NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY PICKERING LANDS Final Report
SUBMITTED TO: TRANSPORT CANADA PREPARED BY: THE GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY MARCH 2010
Greater Toronto Airports Authority CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Study Background...... 1-1 1.2 Study Elements...... 1-2 1.3 Next Steps...... 1-2 1.4 Airport Scope ...... 1-3 1.5 Chapter Profile ...... 1-6
Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
2.1 Brief History of the Early Years of the Pickering Lands (1968–1988) ...... 2-2 2.2 Aviation in Southern Ontario—A Strategy for the Future (1989–1990) ...... 2-3 2.3 Pearson Airside Development Project Environmental Impact Statement (1991) ...... 2-5 2.4 Interim Report of the Federal Environmental Assessment Panel (1992) ...... 2-9 2.5 Pearson 1995 Master Plan ...... 2-9 2.6 Southern Ontario Area Airports Study (1995)...... 2-10 2.6.1 Objectives ...... 2-11 2.6.2 Study Scope ...... 2-11 2.6.3 Airport Summaries ...... 2-12 2.6.4 Lack of Adequate Runway Length in the Eastern GTA ...... 2-18 2.6.5 Overall Demand/Capacity Conclusions ...... 2-19 2.6.6 Development of a Second Major Airport ...... 2-19 2.7 Pearson 1999 Master Plan ...... 2-24 2.8 Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report (2004)...... 2-25 2.9 Pearson 2007 Master Plan ...... 2-28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
3.1 Passengers...... 3-2 3.1.1 Revenue Origin-Destination Passengers ...... 3-2 3.1.2 Revenue Enplaned/Deplaned Passengers ...... 3-4 3.1.3 Total Enplaned/Deplaned Passengers ...... 3-6 3.1.4 High Speed Rail ...... 3-7 3.1.5 New Forecasts ...... 3-8 3.2 Air Carrier Movements ...... 3-11 3.2.1 New Forecasts ...... 3-12 3.3 General Aviation Aircraft Movements ...... 3-14 3.3.1 General Aviation Itinerant Movements ...... 3-14 3.3.2 General Aviation Local Movements ...... 3-14 3.3.3 New Forecasts ...... 3-17 3.4 Expanded Airport System ...... 3-18 3.4.1 General Aviation Itinerant Aircraft Movement Forecasts ...... 3-19 3.4.2 General Aviation Local Movement Forecasts ...... 3-20
Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
4.1 Activity History...... 4-2 4.2 Airside Capacity...... 4-3 4.2.1 Capacity of the Existing Airside System ...... 4-3 4.2.2 Potential Airside Capacity ...... 4-7 4.2.3 Airside Passenger Capacity ...... 4-10 4.3 Passenger Terminal Capacity ...... 4-11 4.4 Opportunities to Maximize Airside Capacity ...... 4-14 4.4.1 Daily Traffic Peak Spreading ...... 4-14 4.4.2 Weekly/Seasonal Traffic Patterns ...... 4-15 4.4.3 Increased Night Time Operations ...... 4-15 4.4.4 Off-loading Business Aviation Traffic ...... 4-16 4.4.5 Larger Aircraft ...... 4-16 4.4.6 Air Navigation Services ...... 4-17 4.4.7 Conclusion ...... 4-19
Contents, Page 2 of 8 Contents
Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.1 John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport...... 5-1 5.1.1 Runway Facilities ...... 5-3 5.1.2 Activity History ...... 5-4 5.1.3 Current Capacity ...... 5-5 5.1.4 Planned Capacity ...... 5-7 5.1.5 Potential Capacity ...... 5-8 5.2 Region of Waterloo International Airport...... 5-10 5.2.1 Runway Facilities ...... 5-11 5.2.2 Activity History ...... 5-12 5.2.3 Current Capacity ...... 5-13 5.2.4 Planned Capacity ...... 5-14 5.2.5 Potential Capacity ...... 5-14 5.3 Toronto City Centre Airport ...... 5-16 5.3.1 Runway Facilities ...... 5-18 5.3.2 Activity History ...... 5-18 5.3.3 Current Capacity ...... 5-20 5.3.4 Planned Capacity ...... 5-22 5.3.5 Potential Capacity ...... 5-22 5.4 Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport...... 5-25 5.4.1 Runway Facilities ...... 5-27 5.4.2 Activity History ...... 5-27 5.4.3 Current Capacity ...... 5-28 5.4.4 Planned Capacity ...... 5-28 5.4.5 Potential Capacity ...... 5-29 5.5 Oshawa Municipal Airport ...... 5-29 5.5.1 Runway Facilities ...... 5-31 5.5.2 Activity History ...... 5-31 5.5.3 Current Capacity ...... 5-32 5.5.4 Planned Capacity ...... 5-33 5.5.5 Potential Capacity ...... 5-33 5.6 Peterborough Municipal Airport...... 5-34 5.6.1 Runway Facilities ...... 5-35 5.6.2 Activity History ...... 5-36 5.6.3 Current Capacity ...... 5-36 5.6.4 Planned Capacity ...... 5-37 5.6.5 Potential Capacity ...... 5-37
Contents, Page 3 of 8 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.7 Lake Simcoe Regional Airport...... 5-39 5.7.1 Runway Facilities ...... 5-40 5.7.2 Activity History ...... 5-40 5.7.3 Current Capacity ...... 5-41 5.7.4 Planned Capacity ...... 5-41 5.7.5 Potential Capacity ...... 5-42 5.8 Brampton Airport...... 5-43 5.8.1 Runway Facilities ...... 5-43 5.8.2 Current Capacity ...... 5-44 5.8.3 Planned Capacity ...... 5-44 5.8.4 Potential Capacity ...... 5-45 5.9 Burlington Airpark...... 5-45 5.9.1 Runway Facilities ...... 5-46 5.9.2 Current Capacity ...... 5-46 5.9.3 Planned Capacity ...... 5-47 5.10 Summary...... 5-49
Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
6.1 GTAModel...... 6-2 6.2 Region of Waterloo Travel Times ...... 6-6 6.3 Population and Employment Data ...... 6-7 6.4 Travel Time Contours...... 6-8 6.5 Congestion Ratio Maps...... 6-12 6.6 Airport Catchment Area Maps...... 6-16
Chapter 7: Multiple Airport Systems
7.1 Multiple Airport Systems Examined...... 7-1 7.2 Airport System Summary Information...... 7-2 7.3 Airport System Evolution Patterns ...... 7-2 7.3.1 Category 1: Development of a New Primary Airport ...... 7-2 7.3.2 Category 2: Balanced Three-Airport System ...... 7-5 7.3.3 Category 3: Unbalanced Three-Airport System ...... 7-6 7.3.4 Category 4: One Primary Airport with Several Secondary Airports ...... 7-6 7.3.5 Category 5: Unsuccessful Development of a New Primary Airport ...... 7-7
Contents, Page 4 of 8 Contents
7.4 Factors Precipitating Secondary Airports ...... 7-8 7.4.1 Chicago ...... 7-8 7.4.2 Dallas ...... 7-8 7.4.3 Houston ...... 7-8 7.4.4 Washington, D.C...... 7-8 7.4.5 Summary ...... 7-8 7.5 Airport Governance ...... 7-9 7.6 Air Carrier Preference for Primary Versus Secondary Airports...... 7-9 7.6.1 Chicago ...... 7-9 7.6.2 Dallas ...... 7-9 7.6.3 Houston ...... 7-10 7.6.4 Los Angeles ...... 7-10 7.6.5 Montréal ...... 7-10 7.6.6 New York ...... 7-10 7.6.7 San Francisco ...... 7-11 7.6.8 Washington, D.C...... 7-11 7.7 Evaluation of Success...... 7-11 7.7.1 Chicago ...... 7-11 7.7.2 Dallas ...... 7-12 7.7.3 Houston ...... 7-12 7.7.4 Los Angeles ...... 7-12 7.7.5 Montreal ...... 7-12 7.7.6 New York ...... 7-13 7.7.7 San Francisco ...... 7-13 7.7.8 Washington, D.C...... 7-13 7.8 General Observations...... 7-14 7.9 Comparison to GGH Market...... 7-15 7.10 Success Factors for Developing a Secondary Airport...... 7-16 7.10.1 Strong Market Potential ...... 7-16 7.10.2 Airline Cooperation ...... 7-17 7.10.3 Well Planned and Designed Facilities ...... 7-17 7.10.4 Single Governing Body ...... 7-17
Contents, Page 5 of 8 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
8.1 Airport Catchment Area Sizes...... 8-2 8.2 “Pull” Traffic: Natural Demand at Reliever Airports...... 8-5 8.2.1 North American Point-to-Point Services ...... 8-6 8.2.2 North American Spoke Services ...... 8-9 8.2.3 International Services ...... 8-9 8.2.4 Summary ...... 8-10 8.3 “Push” Traffic: Excess Demand at Pearson ...... 8-10 8.4 Passenger Allocations by Scenario...... 8-11 8.4.1 Passengers ...... 8-11 8.4.2 Passenger Aircraft Movements ...... 8-20 8.4.3 Conclusions ...... 8-20 8.5 Sensitivity Analysis...... 8-21 8.5.1 Updated Traffic Forecasts ...... 8-21 8.5.2 Effect of Increased Capacity at Hamilton and Waterloo ...... 8-24 8.5.3 Effect of Removing Business Aviation from Pearson ...... 8-25 8.5.4 Effects of High Speed Rail ...... 8-26 8.6 Summary...... 8-27 8.7 Passenger Aircraft Movements ...... 8-28
Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
9.1 CJ/GA Airport System Scenarios...... 9-2 9.2 Traffic Reallocation Method...... 9-3 9.3 CJ/GA Demand...... 9-5 9.4 CJ/GA Capacity...... 9-6 9.5 CJ/GA Traffic Allocations ...... 9-8 9.5.1 Scenario CJ/GA 1—No Airports Close ...... 9-8 9.5.2 Scenario CJ/GA 2—Buttonville Closes ...... 9-9 9.5.3 Scenario CJ/GA 3—City Centre Closes ...... 9-9 9.5.4 Scenario CJ/GA 4—Oshawa Closes ...... 9-10 9.5.5 Scenario CJ/GA 5—City Centre and Oshawa Close ...... 9-10 9.5.6 Scenario CJ/GA 6—Buttonville and Oshawa Close ...... 9-11 9.5.7 Scenario CJ/GA 7—Buttonville and City Centre Close ...... 9-11 9.5.8 Scenario CJ/GA 8—All Three At-risk Airports Close ...... 9-12 9.5.9 Scenario CJ/GA 9—All At-risk Airports Close Plus Pearson CJ/GA Ban ...... 9-12 9.5.10 Scenario CJ/GA 10—All At-risk Airports Close with Pickering ....9-13
Contents, Page 6 of 8 Contents
9.5.11 Scenario CJ/GA 11—Buttonville and Oshawa Close with Pickering ...... 9-14 9.6 Displacement Index ...... 9-14 9.7 Conclusions ...... 9-16 9.8 CJ/GA Traffic Allocations ...... 9-18
Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
10.1 Industry Participants...... 10-1 10.1.1 Belly and Mixed Carriers ...... 10-2 10.1.2 Integrated Carriers ...... 10-2 10.1.3 All-Cargo Carriers ...... 10-3 10.1.4 Freight Forwarders ...... 10-3 10.2 Air Cargo Industry Trends...... 10-3 10.2.1 Consolidation and Reorganization ...... 10-3 10.2.2 Cargo Growth Gap ...... 10-4 10.2.3 Increasing Security Requirements ...... 10-4 10.3 Cargo Capacity ...... 10-5 10.3.1 Cargo Facility Utilization Rates ...... 10-5 10.3.2 Current Cargo Capacities ...... 10-8 10.3.3 Cargo Capacity Expansion Potential ...... 10-13 10.4 Air Cargo Demand Forecast...... 10-14 10.4.1 Comparison to Other Industry Growth Rates ...... 10-15 10.5 Air Cargo Traffic Allocation ...... 10-15 10.5.1 Scenario 1—Pearson and Hamilton ...... 10-16 10.5.2 Scenario 2—Pearson, Hamilton and Pickering ...... 10-18 10.6 Air Cargo Summary ...... 10-21
Chapter 11: Overall Traffic Allocation
11.1 Identification of Airports to be Assessed...... 11-1 11.2 Overall Traffic Allocation Scenarios ...... 11-2 11.2.1 Passenger Allocations ...... 11-3 11.2.2 Air Cargo Allocation ...... 11-7 11.2.3 CJ/GA Allocation ...... 11-7 11.3 Hamilton and Waterloo Airport Runway Capacities ...... 11-8 11.4 Overall Traffic Allocation Assessment...... 11-10 11.4.1 Scenario P6 ...... 11-10 11.4.2 Scenario P8 ...... 11-11
Contents, Page 7 of 8 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
11.4.3 Scenario P5b ...... 11-12 11.4.4 Scenario P2a ...... 11-12 11.4.5 Scenario P5a ...... 11-13 11.5 Conclusions ...... 11-14 11.5.1 Scenarios with Pickering ...... 11-14 11.5.2 Scenarios without Pickering ...... 11-15
Chapter 12: Overall Needs Case for Pickering Airport
12.1 Will an airport on the Pickering lands be required? ...... 12-2 12.1.1 Southern Ontario Area Airports Study ...... 12-2 12.1.2 Needs Assessment Study ...... 12-3 12.2 If an airport on the Pickering lands will be required, when is it likely to be needed? ...... 12-5 12.2.1 Southern Ontario Area Airports Study ...... 12-5 12.2.2 Needs Assessment Study ...... 12-5 12.3 Should the Pickering lands be retained for aviation purposes?...... 12-7 12.3.1 Southern Ontario Area Airports Study ...... 12-7 12.3.2 Needs Assessment Study ...... 12-8 12.3.3 Site Attributes ...... 12-8 12.3.4 Opportunity ...... 12-8 12.4 Consideration of Success Factors for Secondary Airports ...... 12-9 12.4.1 Strong Market Potential ...... 12-9 12.4.2 Airline Cooperation ...... 12-10 12.4.3 Well Planned and Designed Facilities ...... 12-11 12.4.4 Single Governing Body ...... 12-11 12.5 Summary...... 12-11
Contents, Page 8 of 8 CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1 Study Background
Since the federal government acquired the Pickering lands approximately 35 years ago, a number of aviation planning studies have been conducted addressing the possible future development of an airport on the site. These include the federal government’s Southern Ontario Area Airports Study (SOOAS) published in 1995 and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority’s (GTAA) Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report released in 2004, among others that are discussed in this report. In 2005, Transport Canada completed a preliminary due diligence review of the previous studies, and identified the need for some additional work to determine whether there is a future need for an airport on the Pickering lands, and if so the timing required for development. Accordingly, in the fall of 2005, the Minister of Transport announced that Transport Canada would: 1. Coordinate further study regarding whether the airports serving the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) area have the capacity to accommodate future air traffic demand. 2. Conduct a comprehensive due diligence review to determine the next steps for the Pickering lands.
Ch. 1, Page 1 of 8 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
As a significant part of the first item, Transport Canada retained the GTAA to undertake the Needs Assessment Study - Pickering Lands. This document is the report associated with the Needs Assessment Study.
1.2 Study Elements
The three primary elements of the Needs Assessment Study documented in this report serve to: • Review the previous studies relevant to the need for an airport on the Pickering lands. • Undertake a demand-capacity study of the GGH airport system, encompassing: • Traffic demand projections out to a planning horizon of 2032. • The passenger, corporate aviation, general aviation and air cargo traffic segments. • Airport expansion opportunities within existing airport boundaries. • Using all of the evidence available from the previous studies and the new demand-capacity work from this study, assess the future need for an airport on the Pickering lands. If a need is established, identify its likely timing.
1.3 Next Steps
The information in this report will feed into Transport Canada’s due diligence review, which will assess the adequacy of the information and the reasonableness of the study conclusions. The due diligence review will determine whether any significant gaps remain in the total body of knowledge related to the need for an airport in Pickering, and if so, whether any supplementary work is required to address those gaps.
Ch. 1, Page 2 of 8 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.4 Airport Scope
Transport Canada’s initial scope for this study included seven airports; these airports were divided into three categories, as summarized in the upper portion of Table 1-1. The first category identifies Toronto Pearson as the primary commercial airport for the GGH. The second category includes airports that could potentially serve as major reliever airports to complement Pearson, accommodating commercial traffic that must be off-loaded when Pearson approaches its capacity limitations in the future. Transport Canada identified three airports in this category, including the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport, the Region of Waterloo International Airport and a possible future airport on the Pickering lands. The third category includes smaller regional airports that do not have the potential of being major commercial reliever airports, but may be at some degree of risk of closure in the long term, which would exert additional pressure on the airport system. Transport Canada identified three airports in this category, including Toronto City Centre Airport, Buttonville Municipal Airport and Oshawa Municipal Airport.
Ch. 1, Page 3 of 8 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 1-1 Airport Scope
Scope Airport Category Airports
Initial Primary commercial airport. Toronto Pearson Scope International Airport
Potential commercial reliever • John C. Munro airports. Hamilton International Airport • Region of Waterloo International Airport • Potential future airport on the Pickering lands
Other airports: • Toronto City Centre • Limited potential as commercial Airport reliever airports. • Buttonville • At some risk of closure. Municipal Airport • Oshawa Municipal Airport
Scope Other airports that may have • Peterborough Expansion enhanced roles in the future, Municipal Airport particularly if any airports close. •Lake Simcoe Regional Airport •Brampton Airport • Burlington Airpark
During the course of the study, the GTAA identified the omission of some other airports within the GGH as a gap in the study. As a result, the scope of airports was subsequently expanded to include four additional airports that may potentially have enhanced roles in the future, particularly in the event of airport closures within the system. As noted in the lower portion of Table 1-1, these four additional airports are Peterborough Municipal Airport, Lake Simcoe Regional Airport, Brampton Airport and Burlington Airpark. The locations of these ten existing airports, plus the Pickering lands, are illustrated in Figure 1-1.
Ch. 1, Page 4 of 8 Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1-1 Airport Scope
Ch. 1, Page 5 of 8 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
1.5 Chapter Profile
This section outlines the topics discussed in each of the remaining chapters of this document, and identifies the links between the chapters. Chapter 2 provides a summary of previous studies that directly pertain to the need for an airport on the Pickering lands, or set the context for other studies that address this question. The material in this chapter is referenced in Chapter 12, where the overall needs case is presented. Chapter 3 outlines air traffic forecasts for the airport system, based on Transport Canada forecasts. These forecasts review passengers, passenger aircraft movements, and general aviation aircraft movements, and are used in the traffic allocation work in Chapters 8 and 9. Chapter 4 quantifies the aircraft movement and passenger capacities of Pearson, for the current infrastructure as well as with the planned addition of a sixth runway and further expansion of Terminal 1. It also considers potential means of further increasing the airport’s capacity in the long term. The capacity information from this chapter and Chapter 5, will be integrated with the traffic forecasts from Chapter 3 to support the traffic allocation work in Chapters 8 and 9. Chapter 5 quantifies the capacities of the other nine existing airports within the scope of the study. For the airports that currently have scheduled commercial passenger service, (Hamilton, Waterloo and City Centre) the capacities are defined in terms of the number of passengers that the terminal and related facilities can accommodate, as well as the number of aircraft movements the runway system can handle. For the other airports, the capacity is defined in terms of the runway system. The capacities of the current facilities are estimated, as are the planned and future potential capacities at these airports. In Chapter 6, a ground transportation model is applied to estimate future access times to Pearson and each of the potential reliever airports. This model serves as the basis for defining catchment areas associated with each airport. In Chapter 8, the demographic base associated with each airport catchment area is applied to help predict the likely distribution of passengers across the airport system under a range of airport development scenarios. Chapter 7 examines major North American multiple airport systems to identify how they have evolved, identify how the air carrier community typically responds, evaluate each system’s level of success, draw comparisons to the GGH market, and identify key success factors for the establishment of secondary airports.
Ch. 1, Page 6 of 8 Chapter 1: Introduction
In Chapter 8, the potential distribution of air passengers across the airport system is assessed under a wide range of possible airport system scenarios. The scenarios to be considered include the development of zero, one, two or three commercial reliever airports to complement Pearson. Chapter 9 assesses the potential distribution of corporate jet and general aviation demand across the airport system and under a broad range of possible airport system development scenarios. The scenarios considered include various combinations of airport closures, as well as options with and without the development of a corporate jet/general aviation airport in Pickering. Chapter 10 assesses the Transport Canada air cargo forecasts for the region’s airports and estimates the airport system’s current and potential future air cargo capacity. Lastly, it considers the likely distribution of air cargo demand under alternative airport system development scenarios. Chapter 11 assesses the overall airport system traffic allocation, which brings together the passenger, corporate jet/general aviation and air cargo traffic allocations from Chapters 8, 9 and 10. Chapter 12 presents the overall needs case for an airport in Pickering, based on the conclusions of the previous studies summarized in Chapter 2, as well as the new work completed as part of this study and documented in Chapters 3 through 11.
Ch. 1, Page 7 of 8 Ch. 1, Page 8 of 8 CHAPTER 2 Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
A key part of the Needs Assessment Study scope is to review previous reports that are of relevance to the potential need for an airport on the Pickering lands. This chapter summarizes the results of that historical review. The documentation associated with the new work that has been undertaken as part of the Needs Assessment Study begins in Chapter 3. The review of previous work pertinent to the potential development of an airport on the Pickering lands will focus on more recent initiatives, from the late 1980s to the present time. However, this chapter begins with a brief overview of the earlier aviation-related history of the site, to set the overall context for readers that may not be familiar with the beginnings of the Pickering Airport project in the late 1960s and 1970s. The chapter then provides a short summary of the key historical studies undertaken over the last 20 years, in chronological order, up to the requirement for this current Needs Assessment Study.
Ch. 2, Page 1 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
2.1 Brief History of the Early Years of the Pickering Lands (1968–1988)
In 1968, in response to rapid air traffic growth, expansion plans for Pearson (at the time named Toronto International Airport, Malton) were announced by the federal government, including additional runways to supplement the three-runway configuration that existed at that time. However, by the end of that same year, the decision to add new runways at Pearson was reversed, due primarily to opposition from area residents and municipalities related to the impact of aircraft noise from the first generation jets of that era. The decision not to expand Pearson shifted the focus of aviation planning for the Toronto area to the development of a new international airport. Over sixty potential locations within 80 km of Toronto were identified for a new airport. A screening process narrowed the initial list to four sites for detailed examination, including sites south of Lake Simcoe, south of Lake Scugog, east of Guelph, and west of Orangeville. However, the Province of Ontario released studies indicating a preference for an airport site towards the east. In the early 1970s, two additional sites were examined, one in the east, just north of Pickering, and one in the west near Peters Corners. Following federal/provincial examination, the federal government decided the preferred site was the eastern one, and it acquired 7,530 hectares of land in the municipalities of Pickering, Markham and Uxbridge, which become known as the Pickering lands. The decision raised considerable controversy and, in response, the federal government established an Airport Inquiry Commission in 1973 to re-examine the decision. In 1974, after extensive consultations, the commission concluded that there was no new evidence that a second major airport was not needed, so the planning for the new airport continued. In 1975, just as construction was starting, the project was halted by the federal government following the provincial government’s decision not to provide the roads and utilities to the site, as had been anticipated. Following the cancellation of the project, the lands were retained and administered by the federal government. With the cancellation of the plans to build a new airport, Toronto area airport planning efforts refocused on attaining as much capacity as possible out of the Pearson site. Two new master plans for Pearson were released in 1982 and 1986, recommending a third terminal building, and ultimately leading to the development of Terminal 3. Consistent with previous ministerial commitments, the master plans of the 1980s did not contemplate the addition of new runways. However, it was noted that in the longer term, additional runway capacity would be required if Pearson were to continue being the primary airport for air carrier traffic in the Toronto area.
Ch. 2, Page 2 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
2.2 Aviation in Southern Ontario—A Strategy for the Future (1989–1990)
Significant congestion problems developed at Pearson in the late 1980s, following a period of rapid traffic growth. Over the five-year period from 1983 to 1988, passenger traffic at Pearson had increased from 14 to 20 million and aircraft movements had increased from 240,000 to almost 350,000, representing increases of over 40 per cent. The resulting aircraft delays on the airfield and congestion in the terminal and groundside facilities caused widespread frustration among airport users as well as broader economic consequences to the region. Transport Canada identified a number of factors that had contributed to the onset of congestion at Pearson: • Increased demand for air travel stimulated by a strong economy. • Deregulation of the domestic air carrier industry, which gave the airlines more freedom to choose the routes to serve, and sparked unprecedented competition among the airlines. • A shift by the major national carriers to the use of ‘hub-and-spoke’ route networks, including the development of Pearson as their central- Canada hub, resulting in a significant increase in the use of smaller commuter aircraft to link the smaller spoke communities to the Pearson hub. • A short-term shortage of air traffic controllers. • Insufficient runway capacity at Pearson.
In 1988, the Minister of Transport introduced a flight reservation system at Pearson, as a means of ‘capping’ the number of hourly aircraft movements during the peak periods and to help alleviate the congestion problems. In addition, the department identified and evaluated a number of other potential solutions based on their ability to deliver congestion relief within the short-to-medium term. These options included: a. Do nothing b. Limit access to Pearson c. Improve efficiency d. Introduce pricing mechanisms e. Divert traffic to other airports f. Add airside capacity at Pearson
Ch. 2, Page 3 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Transport Canada concluded that the first five options were unacceptable or were not able to deliver sufficient relief from congestion at Pearson within the short-to-medium term. The diversion of traffic to a new airport at Pickering was not considered in option v), as it could not be delivered in the short-medium term. Based on this work, in August 1989, the Minister of Transport and Minister of State announced a strategy to deal with the growing congestion problems at Pearson and the future growth of aviation in Southern Ontario. The strategy was subsequently documented in the Transport Canada report Aviation in Southern Ontario—A Strategy for the Future, published in January 1990. The strategy stated that: • Pearson would continue to be the major airport for the area and be developed to its optimal social, economic, environmental and transportation capacity. • Other airports in the area would be developed in the long term according to a system-wide plan for Southern Ontario in which each airport would fulfil its respective role to meet future aviation demands.
The strategy identified a number of short-term, medium-term and long- term measures to address future airport capacity requirements in southern Ontario. These measures included:
Short Term • Increased recruitment and training of air traffic controllers. • Maintaining the flight reservation system and associated flight ‘cap’.
Medium Term Construction of new east-west and north-south runways at Pearson, which would be subject to the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review process.
Note: This proposal became known as the Pearson Airside Development Project, and is discussed later in this chapter.
Ch. 2, Page 4 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
Long Term • Development of a new master plan for Pearson to identify its ultimate role and optimal capacity.
Note: An updated Pearson Master Plan was published in 1995, and is discussed later in this chapter.
• Development of a system-wide plan for the airports in southern Ontario to assess the long-term role of each airport in meeting future aviation demands. The strategy specifically mentioned the possible development of an airport on the Pickering lands as an alternative to be considered in the system-wide plan.
Note: The resulting plan was published in 1995 under the name of Southern Ontario Areas Airports Study, which is discussed later in this chapter.
Although the Aviation in Southern Ontario—A Strategy for the Future document only briefly mentioned the alternative of building a new airport on the Pickering lands, it is an important document in the context of this review of historical reports. It established the framework for future aviation planning work in the Toronto area, under which a number of key documents were produced, including the Pearson Airside Development Project studies, the 1995 Pearson Master Plan and the Southern Ontario Area Airports Study, which will be discussed in the following sections.
2.3 Pearson Airside Development Project Environmental Impact Statement (1991)
In response to the strategy’s medium term measure of adding new runways at Pearson—which was termed the Pearson Airside Development Project—and the appointment of an environmental review panel, Transport Canada prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was released in April 1991. As part of the environmental assessment of the Airside Development Project, Transport Canada considered a range of alternatives to solve the medium-term congestion problem. This work was documented in the EIS, as well as in a supporting document entitled Consideration of Alternatives for
Ch. 2, Page 5 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
the Airside Development Project at LBPIA. A brief description of the alternatives considered in these documents is provided below, with emphasis on those that would involve the development of an airport on the Pickering lands. 1Do Nothing Under this alternative, no action would be taken by Transport Canada to address the capacity deficiencies at Pearson. As a result, the airport would not be able to meet growing demand and local economic growth would be constrained, leading to the rejection of this alternative. 2 Modal Shift The potential to divert air transportation demand from Pearson to a high- speed rail corridor in the Windsor-Quebec corridor was evaluated. The estimated diversion of air traffic demand in the corridor to high-speed rail was estimated to be in the order of ten to 40 per cent representing up to six per cent of the total air traffic at Pearson. However, it was not considered feasible to implement a high-speed rail system within the medium term, so this alternative was rejected. 3 Base Case Improvements Under this alternative, the airside facilities at Pearson would be optimized through the addition of high-speed exits and taxiways as well as air navigation equipment upgrades, to provide the maximum capacity from the existing three runway system. It was concluded that although these improvements could provide some congestion relief, they would not be sufficient to meet the medium-term needs. This alternative was carried forward in the EIS for comparative purposes, as the ‘base case’ alternative. 4 Introduce Pricing Mechanisms Pricing mechanisms, such as peak-period surcharges, were considered as a means to slow the growth of demand or to divert some demand to off-peak hours. However, the report concludes that since airport charges are a relatively small component of an air carrier’s operating costs, peak-period pricing would be relatively ineffective at controlling peak period demand. The most likely effect of peak-period pricing was predicted to be decreased air service to smaller communities. This alternative was rejected. 5 Divert Traffic to Other Existing Airports Under this alternative, consideration was given to diverting traffic from Pearson to other existing airports through the imposition of traffic restrictions at Pearson. The report concluded that there were no existing airports that could offer sufficient airport capacity to meet medium-term needs as well as reasonable ground access to both the Toronto market and to Pearson for passenger connections. Some of the limiting factors identified were insufficient runway lengths at Buttonville, Oshawa and City Centre, airspace conflicts between Downsview and Pearson, poor ground access between Hamilton Airport and Toronto, and the tripartite restrictions at City Centre.
Ch. 2, Page 6 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
In addition, it was argued that forcing airlines or traffic sectors to move their operations to another airport would be discriminatory and contrary to government policy. For these reasons, this alternative was discarded from further consideration. 6Two-Airport System Under this alternative, one other airport in the region would be developed to relieve substantial volumes of passenger traffic from Pearson, resulting in the region being served by two major commercial airports. Of the existing airports in the region, only Hamilton was considered to have the potential for expansion to the magnitude envisioned in this scenario. The other possibility considered was the development of a new airport in Pickering. It was deemed necessary for a second major airport to have efficient ground access to both the Toronto market and to Pearson to facilitate passenger transfers. It was concluded that new highways or rapid transit links would be required for either the Hamilton or Pickering sites, and that these could not be provided within the medium-term. Furthermore, to offer the capacity required in Hamilton, it was determined that it would be necessary to completely replace the terminal facilities, expropriate additional lands, extend at least one runway, build new taxiways and perhaps build a fourth runway (at that time Hamilton Airport had three runways, one of which has since been decommissioned). At Pickering, all elements of a major airport would have to be planned, designed and built, including off-site supporting services. In either case, it would take a number of years to develop an airport of this magnitude, effectively precluding it as an option to provide short or medium term relief to Pearson. It was also noted that the cost of providing such facilities at Hamilton or Pickering would be much higher than the proposed addition of runways at Pearson. Lastly, air carrier operations would be split between two airports, increasing overall operating costs through duplication of infrastructure, operating and maintenance functions and personnel. This alternative was rejected from further analysis as a medium-term solution. However, the EIS noted that the possibility of developing an airport of this magnitude at Pickering in the long term would be considered in the southern Ontario airport plan. 7 Replacement Airport at Pickering This alternative would consist of building a new airport at Pickering that would be capable of accepting all the existing traffic at Pearson plus accommodate the region’s future traffic growth, with the closure of Pearson. Since the size of a replacement airport would be significantly larger than the second major airport contemplated in the previous alternative, all of the same concerns would be applicable, and likely magnified, with the exception of the need to split air carrier operations.
Ch. 2, Page 7 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
In addition, the abandonment of several billion dollars worth of single- purpose infrastructure at Pearson that could not easily be transformed to other uses would be required. The report also identified the economic displacement of the industries around Pearson that provide services to the airport or depend upon its air services as a substantial impact. As a result of all of these considerations, the replacement of Pearson with a new airport at Pickering was not considered a viable medium-term option, and was not considered further. 8 Addition of New Runways at Pearson In this alternative, Pearson would be improved through the implementation of the base case improvements previously described under alternative iii), and expanded through the construction of one or more new runways. Within this alternative, a number of options were considered, including various combinations of one or two new east-west runways to alleviate congestion in the airport’s primary direction of operation, and a new north-south runway to provide additional capacity when wind conditions preclude use of the east-west runways. In the end, an alternative consisting of three new runways was identified as the best overall medium-term alternative, and was carried forward as the recommended solution in the Airside Development Project. The three- runway proposal was comprised of: • One new north-south runway (later constructed and designated 15R-33L). • Two new east-west runways (one now constructed and designated 06R-24L, and the other planned as the future 05R-23L).
Subsequent to the release of the EIS, Transport Canada prepared a follow-up document entitled Alternatives to the Airside Development Project at Pearson to provide the environmental assessment panel further information regarding the possibility of diverting traffic from Pearson to other existing airports or to a new airport in Pickering, in the medium term, as an alternative to building new runways at Pearson. The report confirmed that there was limited opportunity to address the short-to-medium term capacity shortfall at Pearson through the development of other airport sites. Specifically regarding the alternative of Pickering, the report estimated that the lead time for the development of an airport would be approximately ten years, well beyond the anticipated requirement for additional capacity. However, the report emphasised that some of the sites, particularly Hamilton and Pickering, could potentially have a significant role in the longer term, something that would be examined in the Southern Ontario system-wide plan.
Ch. 2, Page 8 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
2.4 Interim Report of the Federal Environmental Assessment Panel (1992)
In its November 1992 report, the Panel concluded that due to the onset of the 1991/92 recession subsequent to Transport Canada’s preparation of the EIS, and expected changes in the Canadian airline industry, the traffic levels projected in the EIS for 1996 were not likely to be reached until 2001 or later. The Panel agreed with Transport Canada that if it were necessary to provide additional east-west runway capacity by 1996, as had been suggested in the EIS, the options of providing that capacity through a major expansion of another existing airport or at a new airport on the Pickering Lands would not be possible in that time frame. However, since the Panel believed that it would no longer be necessary to provide additional capacity until at least 2001, it concluded that sufficient time existed to consider alternatives to additional east-west runways at Pearson, including a new airport on the Pickering Lands, within the broader context of Transport Canada’s system- wide airports plan for southern Ontario. As a result, the Panel did not reach any conclusion concerning Transport Canada’s proposal to add two new east-west runways at Pearson.
2.5 Pearson 1995 Master Plan
Transport Canada released a new Master Plan for Pearson in 1995, approximately one year prior to the transfer of the airport to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. The production of a new Master Plan for Pearson was one of the two long-term initiatives announced in Transport Canada’s 1989 airports strategy. Consistent with that strategy, the 1995 Master Plan was based on the premise that Pearson would be developed to its optimal capacity. The Master Plan identified the airport’s capacity limit to be up to 50 million passengers and 555,000 aircraft movements. This assumed the eventual construction of the full six-runway configuration proposed in the Airside Development Project, as per a 1993 decision by the federal government to proceed immediately with the construction of the second north-south runway, and the construction of the two new east-west runways as demand warrants. It also envisaged the redevelopment of the original Terminal 1, as well as a possible new infield passenger terminal. The planning horizon of the 1995 Master Plan extended to the year 2020, at which time demand at Pearson was projected to be 45 million passengers and 530,000 aircraft movements.
Ch. 2, Page 9 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Since the Master Plan identified facility expansions at Pearson that have the capacity to accommodate the projected traffic forecasts for the duration of the planning period, it did not address the development of any other airport facilities in the region. The only reference made in the document to the development of a second major airport for the region was that such development at that time would be premature.
2.6 Southern Ontario Area Airports Study (1995)
The Southern Ontario Area Airports Study (SOAAS) represented one of the two long-term initiatives in Transport Canada’s 1989 airports strategy. SOAAS was undertaken concurrently with the other long-term initiative, the development of a new Master Plan for Pearson, and Transport Canada released both in 1995. In 1994, as the SOAAS was being prepared, the Minister of Transport announced a new National Airports Policy, which defined a much narrower role for the federal government in the airport system. Under the National Airports Policy, the federal government would remove itself from the operation of most airports, by leasing the major airports, and transferring ownership of smaller ones to local authorities. The Policy was based on the premise that local control of airports would allow the airports to more directly respond to the needs of the users and the communities that these airports served. The federal government retained its responsibility for aviation safety and security standards. In fact, plans for the transfer of the operation and development of Pearson from the federal government to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority were already underway when the SOAAS report was released in March 1995. The SOAAS report indicates that given the National Airports Policy’s emphasis on decision making at the local level, it is unlikely that the federal government would have initiated a study like SOAAS under this new airport environment. However, since SOAAS was well on its way to completion when the new policy was announced, it was decided to complete the study so that it would be available as a resource for local governments and airport operators. In keeping with this approach, the report draws technical conclusions regarding potential airport system alternatives, but refrains from making specific recommendations. SOAAS represents the most recent detailed assessment of the long term roles of airports in south-central Ontario, and their ability to accommodate the forecast traffic demand, prior to the present study.
Ch. 2, Page 10 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
2.6.1 Objectives SOAAS examined the roles of airports in south-central Ontario with the following study objectives: 1 Examine the capacities and traffic volumes at airports within 100 km of downtown Toronto to determine if the area’s airports can reasonably accommodate future traffic volumes. 2 Examine the potential of any existing airports in south-central Ontario to supplement the role of Pearson. 3 Examine the need for continued retention of the Pickering lands for airport purposes.
2.6.2 Study Scope The study area defined for SOAAS was an area within a radius of approximately 100 km from downtown Toronto. All land aerodromes within this study area that had a paved runway over 610 m (2,000 ft.) in length and were available for year-round civilian use were included in the study, which consisted of the following twenty airports: • Barrie Executive Airpark • Brampton Airport • Brantford Airport •Burlington Airpark • Buttonville Municipal Airport •Downsview Airport • Grimsby Airpark •Guelph Airpark •Hamilton Airport • Lindsay Airpark •Markham Airport • Oro-Barrie-Orillia Regional Airport (now Lake Simcoe Regional Airport) • Oshawa Airport • Peterborough Airport •St. Catharines Airport • Stoney Creek Aerodrome • Toronto City Centre Airport •Toronto Pearson • Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport (now Region of Waterloo International Airport) •Welland Airport
Ch. 2, Page 11 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
The Pickering lands were also included in the scope of the study as a potential airport site. Figure 2-1 illustrates the location of the resulting twenty-one airport sites.
Figure 2-1 SOAAS Airport Scope
2.6.3 Airport Summaries The key observations and conclusions from the SOAAS Report that pertain to the airports that fall within the scope of the Needs Assessment Study are summarized in this section. 2.6.3.1 Pearson
Owner: Transport Canada
Operator: Transport Canada
Longest Runway: 11,050 feet
1995 Status: Pearson was handling approximately 19 million passengers and 305,000 aircraft movements when the SOAAS report was being written. Although the airport was still being operated by Transport Canada, negotiations for the transfer of the development and operation of the airport to the GTAA were already underway.
Ch. 2, Page 12 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
The capacity assumptions for Pearson used in the SOAAS report were adopted from the 1995 Pearson Master Plan work that was being undertaken concurrently. Based on the existing infrastructure at the airport in 1995, it was estimated to have a runway capacity of up to 410,000 aircraft movements and a terminal facility capacity of approximately 28 million passengers.
