Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

[innsertnamehere]

I guess if you're isolating the length of each extension, it is a big difference. I'm just confused becasue , in totality, the length of those runways, and the impacts of each on the central waterfront, are more or less the same. I don't think any of it makes sense, so it just perplexes me that a couple hundred meters is the difference maker (assuming that the line were drawing is somewhere between option A and B? or is option B the start of where it becomes too much of an intrusion?) Is it just vibes based? Or if the next propsal is 1850m will that be considered modest as well?

The Ontario Line is massively popular. The island is historically extremely controvercial. Ford also has a history of reversing himself in the face of such controversy. Like the Greenbelt or the demolition of the Corktown buildings.

It's not a binary line.. I'd have to evaluate any proposal on its own formal basis.. but there are some big differences between them - The 2013 proposal doesn't impact the marine exclusion zone or extend significantly into the harbour for one.

The 2013 proposal was small runway extensions, no change to the MEZ, and similar noise profiles to existing operations. The airport would have continued to operate mostly as a regional airline (no trans-atlantic) with a focus on domestic connections, albeit now with the ability to service areas like Alberta and BC. That works in my books.

If you extend the runway significantly into the harbour, start landing larger, noisier planes, and ramp passenger traffic significantly.. that opinion may start to change. There isn't a set "limit" - it's not binary - but any proposal should be evaluated on it's own merits. And that's why I'm saying to wait and see what is actually proposed.

 

[Ward8]

It's not a binary line.. I'd have to evaluate any proposal on its own formal basis.. but there are some big differences between them - The 2013 proposal doesn't impact the marine exclusion zone or extend significantly into the harbour for one.

Then, I suppose it's an argument of nuance. If that's the case, fine, but the argument can't be that each proposal is nuanced and unique and that @SubHuman is engaging in "histrionics." Especially when the two pictures are 70-80% the same. Those two pictures are moderately different proposals of the same concept.

 

[Northern Light]

2013 proposal for 1,558m runway:

Just a reminder, RESA is on top of of runway length, not integrated into the usable runway calculation.

The current RESA requirement is larger than what was planned in 2013.

Edit to Add: The current RESA requirement is 150M, but that's based on current runway length, aircraft type, and pax volume. If these change (and by definition they would if you allow jets), the RESA may also change.

The recommended RESA length for a 1200M (or longer) runway is actually 240M.

Maximum RESA is even longer, but that would not likely apply here.

 

[Northern Light]

I went back 3 pages and didn't see this from @AlexBozikovic so I thought I'd bring it forward:

A reminder UT ....you heard about this potential conflict earlier:

 

[Northern Light]

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.

I remembered this post and meant to bring the statement forward:

 

[innsertnamehere]

Just a reminder, RESA is on top of of runway length, not integrated into the usable runway calculation.

The current RESA requirement is larger than what was planned in 2013.

Edit to Add: The current RESA requirement is 150M, but that's based on current runway length, aircraft type, and pax volume. If these change (and by definition they would if you allow jets), the RESA may also change.

The recommended RESA length for a 1200M (or longer) runway is actually 240M.

Maximum RESA is even longer, but that would not likely apply here.

yes, thus I think we need to see what is actually proposed. I'm far from an expert on these things and I doubt anyone on this board is either. Lets see what they actually want to do - the 2013 proposal was reasonable enough in my opinion.. that doesn't mean that opinion won't or can't change.

 

[txlseries4]

Liberal MP Chi Nguyen for Spadina–Harbourfront released a statement today:

(source)

Speaking of statements, Environmental Defence also released one:

Ontario is Using Airport “Special Economic Zone” to Block Housing - Environmental Defence

Ontario’s proposed Special Economic Zones Act could derail 14,000 planned homes in Toronto’s Portlands, prioritizing a jet airport over affordable housing, environmental protections, and community input.

environmentaldefence.ca

A snippet:

Ontario’s government is once again threatening to use new powers that it originally justified as ways to speed up development in order to kneecap the creation of low-cost and environmentally-friendly housing.

