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

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Yes, this is the new concept. It is called airport cities, or "aerotropolis". Pickering airport project could be good candidate for that with its massive size of 7,530 hectares, which you can probably fit whole downtown Toronto and there will be still space left. But hey, we just moved from steam trains to diesel ones, probably can catch other countries, lets say in 100 years?

Translation. Bugger off to the residents of Pickering who have been fighting the Pickering Airport Development for over 30 years. It is not my 'chosen area to live' so screw 'em.

Quite the hypocrisy there Cinnamon. To say that a brand spanking new airport ought to be built in an area where people don't want one, while simultaneously condemning an existing airport that is operating. Just because you happen to live in the area where the existing airport sits.

This is the same attitude exhibited by Weston residents, "oh there is a 40' (?) wide rail corridor in my backyard, but I never expected to have trains pass by on said rail corridor. I just want it there because I enjoy the view/scenery", and "Don't you dare increase rail traffic here, do it on other lines but not here on the lines that pass my backyard"

 

[ShonTron]

Got this email this morning.

I'm amused by the subject line - "We need your support - you can make a difference​!" - as if Porter was an altruistic not-for-profit or a community/grassroots group.

Dear xxxxxxx xxxxxxx :

With a goal to expand Porter Airlines service across North America from our home base at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, we need your support in helping us make these plans a reality. These plans will bring significant economic benefits to the City of Toronto and also to the travelling public, with increased competition and lower airfares. New destinations would include Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, California, Florida and the Caribbean.

To accomplish our plans, we need City Hall approval to update the airport's operating agreement to allow for the use of the Canadian-made Bombardier CS100 and a very modest extension of the runway. This whisper jet will not change the sound profile of the airport and the extended runway will not affect the boating community in any way.

As a first step, Toronto City Councillors will be voting on May 7 to decide if our plans should be studied further by city staff. We think these plans should be studied, so that Councillors and their constituents (namely you!) can make an informed decision.

Councillors will listen to their voters and you can make a difference by contacting your local Councillor. We have made it easy to do this through our website https://www.porterplans.com/Info/Get-on-board. Sending a message (by email, twitter, or phone) only takes a few minutes. As part of your message, make sure to provide your address and let them know you are a resident of their ward. If you voted for them in the last election, let them know this as well. If you are really passionate about helping to ensure these plans are supported, encourage friends, colleagues and family who live in Toronto, who are supportive, to visit the site as well.

With this May 7 vote being so crucial in terms of allowing these plans to be given due consideration, we would very much appreciate your support.Together we all look forward to getting Toronto City Council on board.

To show your support, please go to
https://www.porterplans.com/Info/Get-on-board

Best regards,

The Porter Team

--

This email was sent by: Porter Airlines Inc, Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, Toronto, Ontario M5V 1A1, Canada


This email was sent to: xxxxxxx@gmail.com


Please do not reply to this email - this address is not monitored. To contact us directly, please visit our website.

To ensure that you receive all email from Porter Airlines please add this email address to your safe sender's list.

Porter Airlines is committed to protecting the privacy of our customers. For more information, please review our Privacy Policy.

If you wish to unsubscribe to news and promotional emails from Porter Airlines, click here.

(Please note: once you opt out, you will not receive further marketing correspondence, including price discount offers.)

 

[nfitz]

Probably they didn't tell you but land rush is over, you may stop chewing tobacco and leave your shotgun down, this is 21st century and there is a new concept called urban planning. It is a very weird concept talks about people, environment, sustainability, that kind of crab. It is not me saying that, it is Governments of Canada and Ontario and the City of Toronto, read yourself: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/about_us

And yet despite of years of Urban Planning designating the airport near downtown, we still have Nimbys hellbent on trying to destroy the local economy and forcing people to take child-killling diesel trains to the airport in Mississauga!

 

[Peepers]

Got this email this morning.

I'm amused by the subject line - "We need your support - you can make a difference​!" - as if Porter was an altruistic not-for-profit or a community/grassroots group.

