News   Mar 25, 2026
Ontario, Federal Governments Eliminate HST on New Homes for One Year
 256     0 
News   Mar 25, 2026
QueenChurch Rises Above Grade in Downtown Toronto's Garden District
 651     1 
News   Mar 25, 2026
News Roundup for March 25, 2026
 403     0 

Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

Ward8 said:
Doesn't Toronto to Montreal have like 75 flights per day? Crudely extrapolating that based on population would mean Tokyo to Osaka would have to have 750 flights per day to be like us. 30-40 isn't that many for cities of 20 and 30 million. I think there are 100 trains per day between the two.

I often see 300 to 600 km cited at the optimal distance for HSR. (with 150km to 800km being viable but not necessarily competitive) All this depends on average speed, so it's difficult to pin down when we don't have exact details. In any case the board of trade seems to think ALTO will be an issue.
Click to expand...

Flights are not indicative of the number of seats offered. Toronto to Montreal is flown by a majority of 130 seat a220's (yes there's the odd a330/b787/b777 thrown in). Flying fewer but higher capacity planes means more seats are offered.

I'll add, Milan to Rome is a roughly similar distance as Toronto to Montreal. This source has milan-rome at 477 km, and Toronto-montreal at 504 km. The difference here is the service patterns, there are several non stop or limited stop trains that do the route in just about 3 hrs. And there's still approx 30 daily flights between the two
 
Last edited:
TRONto said:
Lindsay's arguments are based on "the airport should be the center of the city, not a peripheral nuisance." Which ones fits better for Pearson?

BB is redundancy and competition which are good things.
Click to expand...

That is not the argument at all.

The real argument - which is based on a series of macroeconomic studies including one by Lindsay’s coauthor - is this:

Airports boost economies through “network effects,” attracting corporate headquarters and agglomeration, all of which are stronger with one airport that has a lot of international flights to countries that are trade partners.

On the other side, the only study that defends Billy Bishop‘s economic impact is one they commissioned from Richard Florida.

Florida talks about this same body of economics research but gets it totally backwards.

That is according to Lindsay, the guy whose book he is quoting.
 
innsertnamehere said:
1. I've long questioned the wisdom of shoving 50 storey towers in the Portlands - it's away from transit (even assuming the WELRT ever even happens) - I really don't see an issue with keeping it to heights in the 30 storey range. It's not a rapid transit location and it has pretty crappy roads access.
Click to expand...
In addition to the WELRT and the fact it is a desirable location with the new river park, harbour views, near beaches and the Distillery, it is also only about 1km to the East Harbour GO, Ontario Line station, and Broadview car extension. Of places I could imagine living in the core in the future, this is certainly one of those places.

innsertnamehere said:
3. The bathurst traffic problem is probably the largest issue, but even then it's really more of a vehicle storage issue than it is actual traffic levels. There isn't exactly a massive flow of vehicles from YTZ today, but the taxi stands and pickup areas have problems with space. Luckily the space issue is fixable - There is a spare parking lot the airport owns on Little Norway Crescent that could be repurposed and perhaps with a major investment like allowing jets you could start looking at structuring some of these activities like putting the taxi stand underground or something. We'd also probably want to look at enhancing the shuttle connection to Union and making connections to the Queens Quay Streetcar clearer with expansion.

4. In terms of parking, YTZ already has very little airport parking, but it can be accommodated on the island itself. You could procure a larger ferry if needed for capacity. I think many are surprised to realize that YTZ even has airport parking at all - most assume it doesn't even have it.
Click to expand...
Most airports have looping roadways, traffic, and massive parking garages. There is definitely not enough land to grow the airport any significant amount.

I really don't see the perspective of a YTZ expansion as a net benefit to the city. Other than maybe the end of the runway at Sint Maarten, airports aren't a destination so it doesn't improve where it is. A downtown airport is to city building what a Spadina freeway would be.
 
Should the residents / voters always sacrifice their convenience for the sake of "city building"? Creating something that looks like a paradise for urbanists, but does not really make life better for the majority of residents.
 
SubHuman said:
Ford to declare Billy Bishop Airport a ‘special economic zone’ to allow jets
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...d-billy-bishop-airport-special-economic-zone/
Click to expand...

Ford's declaration can by pass certain provincial regulatory burdens, but it can't bypass Federal assessments and approvals.

This may well happen, but it won't be all that soon, unless there are schematic drawings complete and submitted, even then, it will likely be quite a while off.

This is the presser:

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca news.ontario.ca

From the above:

1774274026903.png


1774274072611.png

1774274104699.png
 
hw621 said:
Doubt that Carney would cross Ford on such a matter...
Click to expand...

An outright veto isn't even required here, at this point.

The proposal, once formally submitted, would almost certainly require at least 2 years of study.

Its not just a runway extension, its flight paths, AZR amendments and regulations, considerations of marine impacts from wildlife and pollution to watercraft navigation, its an amended exclusion zone, that's before you consider the impacts on the terminal, general aviation, parking, pickup/drop off and more.

The odds of Ford being in power when (And IF) this sees a shovel in the ground, so to speak are fairly remote.

Not zero, but he would almost certainly need to seek and win another term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
hw621 said:
Doubt that Carney would cross Ford on such a matter...
Click to expand...
I am not sure. The issue is not if Carney is okay with jets, it’s if the liberals want to be seen as allowing Ford to bully local representation through the tripartite agreement. There are a lot of liberal seats on the waterfront.
 
Northern Light said:
An outright veto isn't even required here, at this point.

The proposal, once formally submitted, would almost certainly require at least 2 years of study.

Its not just a runway extension, its flight paths, AZR amendments and regulations, considerations of marine impacts from wildlife and pollution to watercraft navigation, its an amended exclusion zone, that's before you consider the impacts on the terminal, general aviation, parking, pickup/drop off and more.

The odds of Ford being in power when (And IF) this sees a shovel in the ground, so to speak are fairly remote.

Not zero, but he would almost certainly need to seek and win another term.
Click to expand...
I mean id be skeptical too, but If i missed something this is the 1st use of the "special economic zones". the thing that excempts basically all ontario laws to develop infrastructure.
If the really wanted to, anything environmental can be steamrolled over
 
Back on March 12 after he announced he’d take over the airport and there were a flurry of articles, Davenport MP was quoted in The Star saying, “The conversation of 10 years ago has changed”. I’m assuming the reaction to the quote was swift among her constituents because later that day a statement about her stance on the airport was posted to her website. It doesn’t say much or take a meaningful position but curious to see what the feds do here. MPs supporting Ford and this move could create some pariahs by downtown residents.
 
generalcanada said:
I mean id be skeptical too, but If i missed something this is the 1st use of the "special economic zones". the thing that excempts basically all ontario laws to develop infrastructure.
If the really wanted to, anything environmental can be steamrolled over
Click to expand...

No they can't.

Federal regulations cannot be over-ridden by provincial statute. Filling Lake Ontario is a federal statute. (more than one actually) and federal regulators will deal with the AZR and flight paths.

There are expressly not provincial.

I'm not saying it will or wont' happen, I am, however, making a statement of fact that there are federal regulations and assessments here over which the Premier has no control.

If Carney wants to play ball and refer this to the major projects office...... who knows, but that's his decision, not Ford's.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top