status quo.
Compare that for a new runway at Pearson that will add only 12 movements an hour and cost $mega plus a millions is flight disruptions and it’s not even a contest.

Is building Pickering better than building a sixth runway at Pearson ? - Friends of Pickering Airport

Print 🖨 PDF 📄 eBook 📱Should Pearson build a sixth runway, or is it better for regional capacity to instead build Pickering airport? Today Pearson airport has five runways but can only use two of them for landings at once. This is due to their close proximity to each other and Transport Canada...

pickeringairport.org

Is road/rail/transit or any other public connective infrastructure included in this free-for-the-taxpayer airport?

 

[kEiThZ]

YHM has two issues:
1. The road network to it is up a twisty mountain which is just nasty in the winter. There's a reason why UPS all but abandoned it and moved to Pearson.
2. Competition from BUffalo/Niagara airports. If you're up for Hamilton you may as well drive to BUF/IAG depending on your final destination. I only did this once in the PeopleExpress days of 1982/1983 but a buddy of mine does it all the time.

For those that remember, YHM has hosted many carriers who have launched and then discontinued service in short order to a variety of destinations - domestic, transborder and trans atlantic. since before deregulation.

Sadly, Hamilton is not the answer. There is only one Mothership and that is Pearson.

The road access argument really isn't much of an argument. Roads can be made better and maintained better. We're not talking about climbing the Rockies to get to YHM.

You're right on the Buffalo/Niagara argument. And it's why discount carriers aren't really a thing in Canada. We don't have cheaper airports. And a bit cheaper doesn't help if there's no real competition to keep prices low. If you're willing to drive to YHM, continuing on to BUF is not that much of a stretch.

The argument for YHM though is not as a discount airport but as a Pearson reliever. And on that front, there are arguments to be made. It's not 1982 anymore. Pearson was less busy then. The GTA was a lot smaller. And there were few people living in YHM's catchment.

While all of that is true, we need all hands on deck, Hamilton needs to be built out as much as is practical. It will not help residents two hours away in Eastern Toronto, but every ounce of Capacity will help in the coming aviation infrastructure crunch.

It's interesting that you don't think of the GTA as a whole but only about "Eastern Toronto". Apparently we've gone from speaking for Pickering and Durham to "Eastern Toronto".

 

[kEiThZ]

It depends on the winning RFP but one of the estimate Is $2.9 billion for the first two runways and a terminal all in, and the government doesn’t have to write a check,

And yet your website says:

In a P3 model the federal government will provide the land lease plus a one-time initial stake with the provincial and local civic entities providing the road/water/sewer/power infrastructure. Based on P3 principles, the Public i.e. the various levels of government, would provided 25 percent of the total project funding, an amount of about $900 million. The new PAA would fund the rest of the airport development (the 75 percent of the costs) and operations with private capital. This follows a pattern established with lessons learned from the very first P3, the highway 407 project.

Is road/rail/transit or any other public connective infrastructure included in this free-for-the-taxpayer airport?

I posted a link and a direct quote from Mark's own website. Seems to me they expect a fair amount of contribution from all three levels of government. If they had better numbers, I suspect they'd post them.

 

[kEiThZ]

Toronto is not London which has 6 jet airports , including Heathrow. They also have cities closer together an existing fully functional alternative modes of transport including a passenger rail network worth hundreds of billions.

Given the congestion projected for Pearson, the climate emergency makes building Pickering even more urgent.
View attachment 193407
There are significant climate benefits of building Pickering. As outlined here:

You really do think people are morons and can't see through bullshit. Don't you? That maybe true of the general public. But not this forum. I assure you.

1. Road congestion is going to be far less relevant as the transit share of passenger access grows. Pearson has UPE and has this coming online:

Pearson Airport: New Draft Master Plan Includes Transit Hub | UrbanToronto

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority has released a draft of a new master plan that explores how the airport will accommodate its unprecedented recent growth, and how it will better integrate itself into the region’s broader transit system.

urbantoronto.ca

If it has even a fraction of the traffic approaching Union Station, the proportion of traffic to that airport arriving by transit is going to go up substantially. The same can't be said for Pickering, where we can expect close to 100% of passengers to arrive by car for decades.

