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

[kEiThZ]

If my interpretation was correct, the GTAA master plan says that a sixth runway won't be needed for a long time.

That plan also has no assumptions of a reduction in aviation capacity anywhere in the region. And Pre-Covid, the consultants report recommended considering Pickering, in addition to YTZ.

Much larger airports operate on less runways.

With different rules, climate, etc.

HFR would take out much demand;

Hardly. HFR only improves substantially on trips to Ottawa. And even that is marginally competitive with air.

Most cities around the world have one main airport,

Metro areas of 6-8 million?

 

[afransen]

Didn't say they did. Just that the opposition when this inevitably comes up will be intense. And I'm willing to bet that the folks who are adamant that Billy Bishop be closed will be happy to label any opposition to that as NIMBYs.

I live under the flight path and would be indifferent.

 

[rbt]

Metro areas of 6-8 million?

In Asia (excluding Japan) a single airport is pretty common for cities that size.

Gobs of cities in wealthy regions with less land pressure (Europe and North America) have multiple airports. Of course, Hamilton is considered a Toronto region airport too.

List of cities with more than one commercial airport - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rainforest]

Are we now building or closing down regional infrastructure based entirely on what locals want?

Again, why is this acceptable for YTZ, but not YYZ?

When people rail against "downtown elites", this is the exact kind of inconsistency and hypocrisy that comes to mind. Air traffic over suburbs filled with lower income immigrants (often with kids too)? Just fine. Upper income, more white, millionaire hoods? Well, we can't have that. It's discussions like these that should help everyone understand why politicians like the Fords win.

Yes, you have a point here.

Although it is possible to counter saying that closing YYZ would be a complete disaster from the business perspective. So much tourist revenues and businesses will be gone that Toronto and much of GTA would be drained of fiscal resources. While closing YTZ would reduce the convenience and cause some relatively minor losses, but won't cause a disaster.

Anyway, I hope that the locals will want to keep the airport. It is a convenicence for a fair number of them, and IMHO, a city with a local airport is more interesting than a city without one.

 

[afransen]

Yes, you have a point here.

Although it is possible to counter saying that closing YYZ would be a complete disaster from the business perspective. So much tourist revenues and businesses will be gone that Toronto and much of GTA would be drained of fiscal resources. While closing YTZ would reduce the convenience and cause some relatively minor losses, but won't cause a disaster.

Anyway, I hope that the locals will want to keep the airport. It is a convenicence for a fair number of them, and IMHO, a city with a local airport is more interesting than a city without one.

Toronto has a local airport to the northwest.

 

[kEiThZ]

I live under the flight path and would be indifferent.

Right. But for some reason a flight path along Lakeshore with smaller aircraft is different.

In Asia (excluding Japan) a single airport is pretty common for cities that size.

Many of those airports are multi-billion dollar facilities on artificial islands offshore. Some serving city-states. How much of that context applies in Toronto?

We can spend $20-30B and build a single airport in the middle of Lake Ontario too, if we want a single airport serving the region.

Will add, a lot of Asian and European cities with a single airport also have extensive HSR connections. That mitigates the need for another airport. Exactly the point I've been making here.

Although it is possible to counter saying that closing YYZ would be a complete disaster from the business perspective. So much tourist revenues and businesses will be gone that Toronto and much of GTA would be drained of fiscal resources. While closing YTZ would reduce the convenience and cause some relatively minor losses, but won't cause a disaster.

Which goes back to the hypocrisy I was talking about. There's always some excuse why poorer, darker people have to put up with crap that whiter, wealthier folks shouldn't have to tolerate. And let's be clear, this doesn't go unnoticed by those suburban voters.

Imagine arguing that sending 777s over somebody's house is just fine, while a Q400 half a mile away from your downtown condo needs to be halted.

 

[kEiThZ]

Fascinating figures, but looking at where the need is, it's neither on the islands, or even downtown near the islands. They could make the entire park area parkland, but because it's already surrounded by parkland, both on the islands, and along the shoreline - none of the orange disappears. Not one square metre.

So shouldn't be a priority!

It's also naive to think that the city will turn acres of asphalt today into parkland. People are used to the land being paved over. I don't think it's missed by politicians that 1 bedroom condos in any YTZ redevelopment could go for a million. It will become one of Toronto's most exclusive communities.

 

[Neil]

It's also naive to think that the city will turn acres of asphalt today into parkland. People are used to the land being paved over. I don't think it's missed by politicians that 1 bedroom condos in any YTZ redevelopment could go for a million. It will become one of Toronto's most exclusive communities.

And how would that benefit politicians? (assuming no kickback corruption of course) Most politicians are in their position because of ego. They seek approval and as their careers draw to an end, they are more concerned about legacy than matters of tax-base or real estate development. What would create more legacy? A condo complex or a beautiful lakeside park and recreation transformation?

 

[afransen]

Right. But for some reason a flight path along Lakeshore with smaller aircraft is different.

This really isn't complicated. Going from 100% noise to 120% noise is not a big deal. Going from 100% noise to 0% noise (shutting down BB) is a big deal.

 

[kEiThZ]

This really isn't complicated. Going from 100% noise to 120% noise is not a big deal. Going from 100% noise to 0% noise (shutting down BB) is a big deal.

And that's my point. This is hypocrisy and privilege of the worst kind. Make people who are of a worse socio-economic status suffer more for the benefit of a smaller, wealthier part of the city. And dismiss it all as, "not a big deal".

"Your neighbourhood is already a dump. What's the big deal if I dump more trash there anyway?"

This is a whole lot different than arguing for closure of YTZ after HSR is built and a good chunk of YTZ and YYZ traffic is offset by rail.

 

[kEiThZ]

And how would that benefit politicians?

You ever looked at how much of the donations for municipal politicians comes from the development and realtor communities?

 

[afransen]

And that's my point. This is hypocrisy and privilege of the worst kind. Make people who are of a worse socio-economic status suffer more for the benefit of a smaller, wealthier part of the city. And dismiss it all as, "not a big deal".

"Your neighbourhood is already a dump. What's the big deal if I dump more trash there anyway?"

This is a whole lot different than arguing for closure of YTZ after HSR is built and a good chunk of YTZ and YYZ traffic is offset by rail.

Should we blanket the city in airport approaches to maximize equity? Maybe we should ensure there are industrial uses in every sqkm too? Pearson is mostly surrounded by warehouses and factories, not the most valuable land in the city with great potential for development.

 

[kEiThZ]

Should we blanket the city in airport approaches to maximize equity?

And people accuse me of strawman arguments....

My position has been consistent. Until we build viable alternative infrastructure, high speed rail or a second major airport (say Pickering), it's not in our economic interest to close the airport. Anybody arguing for closure right now it's putting their NIMBY concerns above all else. Including the region's economic interests. The hypocrisy that comes on top is just a bonus.

 

[sixrings]

And people accuse me of strawman arguments....

My position has been consistent. Until we build viable alternative infrastructure, high speed rail or a second major airport (say Pickering), it's not in our economic interest to close the airport. Anybody arguing for closure right now it's putting their NIMBY concerns above all else. Including the region's economic interests. The hypocrisy that comes on top is just a bonus.

I live in Mississauga. I used to live at Bathurst and eglinton. Both places I wouldn’t exactly consider billy bishop my backyard but in both places I oppose the island airport.

 

[kEiThZ]

I live in Mississauga. I used to live at Bathurst and eglinton. Both places I wouldn’t exactly consider billy bishop my backyard but in both places I oppose the island airport.

Are we making regional policy around your preferences?

I don't get the point of such posts.