Future Outlook: With the planned addition of the three new runways, as described in the 1995 Master Plan, the runway capacity was envisioned to increase up to 555,000 aircraft movements, and with the redevelopment of old Terminal 1 and the addition of an infield terminal, the terminal capacity was projected to be 50 million passengers. The report indicated that based on the current traffic forecasts, the full six-runway capacity at Pearson would be reached within the 2012-2025 time period, while the terminal capacity would be attained somewhat later, in 2028. 2.6.3.2 Oshawa
Owner: Transport Canada
Operator: City of Oshawa
Longest Runway: 4,000 feet
1995 Status: Just prior to SOAAS, Oshawa Airport had received federal and provincial funding to extend the main runway to 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) and to build a new terminal building at the north end of the site.
Future Outlook: With these improvements, SOAAS concluded that the airport was expected to have the capacity to meet forecast demand until well after the planning period. The report also noted that the Region of Durham Official Plan indicated that the airport would close if an airport in Pickering were developed. 2.6.3.3 City Centre
Owners: Transport Canada, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commission
Operator: Toronto Harbour Commission
Longest Runway: 4,000 feet
1995 Status: Transport Canada and the City of Toronto leased their portions of the site to the Toronto Harbour Commission, who operated the airport under a 1983 Tripartite Agreement. The agreement, which expires in 2033, places a number of restrictions on the development and use of the airport including a jet ban, prohibiting a fixed link to the mainland, a limit of total aircraft noise and prohibiting expansion beyond the existing seawalls.
Ch. 2, Page 13 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
In addition to serving corporate, flight training and private aircraft activities, the airport also served regional passenger traffic, although passenger traffic was much lower than it had been in the late 1980s. The airport was considered very important by the downtown business community and, due to its proximity to the downtown hospitals, was critical to the operation of air ambulance services. The airport received an annual operating subsidy from Transport Canada and the ferry service was subsidized by the province.
Future Outlook: SOAAS noted that both the airport and the ferry subsidies were scheduled to be phased out, which may leave the airport potentially at risk of closure. If that were to happen, SOAAS concluded that the only significant impact within the system would be a modest increase in activity at Pearson that might cause it to reach capacity a couple years earlier than it otherwise would. Conversely, if the prohibitions against jets and a fixed link were removed, the report predicted that passenger demand would significantly increase, marginally deferring the time when Pearson would reach capacity. Adequate runway capacity exists to meet this potential, but additional passenger terminal capacity would be required. The local business community strongly endorsed such development; however, waterfront residents were opposed because they had concerns about aircraft noise and emissions, especially if jet traffic were allowed. Finally, SOAAS stated that increased passenger service may be the only way for the airport to become financially viable in an era without airport subsidies. 2.6.3.4 Buttonville
Owner: Toronto Airways Limited
Operator: Toronto Airways Limited
Longest Runway: 4,000 feet
1995 Status: In addition to serving the business and private aircraft operators, Buttonville was an active flight training base and supported scheduled commuter service to Ottawa, Montreal and Hamilton. The airport was being subsidized by the province and the Region of York, through a deal that was set to expire in 1998, although it could be renewed for a further three years under existing terms. As the closest airport to downtown Toronto, other than Pearson, where corporate jets can operate, Buttonville fulfilled an important role by attracting activity that might otherwise choose Pearson. This role, however, was diminished by the relatively short runway lengths available that cannot accommodate the larger corporate jets.
Ch. 2, Page 14 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
Future Outlook: While the subsidization agreement could be renewed, the upcoming expiry date raised the possibility that the owner could potentially covert the prime land to non-airport uses. Should this happen, SOAAS concluded that the only significant impact within the system would be a modest increase in corporate aircraft wanting to use Pearson that might cause it to reach capacity a couple of years earlier than it otherwise would. The airport had sufficient runway capacity to meet demand within the planning period. The report indicated that the terminal may reach capacity and require some limited expansion. 2.6.3.5 Hamilton
Owner: Transport Canada
Operator: Leased to the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth
Longest Runway: 8,000 feet
1995 Status: Hamilton Airport had the most extensive terminal and airside facilities in the study area other than Pearson. However, it had not been successful in attracting and retaining more than limited passenger services, and was significantly underused. It had successfully developed a niche role as a cargo/courier airport, largely due to the night flight restrictions at Pearson.
Future Outlook: Due to the planned new Highway 6, which would improve access to the airport from Highway 403, SOAAS believed that the Transport Canada forecasts may understate future demand in Hamilton. Even with additional traffic growth, SOAAS concluded that capacity for both aircraft movements and passengers would be adequate for the planning period. 2.6.3.6 Burlington Airpark
Owner: Mr. Vince Kovachik
Operator: Mr. Vince Kovachik
Longest Runway: 2,800 feet
1995 Status: Burlington Airpark served mainly flight training and private aircraft operators, with limited business flying.
Future Outlook: SOAAS concluded that the geographic location of Burlington Airpark provides an opportunity for the airport to attract additional traffic in the future, with some runway and instrument approach improvements. In particular, it could attract more corporate aviation activity, potentially providing some limited relief to Pearson. However, the
Ch. 2, Page 15 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
report notes that the ceiling and visibility limits associated with an instrument approach at the airport could be sub-optimal due to the proximity of the Niagara escarpment. The airport capacity was not likely to be exceeded within the planning period. 2.6.3.7 Brampton
Owner: Brampton Flying Club
Operator: Brampton Flying Club
Longest Runway: 3,500 feet
1995 Status: Brampton Airport was used by light aircraft for flight training and private flying, in keeping with the role of the airport’s owner.
Future Outlook: SOAAS concluded that the airport had the potential to be developed into a facility with the capacity to relieve corporate traffic from Pearson. However, the Brampton Flying Club did not envision a significant change in the airport’s role. SOAAS did not foresee any capacity concerns at the airport. 2.6.3.8 Oro-Barrie-Orillia Airport (now the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport)
Owner: City of Barrie, Township of Oro and the City of Orillia
Operator: Oro-Barrie-Orillia Airport Commission
Longest Runway: 5,000 ft.
1995 Status: The Oro-Barrie-Orillia Airport was a fairly new facility that opened in 1991. It was built to accommodate the area’s flight training, private, corporate and other commercial aviation needs, but as of 1995 had limited operations due to the continued operation of Barrie Executive Airpark. SOAAS indicated that Barrie Executive Airpark is expected to close in the future.
Future Outlook: SOAAS concluded that the Oro-Barrie-Orillia Airport had no expected capacity concerns within the planning period, even with the absorption of the traffic from Barrie Executive, if it were to close. 2.6.3.9 Peterborough
Owner: City of Peterborough
Operator: City of Peterborough
Longest Runway: 5,000 feet
Ch. 2, Page 16 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
1995 Status: Peterborough supported commuter passenger services, small charter and cargo services, commercial flight training and private/corporate aircraft activities. SOAAS noted that it was the closest airport east of downtown Toronto with a runway long enough to handle the full range of corporate jets. Some aircraft transporting cargo associated with the General Motors facilities in Oshawa used Peterborough because of the availability of the longer runway.
Future Outlook: The future role of the airport was seen as supporting local business aviation activities and commuter passenger services. The role of the airport in providing services to the eastern portion of the GTA was considered to be highly dependant on what happens at other airports. For example, if Buttonville and/or City Centre were to close, SOAAS concluded that Peterborough would likely capture some of the displaced traffic. On the other hand, if an airport at Pickering were built with a runway longer than is presently available in the eastern part of the GTA, Peterborough would likely lose some current GTA bound traffic. Under any of these scenarios, SOAAS concluded that Peterborough would have adequate capacity to handle the traffic demand. 2.6.3.10 Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport (now Region of Waterloo International Airport)
Owner: Region of Waterloo and the City of Guelph
Operator: Waterloo Guelph Regional Airport Commission
Longest Runway: 5,200 ft.
1995 Status: The airport’s main focus was on serving the local communities, and accommodated a mix of corporate, cargo, commercial and private activities. It previously had scheduled commuter services, but not in 1995 when the SOAAS report was published.
Future Outlook: SOAAS noted that the airport’s Master Plan recommended a new terminal building and extension of the main runway subject to adequate demand, but with a continued focus on the aviation requirements of the local communities. The airport could potentially capture some corporate and private aviation activities from the western part of the GTA in the future. Even if that were to happen, the report stated that it was unlikely that the traffic volumes would exceed the available capacity within the planning period.
Ch. 2, Page 17 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
2.6.3.11 Other Airports The other ten airports considered in the SOAAS report are not within the scope of the Needs Assessment Study and, in all of these cases, SOAAS concluded that no capacity concerns are anticipated within the planning horizon. Given these facts, the discussions in the SOAAS report related to these airports are not summarized in this report, aside from the three noteworthy observations that follow. • Barrie Executive Airpark is situated on land that is expected to eventually be developed for non-airport uses, but SOAAS concluded that the Oro-Barrie-Orillia airport (Lake Simcoe Regional) could readily absorb its traffic. • The operation of Markham airport would be severely constrained to the point of closing if an airport on the Pickering lands were developed. • Downsview airport, owned by Bombardier in support of its aircraft manufacturing business, does not have the potential for a major increase in traffic due to airspace conflicts with Pearson and large immediately adjacent residential areas.
2.6.4 Lack of Adequate Runway Length in the Eastern GTA The report notes that some corporate aviation users destined to the eastern part of the GTA were forced to use Pearson because the airports in the central or eastern portions of the GTA lack the runway length they require, and could not lengthen their runways sufficiently to meet this need. As a result, SOAAS suggested that a corporate/commuter airport on the Pickering lands with adequate runway length (1,829 m or 6,000 ft.) to serve the full range of corporate jets could be viable within the planning period, perhaps as early as 2010-2012. It was also noted that with the addition of passenger terminal facilities, such a facility could potentially be attractive to a commuter passenger air carrier. Lastly, SOAAS concluded that a corporate/commuter airport on the Pickering lands would also ease the additional pressure that would be exerted on Pearson if Buttonville and/or City Centre airports were to close, by accommodating some of the displaced traffic.
Ch. 2, Page 18 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
2.6.5 Overall Demand/Capacity Conclusions The conclusions drawn in the SOAAS report that are relevant to determining whether the airport system has the capacity to meet forecast demand, and whether there is a need for an airport at Pickering are as follows: • Pearson will likely reach capacity sometime within the 2012-2025 time period, requiring the development of a second major commercial airport for the region. • If there are no changes in airport roles, none of the other airports are expected to have a substantial capacity shortfall in the planning period. • Buttonville and City Centre may be at some risk of closure. If that were to occur, the remaining airports would have the capacity to adequately handle the displaced traffic, with the only significant impact being Pearson reaching capacity slightly earlier than it otherwise would. • The Pickering lands will be very attractive for a corporate/commuter airport within the planning period.
2.6.6 Development of a Second Major Airport As noted in the preceding section, SOAAS concluded that Pearson would reach its anticipated capacity by 2025 at the latest. As a result, SOAAS concluded that “…inevitably there will be a need for a second major international airport.”, and “If planning is not started early enough so that facilities are available when needed, there could be significant economic loss to the GTA”. As a result of these conclusions, the SOAAS team considered possible alternative sites for a new major commercial airport. Their review of all existing airports in the area concluded that: • Without major expansion, none of the existing airports has the potential to assume significant amounts of off-loaded traffic from Pearson. • The only existing airport that has the technical potential for major expansion is Hamilton.
The Pickering site was also considered as a potential location for the second major airport. No consideration was given to any other “green” site, since this exercise had been undertaken in detail prior to the selection of the Pickering site, and a review of that decision was not within the SOAAS mandate.
Ch. 2, Page 19 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
2.6.6.1 Hamilton-Pickering Comparison The SOAAS Team conducted a review of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of Hamilton and Pickering for a new major airport in the longer term. For this purpose, SOAAS defined a new “major” airport as one having adequate facilities to serve 15 million passengers annually, as well as the potential for further expansion. The issues for which the report concluded that one site has an advantage over the other site are described in this section.
Natural Environment The natural environment on and surrounding Hamilton Airport was not believed to be particularly sensitive to increased airport development, largely because of the lack of subsurface pathways that could allow contaminants generated by airport operations to migrate off-site. Conversely, a number of sensitive natural features were identified on the Pickering lands. These include West Duffins Creek and its associated tributaries which support cold water fisheries, a number of tributaries associated with Duffins Creek and kame deposits which could potentially provide a hydrological connection from the surface to aquifers for airport- related contaminants. As a result, the report concluded that greater environmental mitigation efforts would be required in Pickering. However, the report also stated that, provided the facilities are sited to minimize the impacts, it was expected that adequate mitigation measures could be undertaken.
Cost SOAAS concluded that construction cost savings could be realized in Hamilton through the use of some of the existing airport infrastructure. In addition, since the natural environment in Hamilton was believed to be less sensitive than at the Pickering site, environmental mitigation costs would also be minimized. Conversely, it was noted that some land acquisition would be required in Hamilton, whereas sufficient land had already been acquired in Pickering. A very high level estimate indicated that the overall net effect of these differences was that a major airport in Hamilton could cost approximately 10–15 per cent less than in Pickering. Aside from the cost implication of acquiring the necessary land in Hamilton, the report noted that should expropriation be necessary, it would likely be both time consuming and controversial, whereas that process has been completed in Pickering.
Ch. 2, Page 20 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
Design Flexibility The flexibility to plan the second major airport on a greenfield site in Pickering was recognized as an advantage as it could be optimally designed without the potential constraints that the existing facilities in Hamilton could impose.
Aircraft Noise Impacts SOAAS analyzed the extent to which the operation of a major airport in Hamilton and Pickering would impact residents in existing residential areas and in planned future residential areas from an aircraft noise perspective. Through the production of noise contours using Transport Canada’s Noise Exposure Forecast Model, they estimated that the number of existing residents that could be impacted by aircraft noise from the operation of a major airport at Hamilton was approximately 21,400 residents, compared to approximately 2,700 at Pickering, reflecting a factor of eight in favour of Pickering. In addition, a further 22,600 residents could potentially be impacted in future residential developments around Hamilton, compared to none at Pickering.
Groundside Access SOAAS noted that the plans for Highway 407 indicated that it would pass directly south of the Pickering lands, providing good ground access to other areas of the GTA. In addition, the report observed that the Pickering lands have two existing rail lines, each potentially capable of providing transit access to downtown Toronto. SOAAS indicated that road access to Hamilton Airport, which had been frequently cited as a major impediment to the airport’s growth, would be improved through the planned new Highway 6 linking the airport with Highway 403. However, it also concluded that due to increasing congestion on Highway 403 over time, access from Hamilton Airport to the GTA will likely continue to be constrained. Unlike the Pickering site, there are no rail lines in close proximity to Hamilton Airport.
Connectivity with Pearson The road distance between Pearson and Hamilton is 70 km, compared to 50 km between Pearson and Pickering, a factor that the SOAAS report stated favours Pickering as there inevitably would be some connecting traffic between Pearson and a second major airport.
Community Support Municipal and business community support for an airport at Hamilton was deemed to be quite strong, but that support was somewhat balanced by some residential opposition to night flight noise, even at the activity levels experienced at the time that SOAAS was being undertaken. SOAAS noted that at Pickering, there had been a long history of strong local opposition to
Ch. 2, Page 21 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
an airport, which they concluded had not appeared to decrease over time. However, the report indicated that there was strong business community support and some municipal support for the eventual development of an airport at Pickering.
Proximity to the Market The report identified the proximity of the second major airport to the market as the most important consideration. Based on the 1991 census, there was a population of 660,000 within a 30 km radius of Hamilton Airport, compared to 1,600,000 within the same radius of the Pickering lands, representing a factor of 2.5 in favour of Pickering. It was also noted that provincial plans called for higher population growth rates to the north and east of the GTA than to the west. It was also observed that in terms of distance, the Pickering site is approximately 40 km from the key downtown Toronto market, while Hamilton is significantly further at 70 km. Finally, the report emphasized that the development of the second airport even further to the west than Pearson would leave the large population in the eastern portion of the GTA poorly served. As a result, from the perspective of providing the best level of service to the GTA market as a whole, the report concluded that it would be preferable to have a major airport in each half of the market, a factor favouring the Pickering site.
Summary Table 2-1 summarizes the results of the SOAAS comparison of Hamilton and Pickering as the potential second major airport for the region.
Ch. 2, Page 22 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
Table 2-1: Summary of Hamilton and Pickering Comparison
Criteria Hamilton Pickering
Natural • less sensitive • more sensitive Environment
Cost • lower (by ten to 15 per cent) • higher by ten to • acquisition of land required 15 per cent • no further land required
Design • design around existing facilities • greater design Flexibility flexibility
Aircraft • 21,400 current residents in • 2,700 current Noise contours residents in Impacts • 22,600 future residents within contours contours • 0 future residents within contours
Ground • improved highways planned •good highways Access • no easy rail access planned • potential rail access
Connectivity • 70 km from Pearson • 50 km from with Pearson Pearson
Community • strong business community •strong business Support support community • full official plan support support • some residential opposition • some official plan support •some strong residential opposition
Proximity to • leaves eastern GTA underserved •provides best the Market • 70 km to downtown Toronto response to market • 40 km to downtown Toronto
Ch. 2, Page 23 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
2.6.6.2 Conclusions The SOAAS report reached the following fundamental conclusions regarding a second major commercial airport for the region: • While the timing is uncertain, the time will inevitably come when an additional major airport will be needed. • Recognizing that a major airport will take many years to plan, design and build, the challenge will be to develop it prior to south-central Ontario and the GTA suffering economic consequences resulting from an airport capacity shortfall. • Setting aside the market proximity considerations, a case could probably be made for either Hamilton or Pickering as the preferred location for the second major airport. However, “proximity to the market would appear to be the overriding argument that will move the comparison decisively in favour of the Pickering site for future major airport development, when the time comes. At the same time, Hamilton is seen as continuing as an important regional airport with traffic growing in response to the market.” The report goes on to state that “…the SOAAS conclusion is that the Pickering site will likely be the preferred choice and should be retained for airport purposes.”
2.7 Pearson 1999 Master Plan
The GTAA published its first Master Plan for Pearson in November 1999, in accordance with the terms of the ground lease between the GTAA and Transport Canada. The ultimate capacity of the Pearson site in this Master Plan was quantified to be 50 million passengers and 670,000 aircraft movements. The runway capacity calculations included the second north-south runway, which had been commissioned in 1997, and assumed the future addition of the two planned east-west runways. New simulation work utilizing updated aircraft fleet mix projections identified the potential for a higher annual runway capacity at Pearson. The Master Plan also presented the planned redevelopment of original Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 with a single new terminal building to be operated in conjunction with Terminal 3. The planning horizon of the 1999 Master Plan was to the year 2020, at which time demand at Pearson was projected to be 49.7 million passengers and 665,000 aircraft movements. Since this Master Plan also concluded that the airport could be developed to accommodate the demand forecast through to the end of the planning horizon, it did not discuss the potential development of an airport at Pickering, or any other airport in the region.
Ch. 2, Page 24 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
2.8 Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report (2004)
In 2001, the Minister of Transport requested that the GTAA undertake interim planning work associated with the potential development of a regional/reliever airport on the Pickering lands. The results of the GTAA’s planning work were published in the Pickering Draft Plan Report in November 2004. The GTAA’s planning work advanced based on four key assumptions: • The recognition of physical and operational constraints at Buttonville and Oshawa Municipal Airports, and the need to plan for their eventual replacement. • The need for long-term airport capacity, recognizing that Pearson cannot fulfil all of the commercial aviation requirements of the GTA and that it could reach its capacity in the next 20 years. • The need for a regional/reliever airport to the east of Toronto Pearson that complements Hamilton Airport to the west. • The opportunity for strong economic development support to the eastern region of the GTA.
Based on these assumptions, the Draft Plan Report considered the following single scenario for the future development of the airport system: • The closure of Buttonville, Oshawa and Markham airports, with the majority of the displaced traffic relocating to a new general aviation/ corporate aviation airport at Pickering. • The simultaneous development of two commercial reliever airports to complement Pearson as it approaches its capacity—Hamilton to the west and Pickering to the east. As per this strategy, the airport at Pickering would be incrementally expanded, as warranted by demand, to accommodate commercial traffic off-loaded from Pearson, whose capacity was assumed to be 50 million passengers based on the conclusions of the 1999 Pearson Master Plan.
Ch. 2, Page 25 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
The major elements of the planning work that culminated in the production of the Draft Plan Report included: • Forecasting traffic potential at Pickering under the single scenario described above. • Assembling preliminary site-specific environmental information to assist in siting the airport facilities, such that adverse environmental impacts would be minimized. • Siting a three-runway airside configuration, consisting of two parallel runways in the primary direction of operation and one crosswind runway, along with supporting taxiways and air navigation facilities. • Identifying the land area requirements for the non-airfield components of the airport, including the passenger terminal, air cargo terminal, corporate/general aviation, groundside access, parking, aircraft maintenance, and other airport support functions, and siting them within the framework of the recommended runway layout. • Assessing the adequacy of existing land use protections in the vicinity of the Pickering lands in the context of the recommended airport layout, and recommending the adoption of additional interim measures to preserve the option of proceeding with an airport.
The resulting conceptual long-term site layout presented in the Draft Plan Report is shown in Figure 2-2.
Ch. 2, Page 26 of 28 Chapter 2: Previous Work Related to the Need for an Airport in Pickering
Figure 2-2 Conceptual Long-Term Site Layout
The Draft Plan Report conclusions indicate that, based on the underlying demographics of the region, passenger demand at Hamilton would be approximately two thirds that of Pickering. Based on the Transport Canada forecasts available at that time, the distribution of the region’s air passengers in 2032 under this two-reliever system was projected to be 50 million at Pearson, 11.9 million at Pickering and just under eight million at Hamilton. It is important to note that the purpose of the Draft Plan Report differed fundamentally from the purpose of the current Needs Assessment Study. The Draft Plan Report outlined a concept for how an airport could be developed on the Pickering lands under the specific assumptions described above. It was not a demand-capacity assessment of the airport system to determine whether an airport at Pickering will be required, as is the mandate of this current study.
Ch. 2, Page 27 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Although the Draft Plan Report described the GTAA’s vision of how an airport could be developed on the Pickering lands, it clearly stated that the federal government will make the decision whether to build an airport. In addition, as the name of the document implies, the resulting concept is a draft, and should the federal government decide to proceed with the project, the GTAA’s concept would be subject to further review in a federal environmental assessment, and could potentially be modified based upon new information.
2.9 Pearson 2007 Master Plan
The GTAA’s second Master Plan for Pearson was published in December 2007. The ultimate capacity of the Pearson site in this Master Plan was quantified to be 54 million passengers and 680,000 aircraft movements. These calculations included the airport’s fifth runway that had been commissioned in 2002, and assumed the future addition of the final east- west runway to complete the full six-runway configuration. It also proposed the continued development of new Terminal 1 as demand warrants. The Master Plan concluded that the runways would likely be the airport’s capacity limiting factor, since operational experience with the new Terminal 1 had demonstrated the potential for higher passenger throughputs per gate than had been assumed in previous Master Plans. The planning horizon of the 2007 Master Plan extended to the year 2030, at which time demand at Pearson was projected to be 66 million passengers and 801,000 aircraft movements. As a result, it was the first Pearson Master Plan in which the demand levels projected for the end of the planning horizon exceeded the airport’s estimated ultimate capacity. The Master Plan also discussed, in very general terms, some potential means of increasing its ultimate capacity above 54 million passengers, as well as the eventual need to develop one or more other commercial reliever airports to supplement Pearson. A more thorough discussion of Pearson’s capacity, and an examination of potential ways of increasing it, is available in Chapter 4.
Ch. 2, Page 28 of 28 CHAPTER 3 Regional Traffic Forecasts
This chapter compiles the regional traffic forecasts for passengers and aircraft movements that will be discussed in subsequent chapters and compared to airport system capacities. Cargo demand forecasts are outlined separately, in Chapter 10. For the purpose of this study, Transport Canada originally defined regional traffic forecasts for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) area, as the sum of traffic at six specific airports: •Pearson •City Centre • Buttonville •Oshawa •Hamilton •Waterloo
In June 2007, Transport Canada provided passenger and aircraft movement forecasts for each of the airports mentioned above. In some cases, the forecasts extended through to the year 2025, and in other cases they extended to 2030. All Transport Canada forecasts are generated on an unconstrained basis, meaning that they have not been limited by any potential airport capacity restrictions that could occur during the forecast period.
Ch. 3, Page 1 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Where necessary, some revisions were made to the forecasts to meet the requirements of the study. These included extending the forecasts to 2032 by continuing the growth rate trend from the last few years of the Transport Canada forecast period, and generating forecasts for traffic segments not included in the Transport Canada forecasts. In October 2008, in order to test the sensitivity of the study conclusions to the traffic forecasts, Transport Canada provided two updated traffic forecasts to supplement the original forecasts. The first of the new forecasts represented a general update that incorporated revised input assumptions and actual 2007 traffic data. The second new forecast was based on an assumption of substantially higher oil prices, and was intended to reflect a ‘worst case’ traffic scenario. During the course of the study, it became apparent that the omission of substantial levels of general aviation activity at other GGH airports from the scope of the study would significantly impede the assessment of the overall airport system. Therefore, in the fall of 2008, the original set of general aviation forecasts were expanded to include four additional airports: • Peterborough • Lake Simcoe Regional •Burlington •Brampton
At the same time, the general aviation forecasts for the original six airports were also updated to reflect the 2007 historical traffic base and revised input assumptions. The following three sections present the forecasts for passengers, air carrier aircraft movements and general aviation aircraft movements. Each section discusses the original study forecasts and an assessment of the impact of the two new forecasts. The last section presents the general aviation forecasts for the expanded system of airports.
3.1 Passengers
Passenger air traffic forecasting in Canada is accomplished through a series of sequential steps, briefly described below.
3.1.1 Revenue Origin-Destination Passengers The first step in the forecasting process is the projection of revenue origin- destination (O/D) passengers. An O/D passenger is a passenger whose origin or final destination is at the airport of interest, regardless of their flight routing. For example, a passenger flying between Pearson and Hong Kong would be considered an international O/D passenger at Pearson, regardless
Ch. 3, Page 2 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
of whether they are flying direct, routed through another domestic airport, or routed through a transborder airport. A revenue passenger is one paying a fare for the flight, including passengers flying using frequent flyer program redemptions. Transport Canada uses a sophisticated econometric model to predict O/D traffic volumes between a series of zones in Canada, the United States and the rest of the world. Within Canada, almost all major cities are considered to be in a separate zone within the model. The forecast for revenue O/D traffic for the airport system is shown by sector in Figure 3-1 and by airport in Figure 3-2. Based on the original baseline forecasts used in the study, the current level of just under 24 million annual passengers is expected to rise to about 54.5 million by 2032.
Figure 3-1: Revenue O/D Passengers
Ch. 3, Page 3 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 3-2: Revenue O/D Passengers by Airport
3.1.2 Revenue Enplaned/Deplaned Passengers To route the forecast revenue O/D passengers according to the expected availability of actual flights, Transport Canada applies a separate passenger allocation model. To use the Toronto-Hong Kong example again, some passengers would be allocated to non-stop flights, while others would travel via connections through Vancouver or airports in the United States. The revenue O/D passengers are then summed with the revenue connecting passengers on an airport-by-airport basis to derive revenue enplaned/ deplaned (E/D) passengers at each specific airport. In this case, the flight sector (domestic, transborder or international) is defined by the airport associated with the leg of the trip connected with the airport of interest. Depending on their routing, Toronto-Hong Kong could be classified as domestic, transborder or international on an E/D basis. The resulting revenue O/D and revenue connecting passenger totals for the GGH airport system are graphed in Figure 3-3, with the sum of the two representing revenue E-D passengers. Connecting passengers, as a percentage of the E/D total, are expected to remain close to the 20 per cent level over the forecast period, rising from the current level of over six million passengers to reach about 13.5 million in 2032.
Ch. 3, Page 4 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
Figure 3-3: Revenue O/D and Revenue Connecting Passengers
The revenue E/D passengers are also shown by sector in Figure 3-4 and by airport in Figure 3-5. The current level of just under 30 million annual passengers is expected to rise to just over 68 million passengers by 2032. As previously mentioned, these forecasts are unconstrained, and therefore do not consider any capacity limitations at the airports, and hence portray a very high passenger volume at Pearson by the end of the planning period.
Figure 3-4: Revenue E/D Passengers
Ch. 3, Page 5 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 3-5: Revenue E/D Passengers by Airport
3.1.3 Total Enplaned/Deplaned Passengers Two final adjustments are required to produce total E/D passenger forecasts. These include the addition of non-revenue passengers, and resolving some minor sectoral misidentification. Non-revenue passengers consist of primarily airline employees travelling on an unpaid basis for either business or pleasure and typically represent approximately 3.5 per cent of total passengers. The total number of non-revenue passengers is expected to rise from the current level of about 1.6 million passengers, to reach about 3.7 million passengers in 2032. The forecast for total E/D passengers is shown graphically by sector in Figure 3-6, and by airport in Figure 3-7. The 2007 level of approximately 31.5 million annual passengers is expected to rise to 71.9 million passengers by 2032, reflecting an average annual growth rate of approximately 3.2 per cent. However, the growth rates differ by sector, with international traffic growing at the fastest rate ( ), followed by transborder traffic ( ) and domestic traffic ( ).
Ch. 3, Page 6 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
Figure 3-6: Total E/D Passengers
Figure 3-7: Total E/D Passengers by Airport
3.1.4 High Speed Rail The forecasts presented above were based on a continuation of the status quo in terms of the availability of alternative modes of transportation and the level of service and relative pricing of those alternative modes. A high speed rail service along the Québec-Windsor corridor has been discussed, in various forms, for a number of years. The last major high speed rail study that is available was undertaken by the federal and provincial (Quebec and Ontario) governments in 1995. Presently, there are no plans to develop such a system, although another joint federal-provincial study is currently underway. If high speed rail were to become a reality, it would clearly provide an increased level of modal competition on the Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa routes.
Ch. 3, Page 7 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
While no alternative aviation forecast was prepared as part of this study that contemplates the impact of a high speed rail corridor, the conclusions of the 1995 high speed rail study were used to conduct a high level sensitivity analysis. For the purposes of the sensitivity test, it was assumed that any such system would have two major characteristics, as these would likely provide the maximum level of competition to the air mode: • The service would operate with a speed of roughly 300 km/hr., which would allow an elapsed time between Toronto and Montréal of roughly 2½ hours, and between Toronto and Ottawa of roughly 1½ hours. • The service would have stations integrated with both Pearson and Montréal Trudeau airports, allowing nearly seamless connections for intermodal passengers.
The 1995 study estimated that if a high speed rail line were constructed, about 18 per cent of its total ridership would be passengers diverted from the air mode, representing a loss to the air mode of about 44 per cent of their traffic in the corridor. The study’s high speed rail ridership estimates for a 300 km/hr system on the Toronto to Ottawa and Toronto to Montréal routes suggests a loss to the air mode of transportation of approximately 1.6 million passengers annually. In comparison, annual passenger growth of two to three per cent will represent 1.4 to 2.1 million passengers in the GGH by 2032. It is noted that the 1995 study appears to have underestimated the growth in the costs of rail travel, and overestimated the growth in the costs of air travel, potentially leading to an overestimation of the high speed rail market share. The implied loss of traffic to the air mode in the 1995 high speed rail study represents less than two years of air traffic growth for the region as a whole. However, the impacts at any one specific airport may be higher or lower. For example, since Ottawa and Montreal would likely be among the first routes to be served at a reliever airport, a larger proportion of the traffic at a reliever airport would be vulnerable to high speed rail competition than at Pearson. Given the potential effort and cost associated with the construction of a high speed rail line, it would appear unlikely at this time that a high speed rail corridor will be in place within the planning horizon of this study. However, if it does proceed, the ridership assumptions made in the 1995 high speed rail study imply that the impact on overall air traffic demand would be fairly modest.
3.1.5 New Forecasts The two new passenger forecasts provided by Transport Canada in October 2008, for sensitivity testing purposes, are discussed in this section.
Ch. 3, Page 8 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
One of the new forecasts represented a general forecast update, and will be referred to in this report as “new baseline” forecast, to distinguish it from the original June 2007 forecasts, which will be referred to as the “original baseline” forecasts. The new baseline forecasts incorporated an additional year of historical traffic data, assumed higher oil prices and incorporated modified GDP projections to reflect the changes to the oil price assumptions and the current economic downturn. The second new forecast, to be referred to as the “pessimistic” forecast, reflected the same general updates as the new baseline forecast, but assumed much higher oil prices over the planning period. The oil price assumptions related to the three forecasts are summarized below. original baseline: US $66–72 per barrel through 2011, rising to reach US $87 by 2032 new baseline: US $125 per barrel throughout the forecast period pessimistic: US $125 per barrel for 2008, US$ 150 for 2009, US $200 thereafter
Given the recent unprecedented volatility in the credit, commodity and equity markets, it is not possible to accurately assess the validity of the three forecasts. While both of the new forecasts assume future oil prices at levels significantly above those experienced in late 2008 and early 2009, both were prepared at a time when the economic downturn and the credit crisis were not expected to be as significant as they appear to be in early 2009. While the overall assumptions used in generating the pessimistic forecast may be considered by some to be overly pessimistic, the resulting forecast still serves as a means of testing the sensitivity of the study conclusions to a worst-case scenario. A comparison of the three passenger forecasts is available in Figure 3-8. Since the revised forecasts were only produced for revenue E/D passengers, they have been compared to the revenue E/D passenger forecasts from the original projections. The Transport Canada projections were extended to 2032 according to the same methodology used in the original analysis.
Ch. 3, Page 9 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 3-8: Revenue E/D Passenger Forecast Comparison
As can be readily seen, there is relatively little difference between the original baseline and new baseline forecasts. The difference between the two baseline forecasts is greatest in the early years, due to an expected decline in traffic in 2009 in the new baseline forecast. The baseline projections then converge slowly over time, such that by 2032, there is almost no difference between the two forecasts. In contrast, the pessimistic forecast shows a much more substantial drop in traffic in the early years of the forecast, followed by a slightly lower long- term growth rate to the forecast horizon due to the higher oil price assumptions, causing it to slowly diverge further from the original baseline forecast. Figure 3-9 shows the two new forecasts expressed as the number of years of delay from the original baseline forecast. The new baseline forecast initially falls about two years behind the original baseline forecast, but then catches back up to the original baseline forecast by 2032. The pessimistic forecast initially falls about seven years behind the original baseline forecast and, by 2032, is about 8.5 years behind the original baseline forecast.
Ch. 3, Page 10 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
Figure 3-9: Years of Delay—Revenue E/D Passengers
3.2 Air Carrier Movements
Transport Canada’s air carrier aircraft movement forecasts include those aircraft movements associated with the major airlines, primarily engaged in the movement of passengers utilizing the passenger terminal buildings, as well as other movements referred to in the forecasts as “non-reporting” air carrier movements. The latter category can include activity such as ferry and technical flights, charter flights not utilizing the terminal buildings, and other commercial operations flown by operators categorized as “air carriers”. The forecast for air carrier movements is shown graphically by sector in Figure 3-10, and by airport in Figure 3-11. The current level of about 490,000 annual air carrier aircraft movements is expected to rise to over 950,000 by 2032, equivalent to an average annual growth rate of approximately 2.6 per cent. The growth rate for aircraft movements is lower than the passenger growth rate due to an assumed gradual increase in the average aircraft size.
Ch. 3, Page 11 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 3-10: Air Carrier Aircraft Movements
Figure 3-11: Air Carrier Aircraft Movements by Airport
3.2.1 New Forecasts The comparison of the two new air carrier aircraft movement forecasts relative to the original baseline forecast has been shown in Figure 3-12. As one would expect, the patterns for the new air carrier aircraft movement forecasts are similar to those previously discussed for the new passenger forecasts. That is, there is little difference between the original and new baseline forecasts, but a substantial drop in traffic in the pessimistic forecast.
Ch. 3, Page 12 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
Figure 3-12: Air Carrier Aircraft Movement Forecast Comparison
Figure 3-13 shows the two new air carrier aircraft movement forecasts expressed as the number of years of delay from the original baseline forecast. The new baseline forecast is one to two years behind the original baseline forecast throughout the planning period. The pessimistic forecast initially falls about eight years behind the original baseline forecast and, by 2032, the lag has increased to 12 years, representing a slightly more significant lag than for the passenger forecasts.
Figure 3-13: Years of Delay—Air Carrier Aircraft Movements
Ch. 3, Page 13 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
3.3 General Aviation Aircraft Movements
The general aviation aircraft movement data presented in this chapter comprises all activity that is not classified by Transport Canada as air carrier traffic, and primarily includes private (business and recreational), commercial, government and military traffic. General aviation aircraft movements consist of itinerant activity, which involves flying to or from another airport, and local activity, which is primarily related to flight training activities departing and arriving at the same airport.
3.3.1 General Aviation Itinerant Movements The forecast for general aviation itinerant aircraft movements is shown in Figure 3-14. The current regional level of about 160,000 annual general aviation itinerant movements is expected to rise to over 240,000 by 2032, reflecting an average annual growth rate of about 1.6 per cent.
Figure 3-14: General Aviation Itinerant Aircraft Movements by Airport
3.3.2 General Aviation Local Movements The last traffic segment, for which Transport Canada does not provide forecasts, is local aircraft movements, which are primarily associated with flight training circuits. Although no projections have been made by Transport Canada, historical statistics are available for all six airports within the original study scope. While there are no movements of this type at Pearson, there are a substantial number at other regional airports. Local aircraft movements within the original six-airport system declined by 33 per cent between 2001 and 2006. This trend represented a decoupling of local movement activity from itinerant movement activity, which actually rose by about four per cent over the same time period. Discussions that took
Ch. 3, Page 14 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
place with flight schools for a previous study in 2003, and again more recently as part of this study, suggest that recreational flying is disappearing due to the high cost of fuel and aircraft rentals, as well as a vastly increased number of alternative activities for young people. The student population is largely becoming restricted to those intending to become commercial pilots. This overall reduction in flight training activity has occurred despite a trend towards increasing levels of foreign students coming to Canada for training. The severity in the decline of flight training activity can also be seen by examining the number of private pilot licenses issued per year in Canada. In 2001 and 2002, the number of newly issued licenses was roughly 3,000 (3,042 and 2,992). In 2003, this declined to 2,581, and the drop continued through 2004 (2,288) and 2005 (2,115), the last year for which published statistics are available. This 31 per cent decline since 2001 almost exactly matches the decline in local aircraft movements. Given the original airport scope of this study, it was not known whether this loss of activity was consistent across all regional airports, or whether it reflected, at least in part, a shift away from the study airports to others offering flight training in the region. In the absence of data from other local airports, it has been assumed that the correlation between local and itinerant movements has now completed its shift to a new plateau, and that the ratio between the two will remain constant in the future, assuming that no changes are made to the number of flight hours required to train pilots. However, Transport Canada is considering a revamp of the pilot licensing standards, under which they may devolve licensing authority to approved training schools, which would award licences based on demonstrated competence, rather than having to fly a specific number of hours. Under this change, schools would have more freedom to determine an appropriate mix of simulator and flying hours to accomplish the required training. These changes would tend to reduce the number of actual flying hours per pilot, as schools begin to take advantage of the potential cost savings of using simulators. Discussions with Transport Canada have suggested that the new standards could take effect as early as 2009, although it would likely take additional time for flight schools to assess the new environment and potentially make investments in simulation equipment. This added investment may cause some smaller schools to curtail or eliminate their flight training activity, to the benefit of the larger, well-funded organizations such as the colleges that have access to provincial funding. This trend will also be accentuated by the provincial government’s recent decision to regulate certain aspects of flight training, which includes an operator-supported fund to compensate students in the event of a school bankruptcy.