This time, the government’s chosen weapon is its recently enacted Special Economic Zones Act. And its target is the in-progress development of approximately 14,000 new non-market, market and affordable homes on Toronto’s Portlands: an extraordinarily large and well-placed area of “brownfield” land that sits immediately southeast of the central business district.

By the Premier’s own admission, his proposed jet airport Special Economic Zone would place the Portlands directly in the flight path of jet aircraft. This would squander decades of design and planning reform, and the $1.4 billion of infrastructure already invested by the City of Toronto, the federal and provincial governments to unlock these lands for a mixed income, mixed use, pedestrian and transit-oriented urban neighbourhood. It does this by attacking a key lynchpin of the project, the 40 and 50 storey towers that make it viable to include several thousand non-market, affordable homes. The Premier now says “tall apartments” are “not going to happen” because they “block the runway”.

 

[picard102]

Does she know the Province could dissolve the third party in the agreement? Is the Federal government going to provide actual rights to cities in legislation?

 

[generalcanada]

oh man this is getting messy

 

[Northern Light]

Does she know the Province could dissolve the third party in the agreement? Is the Federal government going to provide actual rights to cities in legislation?

Yes she does know.

What she's saying is that the Province would then be a party in lieu of the City, with the Federal Government which retains a veto over everything, which it does. The airport, the runway, navigable waters, the AZR are all federal jurisdiction. Which Ontario's actions don't change.

If Ottawa says No, this is dead in the water.

 

[McGillicuddy]

Does she know the Province could dissolve the third party in the agreement? Is the Federal government going to provide actual rights to cities in legislation?

The federal government has wide powers of regulation over aviation. If they want to prohibit jets at Billy Bishop, they wouldn't even need legislation to achieve it.

Mind you, lots of unpopular premiers late in their terms decide to try and juice their numbers by picking stupid fights with the federal government. Sometimes it even works.

 

[SubHuman]

... The current RESA requirement is 150M, but that's based on current runway length, aircraft type, and pax volume. If these change (and by definition they would if you allow jets), the RESA may also change.

The recommended RESA length for a 1200M (or longer) runway is actually 240M...

I would assume there may be other requirements.
https://archive.is/DpT8A
For one thing, you need a taxiway beside the runway, as not shown in some of the other images posted above. Otherwise the planes would be using the runway to taxi to or from one end, then turning around in place during every arrival and departure -- not very practical or efficient.

I think our premier and his advisors have probably only listened to the Toronto Port Authority without bothering to look into the likely contradictory details of what would be physically required. My main point was that it can't be this alleged useful 'second' airport to Pearson that will "connect Ontario to even more destinations across the country and around the globe” if it's going to have a runway of only 1500 m. It can be one or the other, but not both.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I would assume there may be other requirements.
https://archive.is/DpT8A
For one thing, you need a taxiway beside the runway, as not shown in some of the other images posted above. Otherwise the planes would be using the runway to taxi to or from one end, then turning around in place during every arrival and departure -- not very practical or efficient.

I think our premier and his advisors have probably only listened to the Toronto Port Authority without bothering to look into the likely contradictory details of what would be physically required. My main point was that it can't be this alleged useful alternative 'second' airport to Pearson if it's going to have a runway of only 1500 m. It can be one or the other, but not both.

We'll have to wait and see. I'd be very surprised if they are aiming to be landing 737s or anything much more than what was proposed in 2013.

Ford is famously not the sharpest tool in the shed.. he's probably got a lot of misconceptions. I'd wait for the actual info instead of basing the whole plan off some off-the-cuff remark from him.