I don't see a problem in this. The fact is they will require overwhelming support from the public in order to get council to approve this proposal. We can make a difference but only if we speak up LOUDLY!

Of course Porter is not an altruistic group but that is not to say that the introduction of long range turbofan aircraft isn't in OUR self interest.

If the Porter plans go ahead it will result in the formation of a third national airline. More competition = lower airfares. In studies done by Transport Canada the small handful of cities served by Porter saw decreases in airfare whereas city's not served - such as Vancouver saw increases in airfares.

If as usual the silent majority stays silent on this issue I am afraid that the very small group of vocal opponents (most of whom ironically live on what was public parkland beside the airport) will win this battle. This is why it is smart for Porter to take this fight to the public in an attempt to enlist their support.

 

[TOareaFan]

I don't see a problem in this. The fact is they will require overwhelming support from the public in order to get council to approve this proposal. We can make a difference but only if we speak up LOUDLY!

Of course Porter is not an altruistic group but that is not to say that the introduction of long range turbofan aircraft isn't in OUR self interest.

If the Porter plans go ahead it will result in the formation of a third national airline. More competition = lower airfares. In studies done by Transport Canada the small handful of cities served by Porter saw decreases in airfare whereas city's not served - such as Vancouver saw increases in airfares.

If as usual the silent majority stays silent on this issue I am afraid that the very small group of vocal opponents (most of whom ironically live on what was public parkland beside the airport) will win this battle. This is why it is smart for Porter to take this fight to the public in an attempt to enlist their support.

I got the email from them on Monday......the only issue I had with it was how ineffectual it was sending it to me. It asked me to contact my local councillor which I am happy to do (since I support what they are proposing subject to the limits/constraints on noise that they say they can meet) but I am not sure what a Brampton city councilor's scope of influence will be on decisions around the island airport.......I think email lists have made company's lazy to the point of ineffective in these sort of campaigns

 

[Automation Gallery]

Here we go again

The island airport expansion: what we know so far
Among those opposing Porter’s plan is a new campaign called No Jets TO, which released a report outlining its opposition at a news conference at City Hall Friday morning.

No Jets TO, which describes itself as a coalition of local groups, says its opposition to Porter’s plans goes beyond noise to include traffic congestion, air quality and the impact an expanded airport would have on waterfront revitalization efforts.

“This is a fight against Robert Deluce’s ambition to bring jets to the island airport and change our city forever,” Anshul Kapoor, a member of No Jets TO, told reporters Friday. “A city is not defined by the convenient way you leave it.”
More.....http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...xpansion-what-we-know-so-far/article11718175/

Say hello to No Jets T.O.
New coalition joins fight against airport expansion plans, but Porter Airlines says most residents are supportive

First there was No Casino T.O., now there’s No Jets T.O.

Taking a page from the group campaigning against a Toronto gaming resort, a new coalition is hoping to ground Porter Airlines’ proposal to expand the island airport.

Representatives of No Jets T.O. held a small press conference outside City Hall on Friday, where they urged councillors to block a study on extending the runways and lifting the ban on jets at Billy Bishop Airport.

Mayor Rob Ford requested the study at his executive committee last month, and the issue will go to council next Tuesday.

“We would like the councillors to vote against the study because we don’t want to see this go any farther,” No Jets TO member Beverly Dywan told reporters.

With councillors across the political spectrum having already come out against expanding operations at Billy Bishop, the group thinks it has a decent shot at halting the proposal.

“I think our odds are really good,” said Dywan, a creative sector consultant whose child attended the Waterfront School near the airport.

“The support to cancel this right now is very high. We may need one or maybe two more councillors, and I think that’s it.”
More....http://nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=192377

 

[TOareaFan]

“A city is not defined by the convenient way you leave it.”

That's it, I am now firmly opposed.......i had no idea that they were building one of them fancy new airports that only did take offs but no landings! Think about it, in a few years Porter will have emptied out the city and all that will be left are the people who opposed his plans so vehemently that they refused to get on one of his planes!