Ch. 3, Page 15 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
The effect of the new standards on the training regimen has yet to be seen, but Transport Canada suggests that the number of flying hours required for a private pilot’s license might decline by about 30 per cent, from the current typical level of 65 hours, to around the minimum mandated level of about 45 hours, with the difference covered by simulator training. A similar reduction may also apply to commercial licenses, particularly now that instrument ratings can be renewed on a simulator, rather than requiring a flight check. The forecast for general aviation local aircraft movements that has been generated for this study is based on four basic assumptions: • The reduction in flight training activity has now bottomed out, and further declines are unlikely. • Flight training activity will remain flat through 2010, by which time the new Transport Canada regulations will become effective. • Following 2010, it is anticipated that local aircraft movements will begin to increase at the same rate as that for itinerant general aviation activity. • A 30 per cent reduction in flight training hours per pilot has been overlaid on the growth pattern from 2010 to 2020 based on the new regulations.
The resulting local aircraft movement forecast is shown in Figure 3-15. The net effect of these assumptions is that local aircraft movements are forecast to remain relatively flat over the forecast period, within a range of roughly 200,000 to 230,000 movements.
Figure 3-15: General Aviation Local Aircraft Movements
Ch. 3, Page 16 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
3.3.3 New Forecasts The comparison of the two new forecasts for general aviation itinerant aircraft movements to the original baseline forecast is shown in Figure 3-16. The new baseline forecast is similar to the original baseline forecast, as is the case for passengers and air carrier aircraft movements, but in this case it is slightly higher rather than slightly lower due to higher traffic in 2007. In addition, the drop in the pessimistic forecast is more pronounced than it is for passengers or air carrier aircraft movements, since general aviation activity is more sensitive to oil prices.
Figure 3-16: General Aviation Itinerant Aircraft Movement Forecast Comparison
Figure 3-17 shows the two new general aviation itinerant aircraft movement forecasts expressed as the number of years of delay from the original baseline forecast. Since the new baseline forecast shows a slight increase in general aviation itinerant aircraft movements, the number of years of delay curve is slightly negative. The ‘step’ nature of the years of delay curve for the pessimistic forecast results from the growth rates that Transport Canada applied in their original baseline forecast, which changed at five year intervals.
Ch. 3, Page 17 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 3-17: Years of Delay—General Aviation Itinerant Aircraft Movements
3.4 Expanded Airport System
In late 2008, it was decided to expand the scope of the study to include four additional airports to allow a more holistic analysis of the airport system. As previously mentioned, the four airports added were: • Peterborough •Lake Simcoe •Brampton •Burlington
Historical aircraft movement statistics are published for Peterborough and Lake Simcoe, but not for Brampton or Burlington. As a result, it was only possible to provide estimates for the latter two airports. Interviews were conducted with the following organizations in November 2008, to help generate forecasts for the additional airports: • Brampton Flight Centre •Burlington Airpark • Lake Simcoe Regional Airport • Peterborough Airport • Kawartha Lakes Flight Centre • Seneca College •NavCanada
Ch. 3, Page 18 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
These interviews resulted in the following additions/alterations to the traffic forecasts: • Estimates of current local and itinerant aircraft movements for Brampton and Burlington. • An increase in the number of local aircraft movements for 2008 at Lake Simcoe regional, based on preliminary data for 2008. • A substantial increase in the number of both local and itinerant aircraft movements for Peterborough, for 2009 and subsequent years, based on the opening of a new flight training school (Kawartha Lakes Flight Centre) in early 2009. The school will open with a fleet of ten aircraft.
3.4.1 General Aviation Itinerant Aircraft Movement Forecasts The resulting general aviation itinerant aircraft movement forecast for the expanded airport system is shown in Figure 3-18, for both the new baseline and the pessimistic forecasts. A comparative forecast for the original baseline is not depicted, since the original baseline forecast did not include the full scope of ten airports.
Figure 3-18: General Aviation Itinerant Aircraft Movements—Expanded Airport System
Figure 3-19 illustrates the contribution of the original six airports and the four additional airports to the new baseline forecast.
Ch. 3, Page 19 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 3-19: General Aviation Itinerant Aircraft Movements by Airport—New Baseline Forecast
3.4.2 General Aviation Local Movement Forecasts The general aviation local aircraft movement forecast for the expanded airport system is shown in Figure 3-20, for both the new baseline and the pessimistic forecasts.
Figure 3-20: General Aviation Local Aircraft Movements—Expanded Airport System
Figure 3-21 illustrates the contribution of the original six airports and the four additional airports to the new baseline forecast.
Ch. 3, Page 20 of 22 Chapter 3: Regional Traffic Forecasts
Figure 3-21: General Aviation Local Aircraft Movements by Airport—New Baseline Forecast
Ch. 3, Page 21 of 22 Ch. 3, Page 22 of 22 CHAPTER 4 Pearson Capacity
This chapter will quantify the current and potential capacity of Pearson’s airside and terminal facilities. The capacity of the airport’s cargo facilities will be quantified separately in Chapter 10. This chapter will conclude with a discussion regarding potential means to further increase Pearson’s capacity. Toronto Pearson International Airport is the GGH’s primary commercial service airport located primarily in the City of Mississauga on a 1,867 hectare (4,613 acre) site, approximately 25 kilometers northwest of downtown Toronto. Approximately 80 airlines offer non-stop passenger service to over 120 domestic and international destinations by. The airport also supports significant levels of air cargo and business aviation operations. The airport is owned by Transport Canada and is operated by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) through a Ground Lease with a term of 60 years, and an option to extend the lease for a further 20 years. Since the GTAA assumed responsibility for the airport, the airport has undergone a major redevelopment, including the replacement of Terminals 1 and 2, the addition of two new runways and the development of new cargo facilities.
Ch. 4, Page 1 of 20 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
4.1 Activity History
Historical passenger volumes at Pearson are illustrated in Figure 4-1. The pattern depicts a long term upward trend, with some significant short term fluctuations, such as the dowturns associated with the Gulf War and recession in the early 1990s and the terrorist attacks, SARS outbreak and Iraq war in the 2001-2003 time period.
Figure 4-1 Passenger History—Pearson
Aircraft movement volumes over the same time period are shown in Figure 4-2. Itinerant aircraft movements have followed a long term pattern similar to the airport’s passenger activity. Local aircraft movements associated with flight training activity decreased throughout the 1970s, and were essentially eliminated from the airport by the mid 1980s.
Figure 4-2 Aircraft Movement History—Pearson
Ch. 4, Page 2 of 20 Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
4.2 Airside Capacity
4.2.1 Capacity of the Existing Airside System Pearson’s existing airside system is shown in Figure 4-3. The airport has five runways, including three in an east-west orientation and two in a north- south orientation, with a maximum runway length of 3,390 metres (11,120 feet).
Figure 4-3 Existing Airside System
For an airport such as Pearson, with a relatively complex airside system and a number of runways that are regularly used simultaneously, a capacity coverage chart is commonly used to quantify the capacity of the airport’s airside system. The capacity coverage chart reflecting the existing five- runway system at Pearson is shown in Figure 4-4. The chart illustrates the hourly capacities available at the airport under different wind and weather situations (plotted on the vertical axis) and the percentage of time each is typically available (plotted on the horizontal axis).
Ch. 4, Page 3 of 20 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 4-4 Capacity Coverage Chart for the Existing Five-Runway System
The capacity coverage chart for Pearson includes four main types of runway operations, as described in the following sections. 4.2.1.1 East/West Runway Operations The first type of runway operation is the simultaneous use of the airport’s three east/west runways under visual meteorological conditions (VMC), when the weather is such that pilots can make visual reference to the ground for navigational purposes. This type of runway operation is shown in Figure 4-5, for both a westerly and an easterly wind situation.
Figure 4-5 East/West Runway Operations
Ch. 4, Page 4 of 20 Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
Through computer simulations, it was determined that based on the anticipated aircraft fleet mix at Pearson, this type of operation has a capacity of approximately 126 aircraft movements per hour, including 56 operations on Runway 05-23 and 70 operations on the closely spaced parallel runways, Runways 06L-24R and 06R-24L. An analysis of weather data suggests that this type of operation tends to be available approximately 79 per cent of the time. The second type of operation also corresponds to the use of the three east/ west runways in the same manner, but under instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) when visibility is such that instrumentation, rather than visual reference, is required for navigation. Under these conditions, larger separations between aircraft are required, and the capacity decreases to approximately 108 aircraft movements per hour, including 48 operations on Runway 05-23 and 60 operations on the closely spaced parallel runways. This type of operation tends to occur approximately 14 per cent of the time. 4.2.1.2 North/South Runway Operations The third type of operation reflected in the capacity coverage chart pertains to the use of the north/south runways when strong cross-wind conditions preclude the use of the east/west runways. Since Runways 15L-33R and 15R 33L do not have sufficient separation to permit independent operations, arrivals are typically assigned to 15R-33L and departures to 15L-33R, although arrivals of heavier aircraft are sometimes off-loaded onto 15L-33R to provide a longer landing distance. The first diagram in Figure 4-6 shows the operations that would occur under strong north wind conditions, while the second diagram shows the operations that would occur under strong south wind conditions. Through an analysis of historical aircraft movement data, the capacity of the north/south runways was found to be 75 movements per hour while the frequency tends to occur approximately six per cent of the time.
Figure 4-6 North/South Runway Operations
Ch. 4, Page 5 of 20 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
4.2.1.3 Irregular Operations The final type of operation shown in the capacity coverage chart is termed ‘irregular’ operations, which makes an allowance for operational conditions that typically result in significantly lower airside throughput, including snowstorms, thunderstorms and low visibility conditions. Based on an analysis of historical aircraft throughput data associated with irregular operations, the average throughput achieved during these types of events is approximately 30 movements per hour and these conditions tend to occur approximately one per cent of the time. 4.2.1.4 Average Hourly Capacity Using the hourly capacity and frequency information from each of the four types of operations in the capacity coverage chart, Pearson’s average hourly airside capacity can be calculated as follows: (79% x 126) + (14% x 108) + (6% x 75) + (1% x 30) = 119 aircraft movements per hour 4.2.1.5 Planning Day Capacity Table 4-1 calculates a daily capacity for the airside system by dividing the day into four groups, namely peak hours, off-peak hours, transitional hours (transitioning into the night period), and night hours. During the peak hours, it is assumed that the airport could operate at the maximum capacity that wind and weather conditions would allow, as reflected by the average hourly capacity of 119 aircraft movements per hour. However, during the off-peak and transitional hours, the expected hourly throughput is factored down in recognition of the lower demand levels that typically exist during those portions of the day. The capacity of the nighttime hours has been set in accordance with the airport’s annual nighttime operations budget. The sum of the resulting calculations for each of the four groups of hours provides the airport’s airside capacity on a ‘planning day’, which reflects a busy summer weekday. 4.2.1.6 Annual Capacity Since the demand for air travel is typically lower on weekends than on weekdays, and lower in the fall, winter and spring seasons than in the summer, the multiplication of the planning day capacity by 365 days per year would yield an unrealistically high annual airside system capacity. Instead, analysis of weekday versus weekend and seasonal traffic data at Pearson suggests that a planning day to annual capacity factor of 320 is more appropriate, generating a maximum annual airside capacity of 610,000 aircraft movements.
Ch. 4, Page 6 of 20 Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
Table 4-1 Annual Capacity for the Existing Five-Runway System
Number Average Hour Typical Time Period(s) of Hourly Capacity Group Demand Hours Capacity
Peak 6:30 a.m.–9:29 a.m. 10 x 1.00 x 119 = 1190
2:30 p.m.–9:29 p.m.
Off-Peak 9:30 a.m.–2:29 p.m. 5 x 0.80 x 119 = 476
Transitional 9:30 p.m.–12:29 a.m. 3 x 0.55 x 119 = 196
Night 12:30 a.m.–6:29 a.m. 6 Capacity defined by nighttime 55 operations budget
Planning Day Capacity 1917
x 320
Maximum Annual Capacity (Rounded) 610,000
x 85%
Practical Annual Capacity (Rounded) 520,000
Although the maximum annual capacity calculated above is an attainable level of throughput, significant levels of congestion and delay would occur in the peak periods to achieve that traffic volume. For this reason, the attainment of approximately 85 per cent of the maximum annual capacity is considered to be the airport’s practical annual capacity offering a better level of service to airport users. The practical annual airside capacity for the existing five-runway system is approximately 520,000 movements.
4.2.2 Potential Airside Capacity 4.2.2.1 Future Runway 05R–23L An environmental assessment was conducted in 1991-1992 for the addition of three new runways and supporting taxiways and navigational aids at Pearson, in order to meet forecast demand. The environmental assessment encompassed the construction of the airport’s two newest runways, namely
Ch. 4, Page 7 of 20 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Runway 15R-33L completed in 1997 to alleviate a capacity shortfall in the north/south direction of operation, and Runway 06R-24L completed in 2002 to increase the capacity of the airport in the primary (east/west) direction of operation. The third runway reviewed in the environmental assessment is another east/west runway, to be designated 05R-23L. Runway 05R-23L would be located parallel to and 408 metres south of existing Runway 05-23, as shown in Figure 4-7. Existing Runway 05-23 would be renamed 05L-23R prior to the commissioning of planned Runway 05R-23L. Planned Runway 05R-23L would be the final runway that could be accommodated on the Pearson site.
Figure 4-7 Planned Airside System
Since environmental approval has already been obtained for planned Runway 05R-23L, it could be constructed at the discretion of the GTAA when warranted by demand. Construction of Runway 05R-23L would require the removal of the existing Terminal Surveillance Radar (TSR) facility. NAV CANADA would identify replacement requirements at that time, including an investigation of potential replacement technologies. Figure 4-5 identifies an alternative TSR site west of Runway 15R-33L. This site is in the Etobicoke Creek valley, has been selected by NAV CANADA, and the GTAA is reserving this site for this purpose.
Ch. 4, Page 8 of 20 Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
A section of Etobicoke Creek will also require relocation to accommodate Runway 05R-23L. Similar to the existing pair of closely spaced parallel runways at the southern end of the airfield (06L-24R and 06R-24L), existing Runway 05-23 and planned Runway 05R-23L would operate as a dependent parallel complex with arrivals on one runway and departures on the other. However, due to the location of the cargo terminal facilities near the eastern end of planned Runway 05R-23L, the new runway would only be used for takeoffs to the west and arrivals from the west, as depicted in Figure 4-8.
Figure 4-8 Six-Runway Operations 4.2.2.2 Capacity of the Ultimate Airside System Figure 4-9 provides the capacity coverage chart pertaining to the ultimate six-runway system. The capacity of the four east/west runways is estimated to be 140 movements per hour under visual meteorological conditions and 120 movements per hour under instrument meteorological conditions.
Figure 4-9 Capacity Coverage Chart for the Six-Runway System
Ch. 4, Page 9 of 20 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Applying the hourly capacities associated with the simultaneous operation of the four east/west runways, Pearson’s average hourly airside capacity for the six-runway system would be calculated as follows: (79% x 140) + (14% x 120) + (6% x 75) + (1% x 30) = 132 aircraft movements per hour As shown in Table 4-2, the six-runway layout would offer a maximum annual capacity of 680,000 and a practical annual capacity of 580,000.
Table 4-2 Annual Capacity for the Ultimate Six-Runway System
Number Average Hour Typical Time Period(s) of Hourly Capacity Group Demand Hours Capacity
Peak 6:30 a.m.–9:29 a.m. 10 x 1.00 x 132 = 1320
2:30 p.m.–9:29 p.m.
Off-Peak 9:30 a.m.–2:29 p.m. 5 x 0.80 x 132 = 528
Transitional 9:30 p.m.–12:29 a.m. 3 x 0.55 x 132 = 218
Night 12:30 a.m.–6:29 a.m. 6 Capacity defined by nighttime 62 operations budget
Planning Day Capacity 2128
x 320
Maximum Annual Capacity (Rounded) 680,000
x 85%
Practical Annual Capacity (Rounded) 580,000
4.2.3 Airside Passenger Capacity The airport’s ultimate annual airside capacity is converted from aircraft movements into an approximate passenger volume in this section, for comparison to the terminal development plans. It is anticipated that in the long term, approximately 88 per cent of aircraft movements at Pearson will be passenger carrying aircraft, with the remaining 12 per cent being comprised of cargo freighter and business aviation aircraft (mostly corporate jets, with some piston/turboprop aircraft). It is also estimated that given the diverse range of markets served
Ch. 4, Page 10 of 20 Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
by Pearson and the resulting mix of aircraft sizes using the airport, the average number of passengers per aircraft will increase to approximately 90 passengers per aircraft. As calculated in Table 4-3, the annual six-runway system capacity range equates with approximately 46 to 54 million passengers per year.
Table 4-3 Six-Runway Airside Capacity in Terms of Passengers
Proportion Annual Passenger Average Annual of Annual Aircraft Carrying Number of Passenger Passenger Capacity Move- Aircraft Passengers Capacity Carrying ments Movements per Aircraft (Millions) Aircraft
Practical 580,000 x 88% = 510,400 x 90 = 46
Maximum 680,000 x 88% = 598,400 x 90 = 54
4.3 Passenger Terminal Capacity
The existing passenger terminal facilities are shown in Figure 4-10. These include Terminal 1 and its satellite terminal, Terminal 3 and its satellite terminal, as well as the Infield Terminal. Combined, the facilities have 97 bridged gates and 32 commuter positions, offering a capacity of approximately 39 million passengers.
Ch. 4, Page 11 of 20 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 4-10 Existing Passenger Terminals
After the recent demolition of Terminal 2, it was possible to proceed with implementing the next step in the terminal redevelopment plan. As shown in Figure 4-11, this involves the construction of new apron on the old Terminal 2 site around the location of Terminal 1’s future Pier G. The availability of nearby off-gate parking will facilitate the increased use of Pier F gates, thereby delaying the need for investment in Pier G.
Figure 4-11 New Apron Construction
Ch. 4, Page 12 of 20 Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
When demand does warrant additional bridged gates, the next phase of terminal expansion would be the construction of Pier G as shown in Figure 4 12. Following the addition of Pier G, and the closure of the Terminal 1 satellite, the airport would have a combined inventory of 120 bridged gates and 24 commuter positions, offering a capacity of approximately 46 million passengers.
Figure 4-12 Terminal Development—Pier G
The final construction phases of Terminal 1 would include building Piers H and I, conceptually illustrated in Figure 4-13. The addition of these piers could potentially raise the overall passenger terminal facilities to approximately 157 bridged gates and 32 commuter positions, and a capacity of close to 60 million passengers. As a result, the flexibility exists to develop the terminal facilities to at least match the ultimate airside capacity.
Ch. 4, Page 13 of 20 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 4-13 Terminal Development—Piers H and I
4.4 Opportunities to Maximize Airside Capacity
The airside capacities quantified in this chapter are dependant upon a number of assumptions and variables. This section provides a discussion regarding potential means of increasing the airside capacity beyond the levels identified.
4.4.1 Daily Traffic Peak Spreading The airside capacity calculations assume that the airport operates at full capacity for a total of ten hours at the beginning and end of the typical business day. It is also assumed that the airport operates at a lower throughput level of 80 per cent and 55 per cent of full capacity during the five off-peak hours and three transitional hours respectively, in recognition of the natural daily traffic patterns that are inherent in air travel demand. This calculation already implies a significant degree of traffic peak spreading during the ten peak hours of the day. However, further spreading of traffic into the non-peak portions of the day would increase the aircraft and passenger throughput. For example, an increase in the traffic demand during the off-peak and transitional hours to 90 per cent and 75 per cent of full capacity, respectively, which would represent a very significant travel pattern shift, would increase the annual passenger capacity of the airside system by approximately three to four million passengers.
Ch. 4, Page 14 of 20 Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
A shift in the daily traffic profile could be achieved through the limitation and control of the number of aircraft slots per hour, thereby forcing airlines that are not able to acquire a sufficient number of slots at preferred times to use non-peak slots. Alternatively, in the absence of a traffic management system, when traffic demand begins to exceed available capacity in the peak hours, traffic would incur delays and be rescheduled into the non-peak periods. In either case, the end result is that over time, an increasing number of passengers would be forced to travel at non-preferred times of the day, resulting in an economic and social cost. A shift in the daily traffic pattern would be possible; however, while it could be implemented as a short term measure to address a capacity shortfall until additional capacity can be provided, it would clearly not be an optimal long term solution.
4.4.2 Weekly/Seasonal Traffic Patterns The planning day airside capacity, reflecting a busy summer weekday, has been converted into an annual capacity through the application of a planning day to annual factor of 320. This factor is lower than 365 due to the fact that traffic demand is typically lower on weekends than on weekdays and lower in the fall, winter and spring seasons than in the summer. Given the relatively inflexible travel patterns associated with the typical business week and time of year vacation planning, it is unlikely that a significant proportion of passengers would be willing to alter their weekly or seasonal travel patterns on a sustained basis in response to congestion at the airport. As a result, the option of passengers altering their travel plans is not considered to be a viable means of increasing passenger capacity at Pearson.
4.4.3 Increased Night Time Operations The airside capacity calculations assume that the number of aircraft operations during the night time restricted period (12:30 a.m. to 6:29 a.m.) will increase in proportion to the overall increase in passenger traffic at the airport, consistent with the Airport Authority’s annual night time operations budget arrangement with Transport Canada. As a result, the calculations already incorporate a significant future increase in night time traffic. Nevertheless, further increases in the utilization of available capacity in the night time period would increase the overall airport capacity. However, the overall impact of further increases in night time operations would need to be considered, including the noise impact on the surrounding communities, the size of the airport’s noise contours in relation to the Airport Operating Area and the impact on airport- community relations. In addition, changes to the annual night time operations budget arrangement with Transport Canada would be required.
Ch. 4, Page 15 of 20 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Even if the above issues could be resolved, it is not clear that significant numbers of passengers would be willing to fly during the restricted hours. Although there may be some traffic segments that could be somewhat amenable to flying during these times, such as vacation charter flights or long-haul flights that currently have difficultly complying with night time restrictions at the airport at the opposite end of the route, it is unlikely that a large overall increase in passenger volumes could be achieved on a sustained basis.
4.4.4 Off-loading Business Aviation Traffic The airside capacity calculations have assumed that 88 per cent of the aircraft at Pearson will be passenger carrying aircraft in the long term, with cargo freighter and business aviation aircraft comprising the remaining 12 per cent. An increase in the proportion of passenger carrying aircraft through the displacement of business aviation traffic to other area airports would translate into a higher airside passenger capacity. Potential mechanisms that could be employed to remove business aviation traffic include pricing strategies and other demand management techniques. For every one per cent increase in the proportion of passenger carrying aircraft, the airside passenger capacity would increase by approximately 0.5 million passengers. A complete removal of the business aviation traffic from Pearson could potentially increase its maximum airside passenger capacity by approximately six million passengers. The potential increase in passenger volumes that could be achieved through the off-loading of business aviation traffic to other airports would need to be assessed against a number of other considerations when demand nears the airport’s capacity. These other considerations would include the importance of access to Pearson for the business aviation community, the availability and cost of alternative airport facilities, and the investment in business aviation facilities at Pearson. As a result, any future consideration of the reduction or removal of business aviation activity at Pearson would clearly require extensive consultation and assessment. However, the removal of business aviation traffic from Pearson will be used for the purpose of testing the sensitivity of the study conclusions to the capacity of Pearson.
4.4.5 Larger Aircraft The airside capacity calculations have assumed that the passenger carrying aircraft at Pearson in the long run will carry an average of ninety passengers, representing an increase from the current average in the low to mid eighties. This assumes that the trend towards smaller regional jets over the
Ch. 4, Page 16 of 20 Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
past 10–15 years will eventually reverse as the Pearson market matures and the airport begins to become capacity constrained. It should also be noted that new aircraft types, such as the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 787, have already been taken into consideration in the calculations. A further increase in the long term average number of passengers per aircraft would translate into a higher airside passenger capacity. For example, an increase to 100 passengers per aircraft would translate into an annual capacity increase of five to six million passengers. However, given the long typical life cycle of aircraft, the average aircraft size at Pearson at the time it approaches capacity will be largely determined by aircraft fleet replacement decisions made by the air carriers many years earlier, at a time well before the onset of congestion. In addition, airlines plan their aircraft fleet within the context of their overall route network. As a result, the anticipated operating environment at any one specific airport is likely to have a limited impact on the overall fleet. Therefore, the onset of congestion at Pearson in the long term is unlikely to trigger a fundamental change in the overall aircraft size operating at the airport. A forced use of larger aircraft through pricing mechanisms or restrictions could be potential means of increasing average aircraft size. However, such action would likely reduce air service to smaller markets, impose an economic penalty on the airlines and generate significant industry opposition. In any event, it is not an optimal long term solution.
4.4.6 Air Navigation Services The hourly airside capacities quantified in this chapter are based on existing air navigation technologies and practices. This section describes a number of potential future advancements in air navigation technology and system design. 4.4.6.1 Communications Technological advances are expected to facilitate a future migration from current voice communication to an increased use of datalink transfer of information, beginning in oceanic airspace and eventually into domestic airspace. The objective will be to reduce voice communication frequency congestion and improve message clarity. 4.4.6.2 Navigation NAV CANADA currently provides a network of ground aids to support IFR operations. However, the development of area navigation (RNAV) routes and approaches is beginning to enable operators with the necessary onboard systems to take advantage of the increased flexibility and efficiencies offered by satellite based navigation.
Ch. 4, Page 17 of 20 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
The introduction of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is bringing RNAV within reach of all operators, and makes it possible to envision, in the future, a full transition from a system dependent on fixed ground equipment to satellite navigation. However, the timeline for full transition would depend upon the rate at which aircraft operators equip their aircraft with GNSS avionics. RNAV procedures will not increase an airport’s runway capacity; instead, it will make airborne operations more predictable and efficient. 4.4.6.3 Surveillance Historically the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) recognized radar as the sole surveillance technology for the application of separation standards. However, the CARs have recently been amended to recognize other comparable surveillance technologies such as ADS-B and multilateration. ADS-B operations have been commissioned in the Hudson’s Bay area and multilateration installations are also underway. There are a variety of operational capabilities supported by ADS-B and multilateration that exceed traditional radar surveillance and can offer an increase in safety and efficiency for customers. 4.4.6.4 Air Traffic Management Technological innovation continues to lead to the development of new air traffic management systems and tools. These advancements include systems that continually compare expected demand levels to system capacity, automate sequencing and scheduling of traffic, extend conflict prediction and detection capabilities, automate flight profile monitoring and reduce controller workload. Although the new air traffic management tools are not intended to increase capacity, they will enable controllers to better manage traffic demand, thereby improving operational efficiency. 4.4.6.5 NAV CANADA Airspace Study NAV CANADA, the air navigation service provider, is currently undertaking a comprehensive three-year study to examine the present air navigation system in the Windsor to Montreal airspace corridor. The intent of this exercise is to consider all available new technologies, including those discussed above, and identify changes that can be considered to improve the efficiency of the air navigation system for all stakeholders. Should the results of NAV CANADA’s airspace review lead to the future application of new technologies, procedures or practices that increase the hourly airside throughput potential, Pearson’s annual airside capacities would need to be reassessed. However, the capacities presented in this chapter accurately reflect the airport’s capacity based on information known at the present time.
Ch. 4, Page 18 of 20 Chapter 4: Pearson Capacity
4.4.7 Conclusion A number of possible means of increasing the ultimate airside capacity of Pearson have been identified and discussed in this section, some of which appear to have a theoretical potential to increase airside passenger capacity, perhaps in the five to ten per cent range, or more if considered in combination. The key issue is the extent to which the measures would be practical to implement at Pearson in the future. While some of the ideas could be effective to deal with a short term capacity shortfall, it is not clear whether they would be appropriate to implement on a sustained basis. Another fundamental consideration is that the airport operator does not have unilateral control over all of the measures and, in some cases, has only a limited ability to influence future changes. The successful implementation of any of the measures would depend on the actions and responses of a number of other important players in the aviation industry, including the passengers, the airlines, the business aviation community, NAV CANADA, Transport Canada and the surrounding communities. As a result, 54 million annual passengers is an appropriate capacity level to use in the Needs Assessment Study for Pearson. However, for the purposes of testing the sensitivity of the study conclusions to the capacity of Pearson, the possibility of a six million passenger increase in Pearson’s capacity, as would be gained by the displacement of business aviation from the airport, will be considered.
Ch. 4, Page 19 of 20 Ch. 4, Page 20 of 20 CHAPTER 5 Airport Capacities
This chapter quantifies the capacities of all the airports within the study scope, aside from Pearson, whose capacity was established in Chapter 4. In each case, the airport’s current capacity is estimated in terms of runway capacity and, where applicable, commercial passenger capacity. If relevant, the capacity associated with the airport’s expansion plans and the airport’s potential capacity with additional enhancements are also examined. Unless noted otherwise, airport expansion possibilities are limited to within the existing airport boundaries,. In addition, the assessment of potential capacity limitations that could result from environmental factors, such as aircraft noise, is not within the scope of this study and has not been considered.
5.1 John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport
The John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport is a certified airport located in the community of Mount Hope, approximately 12 km south of downtown Hamilton, and approximately 80 km driving distance from downtown Toronto. It is situated on approximately 568 hectares (1,404 acres) of land owned by the City of Hamilton. An aerial photograph of the airport is available in Figure 5-1.
Ch. 5, Page 1 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
The airport was transferred from Transport Canada to the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth (now the City of Hamilton) in 1996. Concurrent with the transfer, the Regional Municipality entered into a long-term lease agreement with TradePort International Corporation whereby TradePort would operate the airport on their behalf. The role of the airport, as stated by the airport operator, is to serve as a regional commercial and general aviation airport capable of providing scheduled and charter passenger services, air cargo and courier activities and flight training services. The operator’s vision is to achieve the airport’s full potential by being one of Canada’s five busiest passenger airports, and the number one air freighter gateway in Canada. Aside from the village of Mount Hope, which is immediately adjacent to the airport, the surrounding lands in close proximity to the airport are primarily agricultural, but with some clusters of residences. The major urban areas of Hamilton begin roughly two to three kilometres north of the airport. The airport passenger terminal and associated groundside infrastructure underwent significant expansion and rehabilitation in recent years to accommodate the increase in activity associated with WestJet’s introduction of commercial passenger service. In addition, road access to the airport has been improved with the opening of the new Highway 6, linking the airport to Highway 403.
Ch. 5, Page 2 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
Figure 5-1 Hamilton Airport
5.1.1 Runway Facilities Hamilton Airport offers the following runway facilities.
Runway 12-30 (primary) • 3,048 m (10,000 ft.) by 60 m (200 ft.) •Asphalt • Instrument precision • No parallel taxiway (aside from a very short section)
Runway 06-24 • 1,829 m (6,000 ft.) by 45 m (150 ft.) •Asphalt • Instrument non-precision • No parallel taxiway (aside from a very short section)
The airport formerly had a parallel to Runway 12-30, but this has been permanently converted into a taxiway to accommodate cargo-related development. The airport has an air traffic control tower.
Ch. 5, Page 3 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.1.2 Activity History Local aircraft movements, which comprised the majority of activity in Hamilton until the mid-1990s, have been in a long term decline as the focus of the airport has transitioned from serving primarily the general aviation community to serving a combination of commercial aviation, corporate aviation and general aviation. Itinerant movements have remained relatively constant throughout this transition, surpassing local movements in recent years. These trends are illustrated in Figure 5-2. In 2007, the airport handled 26,541 local movements and 44,253 itinerant movements, for a total of 70,794 aircraft movements.
Figure 5-2 Aircraft Movement History—Hamilton
As shown in Figure 5-3, passenger volumes in Hamilton were relatively low until WestJet established their eastern-Canadian hub at the airport in 2000. Passenger levels rose to almost one million in 2003, but declined over the subsequent two years as WestJet transferred some of their Hamilton operations to Pearson. Passenger traffic has since rebounded somewhat, with the airport serving approximately 645,000 passengers in 2007. WestJet offers direct service to Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Halifax, Moncton and Orlando. In addition, Flyglobespan offers seasonal services to the United Kingdom and Air Transat offers seasonal services to the south.
Ch. 5, Page 4 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
Figure 5-3 Passenger History—Hamilton
5.1.3 Current Capacity 5.1.3.1 Runway Capacity Table 5-1 presents the airfield capacities for Hamilton that have been defined for this study. For the purpose of discussing the airport’s current capacity in this specific section, the calculations in the column associated with the current traffic mix and the existing airfield are relevant. The top portion of the table provides the current (2007) traffic mix at the airport, divided into local, itinerant-VFR and itinerant-IFR components, based on the information available in Transport Canada’s document, Aircraft Movement Statistics (TP 577). The division between local and itinerant movements is critical in defining runway capacity, since one touch-and-go associated with a flight training circuit occupies the runway for about the same length of time as one itinerant-VFR arrival or departure, but counts as two local movements in the Transport Canada aircraft movement records. It follows that, the higher the proportion of local movements at an airport, the higher the overall runway throughput potential. The division of itinerant movements into VFR and IFR components is also of importance, since an aircraft operating on instrument rules (such as larger commercial traffic) typically has a higher runway occupancy time than one flying on visual rules, using visual reference to the ground. The second main row of the table identifies the estimated hourly throughput potential under visual meteorological conditions (VMC), which typically occur approximately 88 per cent of the time in the GGH, as well as an overall hourly throughput potential that makes an allowance for reduced activity during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).
Ch. 5, Page 5 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
The third main row of the table converts the overall hourly throughput rate into a theoretical annual capacity, based on assumptions regarding the typical number of operational hours on weekdays and weekends. Two further adjustments are required at the bottom of the table to quantify a practical annual capacity. The first is an adjustment to reflect the fact that most airports tend to have lower traffic levels in the winter than in the summer, due to natural air traffic demand patterns. This is particularly true for flight training activities, so airports with a higher proportion of local movements generally have a lower winter adjustment factor, resulting in a lower annual capacity. The second adjustment is to convert the theoretical capacity into a practical capacity, recognizing that, prior to making this final adjustment, significant delays would occur in order to achieve the traffic levels indicated. The resulting annual capacity representing the existing fleet mix and airfield infrastructure is 185,000 aircraft movements.
Table 5-1 Runway Capacity Calculations—Hamilton
5.1.3.2 Passenger Terminal Capacity
Terminal Apron Capacity The passenger terminal apron can accommodate approximately seven Code C (B737) aircraft, equating to an estimated gate capacity of up to 1.4 million passengers per annum, based on a passenger per gate throughput of 200,000 passengers per gate.
Ch. 5, Page 6 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
Terminal Building Capacity The Terminal Building is a single level facility with an area of approximately 5,500 m2, not including the addition of the international baggage claim area, which provides greater flexibility for handling domestic and international flights simultaneously, but does not significantly increase the airport’s overall annual capacity. This translates into an estimated capacity of 550,000 passengers per annum, using the guideline of 10,000 m2 of terminal area per million annual passengers that is applied in this chapter, based on benchmarking of Canadian airports. Although the airport processed almost one million passengers in 2003, their 2004 Airport Master Plan Update stated that a number of the terminal facility systems were undersized for that volume of traffic, resulting in congestion. 5.1.3.3 Groundside Parking Capacity Approximately 1,740 vehicle parking spaces are provided for the airport’s passenger terminal. This translates into a passenger capacity of about 2.2 million passengers per annum, based on the guideline applied throughout this chapter of 800 parking spaces per million annual passengers that was established by benchmarking Canadian airports. 5.1.3.4 Conclusion The passenger capacity of the airport is currently limited by the terminal building, at 550,000 passengers per annum.
5.1.4 Planned Capacity Hamilton’s 2004 Airport Master Plan Update concludes that the current passenger terminal and runway/taxiway system will not be sufficient to meet future demand. In the longer term, the airport Master Plan proposes the addition of parallel taxiways for both runways and an extension of Runway 06-24 to 2,743 m (9,000 ft.), the latter requiring the closure or relocation of Airport Road and the acquisition of external lands. It suggests that with these improvements, the airport’s annual runway capacity would increase to approximately 265,000 aircraft operations per annum. The Airport Master Plan also proposes a two-phase expansion of the passenger terminal, first to seven bridged gates, and then to twelve bridged gates. In the longer-term, it mentions the possibility of a 34 gate terminal, but provides no potential layout. The Master Plan indicates that a 34 gate terminal could conceivably handle up to ten million passengers per annum, equating to a throughput of 300,000 passengers per gate; however, as is discussed below, this represents a gate utilization level that may be difficult to achieve.
Ch. 5, Page 7 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.1.5 Potential Capacity Figure 5-4 illustrates a high-level conceptual sketch of the long-term development potential of Hamilton Airport for commercial passenger traffic. Within the current airport boundaries, an expansion of the existing terminal area has the greatest potential for future passenger terminal development. However, expanding the terminal building to the extent considered here would require a major relocation of general aviation, cargo (Purolator) and other airport support facilities. Possible areas to the north- west of Runway 06-24 and to the east of the Cargojet hangar area have been identified on the plan for displaced facilities. 5.1.5.1 Runway Capacity The concept illustrated includes full length parallel taxiways for both runways and an extension of Runway 06-24 to a length of approximately 2,200 m (7,218 ft.) within the current airport boundaries. A further extension to 2,743 m (9,000 ft.), as contemplated in the Master Plan, would be possible with land acquisition and the closure or relocation of Airport Road. As shown in the column associated with the current traffic mix and the addition of parallel taxiways in Table 5-1, the elimination of the need for backtracking on the runways would significantly increase the airside capacity from 185,000 to approximately 250,000 aircraft movements (similar to the capacity referenced in the airport master plan). However, over the planning horizon, the forecasts indicate that the proportion of local movements in Hamilton will continue to fall while the proportion of itinerant movements will rise. As shown in the last two columns of Table 5-1, this will have the effect of lowering the overall runway capacity, either with or without the parallel taxiways. For example, with the parallel taxiways in place, the annual runway capacity would be approximately 235,000 with the projected 2032 traffic mix. 5.1.5.2 Passenger Terminal Capacity The concept demonstrates that with significant facility relocations, a terminal building with 35 gates could be accommodated, including 28 bridged gates and eight remote gates. This sketch assumes a two-level terminal, and provision of up to 9,000 vehicle parking spaces, mostly in a four-level parking garage. Based on a gate utilization of 200,000 passengers per annum, this translates into an annual capacity of approximately seven million passengers per annum. As discussed above, the Hamilton Master Plan suggests the possibility of achieving a gate utilization of up to 300,000 passengers per gate. This level of utilization is considered high for an airport of this size, and would imply use by carriers with a broad route network operating with
Ch. 5, Page 8 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
quick turnaround times and significant connecting passenger volumes. Should this throughput level be achieved, the 35 gate terminal could have a theoretical potential capacity of approximately 10.5 million passengers per annum. For the purposes of this study, the terminal capacity has been established at seven million passengers per annum, but sensitivity testing with respect to the study conclusions will be undertaken assuming a higher capacity of 10.5 million passengers.
Figure 5-4 Potential Development Concept for Hamilton Airport
Ch. 5, Page 9 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.2 Region of Waterloo International Airport
The Region of Waterloo International Airport is a certified airport located on a 405 hectare (1,000 acre) site in the Township of Woolwich in the Region of Waterloo. It is approximately one kilometre east of the Kitchener- Waterloo metropolitan area and approximately 100 km west of downtown Toronto. An aerial photograph of the airport is shown in Figure 5-5. The airport was jointly owned by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Guelph, and bore the name Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport, until 1996 when the Regional Municipality of Waterloo became the sole owner and operator. At that time, the airport was renamed to the Waterloo Regional Airport, but was renamed again in 2004 to its current name, to reflect Northwest Airlines commencing scheduled transborder passenger services. The role of the Region of Waterloo International Airport, as stated in their year 2000 Master Plan, is to be a fully equipped, certified airport facility to accommodate scheduled/charter passenger and air cargo facilities and services, business charter services, flight training, recreational flying and aviation-related industrial/commercial business and service facilities. The stated vision of the airport is to operate as a premier regional full-service airport, serving Canada’s Technology Triangle. The airport is surrounded by the community of Breslau and a mix of agricultural and industrial land to the north, a mix of agricultural and industrial land to the east and south, and the Grand River and City of Kitchener to the west. Of particular note is the recent approval and construction of new residential development in Kitchener to the west of the airport, beginning approximately one kilometre from the Runway 07 threshold. Since environmental factors such as aircraft noise are not within the scope of this study, the possible impact of this new community on the future role of the airport has not been assessed. In addition to serving scheduled and charter passenger services in recent years, the airport is also home to four flight training schools and a wide range of aviation related industrial and commercial businesses. The airport has recently expanded its commercial development area and has lots available for lease.
