News   Apr 29, 2026
 365     0 
News   Apr 29, 2026
 728     1 
News   Apr 29, 2026
 432     0 

Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

Redundancy and competition are good things for the city of Toronto's economic health. I'm surprised anyone can call redundancy dubious after going through covid. Toronto is more dynamic and competitive with Alto, BB and Pearson.
I agree with the idea of redundancy and competition. However BB does not provide true redundancy since TPA President/CEO "Steenstra told the Globe that the expanded runway would still be shorter than major airports like Toronto Pearson, and would mainly accommodate smaller jet aircraft such as the Embraer E195-E2 and Airbus A220, which carry around 135–160 passengers. He noted that larger jets are not part of the plan."



How many aircraft movements at Pearson are from A220s, and E195s or smaller?


Waterfront densification is already being overdone.
That is highly subjective. If we go off coastal Asian megacities, the waterfront is notably not dense, especially due to its industrial past.
 
The irony (not hypocrisy) that I am noticing is some of the same people fervently, even irrationally pro-idyllic-Europe, pro-tram are also supporting a regional jet airport expansion that mostly benefits private jets and few others.

An airport that was already as close as 100 metres off the mainland already, and closer to the CN Tower than the Lincoln Memorial is to the Washington Monument (Google Maps, right click "Measure Distance").

The airport expansion embodies the very urbanism that Not Just Bikes-types and East Asian urban planners despise.
View attachment 732827View attachment 732828

People who actually visit parks in cities (touch grass) would know Toronto is sorely short on parks even compared to say, Manhattan.
but which airport is easier to bike to BB or YYZ? :p

BikeShare has about 36 docks within 200m, YYZ has 5 docks (at Woodbine Centre???) about a 50 minutes bike away (Happy Biking!!!... lol)
 
I agree with the idea of redundancy and competition. However BB does not provide true redundancy since TPA President/CEO "Steenstra told the Globe that the expanded runway would still be shorter than major airports like Toronto Pearson, and would mainly accommodate smaller jet aircraft such as the Embraer E195-E2 and Airbus A220, which carry around 135–160 passengers. He noted that larger jets are not part of the plan."

That is highly subjective. If we go off coastal Asian megacities, the waterfront is notably not dense, especially due to its industrial past.

Alto doesn't provide true redundancy either but creating stronger networks via more nodes makes Toronto more competitive. When Porter launched off the island it was a big hit and for a good reason. Allowing more capability for the airport resulting in stronger networks and higher capacity is a win for the city.

For me, mid-rise like Canary district or the older condos on the waterfront would be the ideal. No need to compare to coastal Asian megacities. >>> "While there is no single official count, East Asia has at least 10–15 major waterfront or coastal city airports, often built on reclaimed land or reclaimed islands to serve major metropolitan areas. Notable examples include Kansai International Airport (KIX) (Osaka), Hong Kong International (HKG), and Tokyo Haneda (HND), often surrounded by water in coastal hubs like Shanghai Pudong (PVG) and Macau (MFM). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]"
 
Going from almost 3 million a year (pre-Covid) to 5 million a year would give you an experience that's no different than Pearson?

That doesn't sound right to me.
They're assuming airport facilities (security, number of gates, etc.) wouldn't keep up. Hard to say, since so little information is out. My main knock is the car traffic near the waterfront since the two LRT extensions are far from being completed, and will likely be done slower than any airport expansion. Lakeshore. Gardiner.

Where that argument falls apart, is that so much of that 18% is in a single park, that isn't close to many, many people. When I walk through Manhattan, what I look and think is how few parks there are compared to Toronto.

If they made Central Park a couple of blocks bigger, it wouldn't change the shortage of parks in most of Manhattan. Adding more park to Toronto Islands doesn't impact any of the areas in Toronto that the city have noted have a deficit of parks.
Your argument is specious and ultimately unsupported by evidence. To be clear, I was comparing all 630 sqkm of Toronto's park land to 59 sqkm of Manhattan.