 

[Peepers]

From the NOW article:

Asked to provide a list of the groups they represent however, No Jets T.O. could not immediately provide one.

They advertise themselves as a "coalition of citizen groups" and yet they can't provide a list of these groups? I suspect that "No Jets T.O." membership doesn't extend far beyond these two people. I don't know why they got so much media attention. The so-called "report" they issued is completely devoid of any facts - It's just one long rant. They borrowed some of Adam Vaughan's ridiculous assertions such as "filling in the lake" will negatively effect the quality of our drinking water.

One of the members of this group lives at Bathurst Quay which was once public parkland before "progressives" at city council in the 1980's decided this primelake front public amenity should be developed into housing. It's not clear what the lady's connection is to the waterfront other than her child was attended the school at Bathurst Quay. I wonder if she owns a cottage on the Island?

 

[EnviroTO]

Translation. Bugger off to the residents of Pickering who have been fighting the Pickering Airport Development for over 30 years. It is not my 'chosen area to live' so screw 'em.

Quite the hypocrisy there Cinnamon. To say that a brand spanking new airport ought to be built in an area where people don't want one, while simultaneously condemning an existing airport that is operating. Just because you happen to live in the area where the existing airport sits.

Almost nobody lives in the Pickering Lands. Development has been blocked 4 to 5km from the site for those 30 years, and for 30 years people have known it is reserved for Pickering Airport. A similar buffer around Toronto Island would extend to High Park, Dupont, and Pape. If you want to talk about crazy, imagine people from Lansdowne and Bloor complaining about Toronto Island Airport noise... that is the opposition to Pickering Airport. Add to that the fact Pickering can actually handle the task of handling overload from Pearson and the closure of Buttonville, whereas Toronto Island handles Porter and that is about it, the Pickering Airport adds far more value from a transportation system perspective.

Toronto Island Airport:
- Located next to a public school and playground.
- Hundreds of thousands living within 4 to 5km.
- Next to Toronto Islands, Harbour, and other major outdoor recreational and entertainment sites.
- Can't handle overload from Pearson (runway and site too small).
- Can't handle overload from Buttonville closure (Porter is pushing out the small craft)
- True competition not possible (Porter owns the majority of slots and terminal)


Pickering Airport
- Nowhere near a public school or playground.
- Almost nobody living within 4 to 5km.
- Not near a major outdoor recreational or entertainment site.
- Can handle overload from Pearson.
- Can handle overload from Buttonville closure.
- True competition possible, no one carrier will have a near monopoly on control of the airport.

 

[EnviroTO]

And yet despite of years of Urban Planning designating the airport near downtown, we still have Nimbys hellbent on trying to destroy the local economy and forcing people to take child-killling diesel trains to the airport in Mississauga!

This is so far fetched that I don't know what side of the fence you are on. The local economy is dependent on Porter and child-killing diesel trains... that is something I would say tongue in cheek to mock some of the more crazy supporters of Porter's plans. There are reasonable and crazy arguments from both sides, that is for sure.

 

[dowlingm]

the thing about Pickering and saying "build this so we can rip out YTZ" is that it's farmland. So much of that has been lost since Pickering Airport was first proposed in the 70s that we should think hard before committing to this. In fact were it not for the designation as a future airport freezing changes in use, it's possible that some of that might be "little boxes made of ticky tacky" by now. In addition to the airport significant transportation infrastructure will be needed to attract enough users to extend Pearson's growth curve, some of which will inevitably involve major highway structures eating away at more of those lands. Now, it may have to be built eventually but it's already well behind projected opening. It's laughable to think YTZ will do much more than the current 2m ppa to delay it in as much as the increasing ability of airlines to operate point to point rather than via the major hubs but I'd like to think that a combination of airport capacity management and improvement in regional rail options similar to the development of CDG as a rail hub so that short range slots can be turned over to more long range flights could eke us out more time until even better ideas are presented.