 

[Civdis]

I guess if you're isolating the length of each extension, it is a big difference. I'm just confused becasue , in totality, the length of those runways, and the impacts of each on the central waterfront, are more or less the same. I don't think any of it makes sense, so it just perplexes me that a couple hundred meters is the difference maker (assuming that the line were drawing is somewhere between option A and B? or is option B the start of where it becomes too much of an intrusion?) Is it just vibes based? Or if the next propsal is 1850m will that be considered modest as well?

The Ontario Line is massively popular. The island is historically extremely controvercial. Ford also has a history of reversing himself in the face of such controversy. Like the Greenbelt or the demolition of the Corktown buildings.I disagree, the impact of the 2,000m scenario is way more impactful than the 1,558m proposed in 2013. I am a proponent of a downtown airport with expanded jet traffic in principal as I believe a majority of GTA residents are. Of course there will be those who live on the waterfront who oppose the expansion but remember, the airport was there long before the condos. On top that, I know a lot of waterfront residents who are actually in favour of an expanded airport, they are just not as vocal.

I am a supporter of an expanded airport and it is not "vibes based" whatever that means. I am certainly not alone in my support, I believe a majority of GTA residents support his airport. There is a massive difference between the 2013 proposal and the 2,000m conjectured runway some have purported. The 2,000m runway as shown would make a huge incursion into the central waterfront that I would have a hard time supporting. So there you go, I am supporter of airport expansion, but my support has limits.

 

[TRONto]

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.

I'd need to look into the research but I don't think it can be generalized. London should go from 6 airports to 1? Montreal and NYC should go from 3 airports to 1? If we shouldn't have BB, the we also should not have ALTO.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While there may not be research specifically on BB, there is on secondary airport (as per asking AI):

Research in aviation and urban planning strongly supports the existence of "multi-airport systems"—where a major city is served by a primary hub and one or more secondary airports. This setup is generally viewed as a strategic response to capacity constraints and a driver for economic competition.

The supporting research typically focuses on four key areas:

1. Relief of Capacity and Congestion​

As major hub airports reach their physical limits, secondary airports act as "reliever" facilities.

• Operational Efficiency: Research from MIT suggests that available capacity at surrounding airports can be twice that of the core hub. Utilizing these secondary sites significantly increases the overall system capacity without the massive environmental and political hurdles of building a new "greenfield" primary airport.
• Delay Mitigation: Studies on the Chicago metropolitan area (O'Hare vs. Midway/Gary) show that secondary airports are essential in regional strategies to manage gate arrival delays and taxi times during peak traffic periods.

2. Economic Competition and Consumer Choice​

Secondary airports are often the primary catalyst for competition in the airline industry.

• The LCC (Low-Cost Carrier) Effect: Research indicates that the rise of "no-frills" airlines (like Ryanair in Europe or Southwest in the US) is inextricably linked to secondary airports. These carriers use secondary airports to avoid the high landing fees and "monopoly" pricing of legacy carriers at major hubs.
• Price Pressure: The presence of a secondary airport increases the price elasticity of the region. This forces primary airports and legacy airlines to keep their aeronautical charges and fares more competitive.

3. Regional Economic Development​

Smaller airports often serve as specialized economic engines for their immediate vicinity.

• Business Attraction: A joint report from aviation and highway officials found that for every dollar invested in general aviation (secondary) airports, there is an average return of $75 by companies utilizing those facilities.
• Job Creation: Research in Canada and the US shows that even small regional flights can generate millions in GDP. For example, a single regional flight can support between 126 and 210 jobs through direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.

4. Urban Planning and "Metroplex" Dynamics​

Urban planners use the term "Metroplex" to describe metropolitan areas where multiple airports have highly interdependent operations.

• Specialization: Secondary airports often specialize in niches that would "clog" a major hub, such as corporate aviation, air cargo, or flight training. This allows the primary airport to focus almost exclusively on high-volume commercial international and domestic traffic.
• Geographic Coverage: Secondary airports provide better accessibility for residents living on the periphery of a major city, reducing ground travel time and local traffic congestion toward the urban core.