Allandale25
Senior Member
I looked up in the thread and didn't see the July 17th slide deck posted so here it is. cc @Northern Light
Alex from the Globe tweeted about it.
Alex from the Globe tweeted about it.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
Northern Light
Superstar
For clarity, this is one of three scenarios being examined. As it stands, this is unlikely to be the preferred option, to my understanding.
This one is much more expensive, were it to be pursued, it would almost certainly come with the condition of extending the Tripartite agreement substantially.
Note that in this option there is a discussion of facilitating a future pedestrian path along the airport perimeter, but there is no commitment to undertake that work initially.
Also, such a path, being cumbersome in route was it would be, would be something in excess of 1.5km to reach the Island Park system from the current pedestrian tunnel, a bit over 2.6km to reach Hanlan's Beach.
rdaner
Senior Member
The other interesting thing is that the proponent describes the area as the Island Transport Lands which is new and is an important signal. Btw I see a massive parking garage being proposed here. 
This article is from today:
www.theglobeandmail.com
This article is from today:
The only thing holding us back from Toronto’s best park? An airport
A well-run redesign of the Billy Bishop airport lands could create a beautiful, and distinctively Torontonian, space for cultural programming, good food and even some much-needed housing
www.theglobeandmail.com
Last edited:
CapitalSeven
Senior Member
This just kind of, well, stupid. Has there ever been an actual incident where a plane went into the lake because it failed to come to a stop? Close the place down or grandfather the runway until such time as electric STOL craft become viable.
Northern Light
Superstar
Full column from @AlexBozikovic on the Airport, the Islands, and the opportunity to close the former to create a truly great, much more accessible greenspace.
www.theglobeandmail.com
Good piece.
This is essentially his thesis:
From there he goes on to discuss the extensive lobbying by Ports Toronto and Nieuport Aviation to get the City's agreement on RESA and on a long-term extension to the Tripartite Agreement and Airport land lease.
This line is key to supporting his argument:
"The airport moved just 2 million passengers last year; Toronto Pearson International Airport moved 44.8 million."
He follows that with this, a perfectly reasonable ask:
I don't think there's any question that the majority of any economic value produced by Billy Bishop would simply shift to Pearson in the event of a closure. That's before considering any offset value created by the closure. Said value isn't just parkland/access/tourism........its the removal of the flight path over a large portion of the Portlands, among other areas.
The airport also owns or occupies land on the mainland side for its corral, and public parking.
The only thing holding us back from Toronto’s best park? An airport
A well-run redesign of the Billy Bishop airport lands could create a beautiful, and distinctively Torontonian, space for cultural programming, good food and even some much-needed housing
www.theglobeandmail.com
Good piece.
This is essentially his thesis:
From there he goes on to discuss the extensive lobbying by Ports Toronto and Nieuport Aviation to get the City's agreement on RESA and on a long-term extension to the Tripartite Agreement and Airport land lease.
This line is key to supporting his argument:
"The airport moved just 2 million passengers last year; Toronto Pearson International Airport moved 44.8 million."
He follows that with this, a perfectly reasonable ask:
I don't think there's any question that the majority of any economic value produced by Billy Bishop would simply shift to Pearson in the event of a closure. That's before considering any offset value created by the closure. Said value isn't just parkland/access/tourism........its the removal of the flight path over a large portion of the Portlands, among other areas.
The airport also owns or occupies land on the mainland side for its corral, and public parking.
just east of the creek
Active Member
I hold very mixed opinions on this subject.Full column from @AlexBozikovic on the Airport, the Islands, and the opportunity to close the former to create a truly great, much more accessible greenspace.
The only thing holding us back from Toronto’s best park? An airport
A well-run redesign of the Billy Bishop airport lands could create a beautiful, and distinctively Torontonian, space for cultural programming, good food and even some much-needed housing
Good piece.
This is essentially his thesis:
View attachment 588906
From there he goes on to discuss the extensive lobbying by Ports Toronto and Nieuport Aviation to get the City's agreement on RESA and on a long-term extension to the Tripartite Agreement and Airport land lease.
This line is key to supporting his argument:
"The airport moved just 2 million passengers last year; Toronto Pearson International Airport moved 44.8 million."
He follows that with this, a perfectly reasonable ask:
View attachment 588907
I don't think there's any question that the majority of any economic value produced by Billy Bishop would simply shift to Pearson in the event of a closure. That's before considering any offset value created by the closure. Said value isn't just parkland/access/tourism........its the removal of the flight path over a large portion of the Portlands, among other areas.
The airport also owns or occupies land on the mainland side for its corral, and public parking.
