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

[bobbob911]

But that's not true, because the rest of the city is the one who is deciding on and paying for the SSE. Scarborough residents can yell and scream all they want. They aren't actually deciding.

Wrong - the unanimity of all Scarborough councilors was instrumental in getting this approved (not to mention provincial MPPs in scarborough ridings who were seeking re-election)

Would this be the same City Hall that supported and allowed studies on expansion until quite recently?

Supporting a study is not the same thing as advocating one conclusion or another. Arguably most studies are meant to defer the issue as long as possible and are an implicit vote for the status quo.

The stupidity here is relying on some technological demarcation as opposed to a noise standard. That's the issue I have with it. If the policy goal is to reduce noise at the Island, then set hard standards for noise. And enforce them. Why set standards for types of equipment? Helicopters (which use turbine engines) are allowed to land at BBTCA. Any idea how noisy those are?

You are not wrong here, but you are being obtuse. The issue is not just noise levels and you know it (or you ought to because it has been explained to you several times)

When you have no clue who I am, you should avoid such ridiculous assertions. I lived at Fort York and Spadina, in a waterfront facing condo.

So why on earth would you want to stare out over the water at a monstrous jet blast wall??? Or maybe you don't care any longer because you don't still live there?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

As for Pickering, to be honest, given that it will be a General Aviation airport at first, I would bet money that 90% of residents won't even notice when the airport is first built. They might notice if the place starts taking in some regional traffic. But really, other than a few bizjets, there's zero demand for commercial service based specifically in the East end.

I think Pickering will never get built. Pearson is going to expand to Heathrow size, Billy Bishop will ramp up somewhat on its existing runway, then current regional airports (KW? Hamilton? Maybe Downsview? I don't know, but places where there's already tarmac) will start landing more non-international/non-passenger planes. There's zero appetite for a huge whack of Pickering and the Rouge to be plowed under for business jets. Can you imagine the Greens? The residents? The political fallout? The Feds should put a whack of those lands into their new Rouge National Park, release the rest to Pickering to do what it will with them, and end that farce.

Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't study or even reject some proposals. What's asinine is not studying proposals, or weighing the benefits to the city as a whole. For example, the runway extension proposal could have been had with more noise restrictions on the airport, noise barriers, and even a good chunk of land transfer from the southern half of the airport. Heck, they could have even gotten the runway extension with the no jets policy in place. With a good chunk of all that paid for by the passengers using that airport. But apparently sophisticated policy thinking beyond black/white thinking is beyond us in this town.

BB is a decent-sized regional airport. It doesn't need to extend its runways to serve that function. It's an amazing fantasy from boosters to think that runway extension is somehow 'controllable', and the ability to fly further with more passengers won't immediately bring calls to add slots, because 'demand.' There is no 'grey area' in adding to the runway: think of it as a highway. If you build a new highway, but say that only blue cars will be allowed, owners of red cars will immediately say 'that's absurd!' I can function on that highway! And people who want to drive at night? Why is my road use restricted to daylight hours? That's undemocratic. And on and on.

That's why it's a black/white issue, Keith. Because adding to the runway is not done in incremental steps, and if it's built, it will be used to its fullest.

 

[kEiThZ]

Wrong - the unanimity of all Scarborough councilors was instrumental in getting this approved (not to mention provincial MPPs in scarborough ridings who were seeking re-election)

And yet, it's not under construction? Why? Because no matter what those pols want (to save their own hides), the decision lies with politicians in the rest of the city and province. Glenn De Baeremaeker does not get to wave a wand and build the SSE.

Supporting a study is not the same thing as advocating one conclusion or another. Arguably most studies are meant to defer the issue as long as possible and are an implicit vote for the status quo.

Does that apply to every study or just airport studies? I'd be sad if this applied to the DRL.

You are not wrong here, but you are being obtuse. The issue is not just noise levels and you know it (or you ought to because it has been explained to you several times)

And you are being insulting. If we can't have this discourse in a civil manner, I'm out.

