Rainforest
Senior Member
Fair enough. My observations aren't statistically representative, they are based on the personal experience on a few particular days.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
Fair enough. My observations aren't statistically representative, they are based on the personal experience on a few particular days.
I lived in the area for about 10 years. The morning start ups of engines was my alarm clock. Maintenance run ups for a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon were loud and annoying. We had to have our windows closed to hear our own tv or music. We moved there just before Porter started up. Definite difference, particularly on busy weekdays with flights going every few minutes. Sitting at Amsterdam Brewery on the patio, you definitely notice landings and takeoffs. Same thing strolling in the music garden.
Cinnamon
Active Member
The revitalization of the waterfront Toronto is actually a very good example of an excellent urban planning. It transformed an industrial wasteland to a world class recreational and residential waterfront and reconnected the city with the lake. Apparently, the city of Toronto was very well aware of the fact that a commercial airport would not be a good fit for the proposed concept back in 1981:
As such, multiple restrictions (aircraft type, noise levels, link to the mainland, curfew, etc.) added to the tripartite agreement to ensure Toronto Island would not turn into "Toronto's second commercial airport" in time.
We may continue to discuss technical details or legitimacy of the rules about noise, jets, etc. However, challenging each rule in a vacuum, without considering the fact that the essence of all those rules was to avoid the transformation of a recreational airfield to a commercial airport is nonsensical.
Link to the above document: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/91ab-billy-bishop-airport-1981-05-00.pdf
As such, multiple restrictions (aircraft type, noise levels, link to the mainland, curfew, etc.) added to the tripartite agreement to ensure Toronto Island would not turn into "Toronto's second commercial airport" in time.
We may continue to discuss technical details or legitimacy of the rules about noise, jets, etc. However, challenging each rule in a vacuum, without considering the fact that the essence of all those rules was to avoid the transformation of a recreational airfield to a commercial airport is nonsensical.
Link to the above document: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/91ab-billy-bishop-airport-1981-05-00.pdf
Amare
Senior Member
Everything south of Queens Quay West (excluding the Queens Quay road itself) between Strachan and York i'd agree with you and say: yes it is good urban planning.
The rest of our waterfront in the downtown core is general a failure of "urban planning" (though I will say the midrises directly across from the music gardens are some of the best looking buildings we've got along the waterfront.
Queens Quay East on the other hand...well the road looks like it will be designed much better compared to the mess that is Queens Quay West. However, we're already seeing some disastrous examples of "architecture" go up. The planning of the East side looks like it will be better than that of the West side. But I wouldnt describe it as "excellent" urban planning, nor would i describe it as world class (whatever that means in Toronto these days).
kEiThZ
Superstar
They are turbofans. Which is what most commercial aircraft are these days. The A220 uses geared turbofans which are a bit more efficient. But that's not a turboprop. The Q400 that Porter currently uses is a turboprop.
Which is all but irrelevant to type of service being discussed. Think of how high speed rail benefits traveler by facilitating downtown to downtown trips. That's the point of any Billy Bishop to London City service. They are targeted mostly financial sector workers going from the financial district in one city to the other. The extra 45-60 mins in the air from a slower cruise is negated by the time savings of traveling from outlying airports on both ends and easier and less time consuming pre-boarding and post-arrival processes. It's basically the equivalent of flying a private jet for those who can't afford one.
Won't someone please think of the upper middle class yuppies who can afford to live in the core...
We should increase air traffic over the poor brown folk who live in Malton and Rexdale instead. It's what world class cities do.
SubHuman
Active Member
The name changed to Breeze Airways.
I believe Porter, very conveniently for them, had wanted the main YTZ runway to be extended just enough to allow for the use of the smaller CS100 (now A220-100) planes they were going to order, but not enough for the longer A220-300 planes that Air Canada now has.
It looks like Delta is presently the only North American operator of the A220-100, with Swiss being the only European operator of the 100 version, which they use for London City Airport.
Last edited:
DirectionNorth
Active Member
Except high speed rail: has higher capacity, is more accessible to the average person, and its effect on the land can be minimized.
I'm not too concerned for them, but according to this, the people who live in the core are *slightly* poorer than the Toronto average. I couldn't find the east downtown document.
Actually, world class cities encourage rail travel, and encourage industrial around their airports. Funny how everything is about race these days.
kEiThZ
Superstar
We're talking about intercontinental rail travel. Not something possible with HSR.
Indeed. And when HSR is built to Ottawa and Montreal, there will be a much better case to close Billy Bishop. But we're decades away from that unfortunately.
Funny how progressives only care about these issues till they need to steamroll some disadvantaged group for their benefit. Remind us again, who wins the ridings around Billy Bishop?
picard102
Senior Member
Decades? I don't see it ever being built. If it ever is, it will be obsolete by the time the first trains run.
Northern Light
Superstar
According to this Globe and Mail article (linked below)......the relationship between Billy Bishop's operator and Porter is worse than tenuous, with lawsuits flying.
Additionally, court documents suggest that Porter was looking to cease all operations at Billy Bishop, prior to the pandemic.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/GJZFUADCAZLQDADUQDBBV4KFQY.jpg)
www.theglobeandmail.com
Additionally, court documents suggest that Porter was looking to cease all operations at Billy Bishop, prior to the pandemic.
Porter Airlines warned of losses, threatened to leave Toronto’s island airport in dispute with terminal owner
Porter Airlines warned Toronto island airport owner it was suffering losses long before pandemic
www.theglobeandmail.com
Dinamo5
New Member
Could this be the opportunity that people who are opponents to the airport are hoping for. I have said it before I believe with the beautiful Islands they should be used for fun and enjoyment for all and to remove that airport and make something spectacular there would be unbeleivable and a great opportunity for the city of Toronto. I have always felt that the east end of Toronto needed an airport of somekind and a connection to Pearson.
lenaitch
Senior Member
It would seem that if Porter left he airport is doomed. If that comes to pass, it would seem the only option for Ornge would be to re-base to Pearson. They decamped Buttonville for the Island but its questionable long term future would probably take that off the table.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I've heard rumours that Ornge had intention to locate at Pickering if the airport were ever built.
jcam
Active Member
With an investor owning the terminal, they'd try to attract Air Canada or someone else to take up the slots if Porter de-camped. Everyone didn't make the investment in that airport infrastructure to fold up shop.
Northern Light
Superstar
They might; but the lease is also coming up in 2033 (of the airport, between the City and Ports Toronto); the City is not compelled to renew.........and there are still runway and jet limitations.
Last edited: