Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

[Ward8]

I am not so sure about your claim re convenience. I use BB every time I can, take the GO into Union, the shuttle, through clearance in a zip, and away. A much nicer experience then Pearson. Add a little larger plane with a tad more range and I think use of the airport rises

Since when? I live in North York and BB is far more convenient.

This depends if you mean the subjective experience of the airport itself, or the time it takes to get there. I'm referring to the latter when I say convenient. I have run a bunch of options on Google maps and I can't find a drive, or transit trip that is shorter to BB than Pearson from North York. That said there could be times when certain transit trips are timed in favour of a faster trip to BB. It's not unusual for the BB shuttle to take just as long as the UP express.

For me, who used to have a significantly shorter ride to the island, it's now much faster to cab to bloor station and catch the UP there. I presume I'm not alone as, Matt Elliott rightly cites in his article, the growth at BB plateaus at roughly the same time the UP fares dropped.

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

Straphanger author Taras Grescoe is the latest to chime in on Billy Bishop Airport (YTZ). This time, he argues the Alto high speed rail project would make short haul flights such as Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal unnecessary which makes up a large number of the flights that head out of YTZ.

We Need Railways, not Runways

Expanding Toronto's Billy Bishop Airport is Ontario Premier Doug Ford's Latest Bad Idea

www.highspeed.blog

 

[rbt]

Straphanger author Taras Grescoe is the latest to chime in on Billy Bishop Airport (YTZ). This time, he argues the Alto high speed rail project would make short haul flights such as Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal unnecessary which makes up a large number of the flights that head out of YTZ.

Isn't that one of the primary motivations to allow jets? An E195 at full range can reach markets well beyond Ottawa/Montreal like Bogota, Lisbon, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.

 

[txlseries4]

The Toronto Region Board of Trade says there are 18 million annual visitors to the waterfront. Hardly seems worth it for a few million travellers to expand the airport to have more frequent planes making noise, limit housing, and make the waterfront less attractive as a reprieve. Elsewhere I've seen commentary before about the Island or parks being in a subpar state because stakeholders have cottages and private backyards as their outdoor spaces to enjoy and it sure seems that sort of sentiment is at play with talk of an expansion.

 

[rbt]

The Toronto Region Board of Trade says there are 18 million annual visitors to the waterfront. Hardly seems worth it for a few million travellers to expand the airport to have more frequent planes making noise, limit housing, and make the waterfront less attractive as a reprieve. Elsewhere I've seen commentary before about the Island or parks being in a subpar state because stakeholders have cottages and private backyards as their outdoor spaces to enjoy and it sure seems that sort of sentiment is at play with talk of an expansion.

TRBOT also argues that mobility is one of the reasons Toronto waterfront has so many visitors, and expects even noisy mobility improvements like Jets and Hovercraft would increase that number. Keep in mind "Waterfront" for their numbers includes CN Tower, Aquarium, Scotiabank Arena, and Skydome. Everything south of the railway corridor.

Their focus is not people going to the quieter portions like Tommy Thompson Park or even those visiting restaurants on the boardwalk near the major attractions; and those will be impacted by either an increase in flights or noise level.

 

[hw621]

Didn't we agree a few pages back that noise is not an issue with the modern day jets?

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

Isn't that one of the primary motivations to allow jets? An E195 at full range can reach markets well beyond Ottawa/Montreal like Bogota, Lisbon, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.

At approximately 5700 km, Lisbon's out of range for the E195-E2. Even the A220-300 Air Canada uses would be pushing it; making the A321XLR or a widebody more appropriate.

 

[nfitz]

[/QUOTE]More so it'

Didn't we agree a few pages back that noise is not an issue with the modern day jets?

I thought so. If the Nimbys are so worried about noise, they'd be stopping the 3 AM helicopters - which are the only issue I really see.

(I support the 3 AM helicopters)

 

[picard102]

Straphanger author Taras Grescoe is the latest to chime in on Billy Bishop Airport (YTZ). This time, he argues the Alto high speed rail project would make short haul flights such as Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal unnecessary which makes up a large number of the flights that head out of YTZ.

And the UPX was supposed to be the end of BB as well.

 

[Ward8]

Didn't we agree a few pages back that noise is not an issue with the modern day jets?