Now, several groups have said this is about noise. Some (like Community AIR) have been blatant that they want the airport closed. But certainly not all. And certainly not all politicians (even from that area) would favour flat out closure. So until, there's consensus that we're having an existential discussion about the airport, it's about noise. That is after all, what the anti-jets campaign was premised on.

So why on earth would you want to stare out over the water at a monstrous jet blast wall??? Or maybe you don't care any longer because you don't still live there?

I didn't care when I lived there. And I don't care now. It's now like looking at the Gardiner (which was behind my building) was somehow far more appealing than the airport. We can't have infrastructure with zero noise and zero visual impact. That's not how cities (successful ones at least) work. Want less noise from the airport? That comes with a visual impact cost.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think Pickering will never get built. Pearson is going to expand to Heathrow size, Billy Bishop will ramp up somewhat on its existing runway, then current regional airports (KW? Hamilton? Maybe Downsview? I don't know, but places where there's already tarmac) will start landing more non-international/non-passenger planes. There's zero appetite for a huge whack of Pickering and the Rouge to be plowed under for business jets. Can you imagine the Greens? The residents? The political fallout? The Feds should put a whack of those lands into their new Rouge National Park, release the rest to Pickering to do what it will with them, and end that farce.

I'm leaning towards it being built simply because of the closure of Buttonville. And the hemming in of Oshawa. It just won't be the large scale commercial airport that people think it will. A small-scale GA initially. The traffic has to go somewhere. And unfortunately, Oshawa can't be expanded.
I also think opposition to Pearson's expansion will grow as that airport grows. Mississauga was virtually a town when they built Pearson. It'll be pushing a million souls in two decades. How much appetite will there be for massive amounts of air traffic over them then?

BB is a decent-sized regional airport. It doesn't need to extend its runways to serve that function. It's an amazing fantasy from boosters to think that runway extension is somehow 'controllable', and the ability to fly further with more passengers won't immediately bring calls to add slots, because 'demand.' There is no 'grey area' in adding to the runway: think of it as a highway. If you build a new highway, but say that only blue cars will be allowed, owners of red cars will immediately say 'that's absurd!' I can function on that highway! And people who want to drive at night? Why is my road use restricted to daylight hours? That's undemocratic. And on and on.

That's why it's a black/white issue, Keith. Because adding to the runway is not done in incremental steps, and if it's built, it will be used to its fullest.

I'm sorry. I just don't agree. London City is an excellent example of an airport that's managed with noise regs that have changed commercial aviation itself. No reason, BBTCA couldn't have been similarly managed. I would have traded the runway extensions for a longer tunnel (under the airfield) to the rest of the airport, and a transfer of airport lands (with closure of the cross runways) to the city (for more park space).

 

[bobbob911]

Does that apply to every study or just airport studies? I'd be sad if this applied to the DRL.

It obviously applies to the DRL studies. Everyone knows the DRL is required, but there's no money for it. Commissioning studies ensures that squaring that circle is perpetually next councils decision....

Now, several groups have said this is about noise. Some (like Community AIR) have been blatant that they want the airport closed. But certainly not all. And certainly not all politicians (even from that area) would favour flat out closure. So until, there's consensus that we're having an existential discussion about the airport, it's about noise. That is after all, what the anti-jets campaign was premised on.

Its about noise *and* its about extending the runway *and* its about the added landing slots *and* its about the increased traffic on the mainland. And probably more issues that I'm not mentioning. That's what the anti-jets campaign was premised on.

I didn't care when I lived there. And I don't care now.

Why did you (presumably) pay extra for a waterfront view if you didn't care about the view???

 

[dowlingm]

When is this VIA taking market share from Porter thing happening? We heard a lot of talk about UPX driving Porter to the wall and that is a service actually doing what it was supposed to do* (well, a couple of minutes slower because of a useful stop at Bloor and a less useful one at Weston)

 

[PinkLucy]

Maybe now that they're offering heavily discounted fares to fill up those empty trains???

 

[dowlingm]

Maybe now that they're offering heavily discounted fares to fill up those empty trains???