2. You know what's more fuel and cost-efficient than an A220-300? An A321NEO carrying 200 passengers. A 777-300ER in a high density format is even more efficient. So if we're concerned about reducing per passenger fuel consumption, the best way to do that is to concentrate more passengers and use larger aircraft. And if we're talking about 500 km trips, we can reduce that fuel consumption to less 0.5L/100km with rail. Why should we spend billions on Pickering than spend that same money on rail to Ottawa and Montreal?

3. Electric powered aviation is laughable. It's not even going to scale to the size of a regional jet in our lifetime. Or do you just believe that magic will take care of the energy density challenge, which is far more of an issue for aviation than it is for automotive applications.

 

[MarkBrooks]

You really do think people are morons and can't see through bullshit. Don't you? That maybe true of the general public. But not this forum. I assure you.

1. Road congestion is going to be far less relevant as the transit share of passenger access grows. Pearson has UPE and has this coming online:

Pearson Airport: New Draft Master Plan Includes Transit Hub | UrbanToronto

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority has released a draft of a new master plan that explores how the airport will accommodate its unprecedented recent growth, and how it will better integrate itself into the region’s broader transit system.

urbantoronto.ca

If it has even a fraction of the traffic approaching Union Station, the proportion of traffic to that airport arriving by transit is going to go up substantially. The same can't be said for Pickering, where we can expect close to 100% of passengers to arrive by car for decades.

2. You know what's more fuel and cost-efficient than an A220-300? An A321NEO carrying 200 passengers. A 777-300ER in a high density format is even more efficient. So if we're concerned about reducing per passenger fuel consumption, the best way to do that is to concentrate more passengers and use larger aircraft. And if we're talking about 500 km trips, we can reduce that fuel consumption to less 0.5L/100km with rail. Why should we spend billions on Pickering than spend that same money on rail to Ottawa and Montreal?

3. Electric powered aviation is laughable. It's not even going to scale to the size of a regional jet in our lifetime. Or do you just believe that magic will take care of the energy density challenge, which is far more of an issue for aviation than it is for automotive applications.

And who is paying for that transit Hub? $11 billion in tax payer funds and counting on Pearson’s wish list.. and Ontario’s new government has already said no. Without that hub Pearson caps at into gridlock at something like 70 million pax a year. That’s only a few years away.

Meanwhile Pickering can be kicked into action for a fraction of that.

Rail is great and the study/planning for a high frequency Via option is underway. But only so many passengers want to ride it. Maybe 3-6 million a year? That’s a couple of year’s pax growth at Pearson. People want to travel to places outside the Windsor Montreal corridor.

Your command control economics argument on plane size flies in the face of how free enterprise works. The GTAA needs room for aircraft appropriately sized for efficiency for passenger numbers from both large and small communities to directly connect to Toronto.

Diesel trains are good but only so many people are willing to take 5 hours on a train ride that can be done in just over an hour in an aircraft. Toronto to Montreal is a 5 hour drive.

Since we are talking 10 years in the future, it’s important to mention that Every major jet engine manufacturer has a hybrid electric project in play. It is the next gen jet tech. But pure electric is the future of regional aviation(2030-2040?) according to both Airbus and Boeing.

So that means Aviation is the future of travel for generations to come. It is the fastest, safest, and will eventually be cleaner than electric rail. It will make High speed rail obsolete.

No roads or rail to build and maintain, going direct to your destination at 500knots. all we need are locally accessible airports.

 

[kEiThZ]

And who is paying for that transit Hub?

The GTAA. With a combination of debt and maybe low-interest loans from the CIB.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...structure-bank-metrolinx-ceo/article34649097/

$11 billion in tax payer funds and counting on Pearson’s wish list..