Ch. 5, Page 10 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
Figure 5-5 Waterloo Airport
5.2.1 Runway Facilities Waterloo Airport offers the following runway facilities.
Runway 07-25 (primary) • 2,154 m (7000 ft.) by 45 m (150 ft.) •Asphalt • Runway 25: Instrument precision / Runway 07: Instrument non- precision • Full length parallel taxiway
Runway 14-32 • 1,250 m (4,100 ft.) by 45 m (150 ft.) •Asphalt • Runway 32: Instrument non-precision / Runway 14: Non-instrument • Partial-length parallel taxiway
The airport has an air traffic control tower.
Ch. 5, Page 11 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.2.2 Activity History The aircraft movement history at Waterloo has been highly volatile, as shown in Figure 5-6, and has generally been fairly evenly split between local movements and itinerant movements. In 2007, the airport handled 57,406 local movements and 46,836 itinerant movements, for a total of 104,242 aircraft movements.
Figure 5-6 Aircraft Movement History—Waterloo
In 2004, Northwest Airlines commenced scheduled passenger service between Waterloo and Detroit, through their regional carrier Northwest Airlink, as depicted in Figure 5-7. Subsequently, WestJet began offering new services to Calgary and Bearskin began offering new services to Ottawa. Skyservice and Sunwing also provide vacation charter services. In 2007, passenger volumes increased to approximately 92,000.
Figure 5-7 Passenger History—Waterloo
Ch. 5, Page 12 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.2.3 Current Capacity 5.2.3.1 Runway Capacity Table 5-2 provides the runway capacity calculations for Waterloo. With the current traffic mix, the annual runway capacity is approximately 255,000 aircraft movements.
Table 5-2 Runway Capacity Calculations—Waterloo
5.2.3.2 Passenger Terminal Capacity
Terminal Apron Capacity A new passenger terminal was constructed in 2003 with three Code C (B737, A320) aircraft positions, equating to an estimated gate capacity of 600,000 passengers per annum based on a throughput of 200,000 passengers per gate.
Terminal Building Capacity The Terminal Building is a two storey building with an area measuring approximately 2,600 m², equating to an estimated capacity of approximately 260,000 passengers per annum.
Ch. 5, Page 13 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.2.3.3 Groundside Parking Capacity Approximately 460 vehicle parking spaces are provided for the airport’s passenger terminal, equating to an annual passenger capacity of 580,000 passengers per annum. 5.2.3.4 Conclusions The airport passenger capacity is currently limited by the terminal building, at approximately 260,000 passengers per annum.
5.2.4 Planned Capacity The Master Plan produced in the year 2000 recommended an extension to Runway 07-25 (which was 1,585 m or 5,200 ft. at that time), and an upgraded terminal building, both of which have since been constructed. The Master Plan did not contain longer term commercial passenger development plans.
5.2.5 Potential Capacity Figure 5-8 illustrates a high-level conceptual sketch of the long-term development potential of Waterloo Airport for commercial passenger traffic. In assessing the site for future long-term passenger terminal development, it was concluded that expansion within the existing terminal area would be problematic due to the close proximity of large general aviation facilities, and would not be capable of providing meaningful relief for Pearson. In the airport’s year 2000 Master Plan, a site south of Runway 07-25 and east of Runway 14-32 had been considered for the upgraded terminal they later built in 2003, but it was ultimately rejected due to the requirement to purchase additional lands, develop new groundside access, and because the site was isolated from existing facilities. That site was not considered in this study as it would require significant land acquisition. Consequently, an on-site location to the north of Runway 07-25, which offers sufficient land area to accommodate a sizeable terminal and an access road and would not require the relocation of existing facilities, has been chosen for the purpose of assessing the airport’s potential passenger capacity. However, it should be noted that the Master Plan identifies some wetland area in the vicinity of this site, so environmental investigations would clearly be required to determine whether development in this area would be possible. Should development in this area not be feasible, the site considered in the Master Plan south of Runway 07-25 and east of Runway 14-32 could potentially be an alternative, although wetlands also exist in the vicinity of that site, and it would be subject to the possibility of acquiring the necessary land.
Ch. 5, Page 14 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.2.5.1 Runway Capacity The conceptual plan shows the potential for an on-site extension to Runway 07-25 of approximately 260 m (850 ft.) to enable greater payload/ range for Code C aircraft or the operation of Code D aircraft (B767) with payload restrictions. The only other airfield change shown is the provision of taxiway infrastructure on the north side of Runway 07-25 to support the terminal. However, it should be noted that the taxiway parallel to the runway extends marginally outside the existing property boundary. Over the planning horizon, the proportion of local movements at Waterloo is forecast to decrease. As shown in the column associated with the 2032 traffic mix in Table 5-2, this will lower the overall runway capacity to approximately 225,000. 5.2.5.2 Passenger Terminal Capacity The concept shows that a terminal building with 23 gates could be accommodated, including 18 bridged gates and five remote gates. This sketch assumes a two-level terminal, and provision of up to 6,000 vehicle parking spaces, mostly in a four-level parking garage. Based on a gate utilization of 200,000 passengers per annum, this translates into an annual capacity of approximately 4.6 million passengers per annum. However, as discussed in the Hamilton Airport capacity section, it may be possible to achieve a higher level of gate utilization depending on the nature of the passenger services offered. If a throughput of 300,000 passengers per gate could be achieved, the capacity could theoretically be up to 6.9 million passengers per annum. For the purposes of this study, the terminal capacity has been established at 4.6 million passengers per annum. However, sensitivity testing with respect to the study conclusions will be undertaken assuming a higher capacity of 6.9 million passengers. It must be noted that the growth of commercial traffic to the extent considered here would result in increased aircraft noise impacts to local communities, particularly the new residential development approximately one kilometer to the west of the primary runway. It is outside the scope of this study to assess the degree to which possible community opposition could influence the Airport’s ultimate role and capacity.
Ch. 5, Page 15 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 5-8 Potential Development Concept for Waterloo Airport
5.3 Toronto City Centre Airport
The Toronto City Centre Airport is a certified airport located on the Toronto Islands and is in close proximity to downtown Toronto and its central business district. The airport access from the mainland is via a dedicated ferry service at the foot of Bathurst Street. Its downtown location allows the airport to fulfill a niche role within the GGH airport system. In addition to offering scheduled passenger services, the airport is a base for general aviation, two flight training schools and medevac services. The Airport is owned by the Toronto Port Authority, City of Toronto and Transport Canada, and is operated by the Toronto Port Authority under the terms of a 50-year Tripartite Agreement signed in 1983 between the Toronto Harbour Commission (predecessor to the Toronto Port Authority), the City of Toronto and Transport Canada. The Tripartite Agreement imposes a number of restrictions on the development and operation of the airport, including: • Prohibits additional runways or runway extensions • Prohibits expansion of the airport site • Prohibits a bridge or vehicular tunnel to the airport • Prohibits jet operations, aside from medical evacuations and other emergencies • Sets aircraft-specific and overall noise limits that cannot be exceeded
Ch. 5, Page 16 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
The airport facility is situated on 110 hectares (272 acres) of land bounded by waters of Lake Ontario on the west, north and east and public parkland on the Toronto Islands on the south. Despite being on an island, there is significant sensitivity to aircraft noise, primarily related to residential development along the Lake Ontario waterfront. The role of the airport, as stated by the airport operator, is to be an airport capable of providing scheduled passenger services as well as corporate, commercial, medevac and general aviation services. The airport has long experienced significant uncertainty regarding its long- term future. This uncertainty has resulted from a range of issues over time, including the financing of airport operating deficits, concerns over aircraft noise, controversy over the provision of a fixed link to the mainland and the compatibility of the airport operation with redevelopment of the waterfront area. The report, General Aviation and Airport Feasibility Study, prepared for the Toronto Port Authority in 2001 concluded that the status quo at that time of declining scheduled passenger services was not financially sustainable. Figure 5-9 shows an aerial photograph of the airport, although it should be noted that it is not a current photograph. In particular, the photograph does not show improved ferry terminals on both the mainland and the airport and an expanded terminal building.
Figure 5-9 City Centre Airport
Ch. 5, Page 17 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.3.1 Runway Facilities City Centre offers the following runway facilities:
Runway 08-26 (primary) • 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) by 45 m (150 ft.) •Asphalt • Runway 08: Instrument precision / Runway 26: Instrument non- precision • Full length parallel taxiway
Runway 06-24 • 878 m (2,880 ft.) by 45 m (150 ft.) •Asphalt • Non-instrument •No parallel taxiway
Runway 15-33 • 847 m (2,780 ft.) by 45 m (150 ft.) •Asphalt • Non-instrument • Partial-length parallel taxiway
The airport has an air traffic control tower. A number of airfield maintenance projects are recommended by the airport operator over the next few years, including rehabilitation of Runways 06-24 and 15-33 and a number of taxiways. However, given its limited use and length, closure of Runway 15-33 may be considered as an alternative to rehabilitation.
5.3.2 Activity History The aircraft movement history at City Centre has been highly volatile, as shown in Figure 5-10, and has generally been very evenly split between local movements and itinerant movements. Traffic reached a low in 2005, but has slightly rebounded since that time. In 2007, the airport handled 42,521 local movements and 47,678 itinerant movements, for a total of 90,199 aircraft movements.
Ch. 5, Page 18 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
Figure 5-10 Aircraft Movement History—City Centre
The passenger volumes at City Centre have also been very volatile, having peaked in the late 1980s, when the carrier City Express served 400,000 scheduled passengers. As illustrated in Figure 5-11, passenger volumes steadily declined from that time though 2006. In 2007, passenger volumes increased significantly to approximately 260,000, due to the scheduled passenger services offered by Porter Airlines, currently the only provider of such services at the airport. Using Q400 turbo-prop aircraft, Porter currently offers direct service to Ottawa, Montreal, New York, Quebec City, Chicago and Mont Tremblant, and service to Halifax with a connection through Ottawa. In the future, Porter intends to add additional routes within Ontario or to the north-eastern United States.
Figure 5-11 Passenger History—City Centre
Ch. 5, Page 19 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.3.3 Current Capacity 5.3.3.1 Runway Capacity Table 5-3 provides the runway capacity calculations for City Centre. With the current traffic mix, the annual runway capacity is approximately 240,000 aircraft movements.
Table 5-3 Runway Capacity Calculations—City Centre
5.3.3.2 Passenger Terminal Capacity The original Air Terminal Building has been designated by the City of Toronto as a heritage building and currently houses airport administration offices. Porter Airlines recently renovated and expanded a newer terminal building, adjacent to the ferry crossing, that is currently used to handle airport passenger services.
Terminal Apron Capacity At the time information was collected from the airports for this study, the newly renovated terminal building had two gates to serve Q400 aircraft, which would equate to a gate capacity of 200,000–300,000 passengers per annum, based on a passenger per gate throughput of 100,000–150,000 passengers per gate, which is deemed appropriate for a smaller regional
Ch. 5, Page 20 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
airport. However, the terminal facilities continue to be expanded in conjunction with Porter’s increasing route network. Airport management indicated that the planned addition of three more Q400 gates, for a total of five, was expected to support approximately 450,000 passengers per annum.
Terminal Building Capacity Initially, the single level terminal building had an area of approximately 800 m², equating to a capacity of less than 100,000 passengers. However, as mentioned above, Porter is expanding the terminal facilities as it grows its route offerings. As a result, a capacity estimate associated with the exact terminal facilities in existence at this point in time has not been made, but Porter served 260,000 passengers at the terminal in 2007. While statistics are not yet available for 2008, Porter likely served a higher number of passengers in 2008. 5.3.3.3 Groundside Parking Capacity There are two parking lots available on the mainland for airport users, including a small lot adjacent to the ferry terminal and a larger lot on Stadium Road. Together, they provide a total of 215 parking spaces, which would support up to 270,000 passengers per annum. However, due to the airport’s proximity to the City’s downtown core and the availability of public transit and Porter’s shuttle service to Union Station, it can be assumed that conventional levels of parking are not required at City Centre. Therefore, the existing parking facilities can likely support a higher traffic level than suggested above. 5.3.3.4 Ferry Capacity The current ferry service operates four return trips per hour, with a capacity of 100 passengers per trip. According to the airport operator, this equates to an annual capacity of approximately 300,000 passengers per year. 5.3.3.5 Tripartite Agreement Noise Limits The 2001 General Aviation and Airport Feasibility Study assessed a number of possible scenarios for increased passenger activity at the airport, including levels up to 900,000 passengers per year, and concluded that the airport could accommodate that level of commercial passenger operations within the terms of the Tripartite Agreement. Aircraft noise assessment was not within the scope of this study, so additional analysis regarding this issue was not undertaken.
Ch. 5, Page 21 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.3.3.6 Conclusions The capacity limiting factor of the airport at the present time is likely the terminal facilities, as that has been the recent focus of Porter’s expansion efforts. However, based on information collected from airport management, the airport may also be approaching the capacity of the current ferry service.
5.3.4 Planned Capacity Airport management indicated that, as demand warrants, the current ferry capacity of 100 passengers per trip could be increased to 150 passengers per trip with additional crew. This would increase the annual ferry capacity to approximately 450,000 passengers per year. Furthermore, airport management mentioned longer term plans to expand the terminal facilities beyond the five Q400 gates mentioned above, so that passenger volumes in excess of 450,000 passengers per annum could be accommodated, but no details regarding the plans were provided.
5.3.5 Potential Capacity Figure 5-12 illustrates a high-level conceptual sketch of the long-term development potential of Toronto City Centre Airport for commercial passenger services. The only feasible location for an expansion of passenger terminal facilities is in the existing terminal area, due to its need to be in close proximity to the ferry terminal. To maximize the terminal facilities, the concept assumes the relocation of a number of general aviation hangars. The only significant area on the airport that is available for new hangar development to potentially replace the displaced hangars has been identified on the plan to the south of Runway 06-24. However, vehicular/pedestrian access to the site from the ferry terminal would be problematic unless a new access from Hanlan’s Point was created. 5.3.5.1 Runway Capacity The conceptual plan does not illustrate any expansions to the runway system, which are prohibited under the terms of the Tripartite Agreement. However, the proportion of local movements at City Centre is forecast to decrease significantly over the planning horizon. As shown in the column associated with the 2032 traffic mix in Table 5-3, this will decrease the overall runway capacity to approximately 200,000 aircraft movements.
Ch. 5, Page 22 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.3.5.2 Passenger Terminal Capacity The concept shows that a terminal building with fourteen Q400 gates in a power-in/push-back configuration could be accommodated, comprised of eleven contact positions at the terminal building and three remote stands. The 14-gate terminal would have an estimated capacity of up to 2.1 million passengers per annum. It should be noted that the terminal concept shown is just one possible layout. The 2001 General Aviation and Airport Feasibility Study shows other possible configurations for a similarly sized terminal. 5.3.5.3 Ferry Capacity Airport management indicated that increasing the number of ferry return trips per hour from four to six would further increase the capacity of the existing ferry to 600,000 passengers per year. To go beyond a passenger volume of 600,000 per year, a larger ferry would be required and could be accommodated. 5.3.5.4 Conclusion Although the relocation of general aviation hangars and construction of a much larger terminal could provide a passenger capacity up to approximately two million passengers per annum, the noise limits of the Triparite Agreement, which have not been assessed in this study, may be the capacity limiting constraint of the airport. Previous work suggested that passenger volumes of up to 900,000 could be accommodated within the terms of the Agreement.
Ch. 5, Page 23 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 5-12 Potential Development Concept for City Centre Airport
Ch. 5, Page 24 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.4 Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport
The Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport is a certified airport situated on a 67 hectare (165 acres) site adjacent to Highway 404 in the City of Markham, and approximately 30 km from downtown Toronto. It is the busiest general aviation / corporate aviation airport in the GGH. Figure 5-13 provides a recent aerial photograph of the airport. The role of the Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport, as stated by the airport operator, is to be a certified general aviation / corporate aviation airport, including serving as a corporate aviation reliever and weather alternate for Pearson and a training ground for all aspects of aviation. The airport serves as the base for two fixed wing schools and one helicopter school. The Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport is owned and operated by Toronto Airways Limited. The value of the prime land on which the airport is located, combined with the economic realities of operating smaller airports, generates financial pressure to redevelop the airport site for alternative land uses. This has led to some degree of uncertainty regarding the long-term availability of the airport. To help preserve the operation of the airport in the short term, financial assistance has been provided to Toronto Airways Limited, at one time by the provincial government, and more recently by the GTAA. Within this uncertain environment, major investments in the airport have been difficult to justify. As a result, most of the key airport infrastructure has remained relatively unchanged for some time. However, two new hangars and a new air traffic control tower have been constructed in recent years, and renovations to the terminal building are currently being undertaken. The area around the airport is fully developed, with a mix of industrial and residential uses. As such, no site expansion potential exists. The airport has had scheduled passenger services in the past, but not in recent years. The terminal building currently houses the Toronto Airways FBO (Million Air) as well as other commercial businesses.
Ch. 5, Page 25 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 5-13 Buttonville Airport
Ch. 5, Page 26 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.4.1 Runway Facilities Buttonville offers the following runway facilities:
Runway 15-33 (primary runway) Runway 33: 1,189 m (3,902 ft.) by 30 m (100 ft.) • Runway 15: 1,238 m (4,063 ft.) by 30 m (100 ft.) •Asphalt • Instrument non-precision • Full length parallel taxiway
Runway 03-21 • 821m (2,693 ft.) by 25 m (80ft.) •Asphalt • Runway 21: Instrument non-precision / Runway 03: Non-instrument • Full length parallel taxiway
The airport has an air traffic control tower.
5.4.2 Activity History Following some volatility in the late 1980s and early 1990s, aircraft movement levels at Buttonville have been fairly steady, and evenly split between local movements and itinerant movements, as illustrated in Figure 5-14. In 2007, the airport handled 87,027 local movements, a marked increase over 2006, and 81,231 itinerant movements, for a total of 168,258 aircraft movements.
Figure 5-14 Aircraft Movement History—Buttonville
Ch. 5, Page 27 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.4.3 Current Capacity 5.4.3.1 Runway Capacity Table 5-4 provides the runway capacity calculations for Buttonville. With the current traffic mix, the annual runway capacity is approximately 275,000 aircraft movements.
Table 5-4 Runway Capacity Calculations—Buttonville
5.4.3.2 Passenger Terminal Capacity Buttonville Airport was included in the scope of the Needs Assessment Study for the purpose of assessing the GGH airport system from a corporate/ general aviation perspective, rather than as a commercial passenger reliever airport for Pearson, as there are no expectations at this time that the airport will fulfil a major commercial passenger service role in the future. Even if it were to assume such a role, its passenger capacity potential is deemed to be very modest.
5.4.4 Planned Capacity The airport operator did not provide expansion plans.
Ch. 5, Page 28 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.4.5 Potential Capacity 5.4.5.1 Runway Capacity There is no opportunity to provide additional runway length at Buttonville within the existing site and, as mentioned above, it is not practical to expand the airport site to extend the runways. However, over the planning horizon, the proportion of local movements at Buttonville is forecast to decrease. As shown in the column associated with the 2032 traffic mix in Table 5-4, this decrease will lower the overall runway capacity to approximately 250,000.
5.5 Oshawa Municipal Airport
The Oshawa Municipal Airport is a certified airport located on 182 hectares (450 acres) of land within the boundaries of the City of Oshawa, approximately 65 km north-east of downtown Toronto. Ownership of the airport was transferred from Transport Canada to the City of Oshawa in 1997. Total Aviation & Airport Solutions (TAAS) currently operates the airport on behalf of the City. The airport currently provides flight training services through two schools, serves air ambulance, charter, freight and regional police activities, and offers aircraft maintenance and restoration services. The site is surrounded by residential communities to the south, west, east and north-east, and a mixture of agricultural and industrial/commercial lands to the north and north-west, making expansion of the airport site impractical. In the mid 1990s, through funding from the provincial and federal governments, the Oshawa Airport underwent a significant redevelopment, including the construction of a new terminal and other commercial activities on the north side of the airfield with access from Taunton Road. The airport currently does not have scheduled passenger services; and as a result, the terminal is under-used. The possibility of the development of an airport in close proximity at Pickering and the closure and redevelopment of Oshawa Airport for non- aviation land uses, has created significant uncertainty regarding the future of the airport, particularly in the long-term when the supply of developable industrial and residential lands in the Region of Durham becomes depleted. For example, the Region of Durham Official Plan states that “The Oshawa Airport shall be developed to its fullest potential until such time as a new airport is established in the City of Pickering”. If an airport is established in
Ch. 5, Page 29 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Pickering, the Regional Official Plan envisions the extension of arterial roads through the Oshawa Airport lands and urban redevelopment of the site. According to the City, this threat has created a significant deterrent to private sector investment at the airport. In 2008, the City released a new Airport Business Plan covering the 2008–2012 time period. The plan states that “The role of the Oshawa Municipal Airport is to serve the City of Oshawa and the Region of Durham as a vital component of the transportation infrastructure supporting business and building community. The plan divides the airport site into a number of key areas, as shown in Figure 5-15. The following recommendations in the Plan are most pertinent to this study. • That the City commit to operate the Oshawa Municipal Airport for a period of not less than 25 years in order to provide surety to airport investors. • That aviation lots in the North Field be offered for sale. • That the East Field and Airport Golf Club lands be held in reserve for future airport needs. • That the South Field and Thornton Road Lands be considered as surplus to airport needs. • That upgraded instrument approaches and runway extensions be investigated.
Figure 5-15 Oshawa Airport Business Plan Areas Source: Oshawa Municipal Airport Proposed Airport Business Plan (2008–2012)
Ch. 5, Page 30 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.5.1 Runway Facilities The airport offers the following runway facilities:
Runway 12-30 (primary) • 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) by 30 m (100 ft.) •Asphalt • Instrument non-precision • Full length parallel taxiway
Runway 04-22 • 814 m (2,670 ft.) by 30 m (100 ft.) •Asphalt • Runway 04: Instrument non-precision / Runway 22: Non-instrument •No parallel taxiway
The airport has an air traffic control tower.
5.5.2 Activity History Aircraft movement levels in Oshawa have been slowly declining over time, and fairly equally split between local movements and itinerant movements, as depicted in Figure 5-16. In 2007, the airport handled 39,294 local movements, a significant increase over 2006, and 29,257 itinerant movements, for a total of 68,551 aircraft movements.
Figure 5-16 Aircraft Movements History—Oshawa
Ch. 5, Page 31 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.5.3 Current Capacity 5.5.3.1 Runway Capacity Table 5-5 provides the runway capacity calculations for Oshawa. With the current traffic mix, the annual runway capacity is approximately 270,000 aircraft movements.
Table 5-5 Runway Capacity Calculations—Oshawa
5.5.3.2 Passenger Terminal Capacity As with Buttonville, Oshawa Airport was included in the scope of the Needs Assessment Study for the purpose of assessing the GGH airport system from a corporate/general aviation perspective, rather than as a commercial passenger reliever airport for Pearson. Nevertheless, since the airport does have a relatively new passenger terminal building, and since the new Oshawa Airport Business Plan recommends marketing the airport to scheduled passenger carriers, a high-level estimation of the airport’s terminal capacity was made. The two-level terminal building has an area of 1,450 m2, equating to a passenger capacity of approximately 150,000 passengers per annum.
Ch. 5, Page 32 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.5.4 Planned Capacity The City’s plans for airport development are documented in the 2008 Airport Business Plan. In terms of airport infrastructure, the Plan’s main emphasis is on the sale and development of aviation lots in the North Field, facilitated by the commitment to operate the airport for 25 years. The primary recommendations regarding the airfield are the development of a new taxiway to provide airside access to the new North Field aviation lots, and that the possibility of runway extensions and upgraded instrument approaches be investigated.
5.5.5 Potential Capacity 5.5.5.1 Runway Capacity An extension to Runway 12-30 of approximately 305 m (1,000 ft.) appears to be possible within the site boundary, which would increase the total runway length available, at least for departures, to about 1,524 m (5,000 ft.). This extension would give the airport the capacity to accommodate a broader range of corporate jet aircraft than can currently operate at Oshawa, or at any airport in the eastern portion of the GTA. As noted above, the Airport Business Plan recommends that the possibility of runway extensions be investigated, but no specific runway length target is referenced. Over the planning horizon, the proportion of local movements in Oshawa is forecast to decrease, although not as significantly as at some of the other airports in the system. As shown in the column associated with the 2032 traffic mix in Table 5-5, this will lower the overall runway capacity to approximately 255,000. 5.5.5.2 Passenger Terminal Capacity The airport has a significant amount of developable land and, in theory, could accommodate a significant expansion of the passenger terminal building. However, given that the airport was not included in the scope of the Needs Assessment Study as a potential major passenger reliever airport, that possibility is not discussed further in this report. Furthermore, although the Business Plan recommends efforts to re-establish scheduled passenger services at the airport, it does not foresee the need for a larger terminal building within the report’s five-year planning horizon.
Ch. 5, Page 33 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.6 Peterborough Municipal Airport
Peterborough Municipal Airport is a certified airport located on a 277 hectare (684 acre) site in Cavan Monaghan Township of Peterborough County, about four kilometres south-west of Peterborough and 130 km from downtown Toronto. It is owned and operated by the City of Peterborough. An aerial photograph of the airport is shown in Figure 5-17. The City states that the role of the airport is to provide full service facilities for business and general aviation, offering complete pilot, passenger and aircraft services as well as freight handling. The airport does not currently have scheduled passenger air service, and is not assessed for that purpose in this study. The City has made significant investments in the airport in recent years, including bringing municipal services to the site. The land use in the vicinity of the airport is primarily agricultural, with a small residential subdivision (approximately 20 homes) approximately 1.5 to 2.5 km east of the airport. Although the airport did not have a flight training school in operation at the time this study was being conducted, a new school was under construction and is scheduled to open in 2009. As was explained in Chapter 3, the aircraft movement activity for 2009 and subsequent years has been increased to reflect the addition of the new school.
Ch. 5, Page 34 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
Figure 5-17 Peterborough Airport
5.6.1 Runway Facilities The airport offers the following runway facilities:
Runway 09-27 (primary) • 1,524 m (5,000 ft.) by 30 m (100 ft.) •Asphalt • Instrument non-precision • Partial-length parallel taxiway (approximately one fifth of the runway length)
Runway 13-31 • 564 m (1,850 ft.) by 30 m (100ft.) (31 threshold displaced 168 m) •Turf • Non-instrument •No parallel taxiway
The airport does not have an air traffic control tower.
Ch. 5, Page 35 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.6.2 Activity History Local movements have comprised the majority of the relatively low level of activity at the airport over time, as shown in Figure 5-18. However, the level of local movements has fallen sharply recently, decreasing below the number of itinerant movements. In 2007, the airport handled 4,520 local movements and 5,390 itinerant movements, for a total of 9,910 aircraft movements.
Figure 5-18 Aircraft Movement History—Peterborough
5.6.3 Current Capacity Table 5-6 provides the runway capacity calculations for Peterborough. The opening of the new flight training school in 2009 will significantly increase the proportion of local movements at the airport. As a result, the forecast 2009/2010 traffic mix has been used to calculate the ‘current’ runway capacity calculations rather than the actual 2007 traffic mix. The current annual runway capacity is approximately 145,000 aircraft movements, which is lower due to the lack of a parallel taxiway and a low level of airport utilization in the winter.
Ch. 5, Page 36 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
Table 5-6 Runway Capacity Calculations—Peterborough
5.6.4 Planned Capacity The City has approved a multi-million dollar investment in the airport over the next six years that will support the development of a new 30 acre aerospace business park, including extending municipal services further within the airport site, extending the ramp area, relocating existing general aviation facilities and building a new terminal building. In the longer term, an extension of the primary runway by 305 m (1,000 ft.) to 1,826 m (6,000 ft.), and an extension of its parallel taxiway to approximately half of the runway length, are potentially envisioned and can be accommodated within the existing property boundaries.
5.6.5 Potential Capacity Figure 5-19 illustrates a high-level conceptual sketch illustrating the potential provision of a full length parallel taxiway for the primary runway. It should be noted that some land acquisition would be required to provide the full length of the taxiway. As shown in the column associated with the current traffic mix and the addition of a full length parallel taxiway in Table 5-6, the elimination of the need for backtracking on the runways would significantly increase the airside capacity from 145,000 to approximately 270,000 aircraft movements.
Ch. 5, Page 37 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
However, over the planning horizon, the forecasts indicate that following the significant increase in local movements anticipated in 2009/2010, the proportion of local movements will slowly decrease over time while the proportion of itinerant movements will rise. As shown in the last two columns of Table 5-6, this will have the effect of lowering the overall runway capacity, either with or without the parallel taxiway. For example, with the parallel taxiway in place, the annual runway capacity would be approximately 255,000 with the projected 2032 traffic mix.
Approximate area currently identified for facility expansion
Figure 5-19 Potential Development Concept for Peterborough Airport
Ch. 5, Page 38 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.7 Lake Simcoe Regional Airport
Lake Simcoe Regional Airport is a registered airport located on a 240 hectare (594 acre) site in the Township of Oro-Medonte, between the cities of Barrie and Orillia, and approximately 130 km from downtown Toronto. It is jointly owned by the City of Barrie and the Township of Oro-Medonte, and is operated by the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport Commission. An aerial photograph of the airport is shown in Figure 5-20. The role of the airport is to serve as a full service regional and corporate/ general aviation airport with flight training facilities. The vision of the airport is to be a centre of aviation excellence for maintenance, repair, assembly, manufacturing and related services, accommodating future air traffic growth and creating new employment opportunities for central Ontario. The airport does not currently have scheduled passenger air service, and is not assessed for that purpose in this study. The land use in the vicinity of the airport is primarily agricultural.
Figure 5-20 Lake Simcoe Airport
Ch. 5, Page 39 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.7.1 Runway Facilities The airport offers the following runway facilities.
Runway 10-28 • 1,524 m (5,000 ft.) by 30 m (100 ft.) •Asphalt • Instrument non-precision •No parallel taxiway
The airport does not have an air traffic control tower.
5.7.2 Activity History The airport opened in 1991, but historical aircraft movement data is not available in Transport Canada’s published reports until 1996. The majority of the relatively low level of activity at the airport has been local movements, as can be seen in Figure 5-21. In 2007, the airport handled 12,967 local movements and 6,216 itinerant movements, for a total of 19,183 aircraft movements.
Figure 5-21 Aircraft Movement History—Lake Simcoe
Ch. 5, Page 40 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.7.3 Current Capacity Table 5-7 provides the runway capacity calculations for Lake Simcoe. With the current traffic mix, the annual runway capacity is approximately 130,000 aircraft movements. The lower capacity results from the lack of a parallel taxiway and a low level of airport utilization in the winter.
Table 5-7 Runway Capacity Calculations—Lake Simcoe
5.7.4 Planned Capacity Future planned airport improvements include a 305 m (1,000 ft.) runway extension to provide a total runway length of 1,829 m (6,000 ft.), a partial parallel taxiway, servicing of lands for commercial/industrial development and terminal building expansion. These potential improvements are shown in Figure 5-22.
Ch. 5, Page 41 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 5-22 Development Plans for Lake Simcoe Regional Airport
5.7.5 Potential Capacity Although the airport plans depicted in Figure 5-22 only contemplate a partial-length parallel taxiway, the existing site can accommodate a full length parallel taxiway, which has been factored into the potential capacity calculations. As shown in the column associated with the current traffic mix and the addition of a parallel taxiway in Table 5-7, the elimination of the need for backtracking on the runway would significantly increase the airside capacity from 130,000 to approximately 265,000 aircraft movements. The proportion of local movements in Lake Simcoe is forecast to be similar in 2032 as it is currently; as a result, the airport’s capacity in 2032, either with or without the addition of a parallel taxiway, is estimated to be unchanged from the current capacity.
Ch. 5, Page 42 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.8 Brampton Airport
Brampton Airport is a certified airport located on a 97 hectare (240 acre) site in Caledon, approximately 13 km north of Brampton and 60 km from downtown Toronto. It is owned and operated by the Brampton Flying Club. An aerial photograph of the airport is shown in Figure 5-23, but it should be noted that this photo is somewhat dated. The stated vision of the airport is to be a world class leader in delivering general aviation services including education, recreational flying, aircraft support and general aviation airport facilities, for the benefit of its members and staff, in harmony with the community. The airport does not have scheduled passenger air service, and is not assessed for that purpose in this study. The land use in the vicinity of the airport is primarily agricultural.
Figure 5-23 Brampton Airport
5.8.1 Runway Facilities The airport offers the following runway facilities.
Runway15-33 (primary) • 1,067 m (3,500 ft.) by 23 m (75 ft.) • Asphalt (centre 40 ft.) • Instrument non-precision
Ch. 5, Page 43 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Full length parallel taxiway •Runway 08-26 • 762 m (2,500 ft.) by 23 m (75 ft.) • Asphalt (centre 40 ft.) • Non-instrument • Full length parallel taxiway
The airport does not have an air traffic control tower, and traffic statistics are not reported. As a result, unlike the other airports discussed thus far, a historical record of aircraft movements is not available.
5.8.2 Current Capacity Table 5-8 provides the runway capacity calculations for Brampton. With the current traffic mix, which is heavily skewed towards local movements, the annual runway capacity is approximately 340,000 aircraft movements.
Table 5-8 Runway Capacity Calculations—Brampton
5.8.3 Planned Capacity The airport owner/operator did not provide airport expansion plans.
Ch. 5, Page 44 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.8.4 Potential Capacity Runway extensions are not possible within the existing property boundaries. Over time, the proportion of local movements in Brampton is forecast to decrease. As shown in the column associated with the 2032 traffic mix in Table 5-8, this will decrease the overall runway capacity to approximately 325,000 aircraft movements.
5.9 Burlington Airpark
Burlington Airpark is a registered airport located on a 78 hectare (192 acre) site on the eastern edge of Burlington, adjacent to the Milton boundary, and approximately 60 km west of downtown Toronto. It is privately owned and operated. An aerial photograph of the airport is shown in Figure 5-24, but it is somewhat dated. For example, the aerial photograph does not show a recent extension to the primary runway. The role of the airport is to be a registered general aviation and flight training airport. The owner’s vision is to enhance its existing operation by promoting continued use by general aviation aircraft and flight training schools, with expansion to corporate aviation activity. The airport does not have scheduled passenger air service, and is not assessed for that purpose in this study. The land use in the vicinity of the airport is primarily agricultural. The airport is adjacent to Appleby Line, which provides access to Highway 407.
Figure 5-24 Burlington Airpark
Ch. 5, Page 45 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
5.9.1 Runway Facilities The airport offers the following runway facilities.
Runway 14-32 (primary) • 1,128 m (3,700 ft.) by 23 m (75 ft.) (14 threshold displaced 27 m and 32 threshold displaced 99 m) • Asphalt (centre 60 ft.) • Instrument non-precision • Full length parallel taxiway
Runway 09-27 • 686 m (2,250 ft.) by 30 m (100 ft.) (09 threshold displaced 152 m) •Turf • Non-instrument •No parallel taxiway
The airport does not have an air traffic control tower, and traffic statistics are not reported. As a result, a historical record of aircraft movements is not available.
5.9.2 Current Capacity Table 5-9 provides the runway capacity calculations for Burlington. With the current traffic mix, the annual runway capacity is approximately 270,000 aircraft movements.
Ch. 5, Page 46 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
Table 5-9 Runway Capacity Calculations—Burlington
5.9.3 Planned Capacity The airport owner/operator provided the expansion plans shown in Figure 5-25. The plans envision development on the west side of the airport site, next to Appleby Line, partly on lands the airport recently acquired. The plans include a number of new hangars and associated aprons and taxiways, a terminal building and a parallel taxiway on the west side of the primary runway. The plan also refers to the widening of the primary runway, but no further runway length extensions are possible within the current airport boundaries. These enhancements would significantly improve the airport’s accessibility and increase its capacity to park/store/service aircraft; however, the enhancements would not have a measurable effect on the airport’s annual runway capacity. The proportion of local movements at Burlington is forecast to decrease over the planning horizon. As shown in the column associated with the 2032 traffic mix in Table 5-9, this will decrease the overall runway capacity to approximately 245,000 aircraft movements. No further assessment of the airport’s potential capacity has been undertaken, since the plan provided by the airport owner/operator largely maximizes the existing site.
Ch. 5, Page 47 of 50 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 5-25 Development Plans for Burlington Airpark
Ch. 5, Page 48 of 50 Chapter 5: Airport Capacities
5.10 Summary
Table 5-10 summarizes the airport capacities that have been defined in this chapter. The provision of a full length parallel taxiway at the three airports that do not currently have one would result in an overall system-wide runway capacity increase of approximately 15 per cent. However, the gradual transition towards a higher proportion of itinerant movements within the airport system is expected to result in a decrease in the overall system runway capacity in the seven to nine per cent range, either with or without the airfield enhancements.
Table 5-10 Annual Airport Capacity Summary
Ch. 5, Page 49 of 50 Ch. 5, Page 50 of 50 CHAPTER 6 Airport Access Times
A key component of the Needs Assessment Study is to assess the likely distribution of passengers across the GGH airport system under a range of possible future airport system development scenarios. In these scenarios, different combinations of Hamilton, Waterloo and Pickering airports serve as relievers to Pearson. Such an analysis requires a means of quantifying the demographic base associated with each of the four airports under consideration. In turn, compiling demographic data for each airport requires partitioning the GGH region into airport catchment areas. While it would be possible to define relatively simplistic airport catchment area boundaries that are equidistant between each pair of adjacent airports, a more sophisticated approach was employed for the purposes of this study. The method used in this study established the airport catchment area boundaries based on future projected driving times to the airports, which should be a more important factor than distance alone when people choose an airport. This chapter presents the travel time modelling work that has been undertaken in support of the Needs Assessment Study to define the airport catchment areas that will be applied in the passenger allocation work in Chapter 8.
Ch. 6, Page 1 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
6.1 GTAModel
The travel demand modelling system used for this work is called GTAModel. This program was developed at the University of Toronto, in the Joint Program in Transportation, in order to analyse/forecast travel behaviour in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). This is the primary long-range forecasting tool that the City of Toronto Planning Department uses to assess transportation components of their Official Plan, among other planning applications. It has also been used by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), by consultants to assess various rail proposals for the GTA, including the employee access component of the Transport Canada ridership study for the proposed new rail line to Pearson, and in an earlier study reviewing road access to GTA airports. The geographical area covered by GTAModel consists of: • A detailed representation of the Cities of Toronto and Hamilton and the Regional Municipalities of Durham, York, Peel and Halton. This primary analysis area, referred to as “GTA+H”, is represented by 1717 traffic zones as depicted in Figure 6-1. • A larger zone representation of the regions and counties surrounding the GTA+H area, referred to as the “external” area, and comprised of 29 traffic zones as shown in Figure 6-2.
Ch. 6, Page 2 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figure 6-1 GTAModel Traffic Zone System
Ch. 6, Page 3 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 6-2 GTAModel External Zone System
Figure 6-3 provides a simplified representation of the structure of GTAModel. The model predicts the total number of trips by all trip purposes occurring within the GTA+H area during a typical weekday morning peak period, by origin-destination pair, for all modes of travel available within the area. The morning peak period is defined as including all trips that begin during the period 6:00–8:59 a.m., inclusive. The trip purposes included in the model are: • Home-to-work trips, including airport employees travelling to the airport for work purposes. • Home-to-school trips. • External trips (trips for all purposes that have one end (origin or destination) within the GTA+H and the other end outside the GTA+H area). • Airport passenger trips to/from the airport. • All other purpose trips.