The numbers don't lie. Without Central Park, Manhattan drops to 12.5% park land compared to 12.8% for all of Toronto. Conversely, only 10.1% of Old Toronto and East York is park land. So without Central Park, highly urbanized Manhattan still has more park land than Old Toronto and East York together.

And we know most of Toronto's park land is outside of Downtown, e.g. Rouge National Urban Park in the outer reaches of Scarborough.

The way Central Park and many other Manhattan parks were chosen was partly to be close to as many people as possible. Your experience with Manhattan is anecdotal and evidently misses the bigger picture.

To @rbt 's point above, I assume you are correct that the Toronto ravines are not counted, but the ravines are not easily accessible to most people in Old Toronto in my opinion. How you would define "easily accessible" is what this is contingent on.

Probably true of the Islands as well. We know that visits to the islands are about 1.5 million a year - less than the airport, even after the post-Covid drop.
The true unique users of BB airport are likely between 150 to 400k. 2 million in passenger traffic counts only one way trips, disproportionately used by frequent business travellers.

Again, stymying recreation and densification is not a good direction for the waterfront of any city. There are dozens, if not hundreds of military, later mixed-use airports that were demolished in the downtowns of many Chinese cities to make way for better urban development. Downsview is not a perfect analogy, but close enough.

Also, since when was having regional and private jets downtown a progressive ideal?

"While there is no single official count, East Asia has at least 10–15 major waterfront or coastal city airports, often built on reclaimed land or reclaimed islands to serve major metropolitan areas. Notable examples include Kansai International Airport (KIX) (Osaka), Hong Kong International (HKG), and Tokyo Haneda (HND), often surrounded by water in coastal hubs like Shanghai Pudong (PVG) and Macau (MFM). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]"
You evidently haven't travelled to those cities and/or lack geographic knowledge on the locations of those airports relative to the CBD(s). Two examples, HKG is famous for moving away from the high rise density near the old Kai Tak, and Pudong was built in a swamp in the middle of nowhere in the southeast corner of Shanghai back in 1997.

Pudong is also not surrounded by water, it's relativey inland compared to say, Shenzhen's airport. Do a bit more research before making claims like implying these airports are somehow analogous to Billy Bishop at all. Reads like LLM generated slop (edit: given that two hyperlinks are for google searches, I am almost certain this is Google Gemini). See @rbt made a good point, pointing out some nuance that I omitted.

HKG is farther from HK's Union station equivalent, which is near HK's "downtown" area, than Pearson is from Union. (All 3: transit trip time, driving distance, straight-line distance) It would be as if YYZ was 6 km further northwest in Brampton.

1777497544359.png


Pudong is even more isolated:
1777497377169.png


1777497734836.png
 

Attachments

  • 1777496006883.png
    1777496006883.png
    833.1 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:
Typically we'd rather visit Grange, Trinity Bellwoods or Berzcy among other parks due to the overhead of visiting the islands.
It's about the only parkland near downtown that's free of encampments, addicts and squatters. The Island parkland is like a strange timewarp to 1980s Toronto, before we surrendered our public spaces to sketch. That ferry paywall or overhead is a godsend. I often cycle down to the ferry and explore the islands.
 
Sunk cost fallacy? Why are we spending a billion $+ to make the waterfront worse when we have a global hub airport with great transportation links and capacity to grow at Pearson.
And one that will only hit runway capacity at 90 million passengers, with the current mid-2030s opening LIFT program only seeking to get it up to 65 million. 90 million is 20+ years out, and thats not accounting for impact that Alto will have.
 
Calling the islands the premier city centre park is a bit much. I see it as a place for people outside downtown/Toronto to visit when they are visiting Toronto. I have bumped into friends from the burbs there quite a few times. Outside of the kids field trips I can't say I have visited much in the past decade nor do I know of anyone else living downtown who has even mentioned that they took a trip there. Typically we'd rather visit Grange, Trinity Bellwoods or Berzcy among other parks due to the overhead of visiting the islands.
I agree it's too hard to get to. It might have something to do with the fact that there is an airport in the middle of it.
Going from almost 3 million a year (pre-Covid) to 5 million a year would give you an experience that's no different than Pearson?