 

[EnviroTO]

I think it is prudent to keep the Pickering lands reserved for the airport as long as there is the possibility that YYZ could outgrow it's capacity. I wouldn't suggest building a passenger terminal until Pearson is maxed out, but the traffic pushed out of YYZ, YTZ, and YKZ aren't passenger airlines. I agree that rail should be pushed but realistically, if we assume air passenger traffic in the GTA will grow, there will be a point where with no assistance from the 3 levels of government there will be a business case to build a new airport terminal at Pickering and there is unlikely to be a similar business case which doesn't require government assistance for high-speed rail. High-speed rail could have a significant impact on Porter viability as well as the needs for a Pickering Airport, especially when combined with the AirRail service.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Almost nobody lives in the Pickering Lands. Development has been blocked 4 to 5km from the site for those 30 years, and for 30 years people have known it is reserved for Pickering Airport. A similar buffer around Toronto Island would extend to High Park, Dupont, and Pape. If you want to talk about crazy, imagine people from Lansdowne and Bloor complaining about Toronto Island Airport noise... that is the opposition to Pickering Airport. Add to that the fact Pickering can actually handle the task of handling overload from Pearson and the closure of Buttonville, whereas Toronto Island handles Porter and that is about it, the Pickering Airport adds far more value from a transportation system perspective.

Toronto Island Airport:
- Located next to a public school and playground.
- Hundreds of thousands living within 4 to 5km.
- Next to Toronto Islands, Harbour, and other major outdoor recreational and entertainment sites.
- Can't handle overload from Pearson (runway and site too small).
- Can't handle overload from Buttonville closure (Porter is pushing out the small craft)
- True competition not possible (Porter owns the majority of slots and terminal)


Pickering Airport
- Nowhere near a public school or playground.
- Almost nobody living within 4 to 5km.
- Not near a major outdoor recreational or entertainment site.
- Can handle overload from Pearson.
- Can handle overload from Buttonville closure.
- True competition possible, no one carrier will have a near monopoly on control of the airport.

Toronto Island Airport exists while Pickering Airport does not. Shouldn't we try to work with existing infrastructure as much as possible before running off and building new infrastructure?

 

[EnviroTO]

Toronto Island Airport exists while Pickering Airport does not. Shouldn't we try to work with existing infrastructure as much as possible before running off and building new infrastructure?

Porter has already pushed one of the two flight schools out of the island. Buttonville is slated to close. All the slots are Toronto Island are purchased. Extending the runway at Toronto Island doesn't solve any problem that exists besides a Porter revenue issue. With Porter getting the runway extension and jet approval no capacity issues have been resolved. The number of passengers and flights that can use a small airport like Toronto Island is limited. Buttonville has more flights. Porter's change isn't going to change much other than Porter's ability to fly further... was that a pressing infrastructure issue that needed solving? The real obstacles I see that truly hamper aviation in Toronto are air travel related taxes, Pearson curfews, and limited space for private aviation, schools, and cargo. Porter's change won't change much in terms of environmental impact and noise so by itself, if assured future changed to improve capacity and noise are limited I have no issue with it. I am simply pointing out that there is far more reasons to be against an airport that solves nothing but a minor convenience issue and which exists in proximity to schools, playgrounds, residents, outdoor recreational space, etc, than there is to be against an airport that actually has the potential to actually solve some of the real aviation problems that exist and which is many kilometres away from residents.

 

[dowlingm]

Toronto Island Airport exists while Pickering Airport does not. Shouldn't we try to work with existing infrastructure as much as possible before running off and building new infrastructure?

I would agree, but at the same time that doesn't mean giving Porter everything they ask for.

I would rather keep the status quo and instead try and mitigate the effects on the local area by improving public transportation options. We recently had a guest in town who flew in from LGW to YYZ and was flying on to YQB with Porter. We dropped her and her 23kg bag off at YTZ because there's no elevator at our subway station, the 511 Bathurst doesn't have low floor streetcars and even then you still have to walk down to the Quayside through the various tunnel/parking lot messes and the taxi queues.