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

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We might have a buffoon as a mayor but council has it's share of nut jobs and she's one of them. Economics growth and development is certainly not part of her vocabulary.

It's funny or frustrating how politicians and city staff somewhat seem to forget and not care about what the majority of citizens (who are their boss) wants...

The way I think about is like this:

"I'm not a child but I'm an adult. Don't tell me I don't get it or I need to be educated. I get it, there's a health hazard, the potential impact on the environment, the noise might be an issue and I get that developers in the Portlands are concerned. I'm just telling you as a citizens whose part of the majority, that I like the service, it's convenient and I'm fully aware of the positive impacts of having our downtown linked to more cities, which boost, tourism, the economy which creates more jobs opportunity. So again, if I tell you (majority of citizens) that we want the jets, make it happen. You're paid with my tax to use your expertise to reduce as much as possible the cons of that proposition, not to impose upon me you personal preferences"

Get that Won-Tam???

That's BS, considering the amount of development in her ward. As to the citizens bit - I am fairly sure those in her ward isn't as clear cut regarding the issue as you think they are - and let's not think for one second that something your tax dollars are more special than what's paid by others.

It's easy to be a politician that play yes-man to the electorate -it's more difficult to be one that makes a wise decision for the sake of the long-term. And yes, the whole economic development thing is rich coming from a bunch of councillors whose ward has seen anything but that. Perhaps they should just level their ward and build a new airport for these "whisperjets", if they think it is so beneficial.

And again, I don't agree with KWT's stance that TIA should be closed in the short term - I think WT nailed the issues out far more clearly than anyone else in this debate.

AoD

 

[Solid Snake]

That's BS, considering the amount of development in her ward. As to the citizens bit - I am fairly sure those in her ward isn't as clear cut regarding the issue as you think they are - and let's not think for one second that something your tax dollars are more special than what's paid by others.

It's easy to be a politician that play yes-man to the electorate -it's more difficult to be one that makes a wise decision for the sake of the long-term. And yes, the whole economic development thing is rich coming from a bunch of councillors whose ward has seen anything but that. Perhaps they should just level their ward and build a new airport for these "whisperjets", if they think it is so beneficial.

AoD

She's just another case of NIMBYism. Nothing more. North York and Scarborough not wanting LRT is treated as NIMBYism but downtown not wanting the airport is so much more virtuous? If Porter was using Downsview Airport, downtown councillors would have supported it on the spot. That airport benefit to the whole city is worth it.

It's funny that you have the nerve of calling out the other wards for not "contributing" the city economic growth. Maybe if the other wards were giving opportunities to be more attractive to businesses, developers and tourists maybe they would do better and projects like the casino could have went there instead. No subways on McCowan, Sheppard, Eglinton East, Don Mills. Guess what, once the subway is built under McCowan, Scarborough Centre will have the same renaissance that North York had on Sheppard and Yonge. Those wards you're calling out have little to no rapid transit to get people to them.

It works for London and it will work for us. We keep drooling over other cities accomplishments and audacity while when we have the opportunity to do the same or better, NIMBYism points it's ugly head out and we stay in the status quo.

People and developers buying near the City airport knew in advance that it was there and yet they chose to go there knowing that traffic would increase over time. It's kind of rich that now some of them are ripping their shirts off. It's like me moving next to an area knowing full well there's a factory with noise and gas emission but hey, I love the view and it's tolerable for now. Then years later, I'm shocked that the factory who's been profitable wants to expand... That's BS...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

She's just another case of NIMBYism. Nothing more. North York and Scarborough not wanting LRT is treated as NIMBYism but downtown not wanting the airport is so much more virtuous? If Porter was using Downsview Airport, downtown councillors would have supported it on the spot. That airport benefit to the whole city is worth it.

That is funny - for someone who is a NIMBY she has certainly sheparded more high density development projects (which is typically the bread and butter of NIMBYism) in her own ward than those other supposely pro-economic development councillors, where even a 10, 15s condo tower is grounds for concern (yes, I am looking at you, Rob Ford). NIMBY, you say?

