[kEiThZ]

And how many of those “ more urgent” infrastructure projects are profitable? Can be built with private capital instead of public tax dollars?

That certainly rules out Pickering. Needs free land. And hundreds of millions in public infrastructure to support. And would end up needing billions in loans. There's no private capital coming for an airport in this environment.

Ps. To all. Mark doesn't see this. He blocks posters who have challenged him. Especially if they are knowledgeable about aviation.

 

[MarkBrooks]

Whether an infra project is profitable or not has little impact given that the government assesses projects based on benefit/cost as aforementioned (and that is literally the point of government, it serves the needs of society that capitalism doesn't provide)

Do you have a link to support that there are private groups committing funds for the airport?

dispite the conspiracy theory’s promoted by several past posters, I do not have “links” to anyone but have been working with the volunteers at the Buttonville flying club to try to publish what we know to keep the players Honest and to get a fair deal Both as aviators and tax payers.

As discussed earlier in this forum, I was the president of the flying club in 2009-2011 and did have a non paying role as an aviation advisor for the first all private not for profit group ( based inside the flying club) that proposed building a new GA airport in 2011 To replace Buttonville.
That is now off the table as the current government seems to have much larger plans than simply replacing Buttonville. Buttonville is of course a private airport, mostly profitable for the last 25 years.

A couple of years ago The Friends of Pickering Airport was formed as a subgroup of volunteers inside the flying club to write about the subject and share our hard won knowledge on the subject. Again it is a volunteer group Just like the rest of the flying club.

The project is much larger now, a multi billion dollar Economic engine set to transform the eastern GTA. The next step in the process is an RFP from Transport, if and when they decide to issue it. I am not involved in that process Either.

I do not have links ( am not being paid etc) to either of the groups that it is my understanding are currently expressing interest.

In the aviation world everyone just assumes the new airport is a done deal, on its way the moment the timing is right and the feds can get the best deal from potential investors.
I am posting here to get the other side of the argument. Frankly I am always amazed to hear the surprise in some that it is even needed or being considered. We live in Bubble worlds Created by online media.

 

[Northern Light]

We live in Bubble worlds Created by online media.

No one moreso than you Mark.

You've even blocked posters here whose views you disagree with who are at least as and probably more informed on the subject of aviation than you.

So you have a self-created bubble.

But that doesn't matter.

What does is that you are going on and on and on......(its called droning) without saying anything new and w/o actually taking any insight from others that would allow you to express even your own position with a novel nuance.

It really adds nothing to this forum and indeed detracts from it.

 

[micheal_can]

New subways are needed before the airport.
New LRTs are needed before the airport.
New commuter rail is needed before the airport
Wider highways are needed before the airport.

That is not just in the GTA, but in Canada. So, federally speaking, Pickering is quite low. A Conservative pushing it makes sense as he is from Durham region.

In short, there is much more needed before this airport, and it will will not be an election promise when we go to the polls within a decade.

 

[MarkBrooks]

New subways are needed before the airport.
New LRTs are needed before the airport.
New commuter rail is needed before the airport
Wider highways are needed before the airport.

That is not just in the GTA, but in Canada. So, federally speaking, Pickering is quite low. A Conservative pushing it makes sense as he is from Durham region.

In short, there is much more needed before this airport, and it will will not be an election promise when we go to the polls within a decade.

So in short no tax dollars for aviation, the heart and soul of the global economy?
aviation is the grease on the wheels of the global economy that you have repeatedly questioned. But that’s ok, no one needs government money.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt , After all you are not the first to confuse local transportation, rail and subway, with connecting Canadian cities thousands of miles apart or connecting the Canadian economy to The world.
I would tend to give you the benefit of the doubt as you are distinct from others on this forum who simply troll or flood the field with misinformation and insults.

Just a reminder, the business case is strong, why not let private money build Pickering? Yes now, and why not?

This would save tax dollars for local ( and never really profitable ) rail and subway lines.
better yet It can help load up those lines with passengers from the airport and generate tax dollars to support them too.

But why highways? They add 50% force radiation heating to carbon emissions created by cars Versus 0-15% created by aviation ( confirmed by multiple data based studies including one by NASA using satellite data) . In a straight carbon emissions shootout, the ICAO data base provides the evidence ( as in real data and scientific observation Not off the wall theory’s ) showing that Ground transportation in Canada is far less efficient over long distances than air travel .