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but it's my opinion that a negligble difference in noise is neither a reason to oppose, or support the waterfront blight that is Bily Bishop. It's bad wasteful infrastructure regardless of the noise level of jets.

And the UPX was supposed to be the end of BB as well.

As far as we can tell, it kind of was. At least the CEO of Porter made that case.

 

[nfitz]

Straphanger author Taras Grescoe is the latest to chime in on Billy Bishop Airport (YTZ). This time, he argues the Alto high speed rail project would make short haul flights such as Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal unnecessary which makes up a large number of the flights that head out of YTZ.

Large? Looking at today's morning departures it made up about 1/3. The majority of BB flights are not to Toronto/Montreal. Getting rid of some Toronto/Montreal planes would only free up capacity for the increased number of destinations that jets would provide.

And where do they get that Alto getting rid of flights to Ottawa/Montreal. Trains don't supplant planes for 500 km distances. It might eliminate shorter trips like Montreal to Ottawa and Montreal to Quebec City in the 200 to 250 km range (which is why skipping Kingston is moronic).

The (admittedly old) demand modelling I worked on for VIA, showed that HST put a dent in air travel. But only a dent. That surely hasn't changed - especially with the longer run times of Alto compared to the 1980s proposals, and the rail pricing being higher than the subsidized plans back then.

If I have a 9 AM meeting in Montreal, am I really going to take a train, rather than a 6:45 AM flight? Though there'd be a bigger dent in non-business travel. Rail was taking more from cars than planes.

 

[picard102]

As far as we can tell, it kind of was. At least the CEO of Porter made that case.

The CEO of Porter said UPX has shut down BB?

 

[SubHuman]

The CEO of Porter said UPX has shut down BB?

He gave that as one of the reasons for trying to get away with reducing their number of slots they had agreed to keep using at YTZ, along with how much more expensive it was for them compared to YYZ.
It sounds like they probably wouldn't want to be there at all anymore if it hadn't been part of the agreement to sell the YTZ terminal to Nieuport Aviation.
https://archive.is/EccAO

The new train was one of a few reasons cited by former Porter Airlines CEO Robert Deluce for reducing the company’s runway slots on the island.
... said the train had “reduced the locational advantage that [the island airport] once had relative to Pearson.”
... noted that the cost of flying out of the island was sky high relative to Pearson.
... about triple the cost... court documents show Porter claiming its island operation would be a drag on its business, resulting in a total projected net loss for 2019 of about $35 million.

It's difficult to envision YTZ ever being expanded to be at the level other "second" airports like Chicago Midway, or NY LaGuardia.
And much of Pearson's use involves people getting connecting flights, which will never really happen for YTZ.

 

[Ward8]

Trains don't supplant planes for 500 km distances.

500km is kind of in the sweet spot for HSR competetiveness over planes. At ~3 Hours travel time, city centre to city centre, it's going to be faster for most people to take the train Toronto to Montreal. Tokyo to Osaka is ~500km and those direct flights are pretty much based on connections from other flights. Direct city to city travel is done via the Shinkansen.

If I have a 9 AM meeting in Montreal, am I really going to take a train, rather than a 6:45 AM flight? Though there'd be a bigger dent in non-business travel. Rail was taking more from cars than planes.

I would. The train would leave a bit earlier, but, when you account for boarding and security time I get to leave home at the same time, if not later. Trains are also (not in VIA's case) much more reliable and less prone to delay. To my mind, they're also more comfortable and enjoyable given the legroom, availability of refresments at the station, plentiful overhead luggage space, and many other factors. I would consider 1/3 a lage number of flights. ALTO is going to be bad for BB which is a main reason they want the expansion.

 

[nfitz]

500km is kind of in the sweet spot for HSR competetiveness over planes. At ~3 Hours travel time, city centre to city centre, it's going to be faster for most people to take the train Toronto to Montreal.

That would require a 5:30 AM departure for a 9 AM meeting, from Toronto to Montreal, with the fastest train. The fasted Tokyo to Osaka train is only about 2.35 hours.

Tokyo to Osaka is ~500km and those direct flights are pretty much based on connections from other flights. Direct city to city travel is done via the Shinkansen.

And how have planes been eliminated from Tokyo to Osaka? It's one of the busiest air routes in Japan, with 30 to 40 flights a day!!

Even at the faster Japanese average speeds, 500 km is not the sweet spot. It's on the outer fringe.