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

[ttk77]

Given the negative public view of airports and the resulting difficulty in opening new airports (see Pickering, Heathrow expansion, etc) I think it is valuable to keep existing airports as much as possible.

Agreed, but we need to keep balance in mind. The existence of an airport shouldn't itself be a license for unrestrained expansion (not accusing you of pushing any particular view). This airport is an asset, but given the other uses of the area and the nearness of Pearson, there's no reason to turn it into a major transportation hub. In my mind, it's main benefit is avoiding the long lines at Pearson for short haul flights.

 

[robmausser]

Excuse me? I live on King and Brant facing into a quiet courtyard. I don’t hear any cars or people. It’s so far from the waterfront, yet the one thing that I hear are the loud revving planes.

They weren’t there before. Yes, I have a right to complain. Downtown is no place for an airport.

Honestly dude if you want peace and quiet, go move to the countryside. There is tons of it in Canada.

Toronto is growing at a crazy rate, it is not the same city that it was when you moved here, and there is no expectation or requirement that it will stay the same for your personal benefit.

 

[cplchanb]

Honestly dude if you want peace and quiet, go move to the countryside. There is tons of it in Canada.

Toronto is growing at a crazy rate, it is not the same city that it was when you moved here, and there is no expectation or requirement that it will stay the same for your personal benefit.

The irony about the C-series jet that all the numbyers fought to kill off is actually quieter than the Q400s especially at full revs. I recall a demo low level flypast over the island one time and virtually noone
even noticed it fly by. It just goes to show how ignorant some naysayers can get when it comes to the actual metrics of what they are fighting against.

 

[interchange42]

Seems like a good time to wade back into the shallow waters of Billy Bishop Expansion Apologists, who seem to think that the only issue that killed their plan was jet noise. D'Oh, you're just getting your feet wet! C'mon out for a swim with the big boys, where there are real issues to discuss.

42

 

[Dan416]

So supporting YTZ is being an apologist, but expecting complete silence downtown is, what, ok?

 

[cplchanb]

thats the problem with this city.... you got people who want to build to the 21st century and people who are inclined to relive the good ol days of the 60s...
and then theres the majority of those who are indifferent. unfortunately its the nimbyers who kick and scream the loudest and these are the groups who make it the
hardest for any progress to happen at reasonable cost and time. democracy at its finest

 

[rbt]

So supporting YTZ is being an apologist, but expecting complete silence downtown is, what, ok?

I'll admit that's my favourite feature of Tokyo. Background noise levels seemed to be about half that of a typical North American city.

 

[interchange42]

So supporting YTZ is being an apologist, but expecting complete silence downtown is, what, ok?

No, that's obviously ridiculous.

42

 

[interchange42]

thats the problem with this city.... you got people who want to build to the 21st century and people who are inclined to relive the good ol days of the 60s...
and then theres the majority of those who are indifferent. unfortunately its the nimbyers who kick and scream the loudest and these are the groups who make it the
hardest for any progress to happen at reasonable cost and time. democracy at its finest

So if you want to protect our waterfront, that's 60s thinking? You have it backwards: ignoring our waterfront was 60s thinking, protecting it is 21st century thinking. The airport is fine as it is now, it's the rest of the waterfront that we are continuing to improve.

42

 

[cplchanb]

So if you want to protect our waterfront, that's 60s thinking? You have it backwards: ignoring our waterfront was 60s thinking, protecting it is 21st century thinking. The airport is fine as it is now, it's the rest of the waterfront that we are continuing to improve.

42

actually yes. many cities near waterfronts are reclaiming land as part of development. It happens all the time. IMO as long as its not excessive like completely cutting off the waterways and the long term benefits outweigh the negatives it should be seriously considered. extending the runway a couple hundred meters isnt the end of the world and looking at the overlays from pg 168 there is still reasonable access to and from the waterfront.

 

[interchange42]

I am opposed to extending the runways and cutting into boating space: I do not believe that the business opportunities presented by airport expansion should eclipse recreational uses. The two are not particularly compatible, and as we have one downtown waterfront, but more than one airport, then I think that this one's size needs to be capped to allow the single waterfront to thrive.

Extending the runways to expand the usefulness of the airport means far more pressure on the local infrastructure than just more landfill, however. It means both a higher transportation capacity will be needed on area roads, quite likely a storage structure for private vehicles, and increased transit capacity. It means longer busy times at the airport as the longer flights made possible by jet travel mean new arrival and departure slots at previously quieter hours. It also means more airlines will demand access to the airport: it's not Porter's airport alone, and there won't be a successful case made to stop competition from coming in once the infrastructure is there (and there shouldn't be, as there's no way in hell that Porter will be paying for the new infrastructure on their own anyway). Expanded runways are the thin edge of the wedge that would turn Billy Bishop into something much busier than it is now.

