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

"Go to Pearson" just highlights how little is understood about the value proposition a downtown airport offers.
You don't like it, fine. Others very much do.

Liking something is not sufficient evidence it should exist.

Even if it were, surely that would suggest that a democratic vote should settle it.

Given how few people use the Island Airport as a percentage of the population, but how many would enjoy the space as parkland or as housing............

I don't see the airport winning that vote.

****

Of course there is a value to the airport, primarily to the executive sector and a subset of senior civil servants.

But is that value the greatest/best value that could be achieved w/that site?

At the same time, lets note, lot of cities have closed their City centre airports.

Its not that common, nor necessary an amenity.

Its a convenience, for a minority of residents. Nothing more, nothing less.

Its not evil, its not angelic; its not good or bad; it just 'is'.

But its entirely fair to consider whether it should be; and if there are better alternatives.

I would certainly make the case that there are.
 
"Go to Pearson" just highlights how little is understood about the value proposition a downtown airport offers.
Exactly.

Porter and YTZ is the regional competition which keeps travel costs down. Centralizing at Pearson would get costs back up.

There's only one real solution. HSR. And until that happens, there will be no closure of YTZ. But I do look forward to checking back on this thread in another decade to read a new generation of downtowners whining about the airport again.
 
Exactly.

Porter and YTZ is the regional competition which keeps travel costs down. Centralizing at Pearson would get costs back up.

There's only one real solution. HSR. And until that happens, there will be no closure of YTZ. But I do look forward to checking back on this thread in another decade to read a new generation of downtowners whining about the airport again.

If you're coming to UT for thoughtful discussion, perhaps you could refrain from calling anyone who disagrees with you on this subject a 'whiner'.

Clearly that's pejorative, and not a helpful contribution.

You're welcome to your opinion; so are others.
 
And there's no economic benefit to easy access by air to the city centre?
It's not clear to me that BB is providing benefits to offset the negatives (noise, pollution, constraining surrounding land use).
Neither do airports and airlines. That's why they are getting federal bailouts.
Pearson is a nearly perfect substitute for BB and it has capacity.

Exactly.

Porter and YTZ is the regional competition which keeps travel costs down. Centralizing at Pearson would get costs back up.

There's only one real solution. HSR. And until that happens, there will be no closure of YTZ. But I do look forward to checking back on this thread in another decade to read a new generation of downtowners whining about the airport again.
I think Hamilton likely plays a bigger role is providing competition to Pearson.
 
"Go to Pearson" just highlights how little is understood about the value proposition a downtown airport offers.
You don't like it, fine. Others very much do.
Feel free to articulate one. Private flights? When I have used the company jet, it has always been from Pearson.
 
2. The local airport is kind of a tourist attraction on its own right.

It's true. This is the one and only time I have ridden that ferry.
IMG_9475.JPG
 
Liking something is not sufficient evidence it should exist.

Even if it were, surely that would suggest that a democratic vote should settle it.

Given how few people use the Island Airport as a percentage of the population, but how many would enjoy the space as parkland or as housing............

I don't see the airport winning that vote.

****

Of course there is a value to the airport, primarily to the executive sector and a subset of senior civil servants.

But is that value the greatest/best value that could be achieved w/that site?

At the same time, lets note, lot of cities have closed their City centre airports.

Its not that common, nor necessary an amenity.

Its a convenience, for a minority of residents. Nothing more, nothing less.

Its not evil, its not angelic; its not good or bad; it just 'is'.

But its entirely fair to consider whether it should be; and if there are better alternatives.

I would certainly make the case that there are.

I have no objections to putting the issue to a vote, and following the outcome of such vote. For example, asking everyone who lives within 5km from the airport.

That said, those who are in favor of keeping the airport running will probably win.

People value choice, they want to have access to either Billy Bishop and Pearson, not just one option. The narrative that Billy Bishop only serves executives and isn't useful for ordinary residents, is not correct. Maybe that was the original marketing push and it stuck in public opinion, but it does not reflect the actual operation.

I flew out of Billy Bishop only twice in my life, once to Halifax, another time to Newark, but I was preparing in advance and checking prices for a few months. The Porter prices were consistently below the cheapest price I could get from Pearson to the same destination.

On the other hand, a park is not a bad idea. But, why instead of the airport. There exists the Toronto City Island park, and the small but somewhat green Musical Garden in the middle of the waterfront. To the west, you have Ontario Place lands that are currently underused; can park space be added there?

And for housing: first of all, it is hard to win a vote for something that will benefit future residents. Obviously, at the time the vote is held most of them do not know they will be future residents, and thus have no stake.

More generally, an island is probably not the best place for dense housing; providing the utilities and public transit there will be harder than in a number of inland locations. Why not increase the density around the existing subway stations first. I know in some cases it will be hard because of NYMBYism, but the opposition isn't uniformly strong everywhere. In some case, it is a matter of converting low-rise industrial areas to housing, then the opposition will be minimal if any.

EDIT: if other cities closed their city airports, then I guess it needs to be looked at on case by case basis. Maybe there was no economic case, and the airport was struggling financially. Maybe the nearby residents complained about the noise. Maybe the flight path interfered with a large highrise cluster that could otherwise be build inland. But we don't need to automatically replicate what some other cities chose to do (and some chose not to do).
 
Last edited:
I have no objections to putting the issue to a vote, and following the outcome of such vote. For example, asking everyone who lives within 5km from the airport.

That said, those who are in favor of keeping the airport running will probably win.

People value choice, they want to have access to either Billy Bishop and Pearson, not just one option. The narrative that Billy Bishop only serves executives and isn't useful for ordinary residents, is not correct. Maybe that was the original marketing push and it stuck in public opinion, but it does not reflect the actual operation.

I flew out of Billy Bishop only twice in my life, once to Halifax, another time to Newark, but I was preparing in advance and checking prices for a few months. The Porter prices were consistently below the cheapest price I could get from Pearson to the same destination.

On the other hand, a park is not a bad idea. But, why instead of the airport. There exists the Toronto City Island park, and the small but somewhat green Musical Garden in the middle of the waterfront. To the west, you have Ontario Place lands that are currently underused; can park space be added there?

And for housing: first of all, it is hard to win a vote for something that will benefit future residents. Obviously, at the time the vote is held most of them do not know they will be future residents, and thus have no stake.

More generally, an island is probably not the best place for dense housing; providing the utilities and public transit there will be harder than in a number of inland locations. Why not increase the density around the existing subway stations first. I know in some cases it will be hard because of NYMBYism, but the opposition isn't uniformly strong everywhere. In some case, it is a matter of converting low-rise industrial areas to housing, then the opposition will be minimal if any.

EDIT: if other cities closed their city airports, then I guess it needs to be looked at on case by case basis. Maybe there was no economic case, and the airport was struggling financially. Maybe the nearby residents complained about the noise. Maybe the flight path interfered with a large highrise cluster that could otherwise be build inland. But we don't need to automatically replicate what some other cities chose to do (and some chose not to do).
I wouldn't be too sure about the vote. Let me press the question: How many people actually used the airport? 200 acres is not small. How much affordable housing could be built? Quite a lot. Affordable housing benefits existing residents as well, you should know that. Instead of selling the land to developers, have the city build the housing instead.

I also support increasing density around transit.

How many cities have an airport right next to their downtown?

The airport does interfere with density in the area.
 
I feel like density is a red herring. As multiple people have pointed out, there are ample opportunities for densification across the city, primarily the Yellowbelt, or along the B-D line for example. I actually do like the island airport, but if it is torn down I'd rather it become a park, or another public venue.
 
How many cities have an airport right next to their downtown?

In general, one fewer every couple decades.

It's not usually the most efficient economic use of 8 billion dollars of land (200 acres * $40M/acre; a fairly low price for downtown-adjacent Toronto land).
 
Last edited:
EDIT: if other cities closed their city airports, then I guess it needs to be looked at on case by case basis. Maybe there was no economic case, and the airport was struggling financially. Maybe the nearby residents complained about the noise. Maybe the flight path interfered with a large highrise cluster that could otherwise be build inland. But we don't need to automatically replicate what some other cities chose to do (and some chose not to do).

Chicago notably closed its City Centre airport (on an island) in 2003:


This was done by the Mayor ordering City crews to gouge the runway and make it unusable in the middle of the night, without even notifying the FAA. It caused one flight diversion and stranded several aircraft.

Today, the site is a park:

1617374733259.png


From: https://www.architecture.org/learn/resources/buildings-of-chicago/building/northerly-island/
 
Chicago notably closed its City Centre airport (on an island) in 2003:


This was done by the Mayor ordering City crews to gouge the runway and make it unusable in the middle of the night, without even notifying the FAA. It caused one flight diversion and stranded several aircraft.

Today, the site is a park:

View attachment 309735

From: https://www.architecture.org/learn/resources/buildings-of-chicago/building/northerly-island/

And the FAA fined the city $33,000 for the mischief. Closing the airport with proper preparations is one thing; closing it without notice seems like a sign of nuthead ideology in place, rather than proper consideration.

Anyway, Chicago can do whatever they want, few of us will see any benefit or disadvantage from their actions. We don't need to parrot them.
 
And the FAA fined the city $33,000 for the mischief. Closing the airport with proper preparations is one thing; closing it without notice seems like a sign of nuthead ideology in place, rather than proper consideration.

Anyway, Chicago can do whatever they want, few of us will see any benefit or disadvantage from their actions. We don't need to parrot them.
lol @$33k fine. That is far cheaper than doing it through proper channels. Asking forgiveness rather than permission, etc.
 

Back
Top