You may consider it Pearson’s wish list. But the rest of the GTA also sees plenty of benefit in building public transit to an area with tens of thousands of jobs.

and Ontario’s new government has already said no.

They said no to HSR. Not the hub. When you intentionally lie like this it really makes you and your cause look bad.

HSR is not the only service at the hub.

Without that hub Pearson caps at into gridlock at something like 70 million pax a year. That’s only a few years away.

More like decades away.

Rail is great and the study/planning for a high frequency Via option is underway. But only so many passengers want to ride it. Maybe 3-6 million a year?

More lies. VIA’s last projection was 9.9 million per year. And higher if full high speed rail.

People want to travel to places outside the Windsor Montreal corridor.

Indeed. And the slots saved by reducing flights to Ottawa, Montreal, London, and eventually Kingston and Windsor, should enable that.

Your command control economics argument on plane size flies in the face of how free enterprise works.

There’s nothing free enterprise about asking the government for thousands of acres of prime land for free, $900 million in initial investment and all the civil works to be built.

Diesel trains are good but only so many people are willing to take 5 hours on a train ride that can be done in just over an hour in an aircraft. Toronto to Montreal is a 5 hour drive.

It’s a good thing we have data on how rail competes with air. In fact, we even have a reasonable model to predict air-rail market share based on travel time.

The above model would yield over 53% marketshare for Ottawa and over 30% for Montreal with VIA's non high-speed HFR. Go higher speed and marketshare grows to Acela like numbers....

And we have actual experience to show this. Amtrak Acela has 77% air-rail marketshare on the 225 mile Washington-New York route and 54% of the 232 mile Boston-New York market. And that's in a country where gas is cheap, airports don't have high fees and the weather is a bit better. For reference, YOW-YTZ is 218 miles and YUL-YTZ is 307 miles.

Read this article about how HSR has savaged air markets elsewhere:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...d-rail-now-rivals-flying-on-key-global-routes

Faster than flying: the high-speed rail routes taking on the air industry

A recent analysis found that on certain routes across Asia and Europe, high-speed trains are faster, cheaper and more convenient than flying.

www.railway-technology.com

Unlike your bluster, there's actual stats in my sources.

Since we are talking 10 years in the future, it’s important to mention that Every major jet engine manufacturer has a hybrid electric project in play. It is the next gen jet tech. But pure electric is the future of regional aviation(2030-2040?) according to both Airbus and Boeing.

You keep assuming there’s no informed audience here. Aerospace engineer here. You’re full of it. First, neither OEM makes engines. Second, neither OEM is that interested in the regional market. Third, nobody has an electric or hybrid engine on the Horizon that could reasonably power a scope limited RJ anytime in the next 20 years.

No roads or rail to build and maintain, going direct to your destination at 500knots. all we need are locally accessible airports.

500 knots doesn’t help much if I have to get to an airport an hour early for check-in, screening and pre-boarding. And then land in Ottawa or Montreal and spend another 30 minutes (minimum) cabbing it to the core in traffic. And most of that time in the air is unproductive and I’m not allowed to use my laptop, move around, etc.

 

[kEiThZ]

@MarkBrooks

You keep evading the inconvenient questions. So let's get some answers.

1. Your website says you need $900 million, the land and all the civil works funded by various levels of government. Is there a public estimate that is lower? You keep saying there's no government funding at all required. Do you need the above paid for by government or not?

2. You keep talking about the low fuel consumption of an A223/CS3. But an A321NEO is even more fuel efficient and rail is still better in per passenger-mile fuel consumption. Do you disagree with the fact that fuel consumption is inversely proportional to vehicle size?

3. You've failed to explain why the same capital could not deliver far more output at an existing airfield. Notably Hamilton. Do you disagree that the same amount of capital could create more capacity at an existing airfield?

I would appreciate if you can stick to facts instead of pulling numbers out of your backside or flat out lying as you did above. If you can't do that, I suggest you stop participating in this forum and move on to a more gullible audience.