None of this is conducive to improving the living conditions of those nearby, and in fact the opposite is true. None of it improves the recreational opportunities and uses of the waterfront, instead it detracts from them. This is the 21st century, and we have a better idea of where to build certain things and where not to. We have a major airport capable of handling jet flights, connected to the downtown by a rapid train. More than good enough.

42

 

[cplchanb]

I am opposed to extending the runways and cutting into boating space: I do not believe that the business opportunities presented by airport expansion should eclipse recreational uses. The two are not particularly compatible, and as we have one downtown waterfront, but more than one airport, then I think that this one's size needs to be capped to allow the single waterfront to thrive.

Extending the runways to expand the usefulness of the airport means far more pressure on the local infrastructure than just more landfill, however. It means both a higher transportation capacity will be needed on area roads, quite likely a storage structure for private vehicles, and increased transit capacity. It means longer busy times at the airport as the longer flights made possible by jet travel mean new arrival and departure slots at previously quieter hours. It also means more airlines will demand access to the airport: it's not Porter's airport alone, and there won't be a successful case made to stop competition from coming in once the infrastructure is there (and there shouldn't be, as there's no way in hell that Porter will be paying for the new infrastructure on their own anyway). Expanded runways are the thin edge of the wedge that would turn Billy Bishop into something much busier than it is now.

None of this is conducive to improving the living conditions of those nearby, and in fact the opposite is true. None of it improves the recreational opportunities and uses of the waterfront, instead it detracts from them. This is the 21st century, and we have a better idea of where to build certain things and where not to. We have a major airport capable of handling jet flights, connected to the downtown by a rapid train. More than good enough.

42

If the primary reason is recreation and waterfront living based, then fine there will be less boats and jetskis going around. But the potential economic gains in the long run makes this quite viable. Right now YTZ serves only props which puts
it in a greyzone where it can neither serve a wider scope as it was designed to do yet too big to be just a small regional airport. The runway extension and eliminating the jet bylaw wont just be for the Cseries. Bbr and other regional jets can use it too.
I dont get why people are so afraid of increased business downtown and yet complain when theres not enough transit because of lack of funds. If managed properly this can be a great opportunity to get more revenue for infrastructure development. If there is to be an developmental future for Toronto some concessions need to be made and if that means a few less slots for parking a non revenue boat or causing 62 people on an island a bit of convenience during the day then so be it. How can such a small fringe group have the moral right to stop progress to a million? Besides, if one wants to increase "recreation" along the waterfront, they have plenty of opportunities to do it on the east end as well. How can London make their airport work in far more constrained conditions and we cant with a giant lake in front of us?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't think we have an issue of increasing business in the core - much less an airport by the doorstep being the determinant of business locational decisions. The current status quo is fine for what it is.

AoD

 

[cplchanb]

I don't think we have an issue of increasing business in the core - much less an airport by the doorstep being the determinant of business locational decisions.

AoD

well, it would appear that from the original argument that they are unwilling to make concessions on recreation at the expense of business and revenue opportunities...

 

[jaybe]

If the primary reason is recreation and waterfront living based, then fine there will be less boats and jetskis going around. But the potential economic gains in the long run makes this quite viable. Right now YTZ serves only props which puts
it in a greyzone where it can neither serve a wider scope as it was designed to do yet too big to be just a small regional airport. The runway extension and eliminating the jet bylaw wont just be for the Cseries. Bbr and other regional jets can use it too.
I dont get why people are so afraid of increased business downtown and yet complain when theres not enough transit because of lack of funds. If managed properly this can be a great opportunity to get more revenue for infrastructure development. If there is to be an developmental future for Toronto some concessions need to be made and if that means a few less slots for parking a non revenue boat or causing 62 people on an island a bit of convenience during the day then so be it. How can such a small fringe group have the moral right to stop progress to a million? Besides, if one wants to increase "recreation" along the waterfront, they have plenty of opportunities to do it on the east end as well. How can London make their airport work in far more constrained conditions and we cant with a giant lake in front of us?

YTZ was not designed to serve a wider scope. It has always been a small, regional airport. The proposal to extend the runways is a "re-design". As stated elsewhere, the redesign of YTZ would place a significant burden on the surrounding infrastructure, all while we have a well functioning airport only 25 minutes away by rapid transit.

There is more than a small fringe opposed to YTZ redesign. I live in North York and fly regularly from both YYZ and YTZ. While I enjoy the convenience of YTZ, I realize that it is imposing itself on the core. About 1 million passengers use YTZ annually. That number is dwarfed many times over by the number of people who live and play by the waterfront. YTZ does not need to be expanded further.