News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

I am most certainly not being paid by anyone, the suggest that myself or other pro airport supporters are some how benefited financially in any way is false.

Where exactly did you get that idea ?
I apologize if that's not true. I had read it somewhere, but forget where.
 
He was losing the argument, so like they always do, they go low. Like calling a conservative racist when their argument runs dry.
LOL. Losing what argument? I'm barely involved in this debate and am more interested in lurking the thread.

By my own tally Mark still has not made given us compelling reason why we need this airport.
 
^That driving graphic hugely misses the point. I can’t see anyone west of Vic Park taking a risk on the DVP/404/Markham Road congestion. Sure, Pearson is no picnic, but it’s a more known if consistent plod to Pearson, and public transit does connect.

The graphic is a very rough first order take. I’m sure when it’s refined, they’d take out all the areas that are near Pearson.

After all, if he wants to argue that Pearson is too far for someone from Pickering, I don’t see how you can then argue that Brampton and Mississauga residents will travel from Pickering. The effective catchment is east of the DVP. East of Yonge max.
 
I apologize if that's not true. I had read it somewhere, but forget where.
Apology accepted, You got trolled.by someone who convinced you to repeat an untruth for fun and profit. It happens all the time in the Pickering Airport discussion!

Part of the reason for this is the huge amount amount of money at stake by those who have invested billions in the status quo or have a lifestyle plan that will need to be adjusted By the construction traffic and revoked cheap land leases.
 
^That driving graphic hugely misses the point. I can’t see anyone west of Vic Park taking a risk on the DVP/404/Markham Road congestion. Sure, Pearson is no picnic, but it’s a more known if consistent plod to Pearson, and public transit does connect.

Certainly the 407 access is good, and a Rocket route to Markham GO would make a decent RER connection. But that map overstates the realistic catchment area.

I can’t see any of those alternate GO routings ever playing out.... even the vacant land outside the airport fence is already held by developers. Not gonna give that up, or have a non-stopping rail line added to those new neighbourhoods.

- Paul

So what makes sense to you as a passenger catchment area, is 45 min acceptable ?

We had used 30 km radius encompassing 2.3 million people, but others on the fro said is was too short.

It’s an interesting question, I can produce 30 to 90 min drive times with the tool We are using. 90 it to large, 30 seems too short.
 
So what makes sense to you as a passenger catchment area, is 45 min acceptable ?

I'm not sure a linear catchment would represent reality.

It's not uncommon for people living in London to drive to Detroit or Toronto for flights; but it's highly unlikely someone in Hamilton would drive to London to catch a flight even if affordable. Frankly, few would think to look for such a flight despite London having some good rates on direct flights to Orlando. Do we know how deep into the GTA that Buffalo reaches? Would any in Buffalo travel via Hamilton airport?

I also think you'd find more people driving from Ottawa to YUL than from Montreal to YOW. Numbers related to that might be a guide as to how service levels effect catchment. I know Pearson has released spending by municipality type information in some business case documents, perhaps YOW/YUL have something similar.

Catchment varies by competition; which includes both distance and quantity/quality of trips (lots of options, few transfers). It'll also vary with what full trip involves (nearby domestic versus midway around the earth). People will happily drive from Gravenhurst to YYZ to catch a direct flight to Hong Kong, but you won't find anybody doing that for a flight to Ottawa.


Catchments for O'Hare, Detroit, Logan, and Pearson extend quite a bit further than YTZ, Hamilton, London, or Portland Maine simply because not all airports are equal.

Anecdotally, CDG has a catchment of at least 2 hours for me. A direct flight to CDG and TGV to Lyon is often cheaper, easier, and sometimes faster than flying (with a stop) to Lyon. LYS (Lyon) would very rarely be considered as a way of getting to Paris.

What service would Pickering have on opening day? Are we talking dailies to Tokyo or 8 per day to Ottawa? Giving them equal catchments without very similar service isn't going to assist in preparing a business case that reflects real-world ROI.
 
Last edited:
A massive correction is required on your "simple demographics" comment.

Look at the population growth stats for Ontario as posted by the Ontario Government: https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/table4.html. These stats come directly from StatsCan, the same source as noted in your post.

In addition to the GTA stats (which are incorrectly denoted in the table you posted - the Reference projections are not listed), look at the tables for Hamilton, Brant, Dufferin, Wellington, Waterloo and Niagara (west) and compare the projected population in 2041 with communities to the east, Northumberland, Peterborough and Kawartha Lakes. The project growth in Ontario is clearly to the west of Toronto. The projected population for these communities in 2041 is 2.6M residents west of Toronto vs 263,000 to the east.

I truly don't understand the spin here. Whats' with the dogged support of investing potentially tens of billions in an airport that is clearly not required in this location?

That population table you provided a link to is more interesting than you may realize. While it starts from the same basic stats Canada statistics that Durham region is itself using, the forecasts make a simple projection assumption based on past history.
The Durham region numbers are based on the Golden Horseshoe forecast which is taking Specific projects into account.
It can be found here:

Those replace the generic population forecasts done by the previous Ontario Government which is telling in what is not included.


Between 2021 and 2031 the old forecast is for a growth of only 100,000 people in Durham and yet just the Seaton lands project, which is now approved, Will add 60,000 people alone in that time period.

it’s shows the sideshow game of population forecasts and the competition between municipalities that has been underway for decades. Hamilton vs Durham for example.
460088C6-3AF4-42CF-8A1B-35A005F4D056.jpeg
 
I'm not sure a linear catchment would represent reality.

It's not uncommon for people living in London to drive to Detroit or Toronto for flights; but it's highly unlikely someone in Hamilton would drive to London to catch a flight even if affordable. Frankly, few would think to look for such a flight despite London having some good rates on direct flights to Orlando. Do we know how deep into the GTA that Buffalo reaches? Would any in Buffalo travel via Hamilton airport?

