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

[bleu]

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 to 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.

I agree with your opinion.
However, YTZ is not in central waterfront, which is between Bathurst to Jarvis south of Lake Shore Blvd to Lake Ontario.

As a downtown resident, I visit the waterfront and Toronto islands several times a year, and not once the existence of YTZ affected my enjoyment of the space.

I absolutely agrees with you the agreement needs to be amended to restrict noise and pollution, rather than technology. The agreement was from 30 years ago and it is obsolete. Do we realize how much technology has advanced during this time? We didn't have laptops, LCD TVs or cellphones by then!

Hating the airport for its noise is legitimate. Hating it for its very existence is pure NIMBY.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

ttk:

That said, I think the word NIMBY is being thrown around far to 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.

That's exactly right. We have two issues at hand and there is no reason why a balance can't be reached.

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.

Personally I think it needs to be broader - the amount of noise, emissions, number of flights and just what ultimately the vision of the airport is - otherwise you can have scope creep (which is sort of what is happening here) whereby the end result have no resemblance to the original goals. Like what happens if demand gets even higher, do we extend the runway further and allow even more traffic? At some point that constant shift becomes utterly untenable.

bleu:

^ 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?

Err, like a) there is extant infrastructure b) that such infrastructure (i.e. access to the port) isn't necessarily replicated easily and c) there is a cost to move? Besides, it wasn't like an airport "has to" be near the downtown - many cities have existed without one and they are fine.

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.

And an expanse of concrete and asphalt making up what, a good chunk of the Toronto Island isn't "ugly", especially relative to the naturalized and manicured parkland and Hanlan Beach? There are better counterarguments than that.

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

Potentially use it, unlike the simple fact that all Toronto downtowners use power. Is that an argument for a powerplant next door?

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".

And a powerplant downtown saves the need to build extra transmission lines from sources beyond the city, which has been a constant issue with Toronto Hydro. Your point?

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

bleu:

Ironic, considering your lament that we don't have a central park equivalent.

I'd say High Park is pretty close. Just not centrally located. And the Island will never be Central Park simply because it is too inaccessible by comparison.

As for bait and switch, I don't buy the argument. Until the CS100 came along, there was no point even entertaining an extension. The technology has changed and now we should have this discussion. Heck, as much as I like YTZ, I'm willing to accept a solid argument for junking the airport. But it better have a sound economic plan. If the argument is that this city should pass up on an additional thousand jobs, the existing 1400 jobs at Porter, lots of economic spinoffs, easier access for tourists and business travellers all so some downtown resident can avoid hearing an airplane depart that is actually quieter than the streetcar rumbling by, than sorry, no dice.

Show me a real concrete plan for what will replace that airport and actually benefit this city. The CSeries is quiet enough that I'll bet money nobody will notice the switch from Q400s to the CSeries. But there will be a positive economic impact from the connections that it will bring. On the other hand, simply turning the airport to a nice lawn with a few more trees will do nothing sincere for this city. I even doubt that would boost tourism in the slightest. Not more than having a downtown airport and Porter putting pressure on air fares to Toronto. Sorry, but Toronto is no shape to pass up thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity just so a small portion of this city's population feels more privileged than say residents in Rexdale, Malton, etc.

 

[TOareaFan]

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.

Agreed.....this thing that some councillors are already throwing out there that allowing the CS jets allows all jets is crazy. They could just redo the restriction to make sure that any planes (jet or otherwise) have to adhere to a certain noise standard. It might even make the airport, overall, quieter.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Should have kept Downsview. Subway goes nearby already. Long runway....

 

[ttk77]

I agree with your opinion.
However, YTZ is not in central waterfront, which is between Bathurst to Jarvis south of Lake Shore Blvd to Lake Ontario.

As a downtown resident, I visit the waterfront and Toronto islands several times a year, and not once the existence of YTZ affected my enjoyment of the space.

I absolutely agrees with you the agreement needs to be amended to restrict noise and pollution, rather than technology. The agreement was from 30 years ago and it is obsolete. Do we realize how much technology has advanced during this time? We didn't have laptops, LCD TVs or cellphones by then!

Hating the airport for its noise is legitimate. Hating it for its very existence is pure NIMBY.

The airport is pretty much at the foot of Bathurst, so close enough to "central" as to not make much difference. More than that though, the aircraft definitely do travel through the central waterfront as they descend to land. The Porter aircraft travelling though there aren't much of a noise issue, but some of the private aircraft are absolutely awful.

