Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

kEiThZ said:
The government's job is to make sure that YTZ expansion is in the public interest. Personally, Porter or not, I do think expansion of the airport (and generally expansion of most infrastructure) is in the public interest.
Click to expand...

It certainly is.
CTV just did a survey and over 80% of respondents are supportive of the expansion. Not approving the proposal would be stupid for Toronto.
It is about the entire city in general, not a few hundred selfish disgruntled "me me me" local residents.

You live near an airport, you have noise/congestion issues. Deal with it. I fail to say why the interest of residents near YTZ is more important than those near YYZ.
 
bleu said:
You live near an airport, you have noise/congestion issues. Deal with it. I fail to say why the interest of residents near YTZ is more important than those near YYZ.
Click to expand...
Oh dear ... I agree. And I also am agreeing with the Fords on this issue (though not the claim that it would be a cornfield, if it wasn't an airport ...).

I've never understood why putting a major transportation node close to downtown, which is far more environmentally friendly than having everyone drive out-of-town to Mississauga, so infuriates the left. I'd have thought it would have been philosophically everything they ever would have wanted. But suddenly their Nimbyism kicks in ... perhaps not a surprise given the most notorious Nimbys in the city are the Weston group - which have NDP ties. It's reminiscent of Layton's, don't build subways downtown madness.
 
Let's make sure the reduced noise of these new Bombardier jets is not used in the pitch. Per the Toronto Star article, once you open up an airport to jets, you open it to ALL jets, including the mass of noisy and smokey private jets. So, when the EA is done my hope is that they'll take an accurately weighted mix of the worst, average and best jets with regards to air and sound pollution.

I can see the protests against this mirroring the Expressway protests of old, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancelled_expressways_in_Toronto.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the traffic volume heading to the airport, do you think it may be worth it to run a gondola from Union to Centre Island, and another from Union to the Airport? Obviously using the same alignment from the waterfront to Union.
 
gweed123 said:
Regarding the traffic volume heading to the airport, do you think it may be worth it to run a gondola from Union to Centre Island, and another from Union to the Airport? Obviously using the same alignment from the waterfront to Union.
Click to expand...
A simple bridge would probably be best. Then you can build a large underground parking facility at the airport.

Include a nice pedestrian bridge and perhaps even a streetcar link.
 
nfitz said:
Oh dear ... I agree. And I also am agreeing with the Fords on this issue (though not the claim that it would be a cornfield, if it wasn't an airport ...).

I've never understood why putting a major transportation node close to downtown, which is far more environmentally friendly than having everyone drive out-of-town to Mississauga, so infuriates the left. I'd have thought it would have been philosophically everything they ever would have wanted. But suddenly their Nimbyism kicks in ... perhaps not a surprise given the most notorious Nimbys in the city are the Weston group - which have NDP ties. It's reminiscent of Layton's, don't build subways downtown madness.
Click to expand...

Nimbys don't care about transit, or the environment, or pollution, or noise, or the wellbeing of the city.
Actually they don't care about anything other than not to construct anything (except parks) with 2 mile from where they live. That's all they care about. They essentially want their neighbourhood to look like Rosedale - all low rise houses and trees and no non-locals will ever enter, but apparently they can't afford Rosedale.
 
bleu:

Ironic, considering your lament that we don't have a central park equivalent. I suppose that means you're a NIMBY? It's rather convenient to tar those who are against the plan as "area residents" and "NIMBYies" by default, isn't it, as if somehow they are all by default self-serving. I do have to throw out the question in that case - considering no one is proposing that one build an airport right (or other undesirable land uses) beside their homes, are they by default "self-serving" then?

There is also the question of vision and appropriateness - and the question of bait and switch. One might be willing to support an airfield providing regional services - one shouldn't presume that equates to transcontinental flights and/or extensive increases in traffic that would necessitate fundamental changes to the character of the airport.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
bleu:

Ironic, considering your lament that we don't have a central park equivalent. I suppose that means you're a NIMBY? It's rather convenient to tar those who are against the plan as "area residents" and "NIMBYies" by default, isn't it, as if somehow they are all by default self-serving. I do have to throw out the question in that case - considering no one is proposing that one build an airport right beside their homes, are they by default "self-serving" then?

AoD
Click to expand...

I am probably the opposite of Nimby. I want subways, restaurants, highrise condos, stores near where I live. I love high density and hate tree lined quiet streets with nothing but two storey houses. A 40+ condo is launching steps away from my place, and I am excited about it. Do you think I am a nimby?

Wanting a large park downtown and being against anything other than parks are two difference things I believe. In this particular case, expansion of YTZ serves the interest of most down residents (who usually don't have cars), business travelers and others. I can't see how more convenience brought by a larger city airport could be a bad thing worth resisting - except those who live in the vicinity (some one whom actually support the project as indicated in an earlier post) who complain out of pure self interests without any consideration about the benefits of the project to the city in general.

If I get to decide, I will merge the entire area south of the Gardiner between Dufferin and bathust with YTZ as a second terminal, make YTZ a fully fledge airport close to the core, just like the ones in Boston and San Diego. I might even fill the gap between YTZ and the mainland using the dust from all the condo extraction ;)
 
Last edited:
I am probably the opposite of Nimby. I want subways, restaurants, highrise condos, stores near where I live. I love high density and hate tree lined quiet streets with nothing but two storey houses. A 40+ condo is launching steps away from my place, and I am excited about it. Do you think I am a nimby?
Click to expand...

