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

yep and you have to remember that we live in this place called reality, where closing the airport is not an option. this needs to be weighed as expansion vs. do nothing (which, funny thing, is what the planners did), not expansion vs. close airport and install expensive, fairyland utopia parkland and replacement of airport infrastructure elsewhere despite literally just building a large $80 million underground tunnel which will have to be abandoned as it is not functional as a public access thoroughfare.
 
Which is why letting the airport stay as is for the next few decades is a reasonable compromise between prematurely removing it, and absurdly expanding it and compounding its problems.
 
absurdly expanding it is a far flung description of what is actually occurring. Capacity is being increased by roughly 15%, not 200%.
 
It was meant as:

absurdly
adverb / ridiculously, incredibly, unbelievably, foolishly, ludicrously, unreasonably, incongruously, laughably, irrationally, implausibly, preposterously, illogically, inanely, senselessly, idiotically, inconceivably, farcically

As I said, public health considerations alone dictate this expansion should not happen. The Toronto Board of Health outlined already that even in its current configuration the airport is contributing to increased chronic health conditions and cancer rates, and we should be focusing on mitigating those problems rather than approving the use of even more toxic fuels to be burnt in even greater quantities.
 
If anything, it makes more sense to put more jets on the Island to spread out the pollutants than focussing all the pollutants in Mississauga. But clearly the "Toronto" Board of Health isn't a GTA-wide body otherwise it wouldn't have such a myopic view.

The arguments against the Island airport are so completely ridiculous it just makes me laugh.
 
Spending public funds on the currently severely constricted location makes no sense. Building a new facility to the south large enough to justify the expense of adequate transport links does seem a better use of limited resources. In addition the sober planning and sale of the current airport would raise funds for both sensible links to Toronto Island a well as new public park space; waterfront land is a very valuable commodity and should be used accordingly. And user based tolls could pay for a tunnel that would bypass Lakehore-Bathurst entirely. Allowing WT to come up with a long term plan for the entire island area and involving the private sector is a way forward. And finally having the runways to the south with flight paths over the lake spares anyone from being exposed to pollutants.
 
Last edited:
rdaner said:
Spending public funds on the currently severely constricted location makes no sense. Building a new facility to the south large enough to justify the expense of adequate transport links does seem a better use of limited resources. In addition the sober planning and sale of the current airport would raise funds for both sensible links to Toronto Island a well as new public park space; waterfront land is a very valuable commit and should be used accordingly. And user based tolls could pay for a tunnel that would bypass Lakehore-Bathurst entirely.
Click to expand...

Again, I ask, what we would we allow to take place on those lands? What land use is acceptable.....because that is going to drive the price you get for it.
 
^Ideally a well designed plan that balances several land uses (residential, open space, commercial, institutional) and that can look to the fantastic harbour developments happening in dozens of cities in Europe (Hamburg, Oslo, Copenhagen). The taxpayer funds being spent now could be used to leverage significant amounts of additional private sector financing for real improvements that benefit everyone but it will take cooperation, planning and patience.
 
The costs to simply rip out the airport would be triple the amount to upgrade it, yet alone bring all the services to it to make a functional neighbourhood. And once again, people need to remember that closing the airport isn't really an option.
 
RC8 said:
It was meant as:

absurdly
adverb / ridiculously, incredibly, unbelievably, foolishly, ludicrously, unreasonably, incongruously, laughably, irrationally, implausibly, preposterously, illogically, inanely, senselessly, idiotically, inconceivably, farcically

As I said, public health considerations alone dictate this expansion should not happen. The Toronto Board of Health outlined already that even in its current configuration the airport is contributing to increased chronic health conditions and cancer rates, and we should be focusing on mitigating those problems rather than approving the use of even more toxic fuels to be burnt in even greater quantities.
Click to expand...

What about getting more cars off the road so less toxic fumes there so should even out by having the Island airport
 
rdaner said:
^Ideally a well designed plan that balances several land uses (residential, open space, commercial, institutional) and that can look to the fantastic harbour developments happening in dozens of cities in Europe (Hamburg, Oslo, Copenhagen). The taxpayer funds being spent now could be used to leverage significant amounts of additional private sector financing for real improvements that benefit everyone but it will take cooperation, planning and patience.
Click to expand...

innsertnamehere said:
The costs to simply rip out the airport would be triple the amount to upgrade it, yet alone bring all the services to it to make a functional neighbourhood. And once again, people need to remember that closing the airport isn't really an option.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that successful mixed res/commercial/institutional developments require a lot of people going to them....and getting a lot of people to the island would require a significant amount bridging/tunnelling to get buses/streetcars and, yes, cars over there.

