News   Mar 28, 2024
 20     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 530     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 342     0 

Downsview Airport (YZD)

sjc

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
525
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, Ontario
With the extension of the subway to Downsview a few years ago, Downsview Airport has become very conveniently located by transit for many people in Toronto.

It is privately owned by Bombardier. Do they have an agreement with the city or the federal government preventing the introduction of commercial flights? If Bombardier allowed it, could an airline offer service from Downsview? (For example, commuter service to Ottawa -- although, with a 7000 foot runway, many more destinations are possible)

A terminal could be built across the street from Downsview subway station -- a tunnel under the Allen Road could give pedestrian access -- and it would be easy to reach by transit from downtown (and just a couple of stops from regional transit at Yorkdale).

EDIT: Alternatively, the terminal could go next to the new Sheppard West subway station, which is also close to the runway and may give future access to GO transit as well.

What if someone came to Bombardier and offered to buy a bunch of C-series planes if they could fly at least some of them out of Downsview? Is there a law or agreement (similar to the Tripartite Agreement that the Island Airport has) that would prevent this?
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, there'd probably be about two midair collisions over York U every week. Either that or North Toronto will be strafed by X number of jets every day, which FoNTRA would just adore.
 
1) There are some challenging airspace issues given the proximity to Pearson and Buttonville that would hamper Downsview becoming a truly effective commercial airport. It could be done but it's a lot more effort than people think.

2) Downsview continues to be a preferred secondary airfield for the military, that could be used in the event of an emergency. This is why you'll always see Hornets using it as a turnpoint. Downsview used to be a military airfield after all. The closest major military aerodrome, otherwise is Trenton 150km away. And that's where fighters usually operate from to cover Toronto. But Downsview is liked because it's a really good option.

3) I don't know how residents in the area would take it. They already see tons of air traffic from being close to Pearson. It'd be unfair to make them suffer even more.
 
^^Oh yeah, that's true. Especially with all that new development in Downsview and the park, it'd be a pain for the thousands of new residents.

I wonder what will end up becoming of Downsview? I don't want to say Bombardier, but some company still uses it for test flights, and the Air Force still uses it (however minimally.) But would it be worth it to keep it open? Or would it be better to open it up for (high density) development, and work on another airport like Pickering for new military, passenger and cargo traffic? This interests me now...
 
But what about the fixed cost of moving to Brampton or Oshawa? Will Bombardier decide it's cheaper to move out of the GTA entirely and build a new plant in China, where they already have extensive operations?

It's far better to have Bombardier to assemble planes in Downsview and have residents put up with occasional noise than to not have Bombardier at all in the GTA.
 
There are some challenging airspace issues given the proximity to Pearson and Buttonville that would hamper Downsview becoming a truly effective commercial airport. It could be done but it's a lot more effort than people think.

If Buttonville closes, proximity to it would be less of a problem and the need for a new airport would be greater. With respect to Pearson, if it is an issue of the flight paths crossing, are there some planes that would be better than others -- for example, would mandating a steep approach help to avoid the Pearson flight paths?

With respect to competition from Pearson, airlines operating out of Downsview would have a significant advantage by being directly on the subway, and potentially the GO train as well. Pearson isn't about to go out of business from losing a few Ottawa and Montreal passengers.

Downsview continues to be a preferred secondary airfield for the military, that could be used in the event of an emergency. This is why you'll always see Hornets using it as a turnpoint. Downsview used to be a military airfield after all. The closest major military aerodrome, otherwise is Trenton 150km away. And that's where fighters usually operate from to cover Toronto. But Downsview is liked because it's a really good option.

There is no reason why it could not operate both military and commercial flights. The military preference for its continued existence would be another reason to keep the airport and open it up for others to use.

I don't know how residents in the area would take it. They already see tons of air traffic from being close to Pearson. It'd be unfair to make them suffer even more.

I don't see any way to answer this. When people get on an airplane, nearby residents will have airplane noise. Outside of putting the airport in the middle of a lake, away from residential areas, someone will be bothered.

People across western Toronto can hear Pearson flights. If some of those flights turn into Downsview flights, will a greater number of people be bothered, or a lesser number. Are some people more important -- should a Willowdale resident count as more than a Malton resident when calculating these things?

By all means, export well-paid industrial jobs to the 'burbs.

I personally don't believe that driving businesses out of Toronto is the way that we will achieve economic success. If business leaves Toronto, it might become a very nice quiet place to live, but who will want to live here if there are no jobs?

But would it be worth it to keep it open? Or would it be better to open it up for (high density) development

Worth it for whom? For me, I would prefer to have the ability to fly to Ottawa from Downsview over the development of some more "high density development". There is no shortage of high density development in Toronto. There is a shortage of airports.

and work on another airport like Pickering for new military, passenger and cargo traffic? This interests me now...

An airport in Pickering is not really interchangeable with an airport a half hour from downtown Toronto by subway.

