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

DSC said:
Of course someone COULD do this though why anyone would think it was a good use of funds is really beyond me. If you can afford to fly and can't walk 200 metres to transit you can probably afford to take a taxi all the way home or even use the (free) shuttle all the way to Union. Many things COULD be done but I have no doubt there are MANY with a FAR higher priority than this.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree its unnecessary.
 
robmausser said:
Absolutely agree its unnecessary.
Click to expand...
oh please, if the the Line 1 Union stop was 200 exposed meters away from the VIA Rail at Union station, you’d all be complaining about how embarrassing that is. OP made a good point - once again, the TTC is made the least attractive option due to cheap and lazy infrastructure planning. Even a full covered walkway to the faux-LRT like from the old Schonefeld airport to the Sbahn in Berlin would suffice
 
From an article from March 2022:
Gene Cabral, executive vice president of PortsToronto and Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport noted that “the effort to have US CBP Preclearance at Billy Bishop Airport has been underway for many years, but there have been some challenges along the way associated with the implementation of the service and associated costs that ultimately would be passed on to our customers.” Cabral said PortsToronto is working with stakeholders such as Porter Airlines and Nieuport Aviation in trying to work through these costs to prioritize the service implementation.
Click to expand...
Guess we can't expect US pre-clearance anytime soon
 
I'm intrigued by how the extent of Nieuport's recent lobbying, there stepping up the frequency of contact.

Point people in the last month; Councillor Bradford, Councillor Carroll and Deputy Mayor McKelvie.
 
stanko said:
From an article from March 2022:

Guess we can't expect US pre-clearance anytime soon
Click to expand...

US CCP would require that part of the terminal be able to be segregated off from the rest of the terminal. Not to mention the space needed for the customs facilities.

The island airport terminal is really small, I don't think it can accommodate the needed space.
 
The issue is not the physical layout of the terminal (it was built for preclearance from day one and the floor space exists for it). It's more that there are a lot of onerous costs and other requirements for a preclearance station. Not to mention the Americans never seem to be able to staff the preclearance stations at Pearson properly, to the point where wait times at peaks (early mornings especially) are sometimes worse than at the big US hubs in the Europe widebody arrival peaks. Preclearance is really most useful for 1) serving airports without customs (ie Laguardia) and 2) easier connections at the US hubs (as anyone who has navigated the international connection maze and terminal transfer at O'Hare can attest to), neither of are really super critical to Porter's operation.
 
Her stance has been quite clear over the years. I don’t think she would lead a movement to close it, but I think she would support it. The tripartite agreement makes things tricky, to say the least, so I don’t see her identifying this as a priority. There are plenty of other issues to keep her busy.
 
robmausser said:
She will have to maintain another election because the renewal isn't up until 2030.
Click to expand...

2033

But decisions will have to be taken far sooner.

Porter is shifting a lot of operations to Pearson for a reason.

The aircraft of near-tomorrow will not operate on the Billy Bishop runway of today.

I've dropped plenty of hints...........

Discussions have started.
 
Northern Light said:
The aircraft of near-tomorrow will not operate on the Billy Bishop runway of today.
Click to expand...
You sure about that?

Because low/zero emission aircraft, be they hydrogen, electric or just high efficiency are prone to be more amenable to sites like the island than the bulk of what's flying today...
 
Bureaucromancer said:
You sure about that?

Because low/zero emission aircraft, be they hydrogen, electric or just high efficiency are prone to be more amenable to sites like the island than the bulk of what's flying today...
Click to expand...

I can't speak to aircraft that are not in wide circulation in the commercial industry today.

I can speak to the aircraft Porter ordered which require a longer runway.

****

At any rate, can we not get into a forest/trees thing............ talks are happening. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
Northern Light said:
At any rate, can we not get into a forest/trees thing...
Click to expand...
I do think we need to know what the alternative to an airport is. Some would like a park with trees, while others might like a dense urban forest. But I think that with the surplus of greenspace already surrounding the airport, that this is the ideal spot for dense residential development with a good portion of community housing.

Northern Light said:
LOL
Click to expand...
LOL indeed!
 
nfitz said:
I do think we need to know what the alternative to an airport is. Some would like a park with trees, while others might like a dense urban forest. But I think that with the surplus of greenspace already surrounding the airport, that this is the ideal spot for dense residential development with a good portion of community housing.

LOL indeed!
Click to expand...
My take is that we should keep the airport, but redevelop everything south of the main runway as affordable housing. Serve the airport with an underground streetcar looping at the Hanlan’s dock and keep the islands car free.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top