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

[rbt]

You must have moved in after the first wave of expanded use ended and before the Porter thing started. Has the airport yet to reach its old record of 240k (i recall seeing that number) movements in a single year?

Bought in 2003, moved in during December 2005 (new condo). Sold in 2009.

Movements are not all equal. Flight schools make a ridiculously high number of movements from just a couple of aircraft practising landings/takeoffs.

In 2011 Buttonville had 136,575 movements; YTZ had 114,576, Hamilton JCM had 35,296.

If I had to pick one to live next to, I would choose Buttonville.

 

[Long Island Mike]

Landing at London City Airport: Welcome To London!

What makes you think that TPA and Porter couldn't comply with the type of noise monitoring and controls in place at London City? I bet that Deluce would be only too happy to live with London City's restrictions (under it's master plan London City will eventually accommodate 8 Million passengers! More than double what is allowed for Billy Bishop!)

London City is currently being served by aircraft that are noisier that the CS100 - e.g. the Embraer 190, A319, and BAe 146. Furthermore the flightpaths into London City bring aircraft in much closer proximity to buildings.

Take a look at this amazing video showing an approach to London City airport. The aircraft is just a few hundred feet from the roof tops of London's tallest skyscrapers. Nothing even remotely like this is being proposed for Billy Bishop.
[video=youtube;kDNd1o4B9qc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNd1o4B9qc[/video]

Peepers: Neat video here-looking to be taken with a cellphone camera...The only drawbacks here are the unsteadiness of the camera and the somewhat hazy Summer(?) weather...

This one makes me think of The Clash's song "London Calling..."

LI MIKE

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Peepers, I have a giant soft spot in my heart for you, but perhaps challenging people on their facts is not something you ought to do. Glass houses, etc.

On the debate re: the future of the Island Airport, as I have noted many times in the past, my issue is that the TPA appears not to undertsand its role as a regulator and provider of good governance. As such, I have quite enjoyed watching the fanboys pretend not to lose their sh!t over the past few days as the "governance chain" got yanked a bit. Also, the traffic patterns in this thread suggest a serious astroturfing campaign is underway. Your airport improvement fees at work.

 

[nfitz]

That said, it didn't seem to impact resale value very much.

Comments I've heard from people leaving the area were about couldn't deal with 2-years of construction and lack of streetcars on Queens Quay ...

 

[innsertnamehere]

Peepers, I have a giant soft spot in my heart for you, but perhaps challenging people on their facts is not something you ought to do. Glass houses, etc.

On the debate re: the future of the Island Airport, as I have noted many times in the past, my issue is that the TPA appears not to undertsand its role as a regulator and provider of good governance. As such, I have quite enjoyed watching the fanboys pretend not to lose their sh!t over the past few days as the "governance chain" got yanked a bit. Also, the traffic patterns in this thread suggest a serious astroturfing campaign is underway. Your airport improvement fees at work.

wait what? are you suggesting paid employees are coming onto this thread supporting the expansion? all the posters are regular UTers..

 

[diminutive]

As there's a new Canada-Europe free trade agreement, it might become harder to demand even 25% local content.

Thank god!

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Buy America, which covers most infrastructure/transportation projects with federal funding, requires 50.1% American content.

As there's a new Canada-Europe free trade agreement, it might become harder to demand even 25% local content.

This raises an interesting question. Which is preferable: Having products 'assembled' in Canada from parts sourced from a variety of locations by foreign corporations (as most foreign automakers do) or having products 'assembled' (or heck not even assembled) in Canada by a Canadian corporation.

Essentially the discussion comes down to, are we better off paying factory wages to workers who build/assemble products in Canada while most of the profit and cash flows out of the country and into foreign corporations, or can we sacrifice some of the factory wages in exchange for keeping the profit and corporate cash in the country.

 

[EnviroTO]

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

The issue with the above is that the only number which is not a wild guess would be the £71 million from productivity benefits. Others make the assumption that people would not alternatively choose to fly via the other two London airports and continue to conduct all other business in an unchanged way. Is the air passenger duty the result of a £21 million reduction in duty elsewhere? When a passenger decides to fly out of London City instead of Heathrow that passenger will likely pay less in the Heathrow area's economy and more in the London City's economy but would more have been spent in Heathrow than London City and would that be more desirable? If fees are higher in Heathrow than London City then a passenger using London City would mean less fee revenue in the economy, but is that good or bad? Does it change the judgement if the fees at one airport go to the government in a larger percentage than private interests than at another airport? In the end the dollar amounts that matter are ones that come from efficiency and productivity, and other amounts are more typically a shell game where you show X raised revenues by taking away from Y revenues. If you are an owner or worker of X or Y that battle will matter, but for everyone else a decision will be about what is right for them that day.

These studies are usually biased. They make no attempt to show the negative impacts in other businesses or economies.

 

[Peepers]

The NoJetsTO group is holding a public panel discussion (apparently all one-sided) this evening.

If I am not mistaken that is our very own Craig White sitting behind David Miller so I suspect we will get a full report on this

photo credit : @JohnLorinc

 

[innsertnamehere]

Yep.

What a surprise! an anti-airport group holds a meeting and everyone there is anti-airport. whodathunk?

 

[Peepers]

Yep.

What a surprise! an anti-airport group holds a meeting and everyone there is anti-airport. whodathunk?

If they believe so strongly in their arguments there is no better way to convince others than to have a debate with proponents of the Porter Plans.

I don't know why David Miller or David Crombie would even take part in a one-sided debate. I wouldn't be surprised if they were paid to attend by the same people who are paying to rent that sizable hall.

If Porter was clever they would organize a similar meeting where they could invite the David Millers and Crombies to debate proponents of the airport expansion such as Brad Lamb.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Yep.

What a surprise! an anti-airport group holds a meeting and everyone there is anti-airport. whodathunk?

I am shocked! I thought only Porter was allowed to be one-sided!

 

[TOareaFan]

Everyone is free to say/do what they like but, for some reason, I am not sure about the head of the panel deciding our transit future attending something like this.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Doesn't surprise me that many planners don't support this. it really isn't a clear cut issue and you either support it or oppose it based on what things you value more.

 

[EnviroTO]

Porter wins in quality of service and proximity to downtown. Take those two things away and it doesn't win anyone over. From a transportation planner perspective or efficiency of transportation service delivery perspective I don't think an argument can be made that somehow servicing two airports would be cheaper. It is more efficient for some users to use Toronto Island but many efficiencies come from a single airport. If air service was run by the government the cheapest way to deliver things would be to run larger aircraft less frequently. Not saying that would be thing to the consumer, just that pure transportation planning is meeting real needs. Shifted work schedules, night deliveries, etc aren't about convenience as much as they are about efficient use of less infrastructure.