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

cplchanb said:
well, it would appear that from the original argument that they are unwilling to make concessions on recreation at the expense of business and revenue opportunities...
Click to expand...

Like it or not, the city along with federal and provincial counterparts have made a decision in the 70s to move the central waterfront away from primarily industrial to other uses. The Tripartite Agreement governing the airport is the concession.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Like it or not, the city have made a decision in the 70s to move the waterfront away from primarily industrial to other uses. The Tripartite Agreement governing the airport is the concession.

AoD
Click to expand...

I wouldnt call an airport an industrial application. It is commercial as well as recreational. The TA essentially is a political headlock where all it takes is 1
different ideology to sabotage an entire plan good or bad. I wouldnt really call that a useful concession if at all. It's kind of like the defence sharing act imposed on canada
in the 60s that pretty much forbids it from ever competing with the US again in terms of military equipment development.
 
cplchanb said:
I wouldnt call an airport an industrial application. It is commercial as well as recreational. The TA essentially is a political headlock where all it takes is 1
different ideology to sabotage an entire plan good or bad. I wouldnt really call that a useful concession if at all. It's kind of like the defence sharing act imposed on canada
in the 60s that pretty much forbids it from ever competing with the US again in terms of military equipment development.
Click to expand...

That's argument for the sake of it - airports are often co-located with industrial areas/uses for a reason - and it is about as far away from commercial or recreational use as it can be (nevermind that recreational flying is one element that is being pushed out of the airport).

It's not political deadlock - it is recognizing that there are multiple interested parties in this file. Since one hasn't established the essentialness of this airport to the health of the business sector of this city, I am not sure why the current status quo doesn't suffice.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
That's argument for the sake of it - airports are often co-located with industrial areas/uses for a reason - it is about as far away from commercial or recreational use as it can be (nevermind that recreational flying is one element that is being pushed out of the airport).

It's not political deadlock - it is recognizing that there are multiple interested parties in this file.

AoD
Click to expand...

sure on paper you can say its because of multiple "interested" parties, but you dont need a professor of political science to explain how
partisan these parties are when it comes to scrounging for votes. This was clearly seen post election. where 1 side pitted against the other
and no development whatsoever resulted.
 
cplchanb said:
sure on paper you can say its because of multiple "interested" parties, but you dont need a professor of political science to explain how
partisan these parties are when it comes to scrounging for votes. This was clearly seen post election. where 1 side pitted against the other and no development whatsoever resulted.
Click to expand...

Of course it is on paper - otherwise, why bother having agreements? And it's fairly typical to brand others as partisan as if one is above politics themselves. I mean, one cares to tell me the web of ties between Deluce, TPA and the CPC?

AoD
 
jaybe said:
YTZ was not designed to serve a wider scope. It has always been a small, regional airport. The proposal to extend the runways is a "re-design". As stated elsewhere, the redesign of YTZ would place a significant burden on the surrounding infrastructure, all while we have a well functioning airport only 25 minutes away by rapid transit.

There is more than a small fringe opposed to YTZ redesign. I live in North York and fly regularly from both YYZ and YTZ. While I enjoy the convenience of YTZ, I realize that it is imposing itself on the core. About 1 million passengers use YTZ annually. That number is dwarfed many times over by the number of people who live and play by the waterfront. YTZ does not need to be expanded further.
Click to expand...

If we eventually have faster and more consistent transit access to YYZ (e.g. Airport Transit Hub, UPX without the intermittent stops) it may even render YTZ redundant. I foresee an expiry date on YTZ, even if it's a great airport to fly out of at the moment.
 
I would argue the UPx already makes YTZ largely redundant. it's only about 5 minutes longer on the UPX from Union as YTZ is with the shuttle / walk through the tunnel.

The one thing that is nice about YTZ is its size. It is a lot smaller, which means security lines and walking distances are a lot shorter.
 
DB9 said:
If we eventually have faster and more consistent transit access to YYZ (e.g. Airport Transit Hub, UPX without the intermittent stops) it may even render YTZ redundant. I foresee an expiry date on YTZ, even if it's a great airport to fly out of at the moment.
Click to expand...

I would argue that YTZ is more designed/should be designed to offload some of the regional flights from YYZ. As it can be seen the airport is quickly growing and eventually the capacity will require greater expansion.
Sure it will be faster one day, but YYZ does have size constraints as well.
 
cplchanb said:
I would argue that YTZ is more designed/should be designed to offload some of the regional flights from YYZ. As it can be seen the airport is quickly growing and eventually the capacity will require greater expansion.
Sure it will be faster one day, but YYZ does have size constraints as well.
Click to expand...

If HSR does materialize down the road, the need for regional flights will probably continue to decline. YTZ will never serve as a connector hub airport, so it's only useful for those who's end destination is downtown Toronto.
 
DB9 said:
If HSR does materialize down the road, the need for regional flights will probably continue to decline. YTZ will never serve as a connector hub airport, so it's only useful for those who's end destination is downtown Toronto.
Click to expand...

only if HSR goes east as well. many of the flights out of YTZ goes to Quebec and beyond.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I would argue the UPx already makes YTZ largely redundant. it's only about 5 minutes longer on the UPX from Union as YTZ is with the shuttle / walk through the tunnel.

The one thing that is nice about YTZ is its size. It is a lot smaller, which means security lines and walking distances are a lot shorter.
Click to expand...

I travel a lot for work and my colleagues that live downtown would still rather fly out of Billy Bishop then take the UPX to Pearson.
 
DB9 said:
I would be surprised if HSR doesn't venture east. At the end of the day YTZ serves a niche market, with very limited growth.
Click to expand...

and yet as they are trying to expand the niche we in turn are trying to cut the head off. Seems counter-intuitive....

I wonder how London made their city airport work and here we are doing the same thing and supposedly its doomed to fail....
 
cplchanb said:
and yet as they are trying to expand the niche we in turn are trying to cut the head off. Seems counter-intuitive....
Click to expand...

They're trying to expand the range they can fly to (e.g. LA or YVR) with the runway expansion, which defeats the purpose of a "regional airport". They're trying to create new markets because the existing one is too niche to generate growth. This growth should be handled thru YYZ instead, there's no need to push some of these flights to YTZ.
 
DB9 said:
They're trying to expand the range they can fly to (e.g. LA or YVR) with the runway expansion, which defeats the purpose of a "regional airport". They're trying to create new markets because the existing one is too niche to generate growth.
Click to expand...

well why is that a bad thing? A mini international airport funnelling tourists in from the US is fine. Porter already flies to the US anyways so it's just an expansion of routes. As long as it can be regulated properly
it should be a good thing that it can serve the city tourism better.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top