What about heavy industries? Sugar factories? Abattoirs? All of which has far more commonality in land use to an airport than subways, restaurants and highrises. Furthermore, I am curious as to how many the supporters of said airport is willing to entertain the same thing happening to their neighbourhood. What was the saying - ''don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you"

Wanting a large park downtown and being against anything other than parks are two difference things I believe. In this particular case, expansion of YTZ serves the interest of most down residents (who usually don't have cars), business travelers and others. I can't see how more convenience brought by a larger city airport could be a bad thing worth resisting - except those who live in the vicinity (some one whom actually support the project as indicated in an earlier post) who complain out of pure self interests without any consideration about the benefits of the project to the city in general.
Click to expand...

Actually the only individuals that it directly benefits are a) those employed/profited by their dealings with Porter; b) those who use the airport - don't equate potential beneficiaries to actual ones. Besides, would you welcome say a large thermal power plant right beside where you live, knowing that it will "benefit the city in general" - which it does, by the way (and it really doesn't generate all that much negative impacts)? The question here is balance - willingness to accept some negative impact that is the continued operation of the airport is not a carte blanche to tear up the agreed upon scheme, considering the original promises (insistence, in fact, given its' initial approval). In fact, one can argue this sort of "creep" reinforces NIMBYism, by clearly demonstrating that any degree of compromise lead to zero-sum behaviour, and that the only guarantee one has against that would be to say no to every single little thing right off the start.

AoD
 
Last edited:
First off, I'm an area resident and not opposed to this deal. Being able to travel to most places within North America without having to travel to Pearson would be amazing.

That said, I think the word NIMBY is being thrown around far too much here. The waterfront is about far more than just the residents who live down there, or the people using it to enter/leave the city. On one hand, we have an agency (Waterfront Toronto) trying to redefine the central waterfront area as a tourist attraction and a beautiful destination for all residents of the city. On the other, we have an island airport which is undeniably beneficial to the local economy, and an expansion like this would be even more beneficial. It's not NIMBYism to want to protect the waterfront for the use and enjoyment of all Torontonians though.

IMO, the tripartite agreement should be changed to restrict the amount of noise and exhaust pollution rather than the size or engine technology used in the aircraft. I think that would serve to maintain the space for both uses.
 
Last edited:
^ if you think heavy industries and factories are appropriate for the downtown of a major city, then be my guest and go along with it. I can see the benefits of the Redpath, I just don't see the benefits of it being on Lowr Jarvis and Lake Ontario. The refinery produces sugar - why does it have to occupy prime waterfront location? Banks and law firms need to be in downtown because it provides easy communication of important information, but for a sugar or cement factory? Toronto used to be industrial 100 years ago but gradually those factories moved away. This happened because city outgrows them as a natural process, as happens to any other big cities. Your insistence that Redpath needs to be there and that it is a great idea confuses me. How come there is no factory at Bay/King, because it doesn't make sense.

It has little to do with the airport, as the airport provides easy access for local residents who need to fly elsewhere without travelin 27km to Missisauga. What good does the Redpath do to downtown residents compared with its be relocated to somewhere father away? To provide quick shippment of sugar to Loblaw's?

I am not even talking about the aesthetic aspect yet. In short it is ugly. There is no other way to describle it. Zero visitor will see this and say, wow, it is beautiful and makes Toronto so much nicer. People usually just frown and look away pretending it didn't exist.

You mentioned those who benefit for YTZ are Porter and those who use the airport.... don't all Toronto downtowners use it?

Your comparison to a thermal power plant makes no sense either. As I emphasized earlier, YTZ saves people long trips to YYZ. What good does a thermal plant being closer to where we live do? You don't seem to understand the difference between an urban airport and a power plant/factory. The location of the former matters to us, that of the latter doesn't as none of us would say "I need sugar/power to be produced near my house".
 
TOareaFan said:
I was watching the presser.....he quite clearly said "168m total"
Click to expand...

Then he must have strayed from the news release. Because The Star, Post, and Globe all have it 168m at both ends.

If so the slip might reflect teh strategy: shoot for the moon and settle for half.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Let's make sure the reduced noise of these new Bombardier jets is not used in the pitch. Per the Toronto Star article, once you open up an airport to jets, you open it to ALL jets, including the mass of noisy and smokey private jets.
Click to expand...

Impose noise restrictions and that problem is solved. See the strict rules at London City for an idea of how to do this. Their rules are now the global standard for noise.
 
k10ery said:
Then he must have spressed from the news release. Because The Star, Post, and Globe all have it 168m at both ends.

If so the slip might reflect teh strategy: shoot for the moon and settle for half.
Click to expand...

Or I heard wrong....but I think i heard right.

EDIT

I just read the Star's story on it and it is interesting how they dealt with this.

TheStar said:
Porter says it will ask three governments “shortly” to amend the tripartite agreement — to allow jets and permit a “modest 168 meter” extension at each end of the existing main runway.
Click to expand...

notice they only put the 168 metres in quotes. I think what the man said was 168m and that the extension would be at both ends.....I am reasonably sure it was a total of 168 metres and that it would be partly at each end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top