We don’t have a functioning rail system, but we could have if we found the money To subsidize it.

So don’t drive, please fly any distances greater than 500 km.

all we need to do is to get the minister of transportation to step out of the way and let free enterprise do what it does best.

Think about it.

 

[Northern Light]

So in short no tax dollars for aviation, the heart and soul of the global economy?
aviation is the grease on the wheels of the global economy that you have repeatedly questioned. But that’s ok, no one needs government money.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt , After all you are not the first to confuse local transportation, rail and subway, with connecting Canadian cities thousands of miles apart or connecting the Canadian economy to The world.
I would tend to give you the benefit of the doubt as you are distinct from others on this forum who simply troll or flood the field with misinformation and insults.

Just a reminder, the business case is strong, why not let private money build Pickering? Yes now, and why not?

This would save tax dollars for local ( and never really profitable ) rail and subway lines.
better yet It can help load up those lines with passengers from the airport and generate tax dollars to support them too.

But why highways? They add 50% force radiation heating to carbon emissions created by cars Versus 0-15% created by aviation ( confirmed by multiple data based studies including one by NASA using satellite data) . In a straight carbon emissions shootout, the ICAO data base provides the evidence ( as in real data and scientific observation Not off the wall theory’s ) showing that Ground transportation in Canada is far less efficient over long distances than air travel .

We don’t have a functioning rail system, but we could have if we found the money To subsidize it.

So don’t drive, please fly any distances greater than 500 km.

all we need to do is to get the minister of transportation to step out of the way and let free enterprise do what it does best.

Think about it.

Mark, you're infuriating.

Go somewhere where people take you seriously; its not here.

The issue isn't pro/anti airport.

The issue is you.

Yes you.

Its personal. To you.

That's what makes this an impossible discussion.

You've got a closed mind which you insist on pushing on everyone, the evidence be damned.

Its farcical.

 

[micheal_can]

So in short no tax dollars for aviation, the heart and soul of the global economy?
aviation is the grease on the wheels of the global economy that you have repeatedly questioned. But that’s ok, no one needs government money.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt , After all you are not the first to confuse local transportation, rail and subway, with connecting Canadian cities thousands of miles apart or connecting the Canadian economy to The world.
I would tend to give you the benefit of the doubt as you are distinct from others on this forum who simply troll or flood the field with misinformation and insults.

Just a reminder, the business case is strong, why not let private money build Pickering? Yes now, and why not?

This would save tax dollars for local ( and never really profitable ) rail and subway lines.
better yet It can help load up those lines with passengers from the airport and generate tax dollars to support them too.

But why highways? They add 50% force radiation heating to carbon emissions created by cars Versus 0-15% created by aviation ( confirmed by multiple data based studies including one by NASA using satellite data) . In a straight carbon emissions shootout, the ICAO data base provides the evidence ( as in real data and scientific observation Not off the wall theory’s ) showing that Ground transportation in Canada is far less efficient over long distances than air travel .

We don’t have a functioning rail system, but we could have if we found the money To subsidize it.

So don’t drive, please fly any distances greater than 500 km.

all we need to do is to get the minister of transportation to step out of the way and let free enterprise do what it does best.View attachment 270946

Think about it.

When the federal government starts to roll out stimulus money, it will have a range of local, regional and national projects.
Right now, they are looking for shovel ready projects. Pickering Airport is not that.
They will then look at fast tracking some projects as they will move people better. Pickering is not that. HFR project is.

Why has the project not started if the private sector wants it? I would argue it is because they don't want to pay for it, but show support for it.

Taking farmland and turning it into asphalt, is not green.

Mark, you're infuriating.

Go somewhere where people take you seriously; its not here.

The issue isn't pro/anti airport.

The issue is you.

Yes you.

Its personal. To you.

That's what makes this an impossible discussion.

You've got a closed mind which you insist on pushing on everyone, the evidence be damned.

Its farcical.

He is amusing.
At first, I thought this project was a no brainer. I thought it should be built. After a few years on here, and looking into everything, I started to see the cracks in the plans. I then started to see how much like Mirablel this would be if it was ever built.

Having him here putting articles he wrote on here to sway us is amusing.

The day HFR opens is the day another nail in the Pikering airport coffin is hammered in.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not HFR that will kill Pickering. Though that will hurt. It's RER and the Pearson Transit Hub. RER to Union + UPE makes Pearson substantially more accessible from the Eastern GTA. Where HFR hurts is demand for travel to Ottawa, which would be a max of 3 hrs by HFR (vs 2 hrs total trip by air. An HFR train with through service to Pearson also makes for an easy transferless trip to the airport.

