When Community Air's website continues to have the "tear down this Trojan horse" Jane Jacobs quote on their frontpage, and the post I responded to proposed closing the island airport in order to build and open a Pickering Airport. Then I think it is fair to assume that a fair percentage of those against Porter are pro closing the Island airport. I'm not saying that is your position I'm just saying based on the post I responded to and the stand that CAIR is taking that the general consensus is closure of the airport, not status quo.
Well the Trojan Horse argument does hold a lot of weight if you look at what existed when Community Air was formed and what exists now, and when you think of Jane Jacobs the whole Spadina freeway being stopped is one of the focuses and if you look at the continual growth of Toronto Island the two lane Bathurst may not be enough. Sure, there are a lot of people, like myself, who would like to see the airport close, however anyone with a reasonable amount of sanity recognizes that the airport exists, Porter exists, and things that exist legally have a right to continue to exist. Even changes to what is allowed in zoning typically grandfathers what is already there. I may hate University Plaza and hope it gets teared down, but I would have issue if taxpayer dollars went into buying that place and tearing it down.
If the question is expansion and the answer is no to expansion and instead build a new facility (Pickering), what about those constraints? There will need to be road access, parking, fuel farms, environmental concerns for the new location, etc, etc, etc.
The whole point is that there aren't any real constraints at Pickering. There isn't limited land, there isn't a channel to traverse, there isn't existing structures and residents to kick out, there isn't a playground and school to be located at the only access point to Pickering airport... all there is is corn. If there was a leak from a fuel farm is it more containable in the fields of Pickering or in the land a few feet above lake level a stone's throw from the lake? If you are to build a six lane road access road to Toronto Island, or a six lane access road to Pickering... what would have a bigger environmental impact? How much river or water needs to be infilled at Pickering versus Toronto Island?
So what lets build a new facility just because you don't want an existing facility expanded that happens to be in your backyard??? Is this not the lesson we learned from Mirabel, that we should be careful to be too quick to jump and build a new facility before trying to optimize an existing facility?
Has Dorval expanded its borders? It learned to do more with the land they had, they were directly connected to the freeway already, they lived through DC8s and 707s, and traffic moved to Toronto... Mirabel was a failed experiment because they left Dorval open and HQ Canada moved.
30 years ago Pearson was nowhere near what it is today, 30 years ago there was no such thing as a 777 or an A380, 30 years ago Pearson had only 4 runways. If we applied your position on expansion then should we not have protested expansion at Pearson and supported opening Pickering, how do you think that would have gone over.
Pearson only has one more runway now. As with Dorval they endured 4 engine smoke monsters for decades so handling a 5th runway so a fleet of mostly 2 engine smaller aircraft can fly in wouldn't change much. The big change hasn't been in the air, it has been on the ground. At one point there was only T1 and it was a small terminal with two lanes in and two lanes out. Now the whole area is a huge freeway interchange and parking lot. Is that our dream of the waterfront? It didn't cause much of a stir because the buildings knocked down were industrial, the neighbourhood unwalkable, and nobody lived there.
To make the analogy even clearer, Pearson is going to build a second Northern E-W runway shortly which will be used primarily for Westbound takeoffs, these will take aircraft directly over neighbourhoods along Derry Rd where residents are. Should we support these resident's protests against this new runway? Isn't this what you are suggesting?
The new runway is exactly parallel to the existing one 500m from the existing north runway set closer to the already existing 2 south runways, so I doubt it will change much. The nearest residents are 4km from the end of the runway, and actually closer to the old runway. 4km is the distance from Toronto Island to Bloor. Unlike Toronto Island, Pearson is critical to the GTA and Canada as the main connecting hub, and placing any aircraft at an airport other than Pearson reduces the ability to connect. The additional passengers that result from new flights at Pearson are easily handled with the existing road structure which has been overbuilt. The new runway fits within the existing Pearson fence. So no, I don't think adding a runway at Pearson is similar at all.
IfSo if we zone an area for high density and a developer comes along and proposes to build a 40 story building where an 8 story building currently stands, should people simply be able to say "no". Is that not similarly unreasonable? I think so... I mean you are entitled to your opinion, I just disagree.
If it is zoned for high density then it is zoned for high density and I don't believe that there is any justification to block building what is permitted to be there. The harbour is not zoned for runway. The whole reason approval is required is that what is being requested is not permitted under existing rules. So the more apt question that would equate to what is happening is... "if someone proposes building a building in the creek next to your house should you be able to say "no"."
IfI'm not plugging my ears, I'm simply saying we have a facility in the Island airport, and we have an airline that wants to use it, so should we not be trying to use this asset??
They are using it. They are using it to the maximum the current land mass can handle, and the only way they can use it further is to expand their land mass.
Is it not imperative to do so before we start looking elsewhere for a new facility? I'm not saying Pickering is permanently off the table I am saying lets try to get the most out of Pearson and the Island before we go and invest billions in a brand new airport in Pickering.
But general aviation needs an airport now and they are being kicked out of Toronto Island now, and cannot fly to Pearson. Buttonville is closing. Where will the replacement airport be?
To suggest that Pearson has remained status quo in recent years is laughable!!!
I didn't say there was no change at Pearson. I'm saying the status quo is no change. That is what the status quo means. To make a change I think you need to weigh your options and make sure the change that creates the most benefits, for the most businesses, for the most users, for the most residents, with the least environmental impact, etc should be made.
If we are looking to solve problems, and those problems are noise and pollution at the Island.
Are those the problems? The motivation for this change is to reduce noise and pollution at the island? I was unaware that that was the problem to be solved and the motivation for this change. I think they should really employ a study to see if runway extensions and a switch to the CSeries is the best way to accomplish this goal. It seems a stretch of the imagination to think that is the best solution to those problems.
Remove the economy, remove the fares, remove the covenience, if we can reduce the noise and pollution by using a different aircraft is this not a positive?
It would be. I was unaware there was a plan to lower the noise exposure forecast in the airport guidelines. What are they going to switch to... NEF 20?