It's funny that you have the nerve of calling out the other wards for not "contributing" the city economic growth. Maybe if the other wards were giving opportunities to be more attractive to businesses, developers and tourists maybe they would do better and project like the casino could have went there instead. No subways on McCowan, Sheppard, Eglinton East, Don Mills. Guess what, once the subway is built under McCowan, Scarborough Centre will have the same renaissance that North York had on Sheppard and Yonge. Those wards you're calling out have little to no rapid transit to get people to them.

LOL, that's like economic development by wishful thinking - just what commercial renaissance was there at NYCC? There was only ONE relatively small office development since the 90s (Transamerica) even though it had a subway connection (and let's bring out Eglinton as another example of subway access not equating to economic development). As to the casino, well, I don't see Scarborough jumping up and down calling for a casino at SCC even if it was allowed.

It works for London and it will work for us. We keep drooling over other cities accomplishments and audacity while when we have the opportunity to do the same or better, NIMBYism points it's ugly head out and we stay in the status quo.

London's accomplishments stand on its' own - it's successful not because of the City Centre airport (unless you want to make yourself sounding foolish suggesting so). It's not the game changer you made it to be.

People and developers buying near the City airport knew in advance that it was there and yet they chose to go there knowing that traffic would increase over time. It's kind of rich that now some of them are ripping their shirts off. It's like me moving next to an area knowing full well there's a factory with noise and gas emission but hey, I love the view and it's tolerable for now. Then years later, I'm shocked that the factory who's been profitable wants to expand... That's BS...

Knowing there is an airport in advance is one thing - having it turn into a full blown regional airport (which is what this scheme can potentially entail) is another. Just because one doesn't want the latter doesn't meant one is against co-existing with the airport as is. It most certainly doesn't meant there are no limits to what level of expansion is appropriate (and the same applies to your factory analogue as well). And for the record, they also went in knowing a) there is a cap to the amount of traffic and b) that there is a certain vision for the entire waterfront.

And funny you should take this caveat emptor approach - did Deluce not know that a) there are residential area proximate to the airport when he involved himself with Porter, b) that there is a certain vision for the entire waterfront by all 3 levels of government, c) that there are circulation and other issues with the site and d) that there is a Tripartite agreement governing the use of the airport? It's kind of rich he went in with his eyes wide open and expect the powers to just approve the scheme without asking tough questions.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

Knowing there is an airport in advance is one thing - having it turn into a full blown regional airport (which is what this scheme can potentially entail) is another. Just because one doesn't want the latter doesn't meant one is against co-existing with the airport as is.

But in this case it does....Ms Wong-Tan is not just opposing the expansion, something that she readily admits her constituents are mixed on, she is calling for the closure of the facility.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

TOareafan:

At issue is Deluce's request - i.e. whether to allow jets and extend the runways, along with the TPA request to extend the agreement for 50 years and whether it is appropriate to make those generational decision without adequate information. It is not whether TIA should be closed. KWT is free to take a position (and in fact, she has to) - it doesn't meant a) I support it or b) that there isn't alternate views and c) that there are no disagreements among her constituents.

AoD

 

[Solid Snake]

That is funny - for someone who is a NIMBY she has certainly sheparded more high density development projects (which is typically the bread and butter of NIMBYism) than those other supposely pro-economic development councillors, where even a 10, 15s condo tower is grounds for concern (yes, I am looking at you, Rob Ford). NIMBY, you say?

How did she guided or directed in a particular direction the high density development in her ward? Or does she happened to be in the right ward? versus those other councillors who happend to be in ward that are unattractive to developers due to lack of proper city planning and transit infrastructure?

No worries, I know full well that Rob Ford taking credit for job creation is a major exaggeration, like your giving W-T way too much credit

LOL, that's like economic development by wishful thinking - just what commercial renaissance was there at NYCC? There was only ONE relatively small office development since the 90s (Transamerica) even though it had a subway connection (and let's bring out Eglinton as another example of subway access not equating to economic development). As to the casino, well, I don't see Scarborough jumping up and down calling for a casino at SCC even if it was allowed.

