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

The problems that neighbours and downtown residents in general have with the BB Airport is not only noise of planes, it's also all the taxis and traffic they generate. Jets are generally noisier and IF jets are allowed there will be more take-offs and landings and more cars/taxis. The current rules for the airport have the effect of limiting its attraction and thus its size and we do have a large airport at Pearson which can now be reached easily by a fast (if too expensive) train.
 
nfitz said:
If we would build a bridge, the taxi issue would vanish.
Click to expand...
Nope. The issue is not the taxis at the airport. The issue is the taxis on the way to the airport. There is only one way in and out and it is a four way stoplit intersection one of which is a residential area. The other two of which are a major way for people to move about the city. What we don't want or need is more traffic in this area.
 
georgevicbell said:
Nope. The issue is not the taxis at the airport. The issue is the taxis on the way to the airport. There is only one way in and out and it is a four way stoplit intersection one of which is a residential area. The other two of which are a major way for people to move about the city. What we don't want or need is more traffic in this area.
Click to expand...
Bathurst is an arterial road, in the core of a large city. Nimbys need to remember this.
 
georgevicbell said:
Nope. The issue is not the taxis at the airport. The issue is the taxis on the way to the airport. There is only one way in and out and it is a four way stoplit intersection one of which is a residential area. The other two of which are a major way for people to move about the city. What we don't want or need is more traffic in this area.
Click to expand...

nfitz said:
Bathurst is an arterial road, in the core of a large city. Nimbys need to remember this.
Click to expand...

And it is a bit of a red herring....when the TPA tried to apply to the federal government for $100 million of infrastructure funds to fix the access to the airport and improve the general flow of traffic and people around the airport...the local councillor at the time said that was “inappropriate and ridiculous,” ....that comment came within a week or so of that same councillor speaking against a proposed development (the Loblaws site) in the area precisely because he felt that the flow of traffic and people in the area was not adequate.

There are things that could be done to increase the capacity of the airport but also improve the general road and transit in the area....but I think the lines are drawn on this and it has been simplified/nutted down to "no jets"
 
crs1026 said:
Sound is not the only issue. Particulate emissions from the engines are another concern (jets being much worse in this regard.). And lengthening the runway is a huge impact.
Click to expand...
Turboprops are jet engines, only with a propellor shaft connected to the turbine compressor. The nozzle at the back of the Q400's engines isn't just the exhaust, but also serves to provide a degree of jet thrust.
 
Duck said:
Underground peoplemover from the airport to the nearest major TTC stop?
Click to expand...

Certainly within the realm of the possible....if the new tunnel entrance building had a tunnel north of it running under the drop off loop...up the approach road to QQ a stop of the Harbourfront streetcar would be accessible.

I am sure there are a lot of things that can be done to improve the road network in the area that would benefit the community and, yes, the airport too......but when it was suggested that an approach to the feds for $100 million could move that forward....the local councillor opposed it....his opposition to the airport exceeded his desire to improve the neighbourhood for his constituents....or so it seemed to me.
 
DSC said:
and IF jets are allowed there will be more take-offs and landings
Click to expand...

Where is this line of reasoning coming from? Last I checked they were not asking to modify the number of slots they were allowed per day. The Jets would replace some turbo-prop flights.
 
I'm not a fan of the shallow NIMBY-ism that produced this decision but now that the decision appears to be final I wonder what the future of the Island Airport will be.

Porter, which for the moment I'm crudely eliding with the Airport for convenience, couldn't be worth more than a few hundred million dollars in its current form. That seems like a glaring under-utilization of space so close to the downtown core with so much potential. Harbour City imagined 60,000 people living in the area.

Of course, the NIMBYs who objected to jets would probably immolate themselves in protest f they found out 60,000 people were moving in instead.

Relatedly, the City should consider buying Downsview Airport. The value of whatever minimal production will be left there would be negligible as against the option of building a massive new community located next to 3 subway stations and a GO station.

From my perspective, the number one challenge in this city is the lack of affordable urban housing. Unexpectedly, Bombardier and Porter's vulnerability could give us an opportunity to open up two of the largest development sites in the 416.
 
cplchanb said:
I think its best to wait for the final INDEPENDENT report come out on the exact impact of this specific jet on the waterfront before we make any more claims or conclusions.
but IMO, I rather hear the roar of a jet than the sputtering of a prop regardless of the decibel. The noise pitch of a turboprop just irks me...
Click to expand...

Why do I need to wait for a report? It is a 100% not-needing-final-INDEPENDENT-report-verification fact that the impact of landing a jet at Toronto City is a multi-100s of metres runway extension. Since IMHO the harbour is already very small and tightly restricted, and no study is going to say we should reclaim part of the airport for new yacht slips, this is a one way study - expansion or not.

And, the counter-argument is to expand the number of places planes can fly from YTZ. Since I don't care if Porter succeeds, and I find YYZ to be a perfectly nice airport experience for travel, this report is going to be useless in persuading me that YTZ needs expansion. And I'm not even a lefty activist who would blow the thing up!

