denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
@kEiThZ @MarkBrooks given what has happened with GM in Oshawa, the government's hand might be forced here and they might have to build this thing as a major international airport to provide jobs.
|
|
|
Toronto and the GTA could be enough of a draw for the business person. Would that be enough though?
We already have one of these: at the Island. And thanks to runway length and aircraft restriction, it's effectively perimeter restricted, like LGA or DCA. And YTZ is even better positioned than DCA or LGA. So the question becomes, what additional traffic would be gained by having another secondary airport (or a replacement for YTZ).
Because the Island is limited, flights to places like Florida, Vegas, or California are largely off the table. And locations like that happen to have a large demand from price-conscious travellers. That's where the market is, IMO. Many people from across the GTHA would be willing to drive to Pickering or Hamilton to save $100 each on their flight.
@kEiThZ @MarkBrooks given what has happened with GM in Oshawa, the government's hand might be forced here and they might have to build this thing as a major international airport to provide jobs.
They might have to accelerate this imoHow do they replace jobs lost next year with jobs nearly a decade from now? And that’s aside from skill sets being different.
They might have to accelerate this imo
That doesn’t help the region though. You’re just actively facilitating the departure of tourist dollars with little in return. That’s very different from secondary airports like LGW, DCA, LGA and MDW which still bring in decent business traffic.
How?
This thing doesn't have serious investors. It doesn't have a detailed design. It doesn't have an EA. Etc.
Even the absolute best case scenario might be something like 5 years. And that would be record time for something like this. With lots of waivers. And risk acceptance by an unprecedented list of authorities.
Other than protecting corridors into the airport, I'd think there's little there to be done for decades. You'd need significant passenger numbers before you start running direct service into the airport.As for rail-based, it would require solutions involving the CP North Toronto sub, rehabilitation of the Don Branch (if access to downtown) and routing around the Agincourt Yard, none of which I don't think is all that far along.
.
There's lots of thing that would and could hold up Pickering proceeding. Rail isn't one of them.
@kEiThZ @MarkBrooks given what has happened with GM in Oshawa, the government's hand might be forced here and they might have to build this thing as a major international airport to provide jobs.
How?
This thing doesn't have serious investors. It doesn't have a detailed design. It doesn't have an EA. Etc.
Even the absolute best case scenario might be something like 5 years. And that would be record time for something like this. With lots of waivers. And risk acceptance by an unprecedented list of authorities.
Also - the southern W/E runway pair is not far enough apart for independent take-off landing operation on each runway so one is used for take-offs and the other for landings in east/west wind conditions as shown below.
Do you have a source for this? I understand why it's undesirable from an operational perspective, and why it's unavailable for simultaneous instrument approaches (per ICAO rules). However, considering that the centrelines are 1000ft apart (exactly), I can't see why simultaneous approaches in VMC would be prohibited.
Anecdotally, I've seen/heard parallel approaches to 24L and 24R occasionally during busy periods. ATC generally warns of aircraft on approach to the adjacent runway. All approaches have either been visual or ILS in VMC.
If you know of any related regulations for lateral runway separation, either from Transport Canada or ICAO, please let me know -- I'm curious to research this further.