Ch. 6, Page 4 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Travel modes explicitly represented in the model are: •Auto passenger •Auto driver • Transit all-way (excludes GO-Rail and subway with auto access trips) • Subway with auto access • GO-Rail with transit/walk access • GO-Rail with auto access • Walk/bike
Figure 6-3 GTAModel Travel Demand Modelling System
Truck traffic (including air cargo trips to/from the airports) is not included in the model, which deals with passenger vehicle movements only. In order to account for the effect of truck traffic on roadway congestion, road capacities in the computer model have been reduced to reflect the approximate percentage of trucks expected to be using the roadways. The model has been developed using 1996 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) data. TTS has been collecting complete one-day travel behaviour information for all members of a five per cent sample of GTA+H households every five years since 1986. The 1996 survey interviewed 88,898 households in the GTA+H, while the 2001 sample size interviewed 113,608 households. Thus, the TTS is a very large, statistically valid survey of GTA+H travel behaviour and is the standard source of travel behaviour information for all planning agencies in the GTA.
Ch. 6, Page 5 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
GTAModel uses the EMME/2 network modelling software system to assign predicted auto and transit trips to the road and transit networks, and also to estimate modal levels of service (travel times/speeds, roadway congestion levels, etc.). EMME/2 is used throughout Canada and internationally to model urban transportation networks, and is the standard tool for network modelling in the GTA+H. In 2005, GTAModel capabilities were extended in the following ways: • The performance of the model system, which had been calibrated using 1996 travel survey data, was validated against observed 2001 travel data. • The capability to compute travel time contours and congestion ratios was implemented.
6.2 Region of Waterloo Travel Times
For this Needs Assessment Study, the capability to model travel times to/ from the Waterloo Airport was required. As noted above, this region is only crudely modelled as an external zone in GTAModel, which is focused on the GTA+H area. No model system currently exists that models the entire GGH in detail. The Region of Waterloo maintains a detailed (597 traffic zone) travel demand model system for the Waterloo area. To refine GTAModel travel time estimates for trips to/from the Waterloo area, we obtained congested and uncongested origin-destination travel time matrices for 2031 from the Region of Waterloo for trips between their traffic zones (including Waterloo Airport). Travel times between Region of Waterloo traffic zones and traffic zones in the rest of the GGH were estimated by adding the travel time between the Waterloo traffic zone and a “gateway” zone on the boundary between the Region of Waterloo and the GTA+H, as computed by the Waterloo model, to the travel time between the same “gateway” zone and the GGH zone, as computed by GTAModel. Figure 6-4 illustrates this process.
Ch. 6, Page 6 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figure 6-4 GTAModel and Region of Waterloo Models
6.3 Population and Employment Data
Population and employment for every traffic zone in the study area must be supplied to GTAModel. The forecasted 2031 zone-level population and employment data were obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). These 2031 estimates, however, were scaled up or down so that regional totals match current Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (MPIR) regional estimates. Table 6-1 shows the MTO and MPIR 2031 population and employment forecasts by region for the GTA+H area and the regional adjustment factors used to scale the zone-level data.
Ch. 6, Page 7 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 6-1: 2031 Population & Employment by Region
Population Employment Region MTO MPIR MPIR/MTO MTO MPIR MPIR/MTO
Toronto 3000.0 3080.0 1.03 1835.0 1640.0 0.89
Durham 1000.0 960.0 0.96 433.9 350.0 0.81
York 1359.9 1500.0 1.10 737.9 780.0 1.06
Peel 1400.0 1640.0 1.17 760.0 870.0 1.14
Halton 670.0 780.0 1.16 359.1 390.0 1.09
Hamilton 579.8 660.0 1.14 260.1 300.0 1.15
6.4 Travel Time Contours
Figures 6-5 through 6-8 present travel time contour maps showing year 2031 morning peak period travel times to Pearson, Hamilton and Waterloo airports as well as the Pickering site, respectively. In all cases, the colour coding runs from green, representing very short travel times, through to dark red, representing very long travel times. These maps show expected patterns in terms of: • Increased travel times as one moves further away from a given airport. • In the cases where the airport and the trip-maker’s origin/destination are located at opposite sides of the City of Toronto, traffic congestion in the city impedes travel times. • The influence of “peak period primary directions of travel” on travel times to airports, depending on the location of the given airport relative to peak period flow directions. • Travel times in 2031 are typically long for many portions of the GGH. Projected road and transit improvements, as driven by population and employment growth, provide relatively modest relief compared to the magnitude of the projected growth in travel over this time period.
Ch. 6, Page 8 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figure 6-5 Travel Time to Pearson Airport—6 to 8:59 a.m.
Ch. 6, Page 9 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 6-6 Travel Time to Hamilton Airport—6 to 8:59 a.m.
Ch. 6, Page 10 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figure 6-7 Travel Time to Waterloo Airport—6 to 8:59 a.m.
Ch. 6, Page 11 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 6-8 Travel Time to Pickering Lands—6 to 8:59 a.m.
6.5 Congestion Ratio Maps
While the absolute travel times presented in the previous section are primary measures of airport accessibility, it is also useful to examine the extent to which these travel times are the result of congestion. The more congested the trip, the more psychologically frustrating it is and the less reliable the traveller’s expectation of the travel time can be, leading to additional excess time for many trip-makers, as they leave early to make allowances for possible delays. One method for assessing congestion levels is to construct a congestion ratio for travel from each zone to each airport. A congestion ratio is defined as the congested travel time divided by the freeflow travel time. Freeflow travel time is the travel time that would be experienced if there were no delays due to congestion. The extent to which this ratio exceeds 1.0 indicates the fraction of extra travel time being spent due to congestion.
Ch. 6, Page 12 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figures 6-9 through 6-12 present congestion ratios for 2031 AM peak period trips to Pearson, Hamilton and Waterloo airports as well as for the Pickering site, respectively. The green areas represent a congestion ratio of 1.0 to 1.2, meaning the peak period travel time exceeds the freeflow travel time by less than 20 per cent. The colour coding extends through to dark purple, representing a congestion ratio of three to five, meaning the peak period travel time is three to five times longer than the freeflow travel time.
Figure 6-9 Congestion Ratios for Travel to Pearson Airport
Ch. 6, Page 13 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 6-10 Congestion Ratios for Travel to Hamilton Airport
Ch. 6, Page 14 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figure 6-11 Congestion Ratios for Travel to Waterloo Airport
Ch. 6, Page 15 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 6-12 Congestion Ratios for Travel to Pickering Lands
6.6 Airport Catchment Area Maps
This study considers eight passenger reliever airport system scenarios, which are discussed in detail in Chapter 8. These scenarios include all possible combinations of having no reliever airport to support Pearson, or one, two or three reliever airports, as defined in Table 6 2.
Ch. 6, Page 16 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Table 6-2 Passenger Reliever Airport Scenarios
Figures 6-13 through 6-20 illustrate airport catchment area maps for the eight passenger reliever airport scenarios for morning peak period trips to the airports in 2031. An airport’s catchment area consists of the set of traffic zones for which that airport is projected to be the closest of all airports considered in the scenario, on a year 2031 travel time basis. As an example, Figure 6-20 presents the airport catchment areas for Scenario P8, in which Hamilton, Waterloo and Pickering airports are all operating as significant relievers for Pearson. As shown in this figure, the dividing line between Pearson and Pickering catchment areas is roughly the Don Valley Parkway in the City of Toronto and then angles slightly to the north-west through York Region and Simcoe County. The dividing line between Pearson and the Waterloo and Hamilton catchment areas is roughly the Peel-Halton/Wellington boundaries. Finally, the Hamilton catchment area consists of the Region of Niagara, the City of Hamilton and southern Halton Region, with Waterloo being the closest airport for areas north and west of the Hamilton catchment area. The projected future demographic base associated with each of the airport catchment areas in each of the scenarios have been compiled and will be applied in the passenger allocation work in Chapter 8.
Ch. 6, Page 17 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 6-13 Airport Catchment Areas—Scenario 1 (no reliever)
Ch. 6, Page 18 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figure 6-14 Airport Catchment Areas—Scenario 2 (Hamilton reliever)
Ch. 6, Page 19 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 6-15 Airport Catchment Areas—Scenario 3 (Waterloo reliever)
Ch. 6, Page 20 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figure 6-16 Airport Catchment Areas—Scenario 4 (Pickering reliever)
Ch. 6, Page 21 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 6-17 Airport Catchment Areas—Scenario 5 (Hamilton and Waterloo relievers)
Ch. 6, Page 22 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figure 6-18 Airport Catchment Areas—Scenario 6 (Hamilton and Pickering relievers)
Ch. 6, Page 23 of 26 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Figure 6-19 Airport Catchment Areas—Scenario 7 (Waterloo and Pickering relievers)
Ch. 6, Page 24 of 26 Chapter 6: Airport Access Times
Figure 6-20 Airport Catchment Areas—Scenario 8 (three relievers)
Ch. 6, Page 25 of 26 Ch. 6, Page 26 of 26 CHAPTER 7 Multiple Airport Systems
This chapter examines airport systems in North American markets that are comprised of multiple airports offering significant levels of commercial air carrier service. The primary purposes of the review were to identify common airport system evolution patterns and the associated responses of the air carrier community, evaluate each system’s level of success, draw comparisons to the GGH market, and identify key success factors for the establishment of secondary airports.
7.1 Multiple Airport Systems Examined
The North American metropolitan areas with multiple airport systems that were examined included: •Chicago •Dallas •Houston •Los Angeles •Montréal •New York • San Francisco • Washington, DC
Ch. 7, Page 1 of 18 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
7.2 Airport System Summary Information
Table 7-1 outlines the population served by each airport system, lists the airports within each airport system, and provides some basic information about each airport, including the year it was established, its activity levels, and identifies the owner and the operator. The Toronto airport system is included in the review to facilitate comparison to the other markets.
7.3 Airport System Evolution Patterns
Each of the airport systems evolved into their current state due to a myriad of factors. Nevertheless, the airport systems can, to some extent, be categorized based on their general development patterns.
7.3.1 Category 1: Development of a New Primary Airport In category one, a new airport is developed to become the primary one, relegating the original airport to a secondary role. The typical evolution pattern is as follows: • The original airport became, or was anticipated to become, capacity constrained • A new airport was developed to become the primary airport. • The original airport became a secondary airport, much smaller than the primary airport.
The airport systems that have evolved in this manner are identified in Table 7-2.
Ch. 7, Page 2 of 18 Table 7-1 Airport System Summary Information
Ch. 7, Page 3 of 18 Chapter 7: Multiple Airport Systems
Table 7-2 Category 1: Development of a New Primary Airport
Airport Original New Primary Variations System Airport Airport
Chicago Midway O’Hare (ORD) (MDW)
Dallas Love Field Dallas-Ft. Worth Love field traffic was (DAL) (DFW) restricted, forcing traffic to the new DFW.
Houston Hobby George Bush Hobby was closed to shift (HOU) (IAH) traffic to Bush, but later reopened.
7.3.2 Category 2: Balanced Three-Airport System In category two, two existing airports are supplemented with a new third airport. The typical evolution pattern is as follows: • Two original airports were developed. • A new complementary airport was developed. • Traffic restrictions were placed on one of the original airports. • Traffic distribution became somewhat balanced across all three airports.
The airport systems that have evolved in this manner are identified in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3 Category 2: Balanced Three-Airport System
Airport Original New Third Restricted Variations System Airports Airport Airport
New Newark John F. Kennedy LaGuardia Restrictions placed on York (EWR) and (JFK) LaGuardia to shift long-range LaGuardia and international traffic to (LGA) JFK.
Washing Reagan Dulles Reagan National Dulles developed to alleviate ton National forecast capacity constraints. (DCA) and Traffic at Reagan National Baltimore- restricted to promote IAD. Washington (BWI)
Ch. 7, Page 5 of 18 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
7.3.3 Category 3: Unbalanced Three-Airport System In category three, two existing airports are supplemented with a new third airport. The typical evolution pattern is as follows: • Two original airports were developed. • A new complementary airport was developed. • No traffic restrictions were implemented. • A single airport emerged as the dominant primary airport.
The airport systems that have evolved this manner are identified in Table 7-4.
Table 7-4 Category 3: Unbalanced Three-Airport System
Airport Original New Third Variations System Airports Airport
San Oakland (OAK) San Jose (SJC) Traffic shifted from OAK to SFO during Francisco and San Francisco WWII. After the war, SFO became the (SFO) dominant airport, even after traffic was shifted back to OAK.
7.3.4 Category 4: One Primary Airport with Several Secondary Airports In category four, one airport emerges as the primary aerodrome. The typical evolution pattern is as follows: • One very strong primary airport complemented by a number of much smaller secondary airports throughout the airport system. • The secondary airports historically struggled with significant noise restrictions and/or ground access difficulties, which have thus far prevented any one of the secondary airports from taking on a more significant reliever function. • Traffic growth and congestion continues to develop at the primary airport due to the difficulties associated with the secondary airports.
The airport system that has evolved in this manner is identified in Table 7-5.
Ch. 7, Page 6 of 18 Chapter 7: Multiple Airport Systems
Table 7-5 Category 4: One Primary Airport with Several Secondary Airports
Airport Original New Third Airport Variations System Airports
Los Los Angeles LA/Ontario International Angeles International Airport (ONT), Bob Hope Airport (LAX) Airport (BUR), Long Beach Municipal Airport (LGB), John Wayne Airport (SNA) and Palmdale Regional Airport (PMD).
7.3.5 Category 5: Unsuccessful Development of a New Primary Airport Systems where a new airport was developed to become the primary one, but failed to evolve as planned. The typical evolution pattern consisted of: • Original airport was anticipated to become capacity constrained • New remote airport developed to replace the original airport, with a planned phased relocation of all traffic from the original airport and eventual closure • Only partial traffic restrictions put in place at the original airport • Due to slower than expected traffic growth, the geographical disadvantage of the new airport and the challenge of split operations, airline preference for the original airport remained strong. • Governing body eventually removed all traffic restrictions at the original airport, and all commercial passenger service returned to the original airport.
The airport system that has evolved in this manner is identified in Table 7-6.
Airport Unsuccessful New Original Airports Variations System Primary Airport
Montreal Pierre Elliot Trudeau Mirabel Airport (YMX) International Airport (YUL)
Ch. 7, Page 7 of 18 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
7.4 Factors Precipitating Secondary Airports
The cities listed below have either successfully developed a new airport in the last fifty years, or are in the process of attempting to do so. The primary impetus for each new airport is identified.
7.4.1 Chicago Land acquisition and environmental review is currently underway for the “South Suburban Airport”, which would become the third major airport serving the greater Chicago area. Current and projected congestion at O’Hare is the primary motivating factor behind the initiative for a third airport.
7.4.2 Dallas DFW opened in 1974 when Love Field was deemed capacity constrained. DFW was intended to be, and has become, the primary airport.
7.4.3 Houston George Bush Intercontinental was opened in 1969. Hobby was viewed as having insufficient capacity for future growth and was closed for a short period of time when the new airport opened, but later re-opened for commercial traffic. Intercontinental was developed as a replacement airport, and has become the primary airport.
7.4.4 Washington, D.C. Dulles was opened in 1958 and was intended as the primary airport in the region. The traffic level at Dulles finally exceeded Reagan National in 1999, some 40 years after it opened.
7.4.5 Summary The development of the new airport in each system has been unique to the system’s circumstances, although a capacity shortfall, or the anticipation of a capacity shortfall, has typically been the rationale for the new airports constructed over the past fifty years.
Ch. 7, Page 8 of 18 Chapter 7: Multiple Airport Systems
7.5 Airport Governance
While no specific governance model can be cited as the key to a successful multiple airport system, those that function effectively are generally overseen by a single Board or Commission, eliminating competing interests and objectives. An exception to this would be the Washington, DC area, where Baltimore-Washington is overseen by the Maryland Aviation Commission but Regan National and Dulles are overseen by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. All three airports operate successfully within this environment.
7.6 Air Carrier Preference for Primary Versus Secondary Airports
This section compares the various airport systems with respect to the distribution of air carrier services across the airports. Where relevant, policies that impact the traffic allocation are noted.
7.6.1 Chicago O’Hare has over 80 per cent of the total passenger traffic in the Chicago area, including extensive domestic and international services provided by over 40 airlines. Two of these carriers, United and American, use O’Hare as a major hub. There is limited low-cost carrier activity at O’Hare. In contrast, Midway hosts approximately ten airlines, the majority of whom are considered to be low-cost, with Southwest as the dominant carrier.
7.6.2 Dallas DFW handles approximately 90 per cent of the Dallas-Fort Worth area traffic and is home to approximately 20 airlines, including American Airlines, which uses DFW as a hub. Love Field is dominated by Southwest Airlines, who operate over 80 per cent of the airport’s flights. The flight limitations placed on Love Field (service only within Texas and to adjacent states) was fundamental in establishing DFW as the primary airport for most airlines. At one time, Southwest was the only operator at Love Field, but as restrictions have eased, Continental and American have begun limited service at the smaller airport.
Ch. 7, Page 9 of 18 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
7.6.3 Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport has over 80 per cent of the passenger traffic in the Houston area, with domestic and international services offered by 17 airlines, including a major hub operation for Continental Airlines. Hobby Airport, which was initially closed after the opening of Intercontinental, is currently served by five domestic airlines. Low-cost carrier Southwest dominates Hobby’s traffic, and jetBlue also provides limited service.
7.6.4 Los Angeles Although there are many airports in the Los Angeles area, LAX dominates with over 70 per cent of the area passenger traffic. John Wayne Airport follows at 11 per cent while all of the other airports have passenger traffic percentages in the single digits. Many airlines operate from multiple airports in the area. LAX is home to over 70 airlines serving both domestic and international routes and includes a significant low-cost carrier component, primarily through Southwest Airlines. Ontario and Bob Hope Burbank have 14 and 10 airlines respectively, including low-cost offerings from both Southwest and jetBlue. Long Beach, which is constrained to 41 daily commercial operations, has four operational airlines and is dominated by low-cost carrier jetBlue. John Wayne is serviced by 14 airlines, including Southwest. Palmdale has had very limited success in attracting air carrier service, despite the offering of significant financial incentives to airlines.
7.6.5 Montréal When Mirabel Airport opened in 1975, all international traffic was forced to move to it from Dorval (now known as Pierre Elliot Trudeau). As a result, airlines with multi-sector operations (such as Air Canada) were forced to maintain expensive split operations between the two airports despite the desire to maintain a single base out of the more centrally located Dorval site. The number of connecting passengers fell as market share was lost to Toronto. With all traffic restrictions now removed, all commercial passenger traffic has returned to Trudeau.
7.6.6 New York Approximately 90 per cent of the area’s passenger traffic is processed through JFK, Newark and LaGuardia Airports. JFK now has approximately 40 per cent of the passenger traffic, and offers service by more airlines (90) than any of the other area airports. Historically considered the “international” airport, over 60 per cent of the traffic at JFK is now
Ch. 7, Page 10 of 18 Chapter 7: Multiple Airport Systems
domestic, owing partly to the perimeter rule that was put in place at La Guardia to ensure some domestic traffic at JFK. Low-cost carrier jetBlue offers flights from all three of the main airports, as well as Stewart, but has its primary hub at JFK. La Guardia, hampered by slot regulations and a perimeter rule, is the smallest of the three airports with a 25 per cent market share and service by 22 airlines. Newark is home to 50 airlines offering domestic and international service and is a major hub for Continental airlines. Unlike many other multiple airport systems where low-cost carriers have a clear preference for secondary airports, the dominance of jetBlue at JFK makes the New York system an anomaly in that respect.
7.6.7 San Francisco SFO has approximately half of the area’s passenger traffic with the remainder split slightly more in favour of Oakland than San Jose. SFO dominates with 45 airlines, the majority of which are legacy airlines. Oakland and San Jose both offer domestic and international service by approximately one dozen airlines, including low-cost carriers Southwest and jetBlue.
7.6.8 Washington, D.C. Passenger traffic is fairly evenly split between the three area airports. Twenty-one airlines operate on domestic and Canadian routes at Regan National, which is limited both by slots and a perimeter rule. Dulles has over 30 airlines, including low-cost carriers jetBlue and Southwest, offering domestic and international services. BWI also has the same components as Dulles with 17 airlines, although low-cost carrier service is more prominent.
7.7 Evaluation of Success
The overall success, or lack thereof, of each multiple airport system is discussed below.
7.7.1 Chicago After struggling with the collapse of Midway Airlines in 1992, Midway has successfully rebounded and is now viewed as a more stable airport due to a larger carrier base and the presence of Southwest. O’Hare continues to dominate and is going through a $6.6 billion redevelopment project. Over twenty years after the acknowledgement that a third airport is necessary,
Ch. 7, Page 11 of 18 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
the environmental review process has finally commenced. While it can be debated whether accelerating the third airport would be a better use of infrastructure funds than the redevelopment of O’Hare, there is no question that the Chicago area airports are successful.
7.7.2 Dallas Fraught with political wrangling for over thirty years, there is finally a plan in place to remove all restrictions to Love Field by 2014. The restrictions placed on the original airport have allowed DFW to grow into a significant and successful airport, aided by the establishment of an American Airlines hub, although it has been suggested that this was at the cost of fair competition and not necessarily in the best interest of passengers.
7.7.3 Houston Although originally intended to be closed after the opening of Intercontinental, Hobby continues to fill an important role as a secondary domestic airport. Jointly operated by the Houston Airport System, each airport fulfills an important role in the local community and is viewed as a success despite the legal challenges over the last forty years.
7.7.4 Los Angeles There is no coherent plan for coordinating capacity and investment for airports in the Los Angeles area. Many airports, including LAX, are hampered by various political agreements that are limiting growth. The one airport with significant space and the support of its local community, Palmdale, has insufficient population in its catchment area and is too remote from Los Angeles to attract meaningful airline services. While the problem is widely recognized and there is a promisingly named “Southern California Regional Airport Authority”, it does not have the participation of the various airports, and therefore, no mechanism by which to develop or implement a systematic plan for growth at the secondary airports. From an aviation industry perspective, the current system is coping for the time being, but it will not be considered successful until a viable capacity growth plan has been developed and a means of implementing it is agreed upon by the airport system stakeholders.
7.7.5 Montreal The Montreal area suffered significant loss in destinations served and connecting traffic due to the forced split operations at Trudeau and Mirabel, and the many years of uncertainty about the future of the two airports. The development of Mirabel, without the closure of Trudeau as planned, is widely seen as an airport system failure.
Ch. 7, Page 12 of 18 Chapter 7: Multiple Airport Systems
7.7.6 New York Within their own system of five airports, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has been successful in ensuring the continued health of JFK through restrictions at La Guardia and Newark. The latter was considered a failure for many years, but has since rebounded and is now a successful hub for Continental airlines. The Port Authority has recently participated in a Regional Air Service Demand Study to assess traffic patterns in the greater New York and New Jersey areas in order to increase regional airport capacity. It is premature to judge the success of the Port Authority’s strategy going forward, which includes the promotion of Stewart to serve more of the passenger traffic originating in its vicinity, and potentially the use of additional regulations to increase the average aircraft size at the three main airports. While other airports, such as Long Island-MacArthur, have some potential to relieve demand at the Port Authority airports, there is no mechanism in place for cooperation within the system.
7.7.7 San Francisco All three airports in the San Francisco area compete for the same traffic and airspace. While the individual airports claim success, there is recognition that coordination is necessary to reduce congestion and rationalize traffic and investment at the three airports.
7.7.8 Washington, D.C. The limits placed on Reagan National were successful in facilitating the development of Dulles as a major airport, although this achievement took more than thirty years. The competition between the two Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority airports and BWI has resulted in some instability in traffic levels at both BWI and Dulles, and higher levels of infrastructure investment than would be expected in a single management environment.
Ch. 7, Page 13 of 18 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
7.8 General Observations
Based on the multiple airport system information assembled, the following overall observations can be made: • Most multiple airport systems have one primary airport, supported by one or more significantly smaller secondary airports. The exceptions are New York and Washington which have a more equitable distribution of traffic among the airports. • In airport systems with a primary airport and one or more much smaller secondary airports, legacy air carriers are most likely to serve the primary airport, whereas low-cost air carriers are much more likely to offer service from a secondary airport. • Much of the growth at U.S. secondary airports has been a result of airline deregulation and more recently, the growth of low-cost carriers. • In many cases, while the secondary airports have grown initially due to the low-cost carriers, legacy airlines have also started service as a competitive response, which has further fuelled traffic growth. • In order for secondary airports to successfully serve as reliever airports, they need to be able to operate without oppressive noise or traffic restrictions. • Secondary airports also need to be accessible enough to the travelling public so that they are viewed as viable travel options. • Restrictions have sometimes been placed on the original airport to promote the successful launch of a new airport. While often challenged by the airlines as unfair, this approach has often been successful at forcing traffic to other airports. However, if they are to succeed, these restrictions need to be firm enough to force carriers to shift traffic to the new site. • Even once a secondary airport is established, the traffic there tends to be more volatile than at primary airports. Chicago Midway is a prime example of this volatility, as its traffic dropped by 40 per cent when Midway Airlines failed in 1992, but now appears to have a more stable traffic base. • Many of the so-called ‘new’ commercial airports developed in the U.S. have actually been conversions of existing private, military or aircraft manufacturing airfields to commercial airports. Although there have been greenfield commercial airports developed within the U.S. systems studied, they have been developed as a replacement for the primary airport rather than as a secondary airport. • None of the successful secondary airports heavily depend on connecting passengers transferring between it and the primary airport. Each airport tends to be independently successful, although regulations may result in a concentration of certain types of traffic at each airport.
Ch. 7, Page 14 of 18 Chapter 7: Multiple Airport Systems
7.9 Comparison to GGH Market
The following comments can be made about the GGH market relative to the multiple airport systems examined: • In the future GGH airport system, Pearson would remain the primary airport and be supported by the development of one or more secondary airports, as is the intention in the Los Angeles airport system. This would be in contrast to the Chicago, Dallas and Houston systems in which the new airport supplanted the old airport as the primary airport for the region. In these cases, regulations were often enacted to limit traffic at the old airport, thereby forcing growth at the new airport. • As observed in the U.S., there is evidence in the GGH of growth at secondary airports being attributable largely to low-cost carriers, as seen in the presence of WestJet at Hamilton and Waterloo. • Hamilton and City Centre have experienced significant passenger volume volatility over the years, as has sometimes occurred at secondary airports in the U.S. • Many more domestic airlines exist in the U.S., both low-cost and legacy, than in Canada. Thus, in the American market, the risks associated with commencing a new service at a secondary airport are spread between many different airlines across many different markets. With fewer air carriers in Canada, the establishment of a secondary airport in the GGH is more challenging from that perspective. • The GGH and the successful airport systems studied all have the basic fundamental for success - a strong local catchment area. In terms of total population, the areas around Dallas, Houston and San Francisco all have fewer people than the GGH and support multiple airport systems. • Good groundside access and proximity to a significant catchment population are important factors for success, and factors that vary amongst the possible secondary airports in the GGH. As noted with Palmdale within the Los Angeles airport system, an airport without good groundside access and proximity to a significant local market is not likely to successfully function as a secondary airport. • If an airport at Pickering were to be developed, it would be a “greenfield” secondary airport, rather than a conversion of an existing airfield, as has tended to be the case in the U.S. systems studied. Although there have been “greenfield” commercial airports developed within the U.S., they have been developed as the primary replacement airport rather than as a secondary airport. However, if the third Chicago airport is developed, it would be similar to a potential Pickering situation.
Ch. 7, Page 15 of 18 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
7.10 Success Factors for Developing a Secondary Airport
Much of the published research on Multiple Airport Systems has been compiled by Professor Richard de Neufville of MIT. His book (co-authored with Professor Amedeo Odoni, also of MIT), “Airport Systems: Planning, Design and Management”, contains a chapter on the subject. This information has been augmented with a series of interviews conducted with senior airport authority staff of various North American multiple airport systems, as follows: • James Walsh, Deputy Executive Director, Business Management & Administration, Maryland Aviation Administration/BWI • William de Cota, Director Aviation, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey • Richard Marchi, Senior Advisor Policy & Planning Airports Council International – North America; former Executive Director Massport • James Cherry, President & CEO, Aéroports de Montréal
The interviewees were asked their opinion regarding how to develop a successful secondary airport, an issue that Professor de Neufville also discusses in his book. The commonly agreed success factors are summarized in this section.
7.10.1 Strong Market Potential Strong market potential encompasses a number of elements, including a substantial local demand base, good airport access and competitive pricing. Fundamental to the success of any secondary airport is substantial local demand, as there will always be competition for that local traffic from the primary airport. In addition to the existence of strong local demand, efficient access to the airport must be available for those passengers. Otherwise, they will revert to using the primary airport. Passenger surveys performed for a Federal Aviation Administration study have confirmed that travel time from home to the airport is a significant factor when passengers choose an airport1. Finally, the flight cost to the passenger must be reasonably relative to that available at the primary airport. In the case of a smaller secondary airport, passengers may need pricing incentives, such as lower parking costs, as a trade-off for the reduced flight frequency usually available at secondary airports. The sensitivity of the passenger’s airport choice to the relative flight costs at the primary and secondary airports will be highly dependent
1.FAA Regional Air Service Demand Study, PANYNJ; Impact Factors, “Effect of Ground Transportation Factors” – May 2007
Ch. 7, Page 16 of 18 Chapter 7: Multiple Airport Systems
on the type of traveller. A business traveller will typically only select a secondary airport if direct flights exist and the schedule frequency is acceptable, whereas a leisure traveller is typically more willing to forego convenience to obtain lower pricing at a secondary airport.
7.10.2 Airline Cooperation Strong market potential and airline cooperation are closely linked. The first is a precedent for the second, but having strong market potential does not guarantee airline cooperation. Once an airline has determined that a strong market potential exists at a secondary airport, the operating costs for the airline become an important factor in deciding whether to offer service at that airport. For airlines already serving the primary airport, a concentrated operation at that single facility is typically the least expensive to operate. As a result, to entice an existing carrier at the primary airport to begin serving a second airport, the costs at the secondary airport have to be sufficiently lower to offset the incremental costs resulting from split operations, unless the airline chooses to serve the secondary airport strictly as a competitive response to the operation of another carrier at the secondary airport. A key to growth at a secondary airport is attracting and maintaining a significant traffic level so that it becomes financially advantageous for airlines at the primary airport to split their operations and also offer service at the secondary airport. In terms of attracting new carriers to the market, many secondary airports in the U.S were established with lower costs than the primary airports. Thus, when low-cost carriers entered the market, they frequently located at the secondary airports. This was the situation at Hamilton when WestJet initially established their eastern hub there instead of at Pearson.
7.10.3 Well Planned and Designed Facilities The design of the airport facilities in the airport systems was not examined. However, it is fundamental to the success of all airports to have well planned and designed facilities that are both expandable and appropriate for the intended market. A key message expressed by all of the interviewees and Professor de Neufville is that a secondary airport is best planned as one that can be developed incrementally and is flexible enough to respond to marketplace volatility.
7.10.4 Single Governing Body All of the individuals interviewed indicated uniformly that the likelihood of success for a secondary airport, and the benefit to the overall regional system, is increased if a single organization operates both the primary and secondary airports are operated by a single organization. Although one interviewee (James Walsh, Deputy Executive Director, Business
Ch. 7, Page 17 of 18 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Management & Administration, Maryland Aviation Administration) noted that competition between airports could potentially provide a better level of customer service and/or lower costs, he also indicated that a single authority offers a lower risk from a developer/investor perspective, as well as staffing-related cost savings.
Ch. 7, Page 18 of 18 CHAPTER 8 Passenger Allocation
This chapter assesses the likely distribution of air passenger traffic under a range of possible GGH airport system development alternatives. As described in Chapter 1, this study assumes that Pearson will remain the primary commercial airport for the GGH, and that Hamilton, Waterloo and a new airport in Pickering could each potentially be developed into significant commercial reliever airports to supplement Pearson as demand warrants. A total of eight passenger reliever scenarios have been considered in the study, including all possible combinations of no reliever airport, one reliever airport, two reliever airports or three reliever airports. These eight scenarios are defined in Table 8-1. Although some of the scenarios are more likely to materialize than others, all have been evaluated in this study for completeness.
Ch. 8, Page 1 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 8-1: Passenger Reliever Airport System Scenarios
Future passenger traffic volumes at the GGH reliever airports will be largely comprised of two elements: • “Pull” traffic: the natural demand for passenger air services from the reliever airport’s catchment area. • “Push” traffic: the excess demand off-loaded from Pearson to the reliever airport(s) as traffic at Pearson approaches its capacity limits.
8.1 Airport Catchment Area Sizes
In order to assess the likelihood of a reliever airport attracting and maintaining air service based on its own natural demand (pull traffic), and to appropriately distribute traffic that will be pushed from Pearson later on, it is necessary to quantify the relative strength of each airport’s catchment area based on its demographic composition. As explained in Chapter 6, future airport access travel times were modeled for the years 2006 and 2031 for each of the eight passenger reliever airport scenarios, and were used as the basis for defining airport catchment areas. The current and projected demographic base associated with each airport catchment area was quantified in terms of population and employment. This airport catchment area demographic data is used in the passenger allocation work on the premise that, all else being equal (fares, destinations, flight frequencies, amenities, etc.), passengers will tend to go to the airport that is closest to them, in terms of travel time. The resulting percentage distributions of population and employment that are closer to each airport based on driving time, for each of the eight scenarios are shown in Tables 8-2 and 8-3 respectively. The distribution of employees is somewhat more concentrated around Pearson than the
Ch. 8, Page 2 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
distribution of population, although the Pearson catchment area clearly dominates all other airports in terms of both demographic variables. Over time, a slight shift of the demographic base towards the east side of the GGH is anticipated.
Table 8-2: Airport Catchment Area Sizes Based on Population
In addition to quantifying the general demographic composition of the airport catchment areas, the distribution of ground origins of actual departing passengers surveyed at Pearson in 2005 was also assessed relative to the airport catchment areas. While the results, presented in Table 8-4, are obviously skewed in favour of Pearson, as passengers at other airports were not surveyed, the bias is reduced substantially by the fact that the vast majority of passengers in the GGH use Pearson. As one would expect, the distribution of actual passengers at Pearson is skewed more in favour of Pearson than the general population or employment. This suggests that people and businesses that rely on air travel tend to locate closer to Pearson. Presumably the distribution of air passengers would change over time in response to any future changes in the supply of air services in the region.
Ch. 8, Page 3 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 8-3: Airport Catchment Area Sizes Based on Employment
Ch. 8, Page 4 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
Table 8-4: Airport Catchment Area Sizes Based on Pearson Passengers
For the purposes of the passenger allocation exercise, the relative sizes of the airport catchment areas have been based on the distribution of employment in 2031 from Table 8-3, as it reflects the approximate midpoint of the various measures. However, it should be noted that the use of one of the other distributions would not have a major impact on the passenger allocation results.
8.2 “Pull” Traffic: Natural Demand at Reliever Airports
The examination of the potential of the three possible reliever airports to pull traffic away from Pearson prior to it approaching capacity considered three possible types of air service routes: point-to-point services within North America; spoke services to another North American hub airport; and international services. Each of these routes are discussed in the following sections. A major Canadian carrier is not likely to develop any of the possible reliever airports as a significant connecting hub because the major carriers have already established Pearson for that purpose.
Ch. 8, Page 5 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
8.2.1 North American Point-to-Point Services Point-to-point air services are those routes that are based primarily on origin/destination (O/D) passengers, with no or limited levels of passengers connecting to other flights at either end of the route. Point-to-point services at the GGH reliever airports should begin to develop once the O/D traffic potential between the reliever airport catchment area and the destination market is large enough to support an airline’s minimum flight frequency. Different airlines have varying strategies regarding serving multiple-airport markets and minimum flight frequencies. Detailed discussions were held with domestic carriers to better understand these differences. Air Canada’s priority is to maintain a high frequency service at its Pearson hub, and is therefore relatively unlikely to initiate service at a secondary airport if it would lower the level of service they can offer to their passengers at Pearson, unless it is a strategic response to a competitor. They currently do not offer service at any secondary airport in the GGH, although they have previously offered limited service with smaller regional aircraft at Hamilton and at City Centre. Since WestJet only operates B737s, they do not have smaller regional aircraft to use when entering new short-haul markets. As a result, their passenger threshold for inauguration of service on short-haul routes is higher than Air Canada’s. However, on longer routes, where their aircraft sizes are comparable to Air Canada’s, they are willing to initiate service with a relatively low frequency of one daily round trip or even less, resulting in lower passenger thresholds for starting service. They have not been reluctant to serve multiple airports in the GGH, as demonstrated by their current presence in both Hamilton and Waterloo in addition to Pearson. They currently provide service to their hub in Calgary from both Hamilton and Waterloo, as well as point-to-point service between Hamilton and Moncton, Halifax, Winnipeg and Edmonton. Existing O/D passenger volumes between Toronto and major North American markets were examined, and compared to estimated traffic level thresholds for Air Canada and WestJet establishing service at each of the three potential reliever airports, taking into consideration their relative catchment area sizes discussed in the previous section. The assessments for Hamilton and Waterloo are considered together, since the size of the catchment areas are very similar in terms of their demographic base. Table 8-5 indicates the markets for which it is estimated that the Air Canada thresholds would be reached within the planning period. Four routes are projected to meet Air Canada’s thresholds at Hamilton and Waterloo, while six routes meet the threshold for the larger Pickering catchment area.
Ch. 8, Page 6 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
Table 8-5: Potential North American Point-to-Point Services— Air Canada
Since Hamilton and Waterloo airports exist, these theoretical calculations can be compared to the actual services offered by the airline. The calculations suggest that the only routes that presently qualify for service by Air Canada, or will qualify in the short-to-medium term, are Montreal and Ottawa. Air Canada did, in fact, offer such services out of Hamilton through its regional carrier, Jazz, until mid-2008 when the services were discontinued. The results of a similar analysis for WestJet are provided in Table 8-6. Due to WestJet’s lower passenger thresholds for medium and long haul routes, more routes potentially qualify for point-to-point service than for Air Canada—a total of nine for Hamilton and Waterloo, and eleven for Pickering.
Ch. 8, Page 7 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 8-6: Potential North American Point-to-Point Services—WestJet
Comparing these theoretical calculations to the actual services currently offered by the airline, WestJet does in fact offer service to Calgary from both Hamilton and Waterloo, and to Halifax and Winnipeg from Hamilton as predicted. Table 8-6 suggests that WestJet should currently offer a non-stop flight between Hamilton and Vancouver, which they do not, but they do serve the Vancouver market via a connection in Calgary. The analysis also indicates that service to New York could also qualify for WestJet service at present, but no such service is offered. Finally, WestJet does not serve Montréal or Ottawa from Hamilton, despite the traffic potential, possibly because Air Canada provides a very competitive flight frequency from Pearson, and offered service at Hamilton itself until recently. On the other hand, they operate non-stop service between Hamilton and Edmonton, somewhat earlier than predicted above, and between Hamilton and Moncton, where traffic is substantially below the theoretical threshold calculated in this analysis. On the whole, the theoretical exercise has generated air service predictions that bear some resemblance to the actual air service offerings at Hamilton and Waterloo, recognizing that there are always going to be other considerations that could cause an airline to offer fewer or more services. In addition to the current services noted above, WestJet also offers seasonal and low frequency services to Florida from Hamilton during the winter. Such a service requires lower annual passenger volume thresholds, and could be viable at all of the potential reliever airports.