 

[afransen]

Makes a lot more sense to me to scale up Hamilton airport.

 

[slapped_chicken]

dispite the conspiracy theory’s promoted by several past posters, I do not have “links” to anyone but have been working with the volunteers at the Buttonville flying club to try to publish what we know to keep the players Honest and to get a fair deal Both as aviators and tax payers.

Umm what I mean to say is if you had evidence, a source or link to an article or anything detailing private investors which have committed funding. I didn't mean "link" as some kind of conspiracy, sorry if I'm unclear

And yes, air transportation in 2020 and beyond is very efficient compared to *ahem* ground transportation with carbon-based vehicles (which is the majority still, unfortunately) for very long distances; not the case for EVs or rail(whether electrified or not). HSR (electrified? maglev? take your pick) will always be more efficient and very competitive with flying within a 500-1000 km range (or more, in the future). But we don't have that and I don't really want to talk about that rn.

What all this has to do with Pickering Airport is beyond me. I don't think anyone is challenging the importance of aviation in connecting our global economy today, people are questioning whether or not it's so urgent and necessary to have a Pickering Airport built within this decade. Or the next one, even, given world trends. YYZ expansion adds a very large amount of capacity at what is already the most attractive and well-linked air hub in Canada. Hamilton airport has begun to rise as an alternative GTA airport in the past few years, with amazing growth thanks to Swoop; it's already an established hub for air freight.

 

[micheal_can]

It's not HFR that will kill Pickering. Though that will hurt. It's RER and the Pearson Transit Hub. RER to Union + UPE makes Pearson substantially more accessible from the Eastern GTA. Where HFR hurts is demand for travel to Ottawa, which would be a max of 3 hrs by HFR (vs 2 hrs total trip by air. An HFR train with through service to Pearson also makes for an easy transferless trip to the airport.

RER and the Pearson Transit Hub definitely will hurt the need, but, with the HFR, it can remove the need for some existing flights, which if done opens more slots. In short, there are many mails in the coffin, these 3 will each add to it.

 

[WislaHD]

The day HFR opens is the day another nail in the Pikering airport coffin is hammered in.

TBH it's good you pointed this out.

HFR would be nice (and what VIA is already aspiring towards), but HSR would be another Mirabel sized white elephant and yet many people advocate for HSR with greater conviction than the Pickering Airport in this thread.

 

[Northern Light]

TBH it's good you pointed this out.

HFR would be nice (and what VIA is already aspiring towards), but HSR would be another Mirabel sized white elephant and yet many people advocate for HSR with greater conviction than the Pickering Airport in this thread.

That is not a well supported statement.

If you are arguing that it would be quite expensive, sure.

But Mirabel failed because there was another airport much closer to Montreal; and the distance to Mirabel was a bit ridiculous.

HSR would still run between Union Stn Toronto and Gare Central in Montreal.

It would not suffer Mirabel's issues.

We could legitimately discuss whether the required investment would be worth it.

But 'White Elephant' is not a term for excessively expensive............its a term for grossly under-utilized or without productive value.

I think the evidence suggests, subject to correct pricing, that HSR would have very high utilization.

But it would do so at a rather substantial price tag; the virtue of which can be reasonably discussed.

 

[WislaHD]

But 'White Elephant' is not a term for excessively expensive............its a term for grossly under-utilized or without productive value.

I think the evidence suggests, subject to correct pricing, that HSR would have very high utilization.

But it would do so at a rather substantial price tag; the virtue of which can be reasonably discussed.

The price per passenger for HSR would be exuberantly expensive when compared to HFR and conventional means of transportation (airfare, bus), which means it would be a highly subsidized route if ever built. Also the bolded is not necessarily true, especially at the necessary higher price points required to make some sort of business case for the line.

Though I didn't mean to derail the thread, this can be carried on in the HSR thread.

 

[Northern Light]

The price per passenger for HSR would be exuberantly expensive when compared to HFR and conventional means of transportation (airfare, bus), which means it would be a highly subsidized route if ever built. Also the bolded is not necessarily true, especially at the necessary higher price points required to make some sort of business case for the line.

Though I didn't mean to derail the thread, this can be carried on in the HSR thread.

Your posts are always welcome. You're no Mark Brooks! LOL