That doesn't sound right to me.
The ambitions are higher than 5 million no? In any case nearly doubling the number of passengers is going to make security slower and crowd the terminal. It's not going to be the breezy entrance everyone seems to love so much.
What's your source? Ports would have no problem with people accessing their abandoned buildings, to then trapes across the airfeld unacompanied, out of the goodness of their hearts?
I don't know how either of us could provide a source for this hypothetical situation. I just happen to think it's unlike that, in the event the airport were to close, the port authority would just lock things up and abandon the airport with no input from any level of government. It seems more likely to me that the transition away from an airport would include a plan for what comes next.
 
Your argument is specious and ultimately unsupported by evidence.
I don't see the need to exaggerate and be rude. This is a friendly discussion, not a court of law.

... highly urbanized Manhattan still has more park land than Old Toronto and East York together.
What's park land though - again, when I walk through, a lot of their "park land" are paved playgrounds and things like basketball courts without a blade of grass (though the worst offenders I've seen in the lack of grass in residential areas category are in Asian cities - like Seoul).

Your experience with Manhattan is anecdotal ...
I was very clear it was anecdotal.

The true unique users of BB airport are likely between 150 to 400k. 2 million in passenger traffic counts only one way trips, disproportionately used by frequent business travellers.
Why do you discount that there are repeat users of the Islands? Why use the post-Covid low for airline traffic, rather than the pre-Covid peak of closer to 3 million?
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 1777499591253.png
    1777499591253.png
    31.8 KB · Views: 0
Where that argument falls apart
No rudeness. This: "Your argument is specious and ultimately unsupported by evidence." is just another way of saying what you said.

Why do you discount that there are repeat users of the Islands? Why use the post-Covid low for airline traffic, rather than the pre-Covid peak of closer to 3 million?
I do not discount that, the implication was that there were proportionally more repeat users of Billy Bishop. So the gap in usage would not be skewed in the way people are making it out to be. The 2.8 million pre-Covid figure doesn't make the unique users that much higher. I'm sure you can do the math.

Maybe someone working at Billy Bishop or TPA could enlighten us on the true stats though.

To be clear, I was comparing all 630 sqkm of Toronto's park land to 59 sqkm of Manhattan.
Not that this is what you said, but my other implication is that it's not fair to compare all of Toronto to Manhattan.

If you compare Toronto to all of NYC, NYC still has a higher percentage of park land.

-------------------
To reiterate, my main concern is the downstream effects of a disturbed waterfront, for recreation and future densification. The recreation isn't purely from the Toronto Islands. And for that matter, I don't think that Island use is disturbed much by the current airport. It's the other parts of the waterfront I am concerned about for a potential expansion. There are plenty of pedestrianized recreation-y areas on the mainland facing the airport.

Many of us are not big fans of real estate developers, but this is not the best way to stick it to them... by lowering property values and development potential with an airport expansion.
 
but which airport is easier to bike to BB or YYZ? :p

BikeShare has about 36 docks within 200m, YYZ has 5 docks (at Woodbine Centre???) about a 50 minutes bike away (Happy Biking!!!... lol)
How many are biking to their flights? Checked bag in your panier and your carry-on strapped to your back?
 
What's your source? Ports would have no problem with people accessing their abandoned buildings, to then trapes across the airfeld unacompanied, out of the goodness of their hearts?
Why should anyone assume that the airport would be left idle and vacant if closed?
 
How many are biking to their flights? Checked bag in your panier and your carry-on strapped to your back?
That's the attitude! I would if I was travelling solo. I'd guess that annual # is probably 100 passengers, but who knows.

I think NotJustBikes (?) did a video on the ability to bike to the airport.
 
Last edited:
It's about the only parkland near downtown that's free of encampments, addicts and squatters. The Island parkland is like a strange timewarp to 1980s Toronto, before we surrendered our public spaces to sketch. That ferry paywall or overhead is a godsend. I often cycle down to the ferry and explore the islands.
I agree with the barrier to access (although it's the same reason we don't go). That's also why I don't want a fixed access link to the island.
 

Back
Top