Ch. 8, Page 8 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
8.2.2 North American Spoke Services Consideration was given to the possibility of carriers establishing ‘spoke’ services at the three potential GGH reliever airports feeding into their hub airports. Such a service could potentially capture not only O/D passengers between the GGH reliever airport and the hub airport city, but also passengers flying from the GGH reliever airport to the hub airport for the purpose of connecting to flights to other destinations. Air Canada operates secondary hubs in Montreal, Halifax, Calgary and Vancouver. However, it is unlikely that many Air Canada passengers from the GGH reliever airport catchment areas would choose to make a connection in those cities, as opposed to taking a non-stop Air Canada flight to their final destination from Pearson, due to the extra time required to make a connection and the risk of missing the connecting flight. As a result, this service is not considered further. As noted in the previous section, service to WestJet’s Calgary hub already qualifies for service from the GGH reliever airports on a point-to-point basis, so that route does not need to be assessed further from the perspective of a spoke service. The only other potential spoke services would be by U.S. carriers to their U.S. hubs. All of the major American hub airports were analyzed based on an assumed minimum flight frequency of three flights per day—such as the current Northwest Airlines service between Waterloo and its hub in Detroit—minimum aircraft sizes, and the sizes of the GGH reliever airport catchment areas. It was concluded that Chicago, which is a hub for both American Airlines and United Airlines, is the only viable candidate during the forecast horizon. The current Northwest Airlines service between Waterloo and Detroit is considered to be a special case, perhaps resulting from the relationship between the automotive industries in both cities.
8.2.3 International Services An examination of the highest density overseas international routes (London, Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt), reviewed the O/D passenger volumes, typical aircraft sizes and the minimum airline flight frequencies. This examination concluded that based on the market shares of the three potential reliever airports, it is unlikely that a scheduled carrier would serve any of the three reliever airports on a year-round basis prior to traffic being pushed from Pearson. While some seasonal overseas services are possible, such as the summer service to the U.K. and Ireland currently offered by Flyglobespan at Hamilton, they are not anticipated to result in large transfers of passengers to the reliever airports on an annual basis.
Ch. 8, Page 9 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Service from the reliever airports to southern international vacation destinations is considered viable on a seasonal basis due to the typical use of smaller jet aircraft and lower flight frequencies, such as the current services that Air Transat offers out of Hamilton and the Sunwing and Skyservice services out of Waterloo.
8.2.4 Summary It is anticipated that relatively modest commercial passenger traffic volumes will materialize at the reliever airports on the basis of local natural demand prior to demand at Pearson nearing the airport's capacity. The majority of the demand at reliever airports is likely to be North American origin/ destination traffic.
8.3 “Push” Traffic: Excess Demand at Pearson
As described in Chapter 4, there are two key passenger capacity thresholds associated with the full infrastructure build-out of Pearson. • 46 million annual E/D passengers: the practical capacity, at which congestion begins to develop during peak periods. • 54 million annual E/D passengers: the maximum capacity, at which major delays would be common during significant portions of the day.
For the purpose of passenger allocation in this study, it has been assumed that when the airport surpasses the practical capacity of 46 million passengers, a small percentage of the passengers and airlines are likely to begin looking for an alternative airport due to the onset of congestion. As the passenger level at Pearson continues to build, the percentage of traffic switching to a reliever airport is assumed to increase until the maximum capacity of 54 million passengers is reached. Beyond 54 million passengers, all traffic growth is pushed to the reliever airport(s). Figure 8-1 outlines the effect of this calculation. By 2032, there are 15.2 million passengers in the unconstrained Pearson forecast that exceed the airport’s maximum capacity, and need to be accommodated elsewhere. It should be noted that once the traffic push from Pearson begins, it would very quickly overwhelm the rather modest levels of pull traffic expected to have already materialized at the reliever airports.
Ch. 8, Page 10 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
Figure 8-1: “Push” Traffic from Pearson
8.4 Passenger Allocations by Scenario
8.4.1 Passengers The projected E/D passenger allocations for all eight scenarios are presented in this section, based on consideration of both the pull and push passenger traffic previously discussed. These initial passenger allocations are based on the following assumptions: • Pearson is developed to its maximum capacity of 54 million passengers, as quantified in Chapter 4. • The passenger capacities of Hamilton and Waterloo are 7.0 million and 4.6 million passengers respectively, which reflect the most likely capacity estimates for those airports as documented in Chapter 5 (without consideration of potential environmental constraints, such as aircraft noise. • The passenger forecast used is the original baseline forecast provided by Transport Canada at the outset of the study, which is described in Chapter 3. However, since the City Centre airport is not considered as a major passenger reliever airport in this study, its passenger traffic is not allocated in this chapter.
Section 8.5 of this chapter tests the sensitivity of the passenger allocation results against these assumptions.
Ch. 8, Page 11 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
8.4.1.1 Scenario P1—No Reliever In Scenario P1, Pearson is developed to its maximum capacity of 54 million passengers, but no other airport in the system is actively developed to take on the role of relieving commercial passenger traffic from Pearson once it reaches capacity. Instead, Hamilton and Waterloo airports are only developed to the extent of accommodating the base passenger volumes reflected in the Transport Canada forecasts, which are relatively modest at approximately 1.5 and 0.2 million passengers per year, respectively. In 2023, Pearson would reach its maximum capacity of 54 million and, in the absence of a reliever airport, demand will exceed overall system capacity. By 2032, the excess demand will have reached approximately 15 million annual passengers. The resulting passenger allocation is provided in Table 8-7 and Figure 8-2.
Table 8-7: Scenario P1—Passenger Allocation
Figure 8-2: Scenario P1—Passenger Allocation
Ch. 8, Page 12 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
8.4.1.2 Scenario P2—Hamilton Reliever Under Scenario P2, Hamilton is developed as a reliever for Pearson, while activity at Waterloo remains limited to its base traffic as forecast by Transport Canada. Prior to Pearson reaching its practical capacity, Hamilton’s traffic increases only modestly over its base traffic level since most of the routes that are projected to qualify for natural demand (or pull) service in Tables 8-5 and 8-6 are already being served, and are therefore accounted for in Transport Canada’s Hamilton Airport forecasts. However, when Pearson reaches its practical capacity of 46 million in 2018, the push traffic from Pearson begins to materialize, sharply increasing Hamilton’s traffic until it reaches its capacity of seven million in 2026. Concurrently, traffic at Pearson builds to its maximum capacity of 54 million. Starting in 2027, the system cannot fully accommodate the forecast demand, and by 2032, the excess demand shall reach about ten million annual passengers.
Table 8-8: Scenario P2—Passenger Allocation
Figure 8-3: Scenario P2—Passenger Allocation
Ch. 8, Page 13 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
8.4.1.3 Scenario P3—Waterloo Reliever Under Scenario P3, the roles of Waterloo and Hamilton are assumed to be reversed from Scenario P2. That is, Waterloo becomes the sole reliever airport, while growth at Hamilton remains limited to its base traffic. When Pearson reaches its practical capacity of 46 million in 2018, traffic would begin to off-load to Waterloo, and since Waterloo’s capacity of 4.6 million is below Hamilton’s, the region’s total passenger capacity would be exceeded slightly earlier. By 2032, excess demand would reach about 11 million annual passengers.
Table 8-9: Scenario P3—Passenger Allocation
Figure 8-4: Scenario P3—Passenger Allocation
Ch. 8, Page 14 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
8.4.1.4 Scenario P4—Pickering Reliever Under Scenario P4, Pickering is developed as the sole reliever airport, while traffic at both Hamilton and Waterloo grows only at their base levels. As with the previous two scenarios, traffic is assumed to slowly begin shifting to the reliever airport, Pickering in this case, when Pearson reaches 46 million passengers in 2018. In this scenario, traffic in Pickering would reach over 15 million passengers by 2032, and since the theoretical capacity of a three-runway commercial airport in Pickering would be well above that level, the airport system is able to fully accommodate the forecast demand. If the opening of Pickering is delayed as long as possible, and opens when Pearson reaches its maximum capacity rather than its practical capacity, Pickering would be required by 2023.
Table 8-10: Scenario P4—Passenger Allocation
Figure 8-5: Scenario P4—Passenger Allocation
Ch. 8, Page 15 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
8.4.1.5 Scenario P5—Hamilton and Waterloo Relievers Scenario P5 envisages both Hamilton and Waterloo providing traffic relief for Pearson. In effect, this scenario combines the reliever capabilities of Scenarios P2 and P3. Traffic begins to off-load from Pearson to both Hamilton and Waterloo, in proportion to their relative catchment area demographic bases, in 2018. With two relievers in place, the system is able to accommodate demand until 2029, when both Hamilton and Waterloo would reach capacity. Excess demand would reach about five million annual passengers by 2032.
Table 8-11: Scenario P5—Passenger Allocation
Figure 8-6: Scenario P5—Passenger Allocation
Ch. 8, Page 16 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
8.4.1.6 Scenario P6—Hamilton and Pickering Relievers Under Scenario P6, both Hamilton and Pickering are actively developed and marketed to serve the role of reliever airports, while Waterloo is not and only accommodates its base traffic. Assuming both relievers are developed simultaneously to accommodate push traffic from Pearson beginning in 2018, Hamilton would initially have more traffic due to the head start its previously established traffic base would provide. However, with its larger catchment area demographic base, traffic at Pickering would surpass Hamilton’s traffic by the end of the planning horizon. By 2032, Hamilton would be approaching its capacity of seven million, while Pickering’s traffic would reach almost ten million. If the opening of Pickering is delayed until both Pearson and Hamilton are at capacity, it would be required by 2027.
Table 8-12: Scenario P6—Passenger Allocation
Figure 8-7: Scenario P6—Passenger Allocation
Ch. 8, Page 17 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
8.4.1.7 Scenario P7—Waterloo and Pickering Relievers Scenario P7 is similar to Scenario P6, except that Waterloo is the reliever airport in the west, instead of Hamilton. If Waterloo and Pickering are developed simultaneously, Waterloo would reach its capacity of 4.6 million in about 2031, and Pickering’s traffic would reach about 11 million passengers by 2032. Under this scenario, if the opening of Pickering is delayed until both Pearson and Waterloo are at capacity, it would be required in 2026.
Table 8-13: Scenario P7—Passenger Allocation
Figure 8-8: Scenario P7—Passenger Allocation
Ch. 8, Page 18 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
8.4.1.8 Scenario P8—Hamilton, Waterloo and Pickering Relievers Scenario P8 envisions Hamilton, Waterloo and Pickering all being developed as commercial relievers for Pearson. If all three relievers are developed simultaneously, Pickering would have about eight million passengers by 2032, and neither Hamilton nor Waterloo would have reached their capacity, with approximately five and three million passengers, respectively. However, if the opening of Pickering is delayed until Pearson, Hamilton and Waterloo have all reached capacity, it would not be required until 2029.
Table 8-14: Scenario P8—Passenger Allocation
Figure 8-9: Scenario P8—Passenger Allocation
Ch. 8, Page 19 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
8.4.2 Passenger Aircraft Movements An estimation of the number of commercial passenger aircraft movements that would be associated with each of the eight passenger allocation scenarios has been made based on the forecast number of passengers per aircraft movement. The average number of passengers per aircraft movement is typically a function of the total number of passengers served at the airport. In general, the average number of passengers per aircraft movement increases with the total number of annual passengers, so that the growth in aircraft movements at an airport typically occurs at a slightly lower rate than the growth in passengers. The resulting distribution of passenger aircraft movements for each of the eight passenger reliever airport scenarios is provided in section 8.7, at the end of this chapter. Due to the non-linear relationship between passengers and aircraft movements, the regional aircraft movement total differs by scenario. The scenarios that tend to concentrate passengers at a smaller number of larger airports have fewer overall passenger aircraft movements than the scenarios that disperse passengers out over a larger number of smaller airports.
8.4.3 Conclusions The passenger allocation conclusions are summarized in Table 8-15. For each of the eight scenarios, the table identifies the following. • Can the system accommodate 2032 demand: whether the airport system can fully accommodate the forecast demand at the end of the planning horizon • Pickering 2032 demand: the estimated demand at Pickering in 2032 assuming all reliever airports are developed simultaneously • Pickering opening delayed—year required: the year an airport at Pickering would be required if the opening of the airport is delayed until Pearson and any other relievers have reached their maximum capacities. • Pickering opening delayed—2032 demand: its year 2032 estimated demand if the opening of the airport is delayed until Pearson and any other relievers have reached their maximum capacities.
For example, in Scenario P8, if all three reliever airports are developed simultaneously beginning when Pearson attains its practical capacity of 46 million passengers in 2018, then by 2032, Pickering would have 8.3 million passengers due to its favourable proximity to the overall market. However, if only Hamilton and Waterloo are developed when traffic begins to be pushed from Pearson in 2018, and Pickering is not opened until Pearson, Hamilton and Waterloo have all reached their capacities, then Pickering would be required in 2029, and would have a somewhat lower demand in 2032 of 5.3 million passengers.
Ch. 8, Page 20 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
Table 8-15: Summary of Passenger Allocation Results
The fundamental conclusion of the passenger allocation work described above is that the four scenarios that do not include Pickering are not able to fully accommodate the projected traffic for 2032. The year at which the system is forecast to reach capacity without Pickering ranges from 2023 if no reliever airport is developed, to about 2029 if both Hamilton and Waterloo are developed as reliever airports.
8.5 Sensitivity Analysis
A number of factors exist that could influence the passenger allocation conclusions reached in Section 8.4. These include the consideration of alternative traffic forecasts, higher capacities at Hamilton, Waterloo and Pearson, and the provision of high speed rail service in the Ontario-Quebec corridor. All of these potential factors are examined in the following sensitivity analyses.
8.5.1 Updated Traffic Forecasts As discussed in Chapter 3, Transport Canada provided two new traffic forecasts for the GGH airports in October 2008, for sensitivity testing purposes in the Needs Assessment Study. The new forecasts supplement the original forecast issued in June 2007, which is referred to as the “original baseline” forecast. One of the new forecasts, to be referred to as the “new baseline” forecast, reflected a general forecast update, including an outlook of higher long term oil prices, while the other new forecast reflected a very pessimistic outlook based on extremely high long term oil prices, and will
Ch. 8, Page 21 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
be referred to as the “pessimistic” forecast. Chapter 3, Section 3.5.1, contains a more detailed discussion of these new forecasts, the key underlying assumptions Transport Canada used to generate them, and a comparison of each of the new forecasts to the original baseline forecast. 8.5.1.1 Effect of the “New Baseline” Forecast The new baseline forecast starts out in 2009 with approximately a two year delay relative to the original baseline forecast, as depicted in Figure 3-9 in Chapter 3. However, since the new baseline traffic growth rates in the later years are slightly higher than those originally forecast, the degree of slippage decreases over time. By 2018, when Pearson was forecast to reach its practical capacity in the original baseline forecast, the new baseline forecast lags about 1.5 years behind the original baseline. As a result, the anticipated start of traffic shifting to reliever airports would occur one to two years later using the new baseline forecast. Table 8-16 below summarizes the impact of the new baseline forecast on the need for Pickering by revising the contents of Table 8-15 from the previous section. By 2032, the delay in the new baseline forecast is almost eliminated. Therefore, as with the original baseline forecast, the four scenarios without Pickering cannot accommodate the year 2032 regional demand. In the scenarios that do include Pickering, its estimated demand levels in 2032 are only slightly lower than under the original baseline forecast, and the absolute latest year for bringing Pickering capacity into the system is essentially unchanged.
Table 8-16: Impacts of New Baseline Forecast
As a result, the application of the new baseline forecast does not change the fundamental conclusion that Pickering is required for the system to accommodate 2032 demand.
Ch. 8, Page 22 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
8.5.1.2 Effect of the Pessimistic Forecast The pessimistic forecast represents approximately a seven year delay relative to the original baseline forecast over the first half of the forecast period, as depicted in Figure 3-9 in Chapter 3. As a result, the anticipated start of traffic shifting to reliever airports when Pearson reaches its practical capacity would occur about seven years later, using the pessimistic forecast, in approximately 2025. The delay is expected to slowly increase over time, reaching about 8.5 years by 2032. Contrary to the original baseline forecast, Scenarios P2, P3 and P5 could accommodate the year 2032 regional demand with the pessimistic scenario. However, as shown in Table 8-17, they could only accommodate the regional demand until the 2033 to 2037 time range. In the scenarios in which Pickering is assumed to be available, the projected demand in Pickering in 2032 is much lower than with the original baseline forecast. If Pickering were the only reliever airport, it would be required by 2030; but if at least one of Hamilton or Waterloo are also available as a reliever, Pickering could be delayed until the 2033-2037 time range.
Table 8-17: Impacts of Pessimistic Forecast
As a result, the application of the pessimistic forecast changes the fundamental conclusion regarding whether Pickering is required within the 2032 time horizon. Under this forecast, the system can cope with the commercial passenger traffic without Pickering, until the 2033–2037 time range, so long as at least Hamilton or Waterloo are developed as a reliever airport.
Ch. 8, Page 23 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
8.5.2 Effect of Increased Capacity at Hamilton and Waterloo As noted in Chapter 5, the passenger capacities for both Hamilton and Waterloo were based on the assumption of a throughput of 200,000 passengers per gate, which is considered a reasonable target for a smaller commercial airport. However, passenger throughputs up to 300,000 might be achievable under certain conditions, equating to an increase in Hamilton and Waterloo’s annual airport capacities to about 10.5 and 6.9 million passengers, respectively, or an overall increase of 5.8 million passengers. The effect of these higher capacities at Hamilton and Waterloo on the need for Pickering has been summarized in Table 8-18. The increased capacities in Hamilton and Waterloo are not sufficient for the airport system to accommodate the forecast demand in 2032 if only one or the other is developed as a reliever airport (Scenarios P2 and P3). However, in Scenario P5—with both Hamilton and Waterloo operating as reliever airports—all of the 2032 traffic demand can be accommodated, although only barely, with the system capacity being reached in 2033. Under Scenarios P6 and P7, with Pickering functioning as a reliever in conjunction with either Hamilton or Waterloo, the demand levels in Pickering decrease, and Pickering can be delayed by one to two years, but it would still be required before 2032 in order for the system to meet the forecast demand. Finally, in Scenario P8, with all reliever airports, Pickering is not an absolute necessity until just after the planning horizon, in 2033.
Table 8-18: Impacts of Increased Capacity at Hamilton and Waterloo
Ch. 8, Page 24 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
As a result, the application of the more optimistic capacities at Hamilton and Waterloo slightly modifies the fundamental conclusion regarding whether Pickering is required within the 2032 time horizon, but only if both Hamilton and Waterloo are developed as relievers. Under that scenario, the system could cope with the year 2032 commercial passenger traffic demand without Pickering, but Pickering would be required immediately following the planning period, in 2033.
8.5.3 Effect of Removing Business Aviation from Pearson As discussed in Chapter 4, Pearson’s capacity of 54 million passengers has been established based on the assumption that it will continue to accommodate business aviation activity. However, it was also noted that if business aviation activity were removed from the airport, approximately six million additional annual passengers could be accommodated, raising the ultimate passenger capacity to about sixty million. Although the magnitude of the overall capacity increase in this sensitivity test is very similar to the potential capacity increase at Hamilton and Waterloo in the previous section, this increase would be applicable across all scenarios, rather than just those that include Hamilton and/or Waterloo as relievers. The impact of the increased capacity at Pearson on the need for an airport at Pickering is shown in Table 8-19. The removal of business aviation activity from Pearson would not be sufficient to allow the airport system to accommodate the forecast demand in 2032 if there is no reliever (Scenario P1) or if only Hamilton or Waterloo is developed as a reliever airport (Scenarios P2 and P3). However, in Scenario P5 with both Hamilton and Waterloo operating as reliever airports, all of the 2032 traffic demand can be accommodated, although only barely, with the system capacity being reached in 2033. Under Scenarios P6 and P7, with Pickering functioning as a reliever in conjunction with either Hamilton or Waterloo, the demand levels at Pickering fall significantly, and Pickering can be delayed by about three years, but it would still be required before 2032 in order for the system to meet the forecast demand. Finally, in Scenario P8, with all reliever airports, Pickering is not an absolute necessity until just after the planning horizon, in 2033.
Ch. 8, Page 25 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 8-19: Impacts of Removing Business Aviation Traffic from Pearson
As a result, the removal of business aviation traffic from Pearson slightly modifies the fundamental conclusion regarding whether Pickering is required within the 2032 time horizon, but only if both Hamilton and Waterloo are developed as relievers. Under that scenario, the system could cope with the year 2032 commercial passenger traffic demand without Pickering, but Pickering would be required immediately following the planning period, in 2033.
8.5.4 Effects of High Speed Rail As noted in Chapter 3, the potential establishment of a high speed rail line in the Ontario-Quebec corridor is not expected to have a major effect on the region’s overall air traffic demand. The potential loss in Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa air traffic is estimated to be equivalent to about two years of overall air traffic growth based on the air-to-rail diversion rate estimated in the 1995 federal-provincial high speed rail study of 44 per cent. As a result, under each of the scenarios shown in Table 8-15, if high speed rail were implemented, the requirement for Pickering would be delayed by that same two-year period of time. However, since the first routes to be established at Pickering would likely be Ottawa and Montréal, a higher proportion of Pickering’s initial traffic would be vulnerable to competition from high speed rail. As a result, the impact of high speed rail on traffic levels at Pickering would be more significant than for the region as a whole, if high speed rail service were available at the time Pickering was just opening.
Ch. 8, Page 26 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
O/D passenger traffic for 2032 between Toronto and Montreal and Toronto and Ottawa is forecast to be approximately 5.0 million passengers combined. Pickering’s natural share of that total would be about 1.15 million passengers, before any correction for reduced flight frequency. A loss of 44 per cent of that elevated market share suggests an upper bound traffic loss at Pickering of about 500,000 passengers. Under any of the passenger allocation scenarios that include Pickering, traffic at Pickering would be growing at a rate of over 800,000 passengers per year by 2032, and would be much more diversified than just the Montreal and Ottawa routes. Therefore, by 2032, even the impact of high speed rail on traffic levels at Pickering is estimated to be less than one year of growth.
8.6 Summary
The passenger allocation work has demonstrated that with the baseline traffic forecasts and the most likely airport capacities, an airport in Pickering will be required to accommodate the regional demand through to the study’s planning horizon of 2032. The time when an airport in Pickering would be required varies from as early as 2023 to as late as 2029, depending on whether Hamilton and Waterloo are developed as reliever airports. However, the scenarios in which Hamilton serves as a reliever are considered to be more likely, somewhat narrowing the range of when an airport at Pickering would be required to 2027–2029. Some of the sensitivity tests conducted in this chapter have the potential to delay the need for Pickering slightly beyond the 2032 time horizon of this study, into the 2033-2037 time frame. These include the application of Transport Canada’s pessimistic traffic forecast and higher passenger capacity assumptions for Hamilton, Waterloo and Pearson. The passenger allocation results from this chapter are carried forward to Chapter 11, where they are considered in conjunction with the corporate jet/general aviation aircraft traffic assessed in Chapter 9 and the cargo freighter movements assessed in Chapter 10.
Ch. 8, Page 27 of 30 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
8.7 Passenger Aircraft Movements
Table 8-20: Scenario P1—Passenger Aircraft Movements
Table 8-21: Scenario P2—Passenger Aircraft Movements
Table 8-22: Scenario P3—Passenger Aircraft Movements
Table 8-23: Scenario P4—Passenger Aircraft Movements
Ch. 8, Page 28 of 30 Chapter 8: Passenger Allocation
Table 8-24: Scenario P5—Passenger Aircraft Movements
Table 8-25: Scenario P6—Passenger Aircraft Movements
Table 8-26: Scenario P7—Passenger Aircraft Movements
Table 8-27: Scenario P8—Passenger Aircraft Movements
Ch. 8, Page 29 of 30 Ch. 8, Page 30 of 30 CHAPTER 9 Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
This chapter allocates the corporate jet (CJ) and general aviation (GA) traffic among the airports in the system under a range of potential CJ/GA airport development scenarios. Some discussion is required with respect to the definitions of the terms CJ and GA as used in this chapter, since the Transport Canada forecasts documented in Chapter 3 do not identify these traffic elements as separate entities. Collectively, the CJ/GA traffic allocated in this chapter includes the Transport Canada ‘general aviation’ traffic forecasts (both itinerant and local) as well as the ‘non-reporting’ air carrier traffic (which excludes traffic by the major air carriers). This traffic allocation exercise does not consider air carrier passenger aircraft that use the passenger terminal buildings, or air carrier cargo freighters; those traffic segments are allocated separately within the passenger allocation and air cargo chapters (Chapters 8 and 10, respectively). An exception to this is at City Centre. Since this study did not define City Centre as a major reliever airport, the passenger allocation work in Chapter 8 does not address Porter’s scheduled passenger aircraft movements. These movements are therefore considered in this chapter to ensure that all traffic is accounted for in the study.
Ch. 9, Page 1 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
As a result of the inclusion of the Porter passenger movements, this chapter allocates all forecast aircraft movements at the seven smaller airports in the study. For the three larger airports (Pearson, Hamilton and Waterloo), this chapter allocates all forecast aircraft movements except air carrier passenger aircraft that use the passenger terminal buildings and air carrier cargo freighters. The ‘new baseline’ forecasts discussed in Chapter 3 are used in this allocation, as the original baseline forecasts did not encompass the four additional airports added during the course of the study.
9.1 CJ/GA Airport System Scenarios
At the outset of this study, three of the airports within the study scope were considered to have some degree of uncertainty regarding their long-term availability for aviation purposes, including Buttonville, City Centre and Oshawa. Chapter 5 contains a discussion regarding the reasons for their long term uncertainty. Eleven CJ/GA airport system scenarios are considered in this chapter, as listed in Table 9-1. Based on the above assumptions regarding airports at risk of long term closure, the first eight scenarios (CJ/GA 1 through CJ/GA 8) cover the full range of airport closure possibilities, including no airport closures, or one, two or three airport closures, all without the provision of a CJ/GA airport at Pickering. Scenario CJ/GA 9 tests a ‘worst-case’ scenario in which all three at-risk airports close and CJ/GA traffic is banned at Pearson to maximize capacity for air carrier operations, also without a CJ/GA airport at Pickering. Finally, Scenarios CJ/GA 10 and CJ/GA 11 examine the possibility of building a CJ/GA airport in Pickering, with all three at-risk airports closing or only Buttonville and Oshawa closing. It is assumed that a CJ/GA airport would not be considered in Pickering without the closures of Buttonville and Oshawa, so no other scenarios with a CJ/GA facility in Pickering are examined.
Ch. 9, Page 2 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
Table 9-1 Corporate Jet/General Aviation Scenarios
9.2 Traffic Reallocation Method
In the absence of information regarding the distribution of ground origins and destinations of CJ and GA users within the study area, the reallocation of displaced CJ/GA traffic is based on the simple premise that users would tend to relocate to the nearest alternate airport with available capacity and sufficient runway length. Table 9-2 summarizes the driving distances between the relevant airports.
Ch. 9, Page 3 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 9-2 Distances Between Airports
In situations where CJ/GA traffic is displaced from an airport, either due to forecast growth of its own traffic base, or due to its assumed closure, the traffic is reallocated to the closest airport that has available capacity and can accept the segment of traffic that is displaced. If the closest airport is already at capacity, or reaches its capacity as a result of accepting some of the displaced traffic, the remainder of the traffic is reallocated to the next closest airport in the system. For scenarios involving one or more airport closures, an attrition rate could potentially be assumed for the displaced traffic, as it is possible that some CJ/GA users may choose to cease operating rather than relocate to an airport that they may consider to be less advantageous, or relocate to an airport outside of the airport system defined in this study. However, for the purposes of this study, no attrition rate was applied, so that the analysis would test the system’s capability to accommodate the full traffic forecast. As with the other traffic allocations undertaken in this study, the assessment of whether an airport would be capable of accommodating additional traffic does not consider the potential impacts of aircraft noise or other environmental considerations, which are not within the scope of this study.
Ch. 9, Page 4 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
9.3 CJ/GA Demand
The Transport Canada forecasts do not distinguish between corporate jet (CJ) aircraft, sometimes referred to as business jets, and non-jet (piston or turbo-prop) aircraft, which will be referred to in this report as general aviation (GA) aircraft. The distinction between these two traffic segments is important in the CJ/ GA allocation for three reasons. First, jet powered aircraft are banned from using City Centre, aside from medevac flights or other emergency operations. Secondly, the larger corporate jets that often use Pearson are typically not capable of operating at many of the smaller airports with a runway length of 4,000 ft. or less, at least not without payload restrictions. Lastly, the corporate jets using Buttonville may not be able to operate on the shorter runway lengths available in Brampton or Burlington. The itinerant aircraft movement forecasts are divided into CJ and GA components based on the actual 2007 proportions calculated from the data available in Transport Canada’s Aircraft Movement Statistics Annual Report (TP 577). Based on the fleet composition of the flight school aircraft, all local movements in the system are assigned to the GA traffic category. The resulting year 2032 CJ/GA aircraft movement forecasts are presented in Table 9-3.
Table 9-3 CJ/GA 2032 Aircraft Movement Forecast
Estimates of the number of based aircraft associated with the CJ/GA aircraft movement forecasts are also required to assess an airport’s capability to accommodate the based aircraft in terms of hangar/tie-down facilities. Transport Canada does not generate forecasts of the number of based aircraft. As a result, the number of based aircraft at each airport in 2032 has been roughly estimated by applying the airport’s forecast aircraft movement growth rate over the planning period to the current number of based aircraft at the airport, as shown in Table 9-4.
Ch. 9, Page 5 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
The current number of based flight training aircraft was increased or decreased in proportion to the change in local movements, while the number of ‘other’ based aircraft was increased in proportion to the growth in itinerant movements, for each specific airport.
Table 9-4 Based Aircraft Forecast
9.4 CJ/GA Capacity
The capacity of the airports for CJ/GA activity is assessed in terms of two factors. The first factor is each airport’s estimated runway capacity, calculated in Chapter 5 using the forecast 2032 traffic mix, and carried forward in Table 9-5. For those airports where potential airfield enhancements were identified in Chapter 5, the associated increase in runway capacity has also been shown in the table. It is assumed that if those airports reach the capacity of the existing airfield, the airfield enhancements would be implemented to achieve the higher runway capacity. For all airports except Pearson, the runway capacities represent the capacity available for the entire airport, not just the CJ/GA traffic segment. Pearson’s capacity represents ten per cent of the airport’s maximum runway annual capacity, based on the assumption that CJ/GA traffic will continue to comprise approximately ten per cent of the airport’s overall aircraft movements.
Ch. 9, Page 6 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
Table 9-5 CJ/GA Airport Capacity
The second capacity factor considered is the estimated number of based aircraft the airport could accommodate. High-level estimates of the number of based aircraft each airport could potentially accommodate were made by identifying areas within the existing airport site where new hangar/apron/ tie-down facilities could be provided, and adding the based aircraft capacity of those areas to the current number of based aircraft already at the airport. The resulting based aircraft capacities are shown in the last column of Table 9-5. Since some of the airports have substantial areas within the property boundaries that could be developed to accommodate aircraft if required, the theoretical based aircraft capacity is sometimes much higher than would be required to match the airport’s runway capacity. In addition, it should be recognized that at airports with significant land available, other types of aviation related development that are not oriented to the accommodation and storage of aircraft may be desirable, thereby lowering the based aircraft capacity. When reallocating CJ/GA activity from one airport to another, aircraft movements and based aircraft are moved in proportion to each other, until the receiving airport reaches either its runway capacity or its based aircraft capacity.
Ch. 9, Page 7 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
9.5 CJ/GA Traffic Allocations
9.5.1 Scenario CJ/GA 1—No Airports Close Scenario CJ/GA 1 represents the status quo, in which all airports remain operational within the planning horizon and a CJ/GA airport is not constructed at Pickering Airport. Table 9-6 compares the year 2032 forecast demand and capacity at each airport.
Table 9-6 Year 2032 Demand/Capacity Comparison
The only airport forecast to exceed its capacity within the planning period is Pearson. However, with the provision of the sixth runway and the associated increase in the assumed CJ/GA allotment of runway capacity to 68,000, the resulting excess of CJ/GA aircraft movements in 2032 would be very small, at approximately 1,900 movements. In Scenario CJ/GA 1, the marginal excess of 1,900 CJ/GA movements at Pearson is accommodated by reallocating a small proportion of its GA movements (piston and turbo-prop aircraft) to City Centre, the closest airport to Pearson. While the majority of the combined CJ/GA activity at Pearson are corporate jets that could not be accommodated at City Centre, some 30 per cent of the activity is comprised of non-jet aircraft, many of which could operate from the runway length available at City Centre. This is the only traffic reallocation required in Scenario CJ/GA 1.
Ch. 9, Page 8 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
The detailed traffic reallocation for each CJ/GA scenario is provided in a table in section 9.8, at the end of this chapter. For Scenario CJ/GA 1, the reallocation is shown in Table 9-7. The top portion of the table identifies the amount of traffic demand that requires reallocation in 2032, while the lower portion of the table shows how that traffic is reallocated across the airport system.
9.5.2 Scenario CJ/GA 2—Buttonville Closes In Scenario CJ/GA 2, Buttonville is assumed to close by 2032, but all other airports remain operational. As in Scenario CJ/GA 1, a small number of Pearson’s GA (piston and turbo-prop) movements and associated based aircraft are reallocated to City Centre. Since City Centre is also the closest alternative airport to Buttonville, approximately 57,000 of Buttonville’s GA movements (~120 based aircraft) are reallocated to City Centre, bringing it to capacity. Pearson would be the next closest airport to Buttonville, but since it would already be at its CJ/GA capacity, the remaining 149,000 GA movements and all of the 2,500 CJ movements (~320 based aircraft) from Buttonville are reallocated to Oshawa, which could accommodate them in full. Since Buttonville, City Centre and Oshawa have primary runway lengths of 1,238 m (4,063 ft.), 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) and 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) respectively, City Centre and Oshawa would be capable of accepting the aircraft from Buttonville without restrictions. The reallocation details are presented in Table 9-8.
9.5.3 Scenario CJ/GA 3—City Centre Closes In Scenario CJ/GA 3, City Centre is assumed to close by 2032, but all other airports remain operational. In the scenarios in which City Centre closes, it is assumed that the passengers from Porter’s scheduled commercial operations would be absorbed onto larger flights serving those same markets at Pearson, so those aircraft movements are not reallocated to other airports in the system. The closest alternative airport to City Centre is Pearson, but since it is projected to already be at its CJ/GA capacity by 2032, as much of City Centre’s traffic as possible is reallocated to Buttonville, the next closest airport. Buttonville could accommodate approximately 41,000 of City Centre’s GA movements (~50 based aircraft) before reaching capacity. City Centre’s remaining 59,000 GA movements (~70 based aircraft) together with Pearson’s 1,900 GA movements are reallocated to Brampton, the next closest airport. However, Burlington and Oshawa are only slightly further from City Centre, and would also be alternatives for the remainder of City Centre’s traffic.
Ch. 9, Page 9 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Buttonville and City Centre have primary runway lengths of 1,238 m (4,063 ft.) and 1,219 m (4,000 ft.), respectively, so Buttonville would be able to accept all aircraft from City Centre without restrictions. Brampton’s primary runway is slightly shorter at 1,067 m (3,500 ft.), so it is assumed that the GA activity displaced from Pearson and City Centre to Brampton would be the smaller range of GA aircraft, while Buttonville could accommodate the displaced aircraft requiring a full 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) of runway length. It should be noted that no airport in the system is nearly as well positioned geographically as City Centre to efficiently serve medevac flights associated with the downtown Toronto hospitals. Table 9-9 shows the detailed traffic reallocated results.
9.5.4 Scenario CJ/GA 4—Oshawa Closes In Scenario CJ/GA 4, Oshawa is assumed to close by 2032, but all other airports remain operational. As in Scenarios CJ/GA 1 and CJ/GA 2, a small number of Pearson’s GA (piston and turbo-prop aircraft) movements and based aircraft are reallocated to City Centre. All of Oshawa’s 74,000 CJ/GA movements (~260 based aircraft) are reallocated to Peterborough, which is the closest alternative airport. In its current state, without a parallel taxiway, Peterborough’s annual runway capacity would be marginally exceeded after accepting all of Oshawa’s traffic. As a result, in this and subsequent scenarios where Peterborough accepts Oshawa’s traffic, it is assumed that a parallel taxiway would be constructed at Peterborough, significantly increasing its runway capacity to 255,000, allowing it to easily absorb Oshawa’s traffic in full. Peterborough has a 5,000 ft. (1,524 m) primary runway, so could accommodate the full range of aircraft operated in Oshawa. The reallocation details are provided in Table 9-10.
9.5.5 Scenario CJ/GA 5—City Centre and Oshawa Close In Scenario CJ/GA 5, both City Centre and Oshawa are assumed to close by 2032. As in Scenario CJ/GA 3, approximately 41,000 of City Centre’s GA movements (~50 based aircraft) are reallocated to Buttonville, which would bring it to its capacity. City Centre’s remaining 59,000 GA movements (70 based aircraft) together with the 1,900 GA movements from Pearson are reallocated to Brampton. Although Brampton is technically the next closest available airport to both Pearson and City Centre, Burlington would also be an alternative for this displaced traffic, as the distances from Pearson to Brampton and Burlington and from City Centre to Brampton and
Ch. 9, Page 10 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
Burlington are similar. As stated in previous scenarios, any displaced traffic from City Centre or Pearson that require a full 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) of runway length could go to Buttonville, while the smaller traffic could use Brampton or Burlington. As in Scenario CJ/GA 4, all of Oshawa’s traffic and based aircraft are reallocated to Peterborough in full, assuming the construction of a parallel taxiway in Peterborough. Table 9-11 shows the detailed traffic reallocated results.
9.5.6 Scenario CJ/GA 6—Buttonville and Oshawa Close In Scenario CJ/GA 6, both Buttonville and Oshawa are assumed to close by 2032. Pearson’s 1,900 GA movements are reallocated to City Centre, along with 57,000 GA movements (~120 based aircraft) from Buttonville, which would bring City Centre to its capacity. A further 146,000 GA movements (~310 based aircraft) from Buttonville are reallocated to Brampton, with Brampton reaching its capacity. Buttonville’s remaining 3,000 GA movements (~10 based aircraft) are reallocated to Burlington. Since the distances from Buttonville to Brampton and Burlington are quite similar, Brampton and Burlington would likely share the displaced traffic. Due to the shorter runway lengths at both Brampton (1,067 m or 3,500 ft.) and Burlington (1,128 m or 3,700 ft.), Buttonville’s 2,460 CJ movements and associated based aircraft are reallocated to the next closest airport, Lake Simcoe which has a primary runway of 5,000 ft. (1524 m). Due to the relatively remote location of Lake Simcoe relative to the GTA, it is possible that some of the smaller corporate jets could choose Brampton or Burlington, particularly if the infrastructure at those airports were upgraded. All activity from Oshawa is reallocated to Peterborough. The detailed reallocation results are provided in Table 9-12.
9.5.7 Scenario CJ/GA 7—Buttonville and City Centre Close In Scenario CJ/GA 7, both Buttonville and City Centre are assumed to close by 2032. Buttonville’s 2,500 CJ movements and 178,000 of its GA movements (~380 based aircraft), including those requiring a full 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) of runway length, are relocated to Oshawa, reaching its capacity. The remaining 28,000 GA movements (~60 based aircraft) from Buttonville are reallocated to Brampton, although Burlington would be another alternative.
Ch. 9, Page 11 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
All of City Centre’s 101,000 GA movements (~110 based aircraft), as well as the 1,900 GA movements from Pearson, are reallocated to Brampton. Although, once again, Burlington would be another alternative. If some of the GA aircraft from City Centre and Pearson cannot efficiently operate on the 1,067 m (3,500 ft.) runway at Brampton or the 1,128 m (3,700 ft.) runway at Burlington, then presumably those specific aircraft would go to Oshawa in this scenario, and some of the smaller GA aircraft activity from Buttonville could instead go to Brampton or Burlington. The detailed reallocation results are provided in Table 9-13.