I have never been to any of Hamburg/Oslo/Copenhagen but the successful harbour developments that I have seen have one thing in common....they are on the mainland.

Then you add in that the post I responded to called for the closing/demolition of the current airport and relocating it to land further south....so would this new successful mixed use development on airport lands (if it could ever be built) not then be the primary opposition to the newly located airport further south?
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
If anything, it makes more sense to put more jets on the Island to spread out the pollutants than focussing all the pollutants in Mississauga. But clearly the "Toronto" Board of Health isn't a GTA-wide body otherwise it wouldn't have such a myopic view.

The arguments against the Island airport are so completely ridiculous it just makes me laugh.
Click to expand...

A lot of the pollution arguments are about all the idling taxis and related traffic on Eireann Quay, adjacent to a school, park and residences (condo and co-op/subsidized housing). Those local-level pollutants at YYZ are far from any residential or recreational areas. But I am sure you knew that.
 
RC8 said:
And yet 10 years ago the idea of getting rid of coal was thought of as unthinkable economic suicide.

Whether the jets land here or in a less populated, less valuable, and less ecologically significant place is exactly the point. The externalities are not the same here than if they were landing at Pearson or in Pickering, not even close. As you yourself recognised, if these lands were not currently an airport that's the last thing we'd do with them. It would be outrageous from a public health perspective alone.

P.S. Have you met any lobbyists at City Hall? They have scary stories to share.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Etobicoke Creek passes right through Pearson's lands? And that Etobicoke Creek feeds into Lake Ontario? So that ecology is less important than the waterfront, well it's important enough that Pearson has a number of environmental controls to prevent things like aircraft de-icing fluid, etc, from flowing into the river and on into the Lake? You want to tell the residents of Mississauga, Brampton, and Rexdale that their environmental concerns are not the same as the concerns of lakeshore residents?

Pickering is prime farmland. You think it would be eaiser to build a brand new airport out there and shut down the Island? Where have you been for the past 40 years? Because last I checked the Pickering airport has been a political hot potato ever since it was proposed. In fact the experience we have had with Pickering should have taught us that building all new airports is going to be difficult if not impossible, and that in this reality we should be seeking ways to use currently existing airports not shut them down for parkland and CAIR would like to do.
 
RC8 said:
It was meant as:

absurdly
adverb / ridiculously, incredibly, unbelievably, foolishly, ludicrously, unreasonably, incongruously, laughably, irrationally, implausibly, preposterously, illogically, inanely, senselessly, idiotically, inconceivably, farcically

As I said, public health considerations alone dictate this expansion should not happen. The Toronto Board of Health outlined already that even in its current configuration the airport is contributing to increased chronic health conditions and cancer rates, and we should be focusing on mitigating those problems rather than approving the use of even more toxic fuels to be burnt in even greater quantities.
Click to expand...

Based on this pollution argument should we not be accepting jets? Far as I can tell jet engines are more efficient that turboprop engines. A more efficient engine burns less fuel, which puts less pollutants into the atmosphere. Why is this being ignored?
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Based on this pollution argument should we not be accepting jets? Far as I can tell jet engines are more efficient that turboprop engines. A more efficient engine burns less fuel, which puts less pollutants into the atmosphere. Why is this being ignored?
Click to expand...

Turboprops are actually more fuel efficient. But, the fuel efficiency of aircraft actually improves with size. The Pratt and Whitney Geared Turbofans are, however, quite efficient. They are rumoured to be nearly as fuel efficient as the engines on the Q400. And with the larger size CS100, an airline could effectively move more passengers for only a marginal increase in fuel burn.

In theory, if Porter were to convert to an all-CS100 fleet, their costs wouldn't go much, but revenue would increase substantially. And they might well be able to reduce the number of flights to certain sectors.

I stand by my previous assertions. I live at Bathurst/Fort York today. I have all but forgotten that the airport is down the street. I stand by my assertion, that the bigger issue is General Aviation traffic. Porter's 200 flights a day work out to a departure every 5 minutes or so during operating hours. The GA pilots doing touch and gos are probably more bothersome. Getting rid of GA and developing the rest of the facilities to properly allow commercial aviation there would actually increase passenger capacity, reduce the total number of flights and even free up land (get rid of 06-24). They might also be able to relocate the run-up area and reduce noise impact on the lakeshore.

But opponents are so blinded by their desire to completely shutdown the airport that they can't see to a reasaonable compromise. And that's why they won't be getting very far. I actually think the Union-Pearson Express might actually bolster the case for the Island airport once people see the costs of riding that thing and how little it does for everybody living in the East.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top