Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

voxpopulicosmicum said:
Not that I disagree with you in principle, but that's kind of a ridiculous statement, isn't it? Councillors are elected by local, not city-wide, constituents.
Click to expand...
They are supposed to see the bigger picture, especially ones who never get around to firmly denying an intent to seek the mayoralty. Councillors who live beside large pieces of infrastructure in particular have a responsibility to look at the needs of the city - and indeed the region, since every little that YTZ can take puts off the bulldozing of all that prime farmland in Pickering. There's a certain attraction to how Vancouver does it - dispense with ward bosses and elect at-large, although they do have parties which I'm not fond of at municipal level.
 
At large councillors and no slates/parties is a recipe for zero accountability. The people with name recognition - incumbents - would win every time. I say keep ward councillors but drop this crazy habit of deference to the local councillor on what are really city-wide decisions.
 
Is the amount of traffic on a street which sits between a park and apartment buildings with kids, and their school really a city-wide decision or is it a local one? I'm pretty sure every councillor in the city comes out against increases in traffic through their residential neighbourhoods and in front of elementary schools.
 
EnviroTO said:
Is the amount of traffic on a street which sits between a park and apartment buildings with kids, and their school really a city-wide decision or is it a local one? I'm pretty sure every councillor in the city comes out against increases in traffic through their residential neighbourhoods and in front of elementary schools.
Click to expand...
Is the amount of traffic on a street which sits between a park and apartments buildings with kids, and their school,and has an international airport at the end of it really a city-wide decision or a local one?
 
sjc said:
Is the amount of traffic on a street which sits between a park and apartments buildings with kids, and their school,and has an international airport at the end of it really a city-wide decision or a local one?
Click to expand...

Both.

There are obviously city-wide concerns and local concerns.
 
Most of you have heard about the lounge on the island its comparable… ... Other than the snafu with the rental car, this airport and Porter airlines was great.
 
sjc said:
Is the amount of traffic on a street which sits between a park and apartments buildings with kids, and their school,and has an international airport at the end of it really a city-wide decision or a local one?
Click to expand...

It use to have 5 flights a day to Ottawa. If there is a local argument to stop an international airport from being built in Pickering where very few people live and where virtually no traffic would run down local streets past public schools and playgrounds, then there is a local argument many magnitudes stronger against the Toronto Island airport where the airport can't possibly meet the greater needs of the city since the size of the airport seriously limits its growth and ability to serve freight, overseas flights, etc. Toronto Island airport will always be something that made travel slightly more convenient for people living or working near the core, but did not provide significant regional benefits nor substantially alter the carrying capacity of the air network in Toronto. I would imagine that far more households would use electricity from a power plant in southeast Mississauga on a daily basis than would benefit from Toronto Island airport on an annual basis and local concerns killed that power plant.

You bold international airport like that gives it international significance. It doesn't. A guy from St.Thomas travelling the world does not make St.Thomas a world city. Toronto Island airport does not serve the international community... it serves a small area in the centre of Toronto. No or almost no international transiting passengers use it.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not it's an international airport or not is a red herring. It's a major transportation node. And presumably traffic would continue to grow over time.

Perhaps the local community should be trying to figure out better ways to deal with the traffic. Perhaps they should ask that a bridge be built on Bathurst to the airport, so you don't have all that traffic trying to turn around in the neighbourhood.
 
YTZ exists, as it has done for the last 70+ years. Pickering is yet to be. The increase in paved surface arising from recent development is negligble, for a Pickering airport highly significant. Furthermore, YTZ has a defined niche whereas Pickering would be as remote as Pearson from the downtown core, if not more so. People aren't rejecting A320s for Q400s because Porter has a cute logo. What we need is not only YTZ but higher frequency regional rail - there is no reason why flights from YGK and YXU could not be replaced by rail.
 
What is happening to the excavated dirt from the tunnel project? Is it being dumped in the Harbour?
 
I heard that the Airport Master Plan (not that anyone has seen it) has the main runway being moved slightly to the south. I'm wondering that if at some point there are 2 runways if that they might leave the old runway in place and potentially increase the airports capacity (through the twinning of the runways)?
 
themarc said:
I heard that the Airport Master Plan (not that anyone has seen it) has the main runway being moved slightly to the south. I'm wondering that if at some point there are 2 runways if that they might leave the old runway in place and potentially increase the airports capacity (through the twinning of the runways)?
Click to expand...

highly unlikely - aircraft need a lot of lateral separation to operate on parallel runways within the regulations... like over a mile - even Pearson doesn't do true parallel runway ops when the whether is even slightly iffy.
 
from http://www.torontoport.com/Airport/Proposed-Pedestrian-Tunnel/Tunnel-News/%E2%80%98Chip%E2%80%99-Ready-to-Dig.aspx

Toronto (January 11, 2013) – ‘Chip', one of the two tunnel boring machines being used to construct the pedestrian walkway to Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, has been lowered into the tunnel shaft.

The Canadian-made tunnel boring machine joins its twin, 'Dale', which is creating the first of seven drift tunnels that will form the walkway's crown. 'Chip' was lowered into the shaft on January 10 and will begin boring the second drift tunnel.

"This is an exciting project milestone," said Toronto Port Authority President and CEO Geoffrey Wilson "The pedestrian walkway will be a first-class piece of infrastructure that will give passengers convenient, predictable and reliable access to Billy Bishop and we're well on course to completing it on time and on budget."

The Toronto Port Authority is building a pedestrian walkway across the Western Gap to Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The walkway will be completed in Spring 2014.
Click to expand...

KTP_5795.JPG.aspx

KTP_5796.JPG.aspx

KTP_5804-(1).JPG.aspx

KTP_5821.jpg.aspx

KTP_5865.JPG.aspx

KTP_5866-(2).jpg.aspx

KTP_5880.JPG.aspx
 
^Great photos. Thanks. Either these TBMs are tiny, or my impression of an "adequately sized" TBM has been spolied by watching Discovery Channel.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top