9.5.8 Scenario CJ/GA 8—All Three At-risk Airports Close In Scenario CJ/GA 8, Buttonville, City Centre and Oshawa are all assumed to close by 2032. The 1,900 GA movements from Pearson and 145,000 GA movements (~300 based aircraft) from Buttonville are reallocated to Brampton, reaching its capacity. The remaining 62,000 GA movements (~130 based aircraft) from Buttonville are reallocated to Burlington. All of the 101,000 GA movements (~110 based aircraft) from City Centre are also reallocated to Burlington, which would bring it close to capacity. Due to the runway length limitations in Brampton and Burlington, all of Buttonville’s 2,500 CJ movements (~10 based aircraft) are reallocated to Lake Simcoe, which offers a 5,000 ft. (1,524 m) runway. Similarly, if any of the GA aircraft from Pearson, Buttonville or City Centre require more runway length than is available in Brampton or Burlington, those specific aircraft could also use Lake Simcoe. All of Oshawa’s traffic and based aircraft are reallocated to Peterborough. Table 9-14 shows the detailed traffic reallocated results.
9.5.9 Scenario CJ/GA 9—All At-risk Airports Close Plus Pearson CJ/GA Ban In Scenario CJ/GA 9, Buttonville, City Centre and Oshawa are all assumed to close by 2032, and a ban on CJ/GA activity is put in place at Pearson, to free up as much runway capacity for commercial traffic as possible. This represents the ‘worst case’ CJ/GA scenario examined.
Ch. 9, Page 12 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
In this scenario, 133,000 GA movements (~280 based aircraft) from Buttonville, together with Pearson’s 21,000 GA movements (~28 based aircraft) are reallocated to Brampton, with Brampton reaching its capacity. Buttonville’s remaining 73,000 GA movements (~160 based aircraft) are reallocated to Burlington, along with all of City Centre’s traffic, bringing it essentially to capacity as well. Buttonville’s 2,500 CJ movements (~10 based aircraft) are moved to Lake Simcoe, which could also serve as an alternate should any of the GA traffic assigned to Burlington and Brampton require more runway than is available at those airports. Pearson’s 49,000 CJ movements (~67 based aircraft) are reallocated to Hamilton, although Waterloo is similar in terms of distance from Pearson and could be an alternative. Finally, all traffic from Oshawa is reallocated to Peterborough. The detailed reallocation results are provided in Table 9-15.
9.5.10 Scenario CJ/GA 10—All At-risk Airports Close with Pickering In Scenario CJ/GA 10, Buttonville, City Centre and Oshawa are all assumed to close by 2032, with a CJ/GA airport opening in Pickering. The traffic from Buttonville, City Centre and Oshawa is reallocated to Pickering in full, since it would be the closest available alternative airport (for City Centre, Pearson would be closer, but it would already be at capacity). This would result in a combined total of approximately 384,000 CJ/GA aircraft movements and 800 based aircraft in Pickering. If a new CJ/ GA airport in Pickering were to have a runway length capable of serving the full range of corporate/business jets, it would also offer more opportunities to CJ operators than they currently enjoy at Buttonville, City Centre and Oshawa. Pearson’s 1,900 GA movements are reallocated to Brampton, although Burlington would be another alternative. This scenario would accommodate all forecast demand without users needing to relocate more than 52 km. Table 9-16 shows the detailed reallocated traffic results.
Ch. 9, Page 13 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
9.5.11 Scenario CJ/GA 11—Buttonville and Oshawa Close with Pickering In Scenario CJ/GA 11, Buttonville and Oshawa are assumed to close by 2032, with a CJ/GA airport opening at Pickering. As in Scenario CJ/GA 10, all activity from Buttonville and Oshawa is reallocated to Pickering, as it would be the closest alternative airport. In this case, Pickering would accommodate a combined total of 283,000 CJ/GA aircraft movements and 700 based aircraft. Pearson’s 1,900 GA movements are reallocated to City Centre. The detailed reallocation results are provided in Table 9-17.
9.6 Displacement Index
The traffic reallocation analyses undertaken in this chapter indicate that the overall airport system would have the capacity to fully accommodate the year 2032 forecast CJ/GA demand across all scenarios examined. However, it is important to note that this does not mean that all scenarios are equal in terms of the potential impact on CJ/GA users. In fact, the extent of CJ/GA displacements that would be required varies significantly across the scenarios. A measure referred to as the displacement index has been developed to quantitatively compare the relative magnitude of CJ/GA relocations across scenarios. The displacement index is defined as follows: Displacement Index = (# based aircraft displaced from Airport A to Airport B) x (distance between Airports A and B) summed for all displacements within a scenario
The greater the value of the displacement index, the greater the anticipated reallocation impact on CJ/GA users, under the basic premise that CJ/GA users are currently operating at their preferred location. Note that although the displacement index could be calculated from either the number of based aircraft displaced or the number of aircraft movements displaced, the relative results would be the same, as the aircraft movements and based aircraft have been reallocated in proportion to each other in this exercise. The resulting displacement index values for each scenario are available in Table 9-18.
Ch. 9, Page 14 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
Table 9-18 CJ/GA Displacement Index
If no airport closures occur, as in Scenario CJ/GA 1, the displacement index is near zero, as only a very minimal displacement from Pearson is necessary. As one would expect, the displacement index tends to increase as the number of airport closures increase. The displacement index clearly reveals that if multiple airport closures occur in the future, the existence of a CJ/GA airport in Pickering would significantly reduce the anticipated reallocation impacts on CJ/GA users, where that impact is measured in terms of the number of relocations required and the associated relocation distances. For example, in Scenarios CJ/GA 6 and CJ/GA 11, in which it is assumed that both Buttonville and Oshawa close, the displacement index is much lower if Pickering exists (Scenario CJ/GA 11) than if Pickering is not available as an alternative (Scenario CJ/GA 6). Similarly, if Buttonville, Oshawa and City Centre close, as is assumed in Scenarios CJ/GA 8 and CJ/ GA 10, the displacement index would be much lower if Pickering were available (Scenario CJ/GA 10) than if it did not exist (Scenario CJ/GA 8).
Ch. 9, Page 15 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
9.7 Conclusions
The key conclusions of the CJ/GA allocation work pertaining to a status quo airport system, with no airport closures, are as follows: • None of the smaller GGH airports considered in this study (City Centre, Buttonville, Oshawa, Burlington, Brampton, Lake Simcoe and Peterborough) are forecast to reach capacity within the planning horizon, considering all traffic segments at those airports. • Under the assumption that approximately ten per cent of Pearson’s runway capacity will continue to be made available for the CJ/GA community, that component of Pearson’s traffic is forecast to marginally surpass capacity by 2032, even with the addition of the sixth runway, perhaps requiring a small displacement of CJ/GA traffic at the end of the planning horizon. • The forecast CJ/GA traffic levels in Hamilton and Waterloo in 2032 are well below those airport’s capacities, but no conclusions can be drawn regarding their overall demand/capacity situations until the CJ/GA traffic allocations from this chapter are considered in combination with the commercial passenger and air cargo allocations in Chapter 11.
The key conclusions related to the potential of airport closures are as follows: • Purely from a CJ/GA demand and capacity perspective, the GGH airport system, as defined in this study, can accommodate the CJ/GA demand forecast for 2032 under all airport closure scenarios considered, under the assumption that the remaining airports are willing to accept displaced traffic up to their capacity limits. • For the CJ/GA scenarios in which just one at-risk airport closes, although the need to relocate operations would obviously be significant to the CJ/GA users at that one specific airport, the overall airport system would appear to be capable of absorbing the displaced activity fairly readily. However, it is important to note that this study has not estimated the financial or economic impacts of the resulting relocations to the CJ and GA communities. • For the CJ/GA scenarios in which two or three of the at-risk airports close, the potential impact of traffic relocation is much higher, as measured by the amount of CJ/GA traffic displaced and the distance that it must be relocated. Nevertheless, the system could still accommodate the displaced traffic under such scenarios strictly from a demand/capacity perspective.
Ch. 9, Page 16 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
The key conclusions related to the need for a CJ/GA airport on the Pickering lands are as follows: • Strictly from a demand-capacity perspective, without regard to relocation impacts, an airport in Pickering is not expected to be required to serve CJ/GA traffic within the planning horizon, again under the assumption that the remaining airports are willing to accept displaced traffic up to their capacity limits. • In the event of multiple airport closures, the magnitude of the relocation impact on CJ/GA users would be much lower if Pickering is available as an alternative CJ/GA airport, as demonstrated by the value of the displacement index in Table 9-18. • Although somewhat anecdotal in nature, the provision of a runway longer than 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) for CJ/GA operators on the Pickering lands would clearly offer current or potential future CJ users in the eastern portion of the GTA more operational flexibility, and would likely stimulate some new demand. However, without detailed information from current and potential CJ users regarding aircraft types, payloads and flight range requirements, it is not possible to estimate this potential demand.
Ch. 9, Page 17 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
9.8 CJ/GA Traffic Allocations
Table 9-7 Scenario CJ/GA 1—No Airports Close
Ch. 9, Page 18 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
Table 9-8 Scenario CJ/GA 2—Buttonville Closes
Ch. 9, Page 19 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 9-9 Scenario CJ/GA 3—City Centre Closes
Ch. 9, Page 20 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
Table 9-10 Scenario CJ/GA 4—Oshawa Closes
Ch. 9, Page 21 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 9-11 Scenario CJ/GA 5—City Centre and Oshawa Close
Ch. 9, Page 22 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
Table 9-12 Scenario CJ/GA 6—Buttonville and Oshawa Close
Ch. 9, Page 23 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 9-13 Scenario CJ/GA 7—Buttonville and City Centre Close
Ch. 9, Page 24 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
Table 9-14 Scenario CJ/GA 8—All Three At-risk Airports Close
Ch. 9, Page 25 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 9-15 Scenario CJ/GA 9—All At-risk Airports Close Plus Pearson CJ/GA Ban
Ch. 9, Page 26 of 28 Chapter 9: Corporate Jet and General Aviation Allocation
Table 9-16 Scenario CJ/GA 10—All At-risk Airports Close with Pickering
Ch. 9, Page 27 of 28 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 9-17 Scenario CJ/GA 11—Buttonville and Oshawa Close with Pickering
Ch. 9, Page 28 of 28 CHAPTER 10 Air Cargo Assessment
This chapter undertakes a demand/capacity assessment of the air cargo component of the GGH airport system. Based on the results of that assessment, it also assesses the need for an airport at Pickering from an air cargo perspective.
10.1 Industry Participants
Table 10-1 provides a summary of the different types of air carriers that participate in the air cargo industry.
Ch. 10, Page 1 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 10-1 Air Cargo Carrier Types and their Business Characteristics
Air Cargo Desired Cargo Capacity Illustrative Carrier Customers Airport Source(s) Carriers Type Characteristics
Belly Baggage holds of United, American, Wholesale, Passenger passenger aircraft Continental mail, retail airport
Mixed Baggage holds of Air Canada, Cathay Wholesale, Passenger passenger aircraft and Pacific, Northwest, mail, retail airport main decks of all-cargo Lufthansa, Air aircraft France
Integrated Main decks of all-cargo Purolator, FedEx, Retail Airport near aircraft UPS, DHL population
All-cargo Main decks of all-cargo Cargojet, Kelowna Wholesale Airport near aircraft Flightcraft, population or Challenge Air more remote Cargo, Cargolux, airport Evergreen
Below is a brief description of each air carrier type as well as the industry’s other key participant, the freight forwarder.
10.1.1 Belly and Mixed Carriers Belly carriers are those that only operate passenger aircraft, and carry cargo in the lower hold of those passenger aircraft, after the requirements for passenger baggage are met. Mixed carriers operate both passenger and freighter aircraft. Both these carrier types clearly need to operate at passenger airports. Although these types of carriers may accept shipments directly from the shipper, they tend to be heavily dependant on wholesale contracts with freight forwarders.
10.1.2 Integrated Carriers An integrated carrier is an air carrier that provides door-to-door cargo delivery services using their own equipment rather than the services of a third party air carrier. The integrated carriers seek operationally efficient airports, including the flexibility to operate at night, and can effectively operate from a non-passenger airport given their “closed-loop” network.
Ch. 10, Page 2 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
10.1.3 All-Cargo Carriers Although the all-cargo carriers use their own freighter aircraft, they rely on demand from freight forwarder consolidations. Since the freight forwarding community is typically concentrated near large passenger airports to take advantage of belly capacity, all-cargo airlines generally operate at large passenger airports.
10.1.4 Freight Forwarders Freight forwarders are intermediaries that link shippers with freight carriers (airlines, trucking companies, railroads, ocean carriers) without owning the actual means of transportation. Freight forwarders consolidate shipments from multiple customers and leverage their larger volumes with the transportation providers to lower the rates for transport. The freight forwarding community relies on the wide range of destinations and the lower cost capacity available on passenger aircraft as well as the main deck capacity of freighter aircraft to accommodate larger consolidations and outsized shipments.
10.2 Air Cargo Industry Trends
This section briefly describes fundamental trends affecting the air cargo industry that influence the analysis of air cargo in the GGH airport system.
10.2.1 Consolidation and Reorganization Significant consolidation and reorganization is taking place in the air cargo industry, as the larger freight forwarders and air carriers look to strengthen their market position and ability to respond to shipping demands. For example, a number of strategic alliances and acquisitions have occurred within the freight forwarding industry, resulting in fewer freight forwarders that are controlling larger volumes of cargo and gaining greater influence on which airports are used. Airports that have the ability to efficiently accommodate long-term growth will increasingly be recognized as key assets in the air cargo industry. At the same time, the integrated carriers have been increasing their air cargo market share through their highly developed multi-modal transportation networks. In response to the competitive threat of other modes of transportation, integrated carriers have also invested heavily in surface distribution networks.
Ch. 10, Page 3 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
10.2.2 Cargo Growth Gap Over the past 10–15 years, growth in the overall air cargo industry has tended to be stronger than growth in the air passenger market, a trend that is expected to continue in the future. This generates the effect known as the “cargo growth gap,” as illustrated by the diverging lines in Figure 10-1. The primary effect of the cargo growth gap is that growth in the availability of lower hold cargo capacity on passenger aircraft is not expected to be sufficient to meet future growth in air cargo demand. In some markets, this situation has been compounded by rapid growth in low cost passenger carriers, which emphasize quick turnarounds, making the carriage of cargo more challenging, and regional jet aircraft that have little or no cargo capacity. Passenger airlines are not likely to increase their flight frequencies or aircraft size to accommodate additional demand for cargo space, since air cargo activity is a secondary business line for them.
Figure 10-1 Cargo Growth Gap
As a result, more freighter operations are anticipated to be required over time to offset the effect of the cargo growth gap. Airports that are able to accommodate freighter aircraft growth will be better positioned to take advantage of future air cargo market opportunities.
10.2.3 Increasing Security Requirements A worldwide standard for screening cargo has not been adopted and different countries are taking different approaches. New legislation, regulation, policies and procedures are under development in many countries, including Canada; therefore, future infrastructure requirements
Ch. 10, Page 4 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
continue to evolve. Airports that anticipate increasingly stringent air cargo security regulations, and are able to incorporate the associated space requirements into their facilities, will be considered “security-friendly”, and more likely to be included in future network planning.
10.3 Cargo Capacity
A review of the airports within the original scope of the study indicated that Oshawa, City Centre and Buttonville airports do not currently have a significant role in the air cargo industry, and are not expected to have one in the future, for one or more of the following reasons: • Limited runway length • Significant night time curfew • Little or no apron space • Limited hangar facilities • Little or no warehousing • Little or no current cargo activity • Limited or no customs clearance facilities for cargo • Little freight forwarder presence in the vicinity • No cargo activity in the airport forecast or plans • Management focus is on airport roles other than on cargo
Furthermore, in addition to not having dedicated cargo facilities, the Waterloo Airport Master Plan dismisses the potential role of a major cargo hub, a view that is shared by current airport management. As a result, this cargo assessment is focused on Pearson, Hamilton and a potential Pickering Airport.
10.3.1 Cargo Facility Utilization Rates A key driver of an airport’s capacity to accommodate cargo activity is the efficiency of its cargo warehouse space. A commonly used measure of this efficiency is the airport’s cargo warehouse utilization rate, calculated as the number of tonnes of cargo processed through the airport annually, divided by the total warehouse square footage. In order to benchmark this planning guideline, Table 10-2 outlines the utilization rate calculated for various airports.
Ch. 10, Page 5 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 10-2 Air Cargo Facility Utilization Rates for Select Airports (2006)
Total Cargo Building Warehouse Freight Utilization Rate Airport 2 (metric Space (ft. ) 2 tonnes) (tonnes per ft. )
Pearson 516,000 1,217,300 0.42
Hamilton 84,500 141,159 0.60
Chicago O'Hare 1,718,010 2,932,360 0.59
New York JFK 1,649,055 4,100,000 0.40
Vancouver 225,000 995,000 0.22
Dubai 1,314,996 1,153,127 1.14
Hong Kong 3,433,349 1,850,0001 1.86
Singapore 1,854,610 1,259,377 1.41
Miami 1,754,633 2,700,000 0.65
New York 1,649,055 4,100,000 0.40
Narita 2,291,073 1,560,767 1.52
Frankfurt 1,962,927 1,948,267 0.98
Incheon 2,150,140 2,206,601 0.97
1. Source: Air Cargo World, 2006 World Airports Directory and (*) official airport websites.
The most basic planning guideline for the cargo industry is that one square foot of efficient cargo warehouse space can accommodate one tonne of enplaned/deplaned cargo activity per annum. This guideline accounts for the unloading of the cargo from trucks, the various handling processes within the building and finally transportation to the aircraft; in the case of inbound cargo, this process is reversed. However, the utilization ratio can vary significantly between cargo facilities depending on a number of factors, discussed below.
Ch. 10, Page 6 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
10.3.1.1 Type of Air Cargo Cargo warehouse utilization rates depend on the type of airline served. For example, the integrated carriers depend on the immediate transfer of cargo containers from the aircraft to the sortation belts and then to the trucks for distribution. There is little need for cargo storage, typically resulting in higher warehouse utilization rates. The UPS operation at Hamilton is an example of this type of operation. Some integrators achieve even higher utilization by moving containers from aircraft directly to trucks for transportation to off-airport sorting facilities, or even directly between aircraft. On the other hand, international cargo activity is typically consolidated and stored in the warehouse for a longer period of time before or after the flight, requiring additional warehouse space, and lowering the overall facility utilization rate. Airports with a high proportion of transit activity generally result in a higher tonnage per square foot rate. Dubai and Anchorage are prime examples of this type of transit activity, because these airports serve as cargo transit points between the major trading regions of Europe and Asia and North America and Asia, respectively. 10.3.1.2 Building Age and Automation As a general rule, modern facilities can achieve higher utilization rates than older facilities. In addition, buildings fitted with automated sorting and storage systems can significantly increase facility utilization rates, as is the situation at Hong Kong. New York JFK Airport has older cargo buildings and, as a result, suffers significant inefficiencies. 10.3.1.3 Groundside and Airside Efficiency Airports that are well connected to the local market, have an efficient highway system, and have efficient truck loading/unloading/maneuvering areas, offer cargo warehouses the opportunity to maximize their utilization rates. It is equally important to have an efficient apron and airside system. Conversely, congestion and inefficiency on either the groundside or airside can cripple the throughput of even the most efficiently designed cargo warehouse. 10.3.1.4 Summary These airport characteristics and variables create a range of possible cargo facility utilization rates, and are taken into consideration in defining the cargo capacities of Pearson and Hamilton in this study. However, the general planning guideline of one square foot of cargo warehouse space for every annual tonne of cargo activity is commonly used in the industry as a planning guideline, and will also be considered in this study.
Ch. 10, Page 7 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
10.3.2 Current Cargo Capacities 10.3.2.1 Pearson
Figure 10-2 Pearson Cargo Areas
Cargo activity at Pearson is accommodated in three areas: (1) Cargo East; (2) Cargo West; and (3) Cargo North. These areas are illustrated in Figure 10-2, and discussed in the sections that follow.
Cargo East Cargo East, or the Vista Cargo Terminal, is located on the east side of the airport, and access is from Airport Road. It contains approximately 320,000 square feet of warehouse space, and is home to a wide range of tenants including airlines, cargo handlers, freight forwarders, and charter freighter flights. These older facilities are characterized by groundside congestion and lack of space on the apron for aircraft parking. In addition, numerous cargo handlers duplicate ground service equipment and storage of dollies, containers, and spare parts; all this equipment tends to reduce the overall efficiency. These factors tend to constrain the overall potential utilization ratio to an estimated 0.5, which translates into a potential annual capacity of approximately 160,000 tonnes.
Ch. 10, Page 8 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
Cargo West Cargo West is located in the infield area of the airport and access is from Britannia Road, Convair Drive and Courtneypark Drive. It includes three cargo facilities and a large common use apron which has the capacity to park ten wide-body aircraft. Cargo Building 1 is leased in its entirety to Air Canada while Cargo Building 2 and Cargo Building 3 facilities have multiple tenants. Cargo Building 1, the Air Canada building, encompasses 281,100 square feet and incorporates automated sort and storage equipment. As a result of the automated equipment, this building has the potential to achieve a utilization rate well above one tonne per square foot. Cargo buildings 2 and 3 have a combined warehouse space of 291,300 square feet, and are typical in design and functionality with no automated sort/storage equipment. They currently operate at a much lower utilization ratio due to vacant space and space being used for non-cargo uses. It is estimated that these facilities could approach the typical one tonne per square foot utilization rate as they achieve full occupancy. Overall, it is anticipated that Cargo West could achieve a combined utilization ratio of approximately 1.2, suggesting an annual capacity of approximately 700,000 tonnes.
Cargo North Cargo North is home to FedEx, the only major integrated carrier to have stand-alone facilities at Pearson. The FedEx facility offers 325,000 square feet of warehouse space, and is developed as a hub operation. As such, it is designed to maximize the volume of packages that can be sorted during the key early morning hours, rather than the overall number of tonnes per square foot. The massive number of sort equipment and conveyor belts ensures quick sortation and processing of packages, but also uses large amounts of warehouse space, thereby lowering the traditional tonnes per square foot utilization rate. Accordingly, when measured in metric tonnes per square foot, the utilization rate for the FedEx facility is not expected to rise as high as the future rate assumed for Cargo West. It is estimated that the FedEx facility utilization rate could increase to approximately 0.5, representing a capacity of approximately 162,500 tonnes.
Summary Table 10-3 summarizes the cargo capacity calculations for the current facilities at Pearson. The airport’s overall facility utilization is well below the industry average of one tonne per square foot of warehouse space. After taking into consideration the unique characteristics of the facilities, and the nature of the cargo activity they process, the overall potential cargo capacity of the existing facilities is estimated to be just over 1 million tonnes.
Ch. 10, Page 9 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 10-3 Pearson Cargo Facility Capacity
Current Target Warehouse Area Potential Cargo Area Utilization Ratio Utilization Ratio Capacity (ft.2) (tonnes per ft.2) (tonnes per ft.2) (tonnes)
Cargo West 572,400 0.5 1.2 700,000
Cargo North 325,000 0.3 0.5 162,500
Cargo East 320,000 0.3 0.5 160,000
Total 1,217,400 0.4 0.8 1,022,500
Building square footage is floor space (not office). Alternatively, the application of the general industry guideline of one tonne per square foot of warehouse space suggests a potential capacity of 1.2 million tonnes. This provides a range of cargo capacity for Pearson’s existing facilities of 1.0 to 1.2 million tonnes per annum. 10.3.2.2 Hamilton International Airport Hamilton International Airport has taken on a significant role as an air cargo/courier airport. The airport's cargo infrastructure is located in two primary cargo facilities, as illustrated in Figure 10-3.
Ch. 10, Page 10 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
Figure 10-3 Hamilton Cargo Areas
UPS Facility The UPS facility at Hamilton Airport is the company’s largest Canadian gateway and accommodates a large sort operation to distribute express packages between the U.S. and Canada, and space to transship full containers from one aircraft to another (#1 in Figure 10-3). Its 47,800 square foot warehouse is adjacent to an apron that can accommodate seven aircraft. UPS uses its own aircraft on the transborder flights, but contracts the Canadian domestic flights to Cargojet. A utilization factor of 1.2 tonnes per square foot is assumed reasonable for this facility, translating into a potential capacity of approximately 57,000 tonnes per year. Cargojet has developed a maintenance hangar and aircraft ramp space directly east of the UPS facility (#3 in Figure 10-3). The facility accommodates cargo freighter maintenance functions rather than the processing of cargo, and therefore is not included in the capacity calculations, but it is important to the overall UPS operation.
Ch. 10, Page 11 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Purolator Facility Purolator operates out of an older 93,359 square foot sorting facility that serves as the hub of the company’s national route network (#2 in Figure 10-3). Purolator contracts the operation of the air routes to Ontario Flightcraft, which has a maintenance hangar and associated apron at Hamilton. The Purolator facility does not have direct apron access and, as a result, additional ground service equipment is required to move containers between the sorting facility and the Ontario Flightcraft apron, which would reduce the overall efficiency of the operation. For the purposes of the capacity calculations, it is assumed that the older Purolator facility does not offer all the efficiencies of newer, state-of-the-art facilities. This, combined with the requirement for additional ground handling, is assumed to produce a lower potential facility utilization rate of approximately 0.5 tonnes per square foot. This equates to an annual capacity of approximately 47,000 tonnes.
Summary Table 10-4 summarizes the cargo capacity calculations for Hamilton. The airport’s current overall facility utilization is well below the industry average of one tonne per square foot of warehouse space. After taking into consideration the unique characteristics of the facilities, and the nature of cargo activity served, the overall potential cargo capacity of the existing facilities is estimated to be just over 100,000 tonnes.
Table 10-4 Hamilton Cargo Facility Capacity
Current Target Warehouse Area Potential Cargo Facility Utilization Ratio Utilization Ratio Capacity (ft.2) (tonnes per ft.2) (tonnes per ft.2) (tonnes)
UPS 47,800 - 1.2 57,000
Purolator 93,359 - 0.5 47,000
Total 141,159 0.6 0.8 104,000
Building square footage is floor space (not office).
Alternatively, the application of the general industry guideline of one tonne per square foot of warehouse space implies a potential capacity of 140,000 tonnes. Hamilton’s existing facilities have a range of cargo capacity of 100,000 to 140,000 tonnes per annum.
Ch. 10, Page 12 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
10.3.3 Cargo Capacity Expansion Potential 10.3.3.1 Toronto Pearson International Airport Given that Pearson's existing cargo facility capacity exceeds current demand by a considerable margin, the GTAA has no current plans to expand cargo facilities. There is, however, potential to expand on-site cargo capacity at Pearson if warranted in the future. The GTAA’s recent purchases of the former Boeing lands just north of Cargo East, and the former Skeet lands directly west of Cargo North, each provide the opportunity for additional airport development. Given the excellent groundside and airside access to these sites, as well as their proximity to existing cargo areas, they both could be ideal sites for air cargo facilities. Since these sites fall into the “Other Airport Development” land use category in the airport’s land use plan, proposed cargo uses would have to compete with other potential airport uses for these sites. 10.3.3.2 Hamilton International Airport The 2004 Master Plan identified a significant requirement for additional air cargo facility space in the future. There is limited on-site land available within the current airport boundaries to accommodate new air cargo/ courier facilities. As a result, the Master Plan concludes that additional lands beyond the present airport boundary will be required to meet future land requirements. The Master Plan identifies a number of potential opportunities for future expansion of commercial development, including air cargo/courier activities. These opportunities include lands located east of the present airport boundary in the vicinity of Homestead Drive and in the Aeropark Business Park as well as lands located north of the present airport boundaries between Runway 12-30 and Dickenson Road. Substantial investment would have to be made to provide municipal services and utilities prior to the development of these sites. If Dickenson Road were to be connected directly to the new Highway 6 in the future, the lands located north of Runway 12-30 would have excellent access, increasing its attractiveness for courier/air cargo uses. Much of these lands are designated as a “Special Policy Area” in anticipation that they will be required for airport-related uses. Air cargo/courier development in this area would also require the construction of a taxiway to provide airside access to the sites. In summary, there is limited on-site potential to expand cargo facilities at Hamilton, but with investment in municipal services and utilities, significant amounts of adjacent off-site lands could be made available to support cargo activities.
Ch. 10, Page 13 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
10.4 Air Cargo Demand Forecast
An air cargo forecast was developed for this study, based on the ‘medium’ cargo forecasts that were provided by Transport Canada for Pearson and Hamilton in June 2007. An extension of the Transport Canada forecasts out to the year 2032 was required, and assumed a continuing decline in the industry growth rates over the planning period. The resulting air cargo forecasts are presented in Table 10-5, by airport and by sector.
Table 10-5 Air Cargo Forecasts (000s of tonnes)
Avg. Annual Year 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2032 Growth Rate (2007–2032)
Total Region
Ch. 10, Page 14 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
10.4.1 Comparison to Other Industry Growth Rates Air cargo growth rate projections were compiled from several other leading industry organizations for comparison to the Transport Canada forecast growth rate used in this study. These growth rates are presented in Table 10-6.
Table 10-6 Other Air Cargo Growth Rate Forecasts
Annual Growth Rates Organization Forecast Worldwide North America
Airbus (a) 2007–2026 5.8% 2.9%
Boeing (b) 2008–2027 5.8% 4.9%
FAA (c) 2008–2025 n/a 5.0%
Transport Canada (d) 2006–2020 n/a 3.9%
(a) Airbus Global Market Forecast 2007 (b) Boeing Current Market Outlook 2008–2027 (c) FAA Aerospace Forecast, 2008–2025 (US O/D only counted) (d) Transport Canada Aviation Forecasts 2006–2020
The Transport Canada growth rate is somewhat higher than the Airbus North American growth rate, but substantially lower than the Airbus world growth rate. The Transport Canada forecast growth rate is considerably lower than the North American and world growth rates from both Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration. Overall, the Transport Canada growth rate is well within the overall range of growth rates, and appears reasonable relative to other industry forecasts.
10.5 Air Cargo Traffic Allocation
To allocate the regional cargo forecast from Table 10-5, consideration was given to possible airport system alternatives from an air cargo perspective. Both Pearson and Hamilton already play important roles in the air cargo market, and are expected to continue to do so. As such, only two cargo allocation scenarios have some degree of merit: one representing the status quo situation with Pearson and Hamilton, and one with the addition of Pickering.
Ch. 10, Page 15 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
10.5.1 Scenario 1—Pearson and Hamilton Under the status quo system, the following changes are assumed to occur over the planning period to account for the trends in the industry discussed earlier: • To account for the effects of the cargo growth gap and the resulting trend towards freighters, it has been assumed that the belly/mixed capacity at Pearson will represent a slowly diminishing percentage of the overall cargo capacity, and has been estimated to drop below 40 per cent by the end of the planning horizon. • Given the growth in overall market share of the integrated carriers, it is estimated that a majority (75 per cent) of the previously described loss in belly capacity would be absorbed by the integrated carriers and the remaining quarter by the all-cargo airlines.
The resulting cargo allocation at Pearson and Hamilton is presented in Table 10-7, broken down by carrier type.
Table 10-7 Air Cargo Allocation—Pearson/Hamilton System
Avg. Annual Year 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2032 Growth Rate (2007–2032)
Total Region
Belly/Mixed 228.2 238.6 268.1 319.6 378.9 445.2 540.6 3.3%
Freighter 119.4 123.9 141.3 179.9 219.1 260.4 355.7 4.3%
Integrated 250.9 259.5 296.9 357.9 432.1 519.2 663.7 3.8%
Total 598.5 622.0 706.3 857.4 1030.1 1224.8 1560.0 3.8%
Pearson
Belly/Mixed 228.2 238.6 268.1 319.6 378.9 445.2 540.6 3.3%
Freighter 119.4 123.9 141.3 179.9 219.1 260.4 355.7 4.3%
Integrated 166.4 171.9 201.1 248.2 307.8 380.3 505.8 4.4%
Total 514.0 534.4 610.5 747.7 905.8 1085.9 1402.1 3.9%
Ch. 10, Page 16 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
Avg. Annual Year 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2032 Growth Rate (2007–2032)
Hamilton
Integrated 84.5 87.6 95.8 109.7 124.3 138.9 157.9 2.4%
Total 84.5 87.6 95.8 109.7 124.3 138.9 157.9 2.4%
The cargo capacity of Pearson was calculated earlier to be in the range of 1.0 to 1.2 million tonnes. As a result, its existing facilities can accommodate the Scenario 1 allocation until the 2025 timeframe. By 2032, the existing Pearson capacity falls approximately 200,000 to 400,000 tonnes short of the year 2032 Scenario 1 allocation. The cargo capacity of Hamilton was previously calculated to be in the range of 100,000 to 140,000 tonnes. As a result, its existing facilities can accommodate the Scenario 1 allocation until approximately the 2015—2025 time period. By 2032, the existing Hamilton capacity falls approximately 20,000 to 50,000 tonnes short of the year 2032 Scenario 1 allocation. Both Pearson and Hamilton can effectively respond to the additional cargo demands projected in Table 10-7. As discussed earlier, there is the potential at Toronto-Pearson to develop new cargo facilities on the Boeing lands and/ or the Skeet lands. Facilities similar in size to the existing Cargo East or Cargo North facilities could be accommodated on these sites, offering more than enough potential capacity to address the projected shortfall. Although the opportunity to develop new cargo facilities within the current Hamilton Airport boundaries are limited, significant opportunities do exist to service and develop adjacent lands for cargo purposes, which could easily cover its projected shortfall. The cargo allocation from Table 10-7 has been translated into an estimate of the number of freighter aircraft movements at each airport, as shown in Table 10-8.
Ch. 10, Page 17 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 10-8 Freighter Movements—Pearson/Hamilton System
Avg. Annual Year 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2032 Growth Rate (2007–2032)
Total Region
Belly/Mixed 1,342 1,404 1,577 1,880 2,229 2,619 3,180 3.33%
Freighter 2,502 2,596 2,961 3,769 3,437 4,085 5,580 3.11%
Integrated 9,829 10,166 11,614 14,746 15,241 17,609 21,635 2.81%
Total 13,673 14,166 16,152 20,396 19,514 22,951 29,068 2.92%
Pearson
Belly/Mixed 1,342 1,404 1,577 1,880 2,229 2,619 3,180 3.33%
Freighter 2,502 2,596 2,961 3,769 3,437 4,085 5,580 3.11%
Integrated 6,302 6,510 7,616 9,400 9,182 11,345 15,089 3.42%
Total 10,146 10,510 12,154 15,049 14,848 18,049 23,849 3.33%
Hamilton
Integrated 3,527 3,656 3,998 5,347 4,666 4,902 5,219 1.43%
Total 3,527 3,656 3,998 5,347 4,666 4,902 5,219 1.43%
10.5.2 Scenario 2—Pearson, Hamilton and Pickering Scenario 2 considers the possibility of an airport opening in Pickering, in the long term, that is capable of accommodating large commercial passenger and cargo aircraft, and assesses its likely impact on the region’s cargo allocation.
Ch. 10, Page 18 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
The following conclusions were made regarding the potential use of Pickering for air cargo: • There would likely be very little belly/mixed cargo activity at Pickering. This is due to the anticipated use of smaller aircraft to serve its passenger market, with negligible cargo carrying capacity, as well as the need of the freighter operators to be near the concentration of freight forwarders around Pearson. • There is little likelihood that an all-cargo carrier would relocate to Pickering away from the current network of freight forwarders at Pearson. Nevertheless, it is possible that an all-cargo carrier could start a modest operation at Pickering towards the end of the planning period. • Given the significant investments made by the integrated carriers at Pearson and Hamilton, it is unlikely that they would split their GGH operations by starting a sizable operation in Pickering. However, Pickering could potentially serve the north-eastern portion of the GGH market through a modest integrated carrier operation. The resulting cargo allocation among the three airports is presented in Table 10-9, broken down by type of carrier.
Table 10-9 Air Cargo Allocation—Pearson/Hamilton/Pickering System
Avg. Annual Year 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2032 Growth Rate (2007–2032)
Total Region
Belly/Mixed 228.2 238.6 268.1 319.6 378.9 445.2 540.6 3.3%
Freighter 119.4 123.9 141.3 179.9 219.1 260.4 355.7 4.3%
Integrated 250.9 259.5 296.9 357.9 432.1 519.2 663.7 3.8%
Total 598.5 622.0 706.3 857.4 1030.1 1224.8 1560.0 3.8%
Pearson
Belly/Mixed 228.2 238.6 268.1 319.6 378.9 445.2 540.6 3.3%
Freighter 119.4 123.9 141.3 179.9 219.1 256.0 346.9 4.2%
Integrated 166.4 171.9 201.1 248.2 304.7 375.7 499.6 4.4%
Total 514.0 534.4 610.5 747.7 902.7 1076.9 1387.1 3.9%
Ch. 10, Page 19 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Avg. Annual Year 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2032 Growth Rate (2007–2032)
Hamilton
Integrated 84.5 87.6 95.8 109.7 124.3 138.9 157.9 2.2%
Total 84.5 87.6 95.8 109.7 124.3 138.9 157.9 2.2%
Pickering
Belly/Mixed n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 n/a
Freighter n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 4.4 8.8 n/a
Integrated n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.2 9.3 12.4 n/a
Total n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.2 13.7 21.2 n/a
Since it has been concluded that an airport in Pickering would be unlikely to capture a significant share of the GGH cargo market, the Scenario 2 cargo allocation is very similar to the Scenario 1 allocation. As a result, the same conclusions regarding the timing of when the existing facilities at Pearson and Hamilton are projected to reach capacity, and the ability of the airports to develop new cargo facilities to respond to the capacity shortfall towards the end of the planning period, also apply to Scenario 2. The cargo allocation from Table 10-9 has been translated into an estimate of the number of freighter aircraft movements at each airport, as shown in Table 10-10.
Table 10-10 Freighter Movements—Pearson/Hamilton/Pickering System
Avg. Annual Year 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2032 Growth Rate (2007–2032)
Total Region
Belly/Mixed 1,342 1,404 1,577 1,880 2,229 2,619 3,180 3.3%
Freighter 2,502 2,596 2,961 3,769 3,437 4,137 5,682 3.2%
Integrated 9,829 10,166 11,614 14,746 14,368 16,767 20,828 2.9%
Ch. 10, Page 20 of 22 Chapter 10: Air Cargo Assessment
Avg. Annual Year 2006 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2032 Growth Rate (2007–2032)
Total 13,673 14,166 16,152 20,396 20,034 23,523 29,692 3.0%
Pearson
Belly/Mixed 1,342 1,404 1,577 1,880 2,229 2,619 3,180 3.3%
Freighter 2,502 2,596 2,961 3,769 3,437 4,085 5,580 3.1%
Integrated 6,302 6,510 7,616 9,400 9,182 11,345 15,089 3.4%
Total 10,146 10,510 12,154 15,049 14,848 18,049 23,849 3.3%
Hamilton
Integrated 3,527 3,656 3,998 5,347 4,666 4,902 5,219 1.4%
Total 3,527 3,656 3,998 5,347 4,666 4,902 5,219 1.4%
Pickering
Belly/Mixedn/an/an/an/a000n/a
Freighter n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 52 104 n/a
Integrated n/a n/a n/a n/a 520 520 520 n/a
Total n/a n/a n/a n/a 520 572 624 n/a
10.6 Air Cargo Summary
The cargo facilities within the existing airport system can meet the projected air cargo demand within the short to medium term. In the longer term, when demand is projected to exceed the capacity of the existing facilities, opportunities exist at both Pearson and Hamilton to develop additional cargo facilities, as warranted.
Ch. 10, Page 21 of 22 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Therefore, purely from an air cargo demand-capacity perspective, a new airport is not required within the planning horizon. Furthermore, if a new commercial airport were to be constructed at Pickering for reasons unrelated to air cargo, it is projected that the vast majority of participants in the air cargo industry would prefer to stay at Pearson and Hamilton given the investment in infrastructure at those airports, and the concentration of freight forwarders around Pearson. The freighter aircraft movements estimated in this chapter will be combined with the passenger aircraft movements and the corporate jet/general aviation aircraft movements in Chapter 11 to assess the overall traffic allocation.