Let's agree to disagree on NYCC. As of now, SCC was not on the map for the Casino promoters for obvious reasons. Eglinton-Yonge is expanding and density is increasing rapidly. The Crosstown is what the rest of Eglinton needs to have similar growth.

London's accomplishments stand on its' own - it's successful not because of the City Centre airport (unless you want to make yourself sounding foolish suggesting so). It's not the game changer you made it to be.

I meant the airport positive impact on the city

http://www.londoncityairport.com/aboutandcorporate/readpressrelease/1248


-Research also shows the Airport could support as much as £944 million of GDP at Canary Wharf, in the City of London and at ExCel

-£197 million spent by business tourists coming via London City Airport

-£115 million spent by leisure tourists coming via London City Airport

-£71 million from productivity benefits delivered through journey times savings by using London City Airport

-£21 million in Air Passenger Duty

-£100 million through operations and businesses at London City Airport that also support over 2,700 jobs

-£550 million - assuming the Airport supports at least 5% of the estimated £11 billion contributed by Canary Wharf to GDP every year

-£314 million - assuming the Airport supports at least 1% of the estimated £31 billion contributed by the City of London to GDP every year

-£80 million - assuming the Airport supports at least 5% of the estimated £1.6 billion contributed by ExCeL to the economy

If Billy Bishop could proportionally generate that kind of growth, it's irresponsible to ignore it and asking for the airport to just close.

Knowing there is an airport in advance is one thing - having it turn into a full blown regional airport (which is what this scheme can potentially entail) is another. Just because one doesn't want the latter doesn't meant one is against co-existing with the airport as is. It most certainly doesn't meant there are no limits to what level of expansion is appropriate (and the same applies to your factory analogue as well). And for the record, they also went in knowing a) there is a cap to the amount of traffic and b) that there is a certain vision for the entire waterfront.

Putting it that way, I understand and it's a valid point. There's room to find a middle ground without falling on extremes from both sides.

And funny you should take this caveat emptor approach - did Deluce not know that a) there are residential area proximate to the airport when he involved himself with the airport, b) that there is a certain vision for the entire waterfront by all 3 levels of government, c) that there are circulation and other issues with the site and d) that there is a Tripartite agreement governing the use of the airport? It's kind of rich he went in with his eyes wide open and expect the powers to just approve the scheme without asking tough questions.

I'm all for thought questions and I even wrote before that we might as well finds ways to send them the bills for infrastructure improvements around the airport like a streetcar loop or a future DRL station perhaps. The airpost is needed and appreciated by Torontonians. There should be room for a middle ground like restrictions on the number of flights and hours of operations, possible changes of flight paths etc...

It's just plain dumb having someone requesting the whole place to be shutdown and ignoring the positive that the airport could bring to the city. No, Porter shouldn't be given a green card to do whatever they want. There should be rules and limits.

 

[TOareaFan]

TOareafan:

At issue is Deluce's request - i.e. whether to allow jets and extend the runways, along with the TPA request to extend the agreement for 50 years and whether it is appropriate to make those generational decision without adequate information. It is not whether TIA should be closed. KWT is free to take a position (and in fact, she has to) - it doesn't meant a) I support it or b) that there isn't alternate views and c) that there are no disagreements among her constituents.

AoD

Sorry, I thought you and SS were discussing her position and, in that context, she is calling for the closure of the airport. A side effect of our system of government is that she is actually speaking for her constituents, even though (by her own account) a decent amount of them actually support the expansion of the current airport.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

How did she guided or directed in a particular direction the high density development in her ward? Or does she happened to be in the right ward? versus those other councillors who happend to be in ward that are unattractive to developers due to lack of proper city planning and transit infrastructure?

No worries, I know full well that Rob Ford taking credit for job creation is a major exaggeration, like your giving W-T way too much credit

Actually what I am saying is that your NIMBY characterization is inaccurate - she certainly didn't stood in the way of development as you wanted to claim she does in a manner consistent with NIMBYism.