 

[bleu]

I'd say High Park is pretty close. Just not centrally located. And the Island will never be Central Park simply because it is too inaccessible by comparison. .

Hig Park is third class. I will categorize it as a suburban green space than an urban park like Central Park or Hyde Park.
The islands also charge a $7 ferry fee, which makes it a different thing. I am sure thousands of people visit it a lot less than they want to because of the fee. It will be over $20 for a family, on top of subway fare.

If the argument is that this city should pass up on an additional thousand jobs, the existing 1400 jobs at Porter, lots of economic spinoffs, easier access for tourists and business travellers all so some downtown resident can avoid hearing an airplane depart that is actually quieter than the streetcar rumbling by, than sorry, no dice.

can't say it better myself.

Show me a real concrete plan for what will replace that airport and actually benefit this city. The CSeries is quiet enough that I'll bet money nobody will notice the switch from Q400s to the CSeries. But there will be a positive economic impact from the connections that it will bring. On the other hand, simply turning the airport to a nice lawn with a few more trees will do nothing sincere for this city. I even doubt that would boost tourism in the slightest. Not more than having a downtown airport and Porter putting pressure on air fares to Toronto. Sorry, but Toronto is no shape to pass up thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity just so a small portion of this city's population feels more privileged than say residents in Rexdale, Malton, etc.

Judging by the status of Central Island and High Park, the addtional green space created by vacating YTZ will be something medicore again - lawns and trees, and at best a couple of BBQ tables.
Plus nobody visits it between Nov and April. It just sits there accumulating snow. Nice plan.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'd say High Park is pretty close. Just not centrally located. And the Island will never be Central Park simply because it is too inaccessible by comparison

And accessibility is something that is frozen in time?

As for bait and switch, I don't buy the argument. Until the CS100 came along, there was no point even entertaining an extension. The technology has changed and now we should have this discussion.

Let's not kid ourselves here - there are long lead times when it comes to designing aircraft (and aircraft engines) - I would be extremely surprised if that wasn't part of the long-term Porter gameplan.

Heck, as much as I like YTZ, I'm willing to accept a solid argument for junking the airport. But it better have a sound economic plan. If the argument is that this city should pass up on an additional thousand jobs, the existing 1400 jobs at Porter, lots of economic spinoffs, easier access for tourists and business travellers all so some downtown resident can avoid hearing an airplane depart that is actually quieter than the streetcar rumbling by, than sorry, no dice.

Who said anything about junking YTZ - equating opposition to physical changes and changes to the agreement (and even more importantly, changes to the character and vision of what the airport is to be) to shutting down the airport and losing out all those things is false analogy.

Show me a real concrete plan for what will replace that airport and actually benefit this city. The CSeries is quiet enough that I'll bet money nobody will notice the switch from Q400s to the CSeries. But there will be a positive economic impact from the connections that it will bring. On the other hand, simply turning the airport to a nice lawn with a few more trees will do nothing sincere for this city. I even doubt that would boost tourism in the slightest. Not more than having a downtown airport and Porter putting pressure on air fares to Toronto. Sorry, but Toronto is no shape to pass up thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity just so a small portion of this city's population feels more privileged than say residents in Rexdale, Malton, etc.

Again, same issue - not having the CSeries or the runway extension does not equate to a loss of all those things. Allowing it on the other hand opens the door to even further increases in activity at the airport (growth - that is the point of business, right?). And if the current agreement isn't respected, what guarantees would one have that the future one will be? That's the whole point of agreements, no? If one can produce an ironclad, updated agreement that state clearly the vision of the airport at its' ultimate point of development, with strict limits on noise, emissions, passengers and flights/year, facilities at build out, access, etc. then there is room for discussion. If not, past experiences does make one question whether any agreement is worth the paper it is printed on.

AoD

 

[bleu]

Again, same issue - not having the CSeries or the runway extension does not equate to a loss of all those things. Allowing it on the other hand opens the door to even further increases in activity at the airport. And if the current agreement isn't respected, what guarantees would one have that the future one will be?

AoD

except the agreement was signed 30 years and probaby a review is due?
Whether the aiport should be allowed to expand should depend on the outcome of a cost-benefit study, not out of respect for a 30 year old agreement. The agreement is not the Bible and shouldn't be considered so, the benefit to the city of Toronto is.