Ch. 10, Page 22 of 22 CHAPTER 11 Overall Traffic Allocation
In the previous three chapters, the forecast passenger, CJ/GA and air cargo demands for the region have been allocated among the GGH airports, each under a range of possible airport system development alternatives that are relevant to the specific traffic segment. Since those three allocations have been undertaken independently, without consideration of the other traffic segments, it is necessary in this chapter to examine the capability of the airports that have been allocated aircraft movements from multiple traffic segments to accommodate the combined aircraft movement activity.
11.1 Identification of Airports to be Assessed
The airports in this study fall into four categories in terms of the types of traffic allocated to them, and the resulting need to assess their overall capabilities. 11.1.0.1 Pearson In regard to Pearson, the traffic allocations have been made under the assumption that approximately ten per cent of its runway capacity will continue to be available for the CJ/GA community, with the remaining capacity being available for commercial air carrier traffic. The exception to this is in the sensitivity tests that assume CJ/GA traffic is displaced from Pearson, freeing up all available runway capacity for air carrier traffic. As
Ch. 11, Page 1 of 16 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
such, the methodology that has been applied ensures that the combined demand at the airport does not exceed the available runway capacity. As a result, there is no further need to assess the interaction of the three traffic segments at Pearson in this chapter. 11.1.0.2 Hamilton and Waterloo In the various traffic allocations, Hamilton has been allocated traffic related to all three traffic segments, and Waterloo has been allocated traffic from the passenger and CJ/GA traffic segments. As a result, an examination of the capacity of these two airports to accommodate the combined traffic allocations is required. 11.1.0.3 Other Existing Airports All of the traffic associated with the smaller airports in the study was addressed within the context of the CJ/GA allocations in Chapter 9. As a result, no additional assessment is necessary in this chapter. 11.1.0.4 Pickering The purpose of this study is to assess whether there will be a future need for an airport in Pickering, rather than the possible design of that airport. Therefore, no assessment of the potential capacity of an airport on the Pickering lands has been made against which a combined traffic allocation for Pickering could be compared. 11.1.0.5 Summary This chapter focuses on the capacity of Hamilton and Waterloo airports to accommodate the combined passenger, cargo and CJ/GA traffic under a range of airport system alternatives that will be defined in the next section.
11.2 Overall Traffic Allocation Scenarios
This section identifies the passenger reliever airport system scenarios that are capable of meeting the year 2032 demand, for consideration in this overall traffic allocation assessment. It also identifies the associated passenger aircraft movements, air cargo freighter movements and CJ/GA aircraft movements for Hamilton and Waterloo that will be collectively assessed, in this chapter, against those airports’ capacities.
Ch. 11, Page 2 of 16 Chapter 11: Overall Traffic Allocation
11.2.1 Passenger Allocations In Chapter 8, a total of eight passenger reliever airport system scenarios were examined, as defined in Table 8-1, and explained in Section 8.4. These include all possible combinations of zero, one, two or three passenger reliever airports. The year 2032 passenger allocation results from Tables 8-7 through 8-14 are summarized in Table 11-1. They are based on the original baseline traffic forecasts provided by Transport Canada, as described in Chapter 3; the ‘most likely’ passenger capacity limits of 54.0 million passengers for Pearson, as defined in Chapter 4; and 7.0 million passengers for Hamilton and 4.6 million passengers for Waterloo, as defined in Chapter 5.
Table 11-1 Year 2032 Passenger Allocation Scenarios (millions of E/D passengers)
In examining the likelihood of each of the eight passenger reliever scenarios, and the extent to which they warrant further consideration in this overall traffic allocation assessment, it is important to consider the potential long term roles that Hamilton and Waterloo could play within the airport system. 11.2.1.1 Hamilton Two important conclusions regarding Hamilton are apparent in previous studies as well as in this current study. First, Hamilton has the potential to accommodate a significant amount of commercial traffic. Second, there is every indication that this airport’s owner and operator plan to further develop the airport in the future to the extent that demand warrants. As a result, the passenger reliever scenarios in which Hamilton is not developed as a reliever airport (P1, P3, P4 and P7) are considered unlikely, and are not assessed further in this chapter.
Ch. 11, Page 3 of 16 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
11.2.1.2 Waterloo There would appear to be some degree of uncertainty regarding the extent to which Waterloo can or will be developed as a major commercial reliever airport. One reason for this uncertainty is an emphasis in the airport’s Year 2000 Master Plan on the role of serving the local air travel demand, as opposed to serving overflow traffic that cannot be accommodated in the GTA. In addition, wetlands within and in the vicinity of the airport site could potentially affect the development required in order to provide larger commercial passenger facilities. Lastly, uncertainty exists related to the potential aircraft noise impact of larger scale commercial operations on the residential land uses in the vicinity of the site. As a result of these uncertainties, it is appropriate to continue considering airport system alternatives with and without the development of Waterloo as a major passenger reliever airport. Due to the above conclusions, only the four passenger reliever scenarios in which Hamilton serves as a reliever airport will be considered in the overall system assessment, namely P2, P5, P6 and P8. However, as can be seen in Table 11-1, among these four passenger reliever scenarios, only Scenarios P6 and P8 are capable of meeting the year 2032 passenger demand under the most likely passenger capacity assumptions, and can be carried forward into the overall traffic allocation without modification. In contrast, since Scenarios P2 and P5 cannot meet the year 2032 passenger demand (in terms of passenger terminal facilities), there is no value in assessing their ability to accommodate the other traffic segments. However, these scenarios must also be viewed in light of the airport capacity sensitivity testing that has been examined in this study. As discussed in Chapter 5, it might be possible under certain circumstances to achieve a throughput of 300,000 passengers per gate at Hamilton and Waterloo rather than the 200,000 passengers per gate assumed in Table 11- 1. Should this throughput rate be achieved, it would translate into passenger capacities of 10.5 million passengers for Hamilton and 6.9 million passengers for Waterloo. In addition, it was determined in Chapter 4 that the removal of CJ/GA traffic from Pearson would provide additional runway capacity for use by air carrier traffic, thereby increasing the airport’s passenger capacity to approximately 60 million passengers. Reconsidering Scenario P2 first, the removal of CJ/GA traffic from Pearson and the achievement of 300,000 passengers per gate in Hamilton would increase passenger capacity by six million passengers at Pearson and 3.5 million passengers in Hamilton, for a total increase of 9.5 million passengers. Although the year 2032 excess in Scenario P2 is slightly higher at 9.7 million passengers, these capacity assumption changes come close enough to meeting the planning horizon demand to warrant carrying forward a modified version of this scenario, to be designated Scenario P2a.
Ch. 11, Page 4 of 16 Chapter 11: Overall Traffic Allocation
Similarly, modifications to the capacity assumptions in Scenario P5 could also make that scenario potentially viable. In this case, since Waterloo is assumed to be a reliever airport, the excess passenger demand in 2032 is somewhat lower at 5.3 million passengers. As a result, two potential solutions exist that would allow the airport system to meet the planning horizon demand. In a scenario to be designated as Scenario P5a, CJ/GA traffic could be removed from Pearson, which would increase its passenger capacity by six million passengers, just sufficient to handle the excess demand. Alternatively, in a scenario to be designated as Scenario P5b, 300,000 passengers per gate could be assumed for Hamilton and Waterloo which would provide a capacity increase of 5.8 million passengers, also just barely sufficient to accommodate the excess demand in 2032. Table 11-2 summarizes the five resulting passenger reliever scenarios to be carried forward into the overall traffic assessment. However, it is important to emphasize that scenarios P2a, P5a and P5b only allow the airport system to accommodate the passenger demand through to 2032/2033. If a commercial airport in Pickering were not provided immediately following the study’s planning horizon, a passenger capacity shortfall would materialize.
Ch. 11, Page 5 of 16 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 11-2 Year 2032 Passenger Allocation – Overall Scenarios
Special Requirements to Scenario Pearson Hamilton Waterloo Pickering Total meet 2032 Demand
P2a 60.2 10.5 0.2 n/a 70.9 • Remove CJ/GA traffic from Pearson • Achieve 300,000 passengers per gate in Hamilton
P5a 59.3 7.0 4.6 n/a 70.9 Remove CJ/GA traffic from Pearson
P5b 54.0 10.1 6.8 n/a 70.9 Achieve 300,000 passengers per gate in Hamilton and Waterloo
P6 54.0 6.8 0.2 9.9 70.9 None
P8 54.0 5.1 3.5 8.3 70.9 None
Table 11-3 presents the estimated number of passenger air carrier aircraft movements associated with the passenger volumes in Table 11-2, based on the relationships between passenger levels and aircraft movements established in Chapter 8. As noted in that chapter, the total number of passenger air carrier aircraft movements is not constant across all airport system scenarios because the scenarios in which the passengers are more concentrated at a smaller number of airports will have a larger overall average aircraft size and a smaller total number of aircraft movements. Conversely, if the passengers are more thinly spread across a larger number of airports, average aircraft sizes will be reduced, resulting in more movements.
Ch. 11, Page 6 of 16 Chapter 11: Overall Traffic Allocation
Table 11-3 Year 2032 Air Carrier Aircraft Movements Allocation
11.2.2 Air Cargo Allocation In Chapter 10, the likely distribution of air cargo among the GGH airports was assessed. It concluded that even if an airport capable of accommodating large commercial passenger and freighter aircraft existed at Pickering, it would be unlikely to attract substantial volumes of air cargo away from Pearson and Hamilton. As a result, the estimated number of freighter movements at each airport in 2032 is essentially the same across all scenarios, as shown in Table 11-3. The total air carrier aircraft movements from Table 11-3 are carried forward to the overall traffic allocation assessment, where they will be considered in combination with the CJ/GA allocations.
11.2.3 CJ/GA Allocation In Chapter 9, a total of eleven CJ/GA scenarios were considered, as defined in Table 9-1 and discussed in Section 9.5. These examined a broad range of airport system alternatives from a CJ/GA perspective, including all possible combinations of zero, one, two or three of the at-risk airports (Buttonville, City Centre, Oshawa) closing, a worst-case scenario in which all three at-risk airports close and CJ/GA activity is banned from Pearson, and two scenarios with a CJ/GA airport opening on the Pickering lands.
Ch. 11, Page 7 of 16 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
The resulting CJ/GA aircraft movement allocations for each of the eleven scenarios are available in Chapter 9, and are not repeated in this chapter. Of primary importance to this overall airport system assessment is the determination in Chapter 9 that there would not be a need to relocate any displaced CJ/GA traffic to either Hamilton or Waterloo airports as a result of airport closures, except in the specific case of a CJ/GA ban at Pearson. As a result, aside from a Pearson CJ/GA ban situation, the year 2032 levels of CJ/ GA activity at Hamilton and Waterloo are based solely on the forecast growth of their own CJ/GA traffic base, and are constant across all airport closure scenarios. These CJ/GA traffic levels are available in Table 11-4, and will be considered in conjunction with the air carrier traffic from Table 11-3 later in this chapter.
Table 11-4 Year 2032 CJ/GA Traffic at Hamilton & Waterloo
Airport Corporate Jet (CJ) General Aviation (GA) Total
Hamilton 4,930 67,467 72,397
Waterloo 3,607 141,729 145,336
11.3 Hamilton and Waterloo Airport Runway Capacities
Two adjustments to the year 2032 runway capacity calculations for Hamilton and Waterloo from Chapter 5 are required before application in this assessment of the overall traffic allocation. Both adjustments relate to changes in the nature of the traffic at these airports that would occur as they accept the air carrier activity from Pearson identified in Table 11-3. One adjustment reflects the shift in the traffic mix towards IFR itinerant traffic, and the second adjustment is to increase the winter adjustment factor since air carrier traffic typically has less seasonable variability than CJ/GA traffic. The resulting Hamilton runway capacity calculation is shown in Table 11-5, assuming the provision of parallel taxiways. The traffic mix in all five of the scenarios considered in this chapter is significantly shifted towards air carrier traffic, as compared to what it would be if Hamilton were not relieving air carrier traffic from Pearson, resulting in a decrease in the expected hourly runway throughput potential. However, the degree to
Ch. 11, Page 8 of 16 Chapter 11: Overall Traffic Allocation
which the traffic mix varies across the five scenarios is sufficiently low that a single revised runway capacity is applied in all scenarios. In addition, the winter adjustment factor is increased, based on benchmarking of other Canadian airports of a similar size.
Table 11-5 Hamilton Runway Capacity
For Waterloo, in Scenarios P2a and P6, the airport is not functioning as a major reliever, but rather just serving the nominal passenger volumes forecast by Transport Canada. Therefore, in these two scenarios, the year 2032 annual runway capacity calculation previously made in Chapter 5 and repeated in the first capacity calculation in Table 11-6 is still applicable. In the other three scenarios, where Waterloo is assumed to serve as a major reliever airport, a new runway capacity calculation is shown on the right side of Table 11-6. The winter adjustment factor for Waterloo is lower than the factor used for Hamilton because the traffic mix in Waterloo in these scenarios is not as heavily shifted towards air carrier activity as it is in Hamilton; therefore, it is a bit more seasonal.
Ch. 11, Page 9 of 16 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Table 11-6 Waterloo Runway Capacity
11.4 Overall Traffic Allocation Assessment
In light of the runway capacities for Hamilton and Waterloo airports established above, their capacity to accommodate the combined air carrier and CJ/GA traffic in each of the five scenarios considered in this chapter are assessed in this section. In cases where the three traffic segments cannot be simultaneously accommodated at either or both of those airports, priority is given to the air carrier traffic, and the capacity of the remainder of the airport system to absorb the resulting secondary displacement of traffic is assessed.
11.4.1 Scenario P6 In passenger scenario P6, Hamilton and Pickering are serving as major reliever airports. Table 11-7 summarizes the year 2032 demand from all traffic segments in Hamilton and Waterloo under this scenario, and compares it to their estimated runway capacities.
Ch. 11, Page 10 of 16 Chapter 11: Overall Traffic Allocation
Table 11-7 Scenario P6 Traffic Assessment
Hamilton and Waterloo could comfortably accommodate the 2032 demand from all traffic segments.
11.4.2 Scenario P8 In passenger scenario P8, Hamilton, Waterloo and Pickering are serving as major reliever airports. Table 11-8 summarizes the year 2032 demand from all traffic segments in Hamilton and Waterloo under this scenario and compares it to their estimated runway capacities, using the lower capacity in Waterloo to reflect the increased air carrier activity.
Table 11-8 Scenario P8 Traffic Assessment
Hamilton and Waterloo could accommodate the 2032 demand from all traffic segments, although Waterloo would be operating very close to capacity.
Ch. 11, Page 11 of 16 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
11.4.3 Scenario P5b In passenger scenario P5b, Hamilton and Waterloo are both serving as major reliever airports, and are assumed to be capable of achieving the higher passenger/gate throughput rate, which just barely allows this scenario to accommodate the 2032 regional passenger demand. Table 11-9 summarizes the year 2032 demand of all traffic segments in Hamilton and Waterloo under this scenario, and compares it to their estimated runway capacities.
Table 11-9 Scenario P5b Traffic Assessment
Hamilton would essentially be able to accommodate the combined traffic for year 2032, with only a very marginal excess at the end of the planning horizon. The combined traffic demand in Waterloo, on the other hand, would exceed its capacity by approximately 47,000 movements. Assigning priority to the commercial traffic, it is assumed that GA traffic would be displaced from Waterloo to another airport in the system. Within the study scope, Burlington is the closest airport, and would be capable of accepting the GA activity in all airport closure scenarios except the closure of all three at-risk airports. In that situation, the excess GA activity would have to be relocated all the way to Lake Simcoe, which seems unlikely. A higher probability is that that traffic would relocate to other airports outside the study scope, such as Guelph, Brantford or Stratford.
11.4.4 Scenario P2a In passenger scenario P2a, only Hamilton is serving as a major reliever airport, but it is assumed to be able to achieve the higher passenger/gate throughput rate, and CJ/GA traffic is assumed to be removed from Pearson. Together, these assumptions allow this scenario to accommodate the 2032 regional demand, aside from a very marginal excess.
Ch. 11, Page 12 of 16 Chapter 11: Overall Traffic Allocation
Pearson's 69,894 CJ/GA movements forecast for 2032 are comprised of 20,968 GA movements and 48,926 CJ movements. In all of the CJ/GA scenarios assessed in Chapter 9, there is excess capacity among the smaller study airports (Buttonville, City Centre, Brampton, Burlington and Oshawa) to absorb Pearson’s GA movements. It is assumed that Pearson’s CJ movements would be displaced to Waterloo due to the runway length required to accommodate the full range of corporate jets operated at Pearson, and the fact that the very large transfer of passenger aircraft from Pearson to Hamilton in this scenario would already increase demand above its capacity. The results of this assessment are summarized in Table 11-10.
Table 11-10 Scenario P2a Traffic Assessment
Waterloo would have the capacity to accommodate the CJ activity displaced from Pearson, but Hamilton’s year 2032 demand would exceed its capacity by approximately 6,000 movements. Giving priority to the commercial traffic, it is assumed that GA traffic from Hamilton would be displaced to another airport. Burlington, the closest airport to Hamilton, would have the capacity to accept the displaced GA activity in all airport closure scenarios except the closure of all three at-risk airports. In that situation, Waterloo, the next closest airport to Hamilton, would have the capacity to accept that activity.
11.4.5 Scenario P5a In passenger scenario P5a, Hamilton and Waterloo are serving as major reliever airports, and CJ/GA traffic is assumed to be removed from Pearson, which just barely allows this scenario to accommodate the 2032 regional passenger demand.
Ch. 11, Page 13 of 16 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
As with scenario P2a, the smaller study area airports could accommodate Pearson’s displaced GA aircraft movements. In this scenario, Pearson’s CJ aircraft movements are relocated to Hamilton as it has some capacity available, while Waterloo would already be over capacity. The results of this assessment are summarized in Table 11-11.
Table 11-11 Scenario P5a Traffic Assessment
Waterloo’s year 2032 demand exceeds its capacity by approximately 13,000 movements, while the displacement of Pearson’s CJ activity to Hamilton causes its demand to exceed capacity by 7,000 movements. Giving priority to the commercial traffic, it is assumed that GA traffic from Hamilton and Waterloo would be displaced to other airports. Burlington, the closest airport within the study to Hamilton and Waterloo, would have the capacity to accept the displaced GA activity in all airport closure scenarios, except the closure of all three at-risk airports. In that situation, the GA movements would have to be relocated all the way to Lake Simcoe, which seems unlikely, or to airports outside the scope of this study.
11.5 Conclusions
11.5.1 Scenarios with Pickering In Scenarios P6 and P8, in which Pickering is serving as a major reliever airport along with Hamilton (P6) or Hamilton and Waterloo (P8), there is available capacity within the overall airport system to accommodate all three traffic segments—passenger, cargo and CJ/GA—to the year 2032 and beyond. In addition, there is no necessity to displace CJ/GA traffic from Pearson, or to achieve the high passenger throughput rates in Hamilton or Waterloo that would be required in the scenarios without a commercial airport at Pickering.
Ch. 11, Page 14 of 16 Chapter 11: Overall Traffic Allocation
By 2032, Pearson would be at capacity, with significant off-loading of commercial traffic to the reliever airports, but these traffic transfers would not trigger a further need to displace GA traffic from Hamilton or Waterloo to other airports. In addition, these scenarios could work in combination with any of the airport closure scenarios examined in Chapter 9; although, as explained in that chapter, the impacts of CJ/GA relocations would be minimized if the commercial airport in Pickering were also available to the displaced CJ/GA traffic.
11.5.2 Scenarios without Pickering In scenarios P2a, P5a and P5b, in which Pickering is not available as a commercial reliever airport, the only way the airport system could accommodate the projected commercial traffic demand in 2032 would be if high passenger throughput rates are achievable in Hamilton and Waterloo and/or CJ/GA traffic is displaced from Pearson. However, even if these conditions materialize, the airport system would only be capable of accommodating commercial demand until the 2032/2033 time period, so additional commercial capacity would be required immediately following the planning period. In addition, under these scenarios, the higher levels of commercial traffic off-loaded from Pearson to Hamilton and Waterloo would trigger a further need to displace GA traffic from these reliever airports. Although the airport system could technically accommodate this secondary traffic shift without a CJ/GA facility in Pickering, if all three of the at-risk airports were to close, a displacement of GA traffic from Hamilton or Waterloo all the way to Lake Simcoe or to airports outside the scope of this study could be required. As a result, the provision of a CJ/GA facility in Pickering would significantly reduce the potential CJ/GA displacement impacts, in terms of the relocation distances involved, particularly in the event of the closure of multiple at- risk airports.
Ch. 11, Page 15 of 16 Ch. 11, Page 16 of 16 CHAPTER 12 Overall Needs Case for Pickering Airport
The overall needs case for an airport in Pickering presented in this chapter focuses on three fundamental questions: • Will an airport on the Pickering lands be required? • If an airport on the Pickering lands will be required, when is it likely to be needed? • Should the Pickering lands be retained for aviation purposes?
The conclusions from the Needs Assessment Study, as well as the earlier studies discussed in Chapter 2 that are pertinent to these questions, are compiled in the next three sections.
Ch. 12, Page 1 of 12 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
12.1 Will an airport on the Pickering lands be required?
12.1.1 Southern Ontario Area Airports Study 12.1.1.1 Commercial Airport Two quotes from the Southern Ontario Area Airports Study (SOAAS) report that are relevant to all three of the questions addressed in this chapter are as follows: “While it is uncertain, because of possible developments at other area airports and the distance in the future, just when Pearson will become capacity constrained to the extent an additional major airport is needed, that time will inevitably come, possibly as early as 2012 or as late as 2025”. and; “…although it is recognized that, as the time comes closer to actively consider development, much more detailed work will need to be done in support of an investment decision, at this time the SOAAS conclusion is that the Pickering site will likely be the preferred choice [for the second major airport] and should be retained for airport purposes”. The first SOAAS quote concludes that Pearson will inevitably reach capacity, and therefore, a second major commercial airport will eventually be required within the airport system to complement the capacity available at Pearson. Based on that first conclusion, SOAAS went on to assess whether it would be optimal to supply that additional commercial capacity through the development of a second major airport in Hamilton or in Pickering. As noted in the second quote, it concluded that the Pickering site would be a more preferable location than Hamilton, based primarily on its closer relative proximity to the market. Taken together, these two SOAAS conclusions clearly indicate that in the view of the report’s authors, the eventual provision of the region’s second major commercial airport on the Pickering lands would be the optimal solution for meeting the projected air travel demand. However, it is important to note that the SOAAS report did not address the following two issues: • It did not appear to give consideration to the possibility of developing more than one smaller reliever airport rather than one larger reliever airport. Instead, it focused on the question of which of the two potential sites would be best for the development of a single, major reliever airport. The only mention SOAAS made in this regard was that
Ch. 12, Page 2 of 12 Chapter 12: Overall Needs Case for Pickering Airport
the development of the second major airport in Pickering would not mean that there would not be a future role for Hamilton Airport, but the impression is left that Hamilton’s role would likely be much smaller than Pickering’s. • Secondly, SOAAS did not quantify a maximum passenger capacity of Hamilton Airport, or estimate how long it would be capable of meeting the region’s demand for a secondary airport, if it were the only reliever airport developed. From that perspective, the SOAAS report did not estimate when the provision of a commercial airport in Pickering would be an absolute necessity, if use of existing airport sites were maximized first. 12.1.1.2 Corporate/Commuter Airport In addition to the conclusions reached above regarding the need for a commercial airport in Pickering, SOAAS also concluded that “…within the planning period, a new corporate/commuter airport in the Pickering area would be very attractive”. The rationale provided for this conclusion was that corporate aircraft operators destined to the eastern part of the GTA are forced to use Pearson due to insufficient runway facilities at the other airports in the eastern portion of the GTA. It was also noted that this need would be stronger if Buttonville or City Centre were to close in the future.
12.1.2 Needs Assessment Study 12.1.2.1 Commercial Airport Although the Needs Assessment Study applies a somewhat higher capacity for Pearson than was assumed in SOAAS and other previous studies (54 million passengers rather than 50 million passengers), it shares the SOAAS conclusion that Pearson will eventually reach its capacity, thereby triggering the need for commercial reliever airport facilities. In contrast to SOAAS, the Needs Assessment Study has assessed whether the airport system could meet year 2032 demand under a wide range of possible scenarios, some with and some without an airport in Pickering. For the purpose of answering the question of whether a commercial airport at Pickering will be required, those scenarios without Pickering are summarized in Table 12-1. In all cases, the full build-out of Pearson is assumed, including the sixth runway and further expansion of Terminal 1. It is also assumed that Hamilton Airport will be developed as a reliever, but that Waterloo Airport may or may not be developed to serve that role. The ‘most likely’ airport capacity assumptions reflect capacities for Pearson, Hamilton and Waterloo of 54.0, 7.0 and 4.6 million passengers annually, respectively. The ‘enhanced’ airport capacity assumptions refer to the removal of CJ/GA
Ch. 12, Page 3 of 12 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
traffic from Pearson, raising its passenger capacity to 60.0 million passengers per annum, and the achievement of higher terminal gate throughputs in Hamilton and Waterloo, potentially raising their passenger capacities to 10.5 and 6.9 million passengers annually, respectively.
Table 12-1 Summary of Airport System Scenarios Without Pickering
Traffic Airport Capacity Can the System Meet Reliever Airports Forecast Assumptions Year 2032 Demand?
No relievers developed Baseline Most likely capacities No
Hamilton and possibly Waterloo Baseline Most likely capacities No
Hamilton and possibly Waterloo Baseline Enhanced capacities Yes
Hamilton and possibly Waterloo Pessimistic Most likely capacities Yes
Hamilton and possibly Waterloo Pessimistic Enhanced capacities Yes
As shown in Table 12-1, the Needs Assessment Study concludes that with Transport Canada’s baseline traffic forecasts, and the most likely airport capacity estimates, the airport system cannot meet the year 2032 demand, even if Hamilton and Waterloo airports are developed as reliever airports. Therefore, under these most likely forecast and capacity assumptions, a commercial airport on the Pickering lands will be required within the study’s planning horizon. However, the sensitivity testing undertaken in the Needs Assessment Study concludes that if the higher airport capacities are achievable, or if Transport Canada’s pessimistic forecasts come to fruition, then the airport system could meet the year 2032 demand without a commercial airport in Pickering. The specific timeline estimates of when the airport system would reach capacity in each of these scenarios will be discussed in Section 12.2 and related to the required timing of an airport in Pickering. 12.1.2.2 Corporate Jet/General Aviation (CJ/GA) Airport This study has concluded that strictly from a system-wide, demand-capacity perspective, and without regard to relocation impacts, an airport in Pickering is not required to serve CJ/GA traffic within the planning horizon, even with the closure of at-risk airports (Buttonville, City Centre and Oshawa). This conclusion is subject to the key assumption that the owners/ operators of the remaining CJ/GA airports would be willing to accept displaced traffic up to their capacity limits.
Ch. 12, Page 4 of 12 Chapter 12: Overall Needs Case for Pickering Airport
Having said that, in the event of airport closures, the magnitude of the displacement impacts on CJ/GA users, as measured by relocation distance, would be significantly lower if Pickering were available as an alternative CJ/ GA airport. As a result, if airport closures were to occur in the future, the provision of a CJ/GA facility at Pickering could be considered from the perspective of minimizing relocation impacts. The Needs Assessment Study shares the SOAAS view that the provision of a runway in excess of the 1,219 m (4,000 ft.) currently available on the eastern side of the GTA would potentially be of benefit to the corporate aviation community, although no quantitative assessment of this potential demand has been undertaken. However, this study has noted that an extension of the primary runway in Oshawa may be possible, perhaps to a length of approximately 1,524 m (5,000 ft.), an opportunity that the Oshawa Airport Business Plan indicates should be explored in the short term. This possibility, in conjunction with the more stable long-term outlook brought about by the City of Oshawa’s commitment to keep the airport operational for a period of at least 25 years, potentially provides an interim solution to this concern without building a new airport in Pickering. Such a possibility was not discussed in the SOAAS report.
12.2 If an airport on the Pickering lands will be required, when is it likely to be needed?
12.2.1 Southern Ontario Area Airports Study Based on the SOAAS quotes provided at the beginning of this chapter, this report estimated that the need for a second major commercial airport, which would be optimally developed in Pickering, would occur between 2012 and 2025. It also concluded that a corporate/commuter airport would be attractive prior to 2020.
12.2.2 Needs Assessment Study 12.2.2.1 Commercial Airport As described above, the Needs Assessment Study has examined the required timing for a commercial airport in Pickering under a broad range of possible scenarios that were summarized in Table 12-1. The specific time ranges of when each of the scenarios would reach capacity without an airport in
Ch. 12, Page 5 of 12 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
Pickering are described below and depicted in Figure 12-1. Although the planning horizon for this study was defined as 2032, for those scenarios in which the airport system could accommodate the forecast demand beyond 2032, estimates have been made of when the system would reach capacity. Based on Transport Canada’s baseline traffic forecasts, and the assumption that neither Hamilton nor Waterloo is actively developed as a commercial reliever airport, the need for Pickering could theoretically materialize as early as 2023. However, this is considered to be an unlikely scenario, since there is every indication that Hamilton Airport can and would be developed to fulfil a commercial reliever role. Continuing with the use of Transport Canada’s baseline traffic forecasts, but assuming that Hamilton is developed to its estimated capacity level of seven million passengers annually, Pickering would be required in the 2027–2029 time period, depending on the degree to which Waterloo Airport is also developed to fulfil the role of a commercial reliever airport (potentially up to its estimated capacity of 4.6 million passengers). In terms of airport capacity sensitivity testing, assuming that it would be possible for Hamilton and Waterloo to achieve higher passenger capacities (up to 10.5 million and 6.9 million passengers, respectively) or that corporate jet/general aviation traffic is removed from Pearson to free more capacity for passenger traffic, the need for Pickering would be delayed until the 2032–2033 time period, again based on the baseline traffic forecasts. Finally, traffic forecast sensitivity testing shows that the application of Transport Canada’s pessimistic traffic forecasts would result in approximately a seven to eight year slippage with respect to when the airport system would reach capacity in each scenario described above. As a result, the timelines for requiring a commercial airport at Pickering would be delayed to 2034–2037—assuming the most likely capacity assumptions for Pearson, Hamilton and Waterloo—or to 2039–2041, should the higher capacities described above be achievable. Although this provides a very wide possible time range for the need for an airport in Pickering of 2023–2041, the first and last scenarios are considered less likely than the other scenarios. As a result, a somewhat narrower estimated range for the need for a commercial airport on the Pickering lands is the 2027–2037 time period, as indicated in Figure 12-1. In all cases, the time periods indicated reflect the latest possible time that a commercial airport could be provided without the airport system experiencing a capacity shortfall. In other words, it assumes a ‘just-in-time’ delivery of Pickering Airport. It would likely be prudent to bring the airport into the system inventory somewhat earlier to facilitate an efficient transition of traffic to the new airport, before the airport system is operating at full capacity.
Ch. 12, Page 6 of 12 Chapter 12: Overall Needs Case for Pickering Airport
Figure 12-1 Needs Assessment Study Timeline for the Need for Pickering Airport
12.2.2.2 Corporate Jet/General Aviation (CJ/GA) Airport The Needs Assessment Study has concluded that a CJ/GA airport on the Pickering lands is not expected to be required within the planning horizon, purely from a demand-capacity perspective, but could potentially be considered—in the event of airport closures—as a means of minimizing displacement impacts within the CJ/GA communities. Since the potential value of a CJ/GA airport on the Pickering lands is closely tied to the possibility of future airport closures, and since it is not possible to predict at this time if or when those closures may occur, a time estimate of when a CJ/GA facility could be considered in Pickering cannot be given. The only comment that can be made regarding timing is that the City of Oshawa’s recent commitment to operate their airport for a minimum of 25 years reduces the likelihood of multiple airport closures occurring within this study’s planning horizon.
12.3 Should the Pickering lands be retained for aviation purposes?
12.3.1 Southern Ontario Area Airports Study In the SOAAS quotes provided at the beginning of this chapter, SOAAS clearly concludes that since a second major airport for the region will be required, and since the Pickering site is identified as the preferred site for that second major airport, the lands should be retained for future aviation purposes.
Ch. 12, Page 7 of 12 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
12.3.2 Needs Assessment Study The Needs Assessment Study has also concluded that a commercial airport in Pickering will be required in the future, although not necessarily within this study’s planning horizon. As a result, it also recommends that the Pickering lands be retained and protected for future aviation needs.
12.3.3 Site Attributes The various studies have acknowledged a number of attributes of the site that are relevant to its potential future use as an airport, and therefore also relevant to the question of retention of the lands. These include: • The site can accommodate a significant commercial airport, as demonstrated by the airport concept described in the Draft Plan Report. The Draft Plan work is the most significant assessment of the site’s potential to accommodate an airport since the original planning and design work was undertaken in the early 1970s. Despite the consideration of environmental factors in a much more significant way than in the original 1970s siting work, the Draft Plan Report reconfirmed the site’s suitability for an airport. • The site is in relatively close proximity to a large potential market. • The site is easily accessible. • A relatively low population exists in the immediate vicinity of the lands. • Some degree of protection of the site from incompatible land uses in the surrounding area is already in place, including: • Federal Airport Zoning Regulations. • A provincial minister’s zoning order. • More stringent federal land use guidelines indicating that new noise sensitive land uses should not be permitted within the 25 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contour line for new airports (in contrast to the 30 NEF contour for existing airports).
12.3.4 Opportunity It is inconceivable that a large parcel of land comparable in size to the Pickering lands could be amassed again in the future. Even if an alternative site could be identified, the financial and social costs associated with such an endeavour would likely render it implausible. These costs have already been paid in assembling the Pickering lands. To abandon the present site, and repeat the process at another location, would seem to be unthinkable.
Ch. 12, Page 8 of 12 Chapter 12: Overall Needs Case for Pickering Airport
The site offers a unique, one-time opportunity to meet the long term aviation needs of the GGH. The existence of a site such as the Pickering lands for the future development of a reliever airport is the envy of many other major metropolitan areas. It is prudent planning to retain and protect the site, thereby preserving the option of building an airport, if and when required.
12.4 Consideration of Success Factors for Secondary Airports
The examination of major North American multiple airport systems that was undertaken as part of this Needs Assessment Study identified four key success factors for developing a secondary commercial airport. The potential of an airport in Pickering to meet each of these success factors is discussed below, based on the conclusions of the various studies that have been undertaken.
12.4.1 Strong Market Potential Strong market potential was identified as the most fundamental requirement for the success of a secondary airport. Strong market potential was defined as encompassing the following three elements: 12.4.1.1 Strong Local Demand SOAAS, the Draft Plan Report and the Needs Assessment Study unanimously conclude that the Pickering site has a stronger potential demand base than Hamilton Airport. The only difference between the reports is the degree to which the local demand around the Pickering site is estimated to exceed the local demand base around Hamilton Airport. The SOAAS report concludes that the demand around the Pickering site is greater than the demand around Hamilton Airport by a factor of 2.5, based on 1991 census data. The Draft Plan Report and Needs Assessment Study concluded that, based on projected demographics for 2031, future demand around the Pickering site would be higher than at Hamilton by a factor of about 1.4 or 1.5. Nevertheless, all the reports agree that when the need comes for significant commercial passenger relief at Pearson, the Pickering site is better positioned to meet the fundamental requirement of strong local demand.
Ch. 12, Page 9 of 12 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
12.4.1.2 Good Airport Access SOAAS considered ground access to the airports qualitatively. It concluded that the planned Highway 407 would provide the Pickering site with good access. With respect to Hamilton Airport, it suggested that the planned new Highway 6 would significantly improve access; however, increased congestion over time on Highway 403 between Toronto and Hamilton may still hamper access to the airport. The Draft Plan Report identified a conceptual layout for Pickering airport that envisions good access to the airport through convenient connections to both Highway 407 and Highway 7. The Needs Assessment Study has quantitatively factored airport access directly into its analysis by basing the airport catchment areas on projected driving times to the various airports. As such, the projected future ratio of Hamilton demand to Pickering demand of about 1:1.5 directly accounts for differences in airport accessibility. Therefore, all of the studies have suggested that the Pickering site meets the requirement of good airport access. 12.4.1.3 Competitive Pricing Neither the Needs Assessment Study nor any of the studies referenced in Chapter 2 examined the issue of potential pricing in Pickering relative to other airports in the system. The only very general observation that can be made is that SOAAS concluded that developing a major reliever airport in Hamilton would be approximately ten to 15 per cent less expensive than an airport of the same size in Pickering, which could give Hamilton a slight pricing advantage.
12.4.2 Airline Cooperation SOAAS and the Draft Plan Report did not discuss airline cooperation in any significant way. The Needs Assessment Study has touched on this area to some extent, through discussions with the major Canadian carriers. These discussions revealed that airlines develop strategies related to serving multiple airports within a region based on their specific business model, which can lead to significantly different approaches among airlines. While it is not possible to predict the degree to which airline cooperation would or would not occur in Pickering or at any other reliever airport, the strong local demand in Pickering increases the likelihood of airline interest in serving the market.
Ch. 12, Page 10 of 12 Chapter 12: Overall Needs Case for Pickering Airport
12.4.3 Well Planned and Designed Facilities The Needs Assessment Study has not re-examined the airport layout that was envisioned in the Draft Plan Report. As a result, the only statement that can be made regarding the potential to provide well planned and designed airport facilities on the Pickering lands, is that no new information has come to light during the course of this study suggesting that the site layout proposed in the Draft Plan Report would not be appropriate. Of course, a considerable amount of additional planning and design work would be required before an airport in Pickering could be constructed, including addressing any issues that may arise during an environmental assessment.
12.4.4 Single Governing Body A single governing body was identified as a common factor in most successful multiple airport systems. The Needs Assessment Study has not considered the issue of the governance of a future airport in Pickering, or any other airport within the GGH. The SOAAS report did suggest that it would “be advisable for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to also manage the Pickering lands, assuming it is confirmed as a future airport site”. In any event, the only pertinent fact in the context of this potential success factor is that the opportunity exists to have a single organization operate both Pearson and a secondary airport on the Pickering lands.
12.5 Summary
Considering the whole body of work that is available related to the potential need for an airport on the Pickering lands, the fundamental conclusions that can be drawn are as follows: 1 Strong evidence exists that a commercial airport in Pickering will be required at some point in the future to supplement Pearson. The potential need for a CJ/GA facility is somewhat less clear, and is likely to be highly dependant on whether other area airports continue to be available in the long term and, if closures do occur, the degree to which displacement impacts are to be minimized. 2 The timing of the need for a commercial airport in Pickering depends on the traffic forecasts used, the extent to which other potential reliever airports (Hamilton and Waterloo) are developed as commercial relievers, and the capacities that can ultimately be achieved at Pearson and the other reliever airports. However, the timing of that need is further in the future than has been contemplated in previous studies, most likely in the 2027–2037 time period if the development potential of existing airports is used before building a new airport in Pickering.
Ch. 12, Page 11 of 12 Needs Assessment Study—Pickering Lands
3 Given the strong evidence that an airport will eventually be required on the Pickering lands, the lands should be retained for future aviation purposes. Disposing of the lands for other purposes would likely result in an aviation capacity shortfall in the long term. 4 The Pickering site would appear to satisfy, or have the potential to satisfy in the future, all of the key factors that have been identified for the successful development and operation of a secondary airport.
Ch. 12, Page 12 of 12 Greater Toronto Airports Authority P.O. Box 6031, 3111 Convair Drive Toronto AMF, Ontario Canada L5P 1B2 www.GTAA.com
President and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd A. McCoomb