I also think you'd find more people driving from Ottawa to YUL than from Montreal to YOW. Numbers related to that might be a guide as to how service levels effect catchment. I know Pearson has released spending by municipality type information in some business case documents, perhaps YOW/YUL have something similar.

Catchment varies by competition; which includes both distance and quantity/quality of trips (lots of options, few transfers). It'll also vary with what full trip involves (nearby domestic versus midway around the earth). People will happily drive from Gravenhurst to YYZ to catch a direct flight to Hong Kong, but you won't find anybody doing that for a flight to Ottawa.


Catchments for O'Hare, Detroit, Logan, and Pearson extend quite a bit further than YTZ, Hamilton, London, or Portland Maine simply because not all airports are equal.

Anecdotally, CDG has a catchment of at least 2 hours for me. A direct flight to CDG and TGV to Lyon is often cheaper, easier, and sometimes faster than flying (with a stop) to Lyon. LYS (Lyon) would very rarely be considered as a way of getting to Paris.

What service would Pickering have on opening day? Are we talking dailies to Tokyo or 8 per day to Ottawa? Giving them equal catchments without very similar service isn't going to assist in preparing a business case that reflects real-world ROI.

It is 10 years out so this is just a projection, but from day one I expect Pickering will become home to a diverse set of small and medium regional passenger aircraft. The smaller regional jets, exec Jets and turboprops squeezed out of Pearson will be a significant initial population. With porter flights expecting to be capped out of Billy Bishop well before Pickering opens, Porter could be a poster child for the type of point to point North America service expected to dominate the airport over time. But it is to far out to see if Porter Willing to commit.

I would not expect Hub activity initially but this could develop over time.

Using your observations as guidance that would mean a smaller catchment area than Pearson.
 
LOL @ proposing a $3 billion greenfield airport with no major airline hubbing there. Any investor who puts money into that kind of an idea deserves to lose 100% of their investment.
 
So what makes sense to you as a passenger catchment area, is 45 min acceptable ?

We had used 30 km radius encompassing 2.3 million people, but others on the fro said is was too short.

It’s an interesting question, I can produce 30 to 90 min drive times with the tool We are using. 90 it to large, 30 seems too short.
It is 10 years out so this is just a projection, but from day one I expect Pickering will become home to a diverse set of small and medium regional passenger aircraft. The smaller regional jets, exec Jets and turboprops squeezed out of Pearson will be a significant initial population. With porter flights expecting to be capped out of Billy Bishop well before Pickering opens, Porter could be a poster child for the type of point to point North America service expected to dominate the airport over time. But it is to far out to see if Porter Willing to commit.

I would not expect Hub activity initially but this could develop over time.

Using your observations as guidance that would mean a smaller catchment area than Pearson.

So, you mean Bearskin, Air Creebec, Air Georgian, etc?

Seriously, name me airlines not currently flying to Pearson or the Island that would fly there.

Why not show the overlap of all airports running scheduled service within a 2 hour drive of Pearson. Let's then look at the current passengers that are outside of the overlap of Pearson that would be "new" customers.
 
Some interesting comments in this document re Peterborough Airport - see section 5.5 - despite having extended their runway to 7,000 feet, and being easier to access from Durham Region than Pearson, especially with the 407 extension coming on line, commercial flights are effectively zero and don't show much potential.

- Paul
 
Some interesting comments in this document re Peterborough Airport - see section 5.5 - despite having extended their runway to 7,000 feet, and being easier to access from Durham Region than Pearson, especially with the 407 extension coming on line, commercial flights are effectively zero and don't show much potential.

- Paul

The tyranny of geography rules all.

It’s easy to see why the word accessible capacity is so important in all the aviation Discussions and Documents. 2-2.5 hours,
that how long it can take me to drive from Billy Bishop or Toronto to Peterborough airport ( Aircraft reposition flights) in rush hour traffic.

The same is true for Waterloo. This is why these two airports are utilized for local traffic only and are not a real factor in this discussion. As the saying goes, location, location, location.

To show you how unmanageable a commute to Peterborough is, I have friends ( fellow instructors) that still try and teach at the Seneca flight school in Peterborough after it was moved from Buttonville ( north east Toronto). They stay at a local hotel during the week instead of trying a round trip 3-5 hour commute.
 
Seriously, name me airlines not currently flying to Pearson or the Island that would fly there.

I could see discount carriers like Norwegian taking up at Pickering. The problem is that the network carriers really won’t want to fly to Pickering unless forced to. Even Sunwing wouldn’t leave Pearson unless absolutely forced to. West jet might toss a few Swoop flights that way. But ultimately, the reward from simply upgauging an aircraft out of Pearson to xyz destination is mostly going to beat starting a new service from Pickering to xyz for a given carrier already operating at Pearson.

This is why I think Mark is wrong about turboprops being displaced. Air Canada will simply upgauge and cut frequencies to keep feeding its hub.

So, you mean Bearskin, Air Creebec, Air Georgian, etc?

Air Georgian flies out of Pearson, as part of Air Canada Express. They ain’t moving. Bearskin and Air Georgian.

Some interesting comments in this document re Peterborough Airport - see section 5.5 - despite having extended their runway to 7,000 feet, and being easier to access from Durham Region than Pearson, especially with the 407 extension coming on line, commercial flights are effectively zero and don't show much potential.

- Paul

Which really tells you what this plan is banking on: splitting the GTA with YYZ. And mostly by that I mean the 416 and York region. Durham region won’t generate enough to sustain more than a handful of tourist flights per day.
 

Back
Top