Let's agree to disagree on NYCC. As of now, SCC was not on the map for the Casino promoters for obvious reasons. Eglinton-Yonge is expanding and density is increasing rapidly. The Crosstown is what the rest of Eglinton needs to have similar growth.

Let's not, the facts speaks for itself. EY is expanding but it's all residential - there is again little to no commercial development, similar to NYCC and SCC (and it happened at the latter in spite of the lack of a subway). It sinks your thesis that subways by default leads to economic development.

I meant the airport positive impact on the city
http://www.londoncityairport.com/aboutandcorporate/readpressrelease/1248
If Billy Bishop could proportionally generate that kind of growth, it's irresponsible to ignore it and asking for the airport to just close.

I don't agree with closing the airport in the current timeframe, but just because I don't doesn't equate to a case for what Deluce is asking.

I'm all for thought questions and I even wrote before that we might as well finds ways to send them the bills for infrastructure improvements around the airport like a streetcar loop or a future DRL station perhaps. The airpost is needed and appreciated by Torontonians. There should be room for a middle ground like restrictions on the number of flights and hours of operations, possible changes of flight paths etc...

It's just plain dumb having someone requesting the whole place to be shutdown and ignoring the positive that the airport could bring to the city. No, Porter shouldn't be given a green card to do whatever they want. There should be rules and limits.

Well, I agree, and yet we are being presented with a scenario whereby we have to approve the changes without the faintest clue about anything. It's just plain dumb to present a request like that and expect to be given a pass - and now we have councillors from wards that doesn't have to deal with any negative impact claiming that we should just close our eyes and approve the request - sorry, that sounds like supremely bad governance to me.

AoD

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

DarnDirtyApe, it appears that you are something of a waterfront nimby, so I'm inclined to think that you are unable to make a rational assessment of the pros and cons of airport expansion from the perspective of those of us who didn't chose to live next to an airport.

Pretty fun eh?

So based on my comments you assume I live near the waterfront? For the record I do not live anywhere near the waterfront, I just think that airports do not mix well with residential and recreational uses. Based on the progression of the thread, I stand my claim claim that Peepers is a crackpot fanboy and sounds like you are too.

I've taken Porter several times and can appreciate the benefits of having the airport where it is, but given the constraints of the site it can never be anything more than a niche service for the business elite. Even if flights were doubled it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to Pearson. As it stands now, the main benefit to taking the island airport is that the security and customs lineups are short, which will eventually stop being the case if passenger numbers rise.

I think you guys are deluding yourselves that the airport has a significant impact on Toronto's economy. It is simply bleeding off some of the demand from Pearson, nothing more. People like it because getting to Pearson is a pain, and the limited flight selection and downtown location keeps out the riff-raff.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

So based on my comments you assume I live near the waterfront? For the record I do not live anywhere near the waterfront, I just think that airports do not mix well with residential and recreational uses. Based on the progression of the thread, I stand my claim claim that Peepers is a crackpot fanboy and sounds like you are too.

I've taken Porter several times and can appreciate the benefits of having the airport where it is, but given the constraints of the site it can never be anything more than a niche service for the business elite. Even if flights were doubled it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to Pearson. As it stands now, the main benefit to taking the island airport is that the security and customs lineups are short, which will eventually stop being the case if passenger numbers rise.

I think you guys are deluding yourselves that the airport has a significant impact on Toronto's economy. It is simply bleeding off some of the demand from Pearson, nothing more. People like it because getting to Pearson is a pain, and the limited flight selection and downtown location keeps out the riff-raff.

However the contrast to the comment that airports and residential/recreational uses don't mix is to look at the Derry Rd. corridor, or in fact anything that exists under the flight path corridors for Pearson Airport's runways. Take a quick look on a map. How many people live under these flight corridors? How many people do live with in say 10 km of the airport, and thus deal with constant aircraft traffic? How many parks and recreational facilities exist under Pearson's runway flight paths? Hundreds of thousands of people live in this area, and there are at least half a dozen parks and Centennial park is one of them. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. If we accept Pearson and it's neighbors than why can't we accept the island airport and it's local residents?

