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

kEiThZ said:
Extending the runway would only add marginal number of new destinations. A good chunk of that would be northern Ontario. You might see some longer flights (Winnipeg and Halifax), but really, not enough to make the airport a "big airport". It'll never even come close to London City.

Really, I get that people would rather the airport died. That's really the truth of it. Why sugarcoat it? What we should focus the debate on, is keeping the city connected to other regional urban centres, if we want to junk YTZ. I don't really care whether I take a plane or train to Montreal or New York, as long as I get there in sufficient time to do business. That's what matters.
Click to expand...

Then why extend the runway at all? Which is what Beez is getting at & I agree with -- this is a decent piece of transport infrastructure now. It doesn't need to get bigger.
 
picard102 said:
How does extending the runway make it a large airport? What number of flights in large?
Click to expand...

http://www.thestar.com/news/2015/03/31/jets-at-island-airport-couldnt-happen-until-2019-report.html

"The number of daily takeoff and landing slots would likely increase substantially from the current 202 to 242, potentially boosting traffic to 5.5 million passengers a year. Currently, 2.4 million passengers a year use the island airport,"

"We would be bigger than Ottawa’s airport."
 
kEiThZ said:
Extending the runway would only add marginal number of new destinations. A good chunk of that would be northern Ontario. You might see some longer flights (Winnipeg and Halifax), but really, not enough to make the airport a "big airport".
Click to expand...

You're wrong. New destinations is precisely what jet expansion is about. Not increased service to Northern Ontario!! Jets = longer range.

Really, I get that people would rather the airport died. That's really the truth of it. Why sugarcoat it?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Personally, if there were no airport there at all, I would not vote to start one. But neither would I vote to remove the existing facilities.
 
picard102 said:
How does extending the runway make it a large airport?
Click to expand...
That's a fair enough question. I lived three years in Fredericton, NB, where the airport has 6,000 ft and 8,005 ft runways, but the terminal was tiny and the number of civilian flights rather small. The runway was long due to the needs of CFB Gagetown.

So, no, a longer runway itself does not necessarily make it a large airport.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
That's a fair enough question. I lived three years in Fredericton, NB, where the airport has 6,000 ft and 8,005 ft runways, but the terminal was tiny and the number of civilian flights rather small. The runway was long due to the needs of CFB Gagetown.

So, no, a longer runway itself does not necessarily make it a busy airport.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha.... what's the debate team's name for that technique? "Pointing out the obvious flaws in an opponent's argument by nominally conceding a point with an example that points out the obvious flaws."
 
picard102 said:
It's because people don't want the airport to exist, period. They're up in arms about "paving over the lake", while living on lake fill.
Click to expand...
A runway extension to the east impinges on existing activities in Toronto Harbour. There are issues around what impact an extension would have on maximum developable heights in the Portlands. I fly Porter and would do so again but I won't pretend these issues don't matter. Bob Deluce said he didn't need jets or a runway extension. Now he wants to come back for more. Well, sorry Bob. The status quo is what a plurality in Toronto can live with.
 
Duck said:
Also, please explain why enlarging the airport is bad and verboten. Is it because some of the nude beach would have to go?
Click to expand...
I've never used Hanlan's but I don't think it's useful to say the concerns of people who do are of no import. The reality is that an extension impinges on a bunch of different groups and property owners and it's up to the airport to justify superceding those.

Duck, you seem to have been annoyed by my answering your post upthread "because it's isn't 100m". Imagine my irritation therefore at you throwing "100m" into the discussion when you clearly haven't made yourself familiar with the scale of what is being proposed. That, to me, is the dick move.
 
bobbob911 said:
And to the west may very well impinge on whatever is being planned for Ontario Place.
Click to expand...
Possible, but I don't think it would do so as directly since Ont. Place is north of the runway. The marine exclusion zone would move which would annoy the boat clubs, but at least in the open lake there are more navigation options than within the harbour itself. To be honest, ambitions are so low for Ont Place (and talk so muted since the city election) that I find it difficult to give a damn what ends up there now.
 
dowlingm said:
Possible, but I don't think it would do so as directly since Ont. Place is north of the runway. The marine exclusion zone would move which would annoy the boat clubs, but at least in the open lake there are more navigation options than within the harbour itself. To be honest, ambitions are so low for Ont Place (and talk so muted since the city election) that I find it difficult to give a damn what ends up there now.
Click to expand...

The Western Gap is about 400M wide at its mouth. Extending the runway by 200M will take up nearly half of that gap. the MEZ extends significantly further, restricting that waterway even more. If there is a promenade or boardwalk planned for the south-eastern portion of Ontario Place lands, you will be extremely close to a jet flight path - far closer than at downtown harbourfront.
 
I think the East side is the one part of Ontario Place where we know what is happening and it is even under construction.

http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/ontarioplace/vision.shtml

upload_2015-11-27_10-41-8.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-11-27_10-41-8.png
    upload_2015-11-27_10-41-8.png
    788.2 KB · Views: 372
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...on-for-opposition-in-ontario/article27505191/

Looks like the runway extension is dead, or at least 'dead until next Conservative majority'. I'll not be surprised if PortsToronto gets packed with Liberal supporters (as was the last go-round with Conservative supporters) and the whole complexion of the conversation around the harbour changes. I blue-skyed WT taking over planning and operations in the harbour... maybe not so fanciful now.
 
Last edited:
Mr. McNaughton says he has heard stories the federal government quickly shut down any chance of expansion to appease Mr. Vaughan for not naming him to cabinet.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. More surprised that it's all it took to keep him quiet, but maybe there will be a federal ban on Walmart's within 100 km of civilization that bought his silence.
 
picard102 said:
Mr. McNaughton says he has heard stories the federal government quickly shut down any chance of expansion to appease Mr. Vaughan for not naming him to cabinet.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. More surprised that it's all it took to keep him quiet, but maybe there will be a federal ban on Walmart's within 100 km of civilization that bought his silence.
Click to expand...

So.... the feds did the right thing, in order to appease Mr. Vaughan? Excellent. What other right things can they do to appease others? This 'Doing the Right Thing' might become... a thing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top