And it is not like our government never scrap old agreements (sometimes called "amendment") all the time. Times and situation change, and agreement should be updated to reflect new circumstance.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

except the agreement was signed 30 years and probaby a review is due?
Whether the aiport should be allowed to expand should depend on the outcome of a cost-benefit study, not out of respect for a 30 year old agreement. The agreement is not the Bible and shouldn't be considered so, the benefit to the city of Toronto is.
...
And it is not like our government never scrap old agreements (sometimes called "amendment") all the time. Times and situation change, and agreement should be updated to reflect new circumstance.

Sure, but why restrict it to cost-benefit studies (cost to whom, at what scale)? That's like loading the dice - one should look at, on top of economics, the various and often competing goals for the entire city and the area in question. That's a review.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

Personally I think it needs to be broader - the amount of noise, emissions, number of flights and just what ultimately the vision of the airport is - otherwise you can have scope creep (which is sort of what is happening here) whereby the end result have no resemblance to the original goals. Like what happens if demand gets even higher, do we extend the runway further and allow even more traffic? At some point that constant shift becomes utterly untenable.

Okay then, that's the conversation we should be having. And that's the conversation that a mature public has in London (London City), Stockholm (Bromma), Washington D.C. (Reagan), Boston (Logan), New York (LaGuardia). All those places have airports that are either in urban areas or very, very close to major urban areas. For example, LaGuardia is only 5km from Manhattan as the crow flies and it handles far bigger aircraft than YTZ. Boston Logan is 2km from Boston's waterfront and it gets 747s and 777s. London City is in the heart of London. It gets aircraft about as large as the CSeries will be. Londoners see that airport as an asset.

World class cities have world class infrastructure. That's not just subways and LRTs. Just look at the debate in the UK over how to expand airport capacity. And London has 5 airports. The Brits seem to recognize that strong aviation infrastructure is vital to London's economic strength. In Toronto, we tie ourselves in knots over the Island airport and the feds extract billions in rent from Pearson. It make Toronto harder to access for those who want to visit here and those who want to invest. And it is particularly vital for a city whose major industry is finance to enable rapid and effective transportation to core.

Now I can understand the desire to balance the needs of local residents. And for that, I personally believe that London-City provides a great model with very stringent noise exposure limits. I believe that such an approach at YTZ would facilitate the interests of airport users and nearby residents. What I can't support is this idea that we should curtail all progress.

 

[kEiThZ]

Let's not kid ourselves here - there are long lead times when it comes to designing aircraft (and aircraft engines) - I would be extremely surprised if that wasn't part of the long-term Porter gameplan.

A gameplan which would not be feasible without Bombardier actually delivering the CSeries. By the way, Bombardier targetted London City while designing the CSeries. It's a happy coincidence that urban airports all over the world will benefit from the stringent rules at LCY.

Who said anything about junking YTZ - equating opposition to physical changes and changes to the agreement (and even more importantly, changes to the character and vision of what the airport is to be) to shutting down the airport and losing out all those things is false analogy.

How so? Community AIR isn't about airport noise. Their ultimate vision is elimination of the airport period. To them, opposing expansion isn't just about opposing expansion. They opposed a bridge for pete's sake. That had nothing to do with noise. It had everything to do with a silly belief that the lack of a fixed link would somehow make commercial service unviable and eventually the airport itself unviable.

And if the current agreement isn't respected, what guarantees would one have that the future one will be?

Show me where the current agreement isn't being respected. I wasn't aware there is regular jet traffic at YTZ today. News to me. Nor was I aware that the runway has been lengthened. I must have missed that bulletin from Transport Canada. You can check the AIPs from Transport Canada online. Show me where runway length at YTZ has changed.

Debating over what should happen in the future does not in any way constitute a violation of any agreement today. I haven't seen a clause in the tripartite agreement that says the agreement will never, ever be changed. Those who suggest that discussing what should be done in the future are violating agreements today are simply trying to stifle discussion, to suit their own ends (namely to prevent expansion of the airport).

 

[kEiThZ]

Sure, but why restrict it to cost-benefit studies (cost to whom, at what scale)? That's like loading the dice - one should look at, on top of economics, the various and often competing goals for the entire city and the area in question. That's a review.