For those of us trying to live without cars, increased transportation options that are convenient to get to by transit are a necessity. Pearson is never going to be particularly convenient for regional travel for most people in Toronto. The Island is convenient, but is limited in capacity.
 
I don't see any way to answer this. When people get on an airplane, nearby residents will have airplane noise. Outside of putting the airport in the middle of a lake, away from residential areas, someone will be bothered.
Yes, but you can limit how many people will be bothered. Downsview is pretty totally surrounded by quiet suburbs, and there's some huge development going on as an extension of Downtown North. Compare that to an airport at the edge of the city, where less people will be affected, and it's kind of obvious which one is better on a local impact perspective.

For those of us trying to live without cars, increased transportation options that are convenient to get to by transit are a necessity. Pearson is never going to be particularly convenient for regional travel for most people in Toronto. The Island is convenient, but is limited in capacity.
I do live without a car, and I'd totally go to Pickering if it existed and didn't flop like Mirabel. Not to mention that Pickering could potentially be connected to the transit network through the North Pickering Go line at Regional Rail frequencies, connecting with Stouffville Go at least, and possibly totally bisecting the city through the midtown line.
 
I've said before I've got an evil plan for Bombardier - move it to another airport with land, in the GTA, upgradable and immediate access to rail (if needed) and close to a 400-series highway.

I'm talking, of course, of the Brampton Airport.


Not big enough. And too close to Pearson. There would be some serious restrictions on flight testing.
 
Not big enough. And too close to Pearson. There would be some serious restrictions on flight testing.

It is twice as far from Pearson as their current facility at Downsview and has room for expansion.

I am not saying this is a good idea, just don't think you can write it off because it is too close to Pearson.
 
So, if Downsview is used as a commercial airport, the GTA will have four or five commercial airports: YYZ, Hamilton, Toronto Islands, Downsview, and Pickering if it ever goes forward.

Are we *that* pretentious about our status we need to have as many airports as NYC or London and more airports than Tokyo or Paris or Shanghai?
 
So, if Downsview is used as a commercial airport, the GTA will have four or five commercial airports: YYZ, Hamilton, Toronto Islands, Downsview, and Pickering if it ever goes forward.

That would only be about 1 airport per million people. There are quite a few airports in Canada that support less than a million people.

EDIT: One problem I would see with having too many airports is that it would make connections more difficult for people that don't live in Toronto and are not going to/from Toronto since they would be more likely to have to switch airports (especially if they were using multiple airlines).

EDIT2: Each additional airport would take business away from YYZ. As more regional traffic moves to Toronto Island or Downsview, and more long distance traffic moves to Hamilton and Pickering, there would be less service (especially within Canada and to the US) available at Pearson. On the other hand, airlines will continue to have lots of connecting traffic, so flights to Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary and regional destinations won't vanish -- the number of flights might drop though. Pearson will never be in danger of going out of business -- especially since it will always have most if not all of the overseas traffic (is Pickering intended as an international airport?)
 
Last edited:
That would only be about 1 airport per million people. There are quite a few airports in Canada that support less than a million people.

EDIT: One problem I would see with having too many airports is that it would make connections more difficult for people that don't live in Toronto and are not going to/from Toronto since they would be more likely to have to switch airports (especially if they were using multiple airlines).

EDIT2: Each additional airport would take business away from YYZ. As more regional traffic moves to Toronto Island or Downsview, and more long distance traffic moves to Hamilton and Pickering, there would be less service (especially within Canada and to the US) available at Pearson. On the other hand, airlines will continue to have lots of connecting traffic, so flights to Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary and regional destinations won't vanish -- the number of flights might drop though. Pearson will never be in danger of going out of business -- especially since it will always have most if not all of the overseas traffic (is Pickering intended as an international airport?)

The population/airport ratio is not relevant. What matters is how well the population is served. Tokyo (population 30 million or so) has Haneda (domestic, and some flights to China and Korea), Narita (international), and two newly built airports which were make-work projects which see very few flights at all. If four airports are too many for Tokyo, there is no reason why Toronto cannot make do with three: YYZ as the main airport, Toronto Islands as city express flights (though if high speed rail is ever built then Porter's lunch will get stolen), and Hamilton (for some budget and vacation flights). There is no reason to have another brand new airport in the GTA. nother airport in the region is a make-work project of little marginal utility, and it hurts the connectivity of the region. When Mirabel Airport was opened, Montreal ceased to be a destination to transfer since passengers had to change airports. Air Canada and WestJet will no longer enjoy the economies of scale of having one hub in the GTA. The Pickering site should be cancelled (we don't need another Mirabel) and returned to those who owned the land.
 
Considering that Pearson hasn't been seeing as many flights as they expected when they built T1, and they already have plans for further expansion which seem to be on hold, I think we won't need Pickering for a long time.

Point being, Pearson still has lots of room to expand.
 

Back
Top