TBH I think it's fair to offer conditional approval of the cs series jets and possible runway extension following further in depth (and independant?) testing. I think if a solid case can be made that the cs series will be less noisy and less polluting than the Q400 turboprops than much of the anti airport discussion falls apart.

However when we talk in terms of complete closure of the airport I think it is difficult to have any sort of a debate because one side is starting from the premise of complete closure, period. To me that is the biggest obstacle.

 

[TOareaFan]

TBH I think it's fair to offer conditional approval of the cs series jets and possible runway extension following further in depth (and independant?) testing. I think if a solid case can be made that the cs series will be less noisy and less polluting than the Q400 turboprops than much of the anti airport discussion falls apart.

This is the part of the "no jets" argument that really loses me. It is/was a rule put in place when it was assumed (at the time likely correctly) that jets were always noiser than props. If there now exists a jet that is quieter than the current planes using the airport and if noise is such a factor.....the neighbouring people should not only not oppose these new jets, they should be encouraging them.

 

[Automation Gallery]

she is calling for the closure of the airport. A side effect of our system of government is that she is actually speaking for her constituents, even though (by her own account) a decent amount of them actually support the expansion of the current airport.

She is not the only one that dislikes the airport and would want it eliminated
Adam is on the same page..................http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/...ter-to-Councillor-Adam-Vaughan-Nov.-13-12.pdf
http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/...cillor-Adam-Vaughan-Nov.-13-12-enclosures.pdf

 

[Cinnamon]

CNC News: "Porter Airlines is floating the idea of a passenger levy the company says will help cover city expenses if the runway at Billy Bishop airport is extended."

When expansion proposal first introduced to City Council, nobody was talking about these additional expenses and Porter fanboys were crying "no study is required, it is a whisper jet, you are a nimby, just approve the dam proposal".

After a $1m study, now at least we may be in a position to avoid taxpayers money to be wasted to finance a private business.

City's current estimate, just for traffic management, is around $300m, and I won't be surprised if it doubles. And Porter offers "help". Thank you.

 

[Cinnamon]

sounds a little bit too much like a conspiracy there.. what does "safe access" mean? how would it cost $300 million? what would that entail? and as always, approval could always come with conditions to ensure stuff like that would not occur.

It is a part of the tripartite agreement and very open to interpretation. Before there was a lawsuit between TPA and City of Toronto regarding installation of speed bumpers (or something like that, I don't remember) in front of the public school, in which TPA was claiming that it was causing unnecessary delays and traffic congestion for those trying to access the airport. And they won.

Currently there is a "no right turn on red" signal at the Queens Quay intersection which TPA wants to be removed too. This is the main intersection all kids are using to access their school and the playground.

$300m is the estimate of City for required upgrades in the area to accommodate access for 4m+ passengers per year.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

However the contrast to the comment that airports and residential/recreational uses don't mix is to look at the Derry Rd. corridor, or in fact anything that exists under the flight path corridors for Pearson Airport's runways. Take a quick look on a map. How many people live under these flight corridors? How many people do live with in say 10 km of the airport, and thus deal with constant aircraft traffic? How many parks and recreational facilities exist under Pearson's runway flight paths? Hundreds of thousands of people live in this area, and there are at least half a dozen parks and Centennial park is one of them. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. If we accept Pearson and it's neighbors than why can't we accept the island airport and it's local residents?

That's a ridiculous comparison - the area around Pearson is almost exclusively industrial/commercial for kilometers in every direction, and flight paths avoid the few residential areas nearby. 10KM North from the island airport will take you to Bathurst & Lawrence and encompass the entire downtown area and then some, so obviously there are people that live that close to Pearson. However, Billy Bishop's flight path is directly along the waterfront instead of on top of the warehouses that surround Pearson.

Obviously airports have to be somewhere, but it makes more sense to locate them in primarily industrial areas instead of right on the city's waterfront.

So, which do you think looks like a better place for an airport?