AoD

I'd more than support such a review. And just like it shouldn't be restricted to economic consideration, nor should the review focus entirely on the interests of those residing near the airport.

I'm a 416 taxpayer. I'd like my interest in better transportation infrastructure also included in that review. Just as much as the complaints of some NIMBY worried about more traffic.

By the way, as far as noise is concerned, the airport is capped at ~202 slots per day (70% of which is owned by Porter). It's not going to see more traffic. It's just going to see different traffic. Porter flies too many flights to Montreal and Ottawa now, simply because they won't want to hand over the slots to Air Canada. Once the CSeries comes in, some slots will be repurposed to fly to further destinations with the CSeries and Porter will cut back a bit on flights to Montreal and Ottawa. So the idea that noise or flight frequency will dramatically increase is simply not true. Now if there is discussion over increasing the number of slots per day, then there might be credibility to that argument. But I haven't seen Porter push for more slots. And with a 61% load factor, I don't think they'll be all that interested in more slots.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Okay then, that's the conversation we should be having. And that's the conversation that a mature public has in London (London City), Stockholm (Bromma), Washington D.C. (Reagan), Boston (Logan), New York (LaGuardia). All those places have airports that are either in urban areas or very, very close to major urban areas. For example, LaGuardia is only 5km from Manhattan as the crow flies and it handles far bigger aircraft than YTZ. Boston Logan is 2km from Boston's waterfront and it gets 747s and 777s. London City is in the heart of London. It gets aircraft about as large as the CSeries will be. Londoners see that airport as an asset.
...
World class cities have world class infrastructure.

Now, let's not make it sound as if airports located close to downtown is a necessary ingredient to a city's success. It isn't - for every example you've listed, I can suggest a counterexample - Hong Kong (Kai Tak to Chep Lap Kok); Olso (Fornebu to Gardermoen; Denver (Stapleton to DIA). Besides world class infrastructure (or on that matter, accessibility) is a complicated function that combines multiple factors such as location, road/transit, surrounding land uses, etc - perhaps the bigger issue at hand is our rapid growth and failure to invest in another airport that can handle the load (plus the milking you mentioned). Besides, as the Island Airport becomes successful, travel time to and from is going to be increasingly the ONLY factor that is mitigated.

Now I can understand the desire to balance the needs of local residents. And for that, I personally believe that London-City provides a great model with very stringent noise exposure limits. I believe that such an approach at YTZ would facilitate the interests of airport users and nearby residents. What I can't support is this idea that we should curtail all progress.

What I can't support is an open-ended development cycle for the Island Airport that puts at risk the other interests - such as the waterfront, which is of equal importance.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

A gameplan which would not be feasible without Bombardier actually delivering the CSeries. By the way, Bombardier targetted London City while designing the CSeries. It's a happy coincidence that urban airports all over the world will benefit from the stringent rules at LCY.

And somehow carriers operating in such regimes would have absolutely no foreknowledge of the CSeries, its' general performance envelope and thus would not make long-range business plans? Sorry, that is just not believable at all - especially in the aviation industry.

How so? Community AIR isn't about airport noise. Their ultimate vision is elimination of the airport period. To them, opposing expansion isn't just about opposing expansion. They opposed a bridge for pete's sake. That had nothing to do with noise. It had everything to do with a silly belief that the lack of a fixed link would somehow make commercial service unviable and eventually the airport itself unviable.

Equating the stance of Community AIR to any opposition is a logically unsound argument, just like the use of the term NIMBY in such an instance.

Show me where the current agreement isn't being respected. I wasn't aware there is regular jet traffic at YTZ today. News to me. Nor was I aware that the runway has been lengthened. I must have missed that bulletin from Transport Canada. You can check the AIPs from Transport Canada online. Show me where runway length at YTZ has changed.
...
Debating over what should happen in the future does not in any way constitute a violation of any agreement today. I haven't seen a clause in the tripartite agreement that says the agreement will never, ever be changed. Those who suggest that discussing what should be done in the future are violating agreements today are simply trying to stifle discussion, to suit their own ends (namely to prevent expansion of the airport).

Well, let's be a bit honest here - others have predicted this would be the end outcome of the back and forth process (and that was met with vehement denial), so to say that the agreement was "respected" when the outcome (if not intent) is quite clearly otherwise is somewhat of a misnomer. Besides, it does bring into question the sincerity of promises made without any caveat.