So, what do advocates need to do to persuade the rest of us that expansion is not a bad thing? Forget the Bombardier/jobs argument: no one cares. But, if Ports Toronto says, we'll spend 100s of millions on the Island Park, noise mitigation, rerouting pleasure boat access, Bathurst Quay traffic and TTC access, etc. then maybe they persuade the middle-grounders. Maybe. But they haven't even started to try that route.
 
picard102 said:
Where is this line of reasoning coming from? Last I checked they were not asking to modify the number of slots they were allowed per day. The Jets would replace some turbo-prop flights.
Click to expand...

http://business.financialpost.com/n...es-plan-for-downtown-toronto-airport-overhaul

Maybe Porter changed its mind, but it was asking for 50 extra slots when it made its first 'expand the airport for jets' application. Also, c'mon. The point for Porter, Air Canada, WestJet, and Ports Toronto is to have as much airport as they can wrestle from the City. To say that they're going to spend all that money to expand the airport and then not want to fly more planes? Seriously? Why would they do that? And, why would they tell you they want to do that at this point? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but that just seems like willful head-in-the-sand thinking.
 
diminutive said:
I'm not a fan of the shallow NIMBY-ism that produced this decision but now that the decision appears to be final I wonder what the future of the Island Airport will be.

Porter, which for the moment I'm crudely eliding with the Airport for convenience, couldn't be worth more than a few hundred million dollars in its current form. That seems like a glaring under-utilization of space so close to the downtown core with so much potential. Harbour City imagined 60,000 people living in the area.

Of course, the NIMBYs who objected to jets would probably immolate themselves in protest f they found out 60,000 people were moving in instead.

Relatedly, the City should consider buying Downsview Airport. The value of whatever minimal production will be left there would be negligible as against the option of building a massive new community located next to 3 subway stations and a GO station.

From my perspective, the number one challenge in this city is the lack of affordable urban housing. Unexpectedly, Bombardier and Porter's vulnerability could give us an opportunity to open up two of the largest development sites in the 416.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha... seriously, the future of the Island Airport is to be a very good city-centre regional airport that provides a second option to Pearson for travel to Eastern and Mid-Western North American destinations. Porter will have to either (a) see whether it can expand without its sugar daddy Ports Toronto at another airport or (b) be happy with being a Toronto-centric regional carrier or (c) sell itself to AC/WJ/other.

As for shutting the airport in favour of housing, why would you do that instead of funding the massive build-out Waterfront Toronto has planned? That way, you can keep your airport, get your affordable housing built through a sympathetic agency (Ports Toronto is nothing if not profit driven), and get smiles from the NIMBYs with all that new parkland. Win-win!
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
So, what do advocates need to do to persuade the rest of us that expansion is not a bad thing? Forget the Bombardier/jobs argument: no one cares. But, if Ports Toronto says, we'll spend 100s of millions on the Island Park, noise mitigation, rerouting pleasure boat access, Bathurst Quay traffic and TTC access, etc. then maybe they persuade the middle-grounders. Maybe. But they haven't even started to try that route.
Click to expand...

Amen. The Porter application seems to intersect with the overall approach developers are using (successfully) in this city .... propose an extra ten stories on every building (official plan be damned) and see how much you can get away with. Leave it to the City to try and whittle you down to size or extract some more positives.

Its time for Porter to dig deeper and make their "best offer"...... where they put a whole bunch of positive things on the table.

For me the issue is - there is some threshold where the quality of downtown Toronto is undone by too many planes (jet or prop). Right now, one notices the planes, but it's a momentary thing ("oh, there's a plane) that's immediately forgotten. I don't know at what point it becomes "What? Another one?" , but it makes sense to be cautious and make small moves. Even 50 additional slots of prop planes may be a bad thing. It will be very difficult to undo whatever volume is granted to Porter or others.

I use both YYZ and YTZ (and much prefer YTZ, for convenience and closer to where I live) but I'm comfortable with having to trek out to YYZ for my longer flights. Keeping YTZ to the regional destinations is fine with me, and the market for those flights is large enough that the airport is viable without the longer hauls. Porter's desire to make more money isn't very compelling.

- Paul
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
http://business.financialpost.com/n...es-plan-for-downtown-toronto-airport-overhaul

Maybe Porter changed its mind, but it was asking for 50 extra slots when it made its first 'expand the airport for jets' application. Also, c'mon. The point for Porter, Air Canada, WestJet, and Ports Toronto is to have as much airport as they can wrestle from the City. To say that they're going to spend all that money to expand the airport and then not want to fly more planes? Seriously? Why would they do that? And, why would they tell you they want to do that at this point? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but that just seems like willful head-in-the-sand thinking.
Click to expand...
Is that link supposed to show that they are asking for 50 more slots.....because it doesn't. Is there any evidence that they are asking for more slots as part of this runway expansion and jets, within certain noise parameters, being allowed?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top