I suspect even if fares were reduced to TTC levels, we still won't see many people with suitcases. But we'll see I guess.

 

[kEiThZ]

When is this VIA taking market share from Porter thing happening? We heard a lot of talk about UPX driving Porter to the wall and that is a service actually doing what it was supposed to do* (well, a couple of minutes slower because of a useful stop at Bloor and a less useful one at Weston)

Maybe now that they're offering heavily discounted fares to fill up those empty trains???

I've always said that UPX wouldn't kill Porter. Pearson check in requires at least 1 hr prior. And sometimes as much 2 hrs prior for US flights at peak if you don't have Nexus. All UPX does is make travel time to the airport (Pearson or BBTCA) about the same. But it doesn't make the cost of getting there the same. And it doesn't reduce the pre-flight wait and process times.

The only way Porter gets competition is rail. And on that front if VIA's proposal for whatever they are calling the new VIA Fast goes through, the promised times will be competitive to Ottawa at least and marginally competitive to Montreal. But even in that scenario, Porter then becomes a much more US focused airline with even more service for the financial sector crowd.

 

[kEiThZ]

It obviously applies to the DRL studies. Everyone knows the DRL is required, but there's no money for it. Commissioning studies ensures that squaring that circle is perpetually next councils decision....

So the DRL is dead too. Great. /s

Its about noise *and* its about extending the runway *and* its about the added landing slots *and* its about the increased traffic on the mainland. And probably more issues that I'm not mentioning. That's what the anti-jets campaign was premised on.

I think you're projecting. There were quite a few of the No Jets crowd that actually used Porter. See Matt Elliott's colum in Metro. It's just that some anti-airport folks conflated opposition to jets as opposition to the airport.

Why did you (presumably) pay extra for a waterfront view if you didn't care about the view???

I liked the condo. And it was convenient for me and my roomie to live there. Not everybody pays to live somewhere because of the view. And arguing for preservation of a view, is a rather specious reason to avoid infrastructure investment. It's not like extending the runway by 200m on either side dramatically changes the view.

And I personally wouldn't care about noise barriers. They can be made to look attractive with lighting or artwork. To me the noise tradeoff would certainly have been worthwhile. In any event, it's all moot, since we now decided not just to not extend the runway, but not even to improve the functionality of that airport.

 

[PinkLucy]

There were quite a few of the No Jets crowd that actually used Porter. See Matt Elliott's colum in Metro. It's just that some anti-airport folks conflated opposition to jets as opposition to the airport.

CommunityAir vs NoJets.

 

[bobbob911]

I liked the condo. And it was convenient for me and my roomie to live there. Not everybody pays to live somewhere because of the view. And arguing for preservation of a view, is a rather specious reason to avoid infrastructure investment. It's not like extending the runway by 200m on either side dramatically changes the view.

Not everybody pays to live somewhere because of the view, but most people who opt to pay *more* because of a waterfront view do so because they care about it.

A blast wall extended 200 meters (or more) into the inner harbour would dramatically change the view at ground level.

 

[kEiThZ]

Not everybody pays to live somewhere because of the view, but most people who opt to pay *more* because of a waterfront view do so because they care about it.

A blast wall extended 200 meters (or more) into the inner harbour would dramatically change the view at ground level.

How many people pay for the view at ground level?

And how much would a noise barrier change the view from a condo more than two stories up?

 

[bobbob911]

How many people pay for the view at ground level?

Every taxpayer who enjoys spending time on the waterfront!!!!

 

[dowlingm]

The only way Porter gets competition is rail. And on that front if VIA's proposal for whatever they are calling the new VIA Fast goes through, the promised times will be competitive to Ottawa at least and marginally competitive to Montreal. But even in that scenario, Porter then becomes a much more US focused airline with even more service for the financial sector crowd.

If rail becomes competitive in the Corridor then all the parallel air services take a hit. The thing is, I think Porter's business model runs out of air before fast, frequent VIA is a reality, at which point the question becomes does AC/WS get that custom back at Pearson or do they fill the vacuum at YTZ.