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


Ignoring the pro vs anti-airport arguements, what would be the top improvements that would improve transit/traffic in the neighbourhood? My list would be:

1. Streetcar tunnel from Fleet St to Dan Leckie Way (above grade Y on Fleet for Bathurst service). Redesign of Lakeshore/Bathurst intersection without streetcars
2. Remove Fleet St Eastbound (use Fort York), convert to bike route
3. Taxi/Parking facility underground with direct access to Airport Tunnel (increased size of Little Norway & Ireland Park
4. Streetcar loop on land side of airport (every other streetcar on Harbourfront goes to it). Free TTC for airport passangers with a valid plane ticket paid for by the airport (no shuttle). Win-win. Added revenue/traffic for TTC & think of the ads Porter will have...the racoon riding a streetcar
5. Waterfront revitalization around ferry terminal (parking facility will include road traffic for ferry to allow pedestrian traffic from Ireland Park to Little Norway Park) to encourange pedestrian traffic. Remove parking at Stadium Rd, partially revolk the private club's lease (south area parking only...they can use building, moorage, etc) to continue park along waterfront. Add a pedestrian lift-bridge on break-water and there will be a breakwater trail all the way to Ontario Place! (actually a beef of mine...people complain about an airport in the watefront but there a a few hundred to max 1000 people that have exclusive access to city-owned land)
 
Here's the Star write up..


The Toronto Port Authority is asking for up to $100 million in funding from Ottawa and Queen’s Park to pay for transportation improvements near the island airport.


Earlier this week, the port authority says it submitted a request for funding consideration under the Building Canada Fund, on behalf of the city, though it may formally apply under other infrastructure funds such as one aimed at borders and gateways.


Some programs require matching funds from the province, while others are solely funded by the federal government.


“It was our place we thought to make the request,” said Mark McQueen, chair of the port authority, in an interview. “In our proposal, the city would decide where that money would go.”


However, the city was unaware of this latest move.


“We weren’t consulted before they wrote their letter and press release,” said Christopher Dunn, the city’s waterfront project manager.


Dunn added the city is “a bit perplexed” by the reference to “on behalf of the city.”


The port authority, which has always insisted it is neutral on Porter’s expansion plans, says it is now asking higher levels of government to pay for infrastructure improvements.


McQueen added that the port authority’s financial resources and borrowing capacity would be tapped for other capital expenses including the runway extension.


“As such, it was necessary to apply for funding under this or other existing government infrastructure programs,” he said, arguing that given the airport is now the country’s ninth largest is a key driver for the economy.


The port authority’s move comes amid the continuing debate over expansion plans for Porter Airlines at Billy Bishop City Centre Airport.


Porter Airlines, which has placed a conditional order for Bombardier’s CSeries jets, wants to operate these larger planes that could fly to Vancouver or Miami from the airport. It would require a runway extension of as much as 200 metres at each end plus the lifting of jet prohibitions at the airport.


In November, city staff urged councillors to defer any decision on the request, saying there was not enough information available, especially since the plane, still in the production stage, hasn’t received Transport Canada certification.


As well, city officials expressed serious concerns about groundside improvements that would be needed near Bathurst St. and Lake Shore Blvd., which is already congested with cars and taxis.


The city has estimated as much as $300 million could be needed if passenger volumes increase substantially with jets. Officials argued that a decision about who would pay for these costs had to be settled first.


In December, the city’s executive committee voted to defer any decision until the Feb. 4 meeting, even though deputy mayor Norm Kelly is a vocal supporter of expansion.


Opponents of the Porter expansion proposal accuse the Toronto Port Authority of helping Porter with its expansion bid.


“The TPA is doing the dirty work again by demanding tax dollars to fund the island airport expansion,” NoJetsTO chair Anshul Kapoor said in a news release. “Ottawa and Queen’s Park have to reject this blatant cash-grab from taxpayers.”


Bombardier’s all-new CSeries aircraft has faced several delays and last week announced entry into commercial service won’t happen until mid-2015 at the earliest, prompting 1,700 job cuts at the company.
 
It is interesting that we have two airports both with access issues. While we are comfortable saying, to both airports, that they must fund their own expansion on the actual airport (things like terminals, runways, etc) we seem to treat their access infrastructure differently.

So, as taxpayers, we are comfortable paying for the roads around Pearson (which always seem to be a work in progress) and a train connecting Pearson to downtown.....but we are doubting why the taxpayer should pay to improve the roadwork/access issues on the city side of Billy Bishop? It seems strangely inconsistent.
 
Last edited:
If that much is going to be spent on airport access improvements, what I'd like to see is a gondola from Union Station to a) the island airport, and b) the Toronto Islands. Porter and the airport get a "premium" connection to Union, and if designed properly, Toronto can ditch the ferry service to and from the Islands.

It would require only minimal changes to the surface infrastructure, and would remove a lot of the surface traffic heading to the airport. The traffic flow is also very spread out and relatively light and constant, perfect for a gondola. Also, crossing large bodies of water is difficult with a fixed link transit system, but for a gondola it isn't much on an issue if done properly.
 
how would you get a gondola across the runway?

There are three options:

1) Build it all in a single line, and do a short tunnel underneath the runway.
2) Have one branch go to the airport, and another straight across the harbour, but far enough out that it isn't a concern for flight paths.
3) Have one branch go west to the airport, and another go east and through the Portlands, connecting to the islands that way.

Overall I think a gondola link would be a much better connection option to the islands, and would be cheaper to run, easier to get to, and have a much higher frequency than the current ferry system. I suppose the islands connection could be built without the airport being involved (if Options 2 or 3 are chosen), but if you're going through the expense of building a new gondola terminal at Union, might as well let Porter take advantage of it too, and even possibly pay for some of it.
 
If that much is going to be spent on airport access improvements, what I'd like to see is a gondola from Union Station to a) the island airport, and b) the Toronto Islands.

I would like to see a CNE-style zip line from the top of the CN tower to the Toronto Islands.
 
It's odd that Rogers channel 10 isn't broadcasting the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport Public Meeting on channel 10 (blacked out) and you have to have a Rogers "Anytime TV Account" to watch it on the web. Where's the transparency for Torontonians here?
 
Saw this on Porters twitter feed

Porter Airlines ‏@porterairlines 14m

City report shows: runway extension will have no negative impact on the lake or boating and marine use. #PorterPlans #topoli
 
Saw this on Porters twitter feed

Transport Canada's rep just stated that there may need to be changes to the marine exclusion zone as a result of the runway extension and new jets... so Porter is BS'ing.

Porter says a City Report shows "runway extension will have no negative impact on the lake or boating and marine use." and you see a Transport Canada guy say there may be some changes.....not sure who is right but I do know that Transport Canada is not the City ;)
 
Huh? Anyone can watch it online. I'm watching it now and I'm not even a Rogers customer. (On RogersTV's website)

http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=12&rid=16&sid=5977&ref=BillyBishop

Well, luckily I took a screenshot - I couldn't figure out how to get on. And why did they blackout the promised broadcast on Rogers ch. 10 & 63?



And a screenshot from channel 10 @ 6:45pm, and I kept checking until 8:30 - nada. The blackout ended at exactly 9pm when regular programming resumed -

 
^ Weird... I didn't have to log in or anything.

Kind of disappointed that the live feed cut off at 9 though.
 

Back
Top