On one hand as a traveller and business person, BBA is so much superior to Pearson for short haul within Canada, the Eastern and Midwest USA. Access is a breeze, custom’s a breeze, and access to the downtown core a breeze. Business travel in Canada is an 25 billion dollar slice of the travel pie and growing by over 10% per year. And so why should not travel nodes cater to this business? And with the easy shuttle service to Union, accessing the airport is very simple. And still superior to Pearson (until Pearson becomes a true transit hub with service destinations outside of Union) for those west of the city.
On the other hand, with changes to the ferry and tunnel currently in use, this part of the island could certainly become exceptional park land on the lake, lake access being a premium destination for so many, or an Olympic Village (talked about on other threads in conjunction with the possibilities of holding the Olympics centred in the GTA) that transitions into housing, or (in part) a neighbourhood of geared to differing income levels co-op housing to help to address the cities deficiencies in access to housing at lower and medium income levels.
And in time ( maybe a looooong time), Pearson itself can, and most likely will gain improved access to other destinations outside of the car or Union Station. It’s a reach to ever think it might ever have the connectivity of say Schiphol, but incrementally we are, we can, and we should make progress.
Partnering the closure of the Island Airport with new fast connections to the Kitchener GO, and an extension of the Finch LRT to the airport would begin to address that need for improved connections.
From any perspective, the perspectives for growth and improvement are varied and possible, and politically, most intriguing.
just east of the creek
Active Member
Another thought that came to me was the use of seaplanes. Yes, ok, way outside the box. And in part, the views of the recently retired Martin Mars seaplane (last used in a water bombing role in fire fighting) intrigued me.
So retire the BBA runways etc and open BBSA. The Russians have built large jet powered seaplanes, capable of carrying 70 or so passengers. Think of all the accessible cities - Ottawa right at the Parliament buildings, Montreal at the cruise terminal, Boston Harbour, the East River in NY, the Chicago Lakefront, Bedford Basin in Halifax, the Red River in Winnipeg, Lake Nipissing in North Bay, Gillies Lake or Pearl Lake in Timmins/Schumacher…..the list is endless.
Now service in the dead of winter might be problematic but in the age of technology, I am sure this is something that could be worked on.
And there is nothing like watching a Twin Otter accelerating across the lake or harbour (think Harbour Air in Victoria/Vancouver) to attract the tourists. I think the site of a medium sized passenger jet accelerating across Toronto Harbour would be pretty good tourist attraction as well.
So retire the BBA runways etc and open BBSA. The Russians have built large jet powered seaplanes, capable of carrying 70 or so passengers. Think of all the accessible cities - Ottawa right at the Parliament buildings, Montreal at the cruise terminal, Boston Harbour, the East River in NY, the Chicago Lakefront, Bedford Basin in Halifax, the Red River in Winnipeg, Lake Nipissing in North Bay, Gillies Lake or Pearl Lake in Timmins/Schumacher…..the list is endless.
Now service in the dead of winter might be problematic but in the age of technology, I am sure this is something that could be worked on.
And there is nothing like watching a Twin Otter accelerating across the lake or harbour (think Harbour Air in Victoria/Vancouver) to attract the tourists. I think the site of a medium sized passenger jet accelerating across Toronto Harbour would be pretty good tourist attraction as well.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Not an opinion regarding the existence of the airport one way or the other, runway safety areas are an emerging standard worldwide. Even Pearson is regarded as sub-standard. Risk management says you don't wait for an incident.
I'm not familiar with the flight characteristics of electric STOL aircraft and whether they will be any different than current ones.
Waaaay out of the box indeed. The cost of shore facilities would be pretty onerous for some of the small communities listed. I've seen clips of the Russian Be-200 and would imagine those currently concerns over aircraft noise would be apoplectic with that thing. I'm not aware if any are in commercial service. I would think if such a design was considered commercially viable other manufacturers would be all over it. Most current float and amphibious aircraft are comparatively small and slow.
Seasonality would definitely be an issue for anything water-based.
just east of the creek
Active Member
You are correct. It is the BE 200 or similar that I read about. I was envisioning the age of the Pan Am Clipper service from the 1930’s and 40’s. Fun to think about, the thought of landing on the East River in. NY and walking to work, or better still, Hilton Head, and walking over to the clubhouse in time for a round of golf, would find an attraction I am sure amongst the travelling public.. And yes,, a more state of the art aircraft would be needed. I think the Japanese have been working on a jet powered sea plane recently as well. Perhaps a made in Canada solution would be the Bombardier Q series on floats and skins. That would be an interesting option, the Twin Otter on steroids.
We just need a little start up capital!!
We just need a little start up capital!!
Rainforest
Senior Member
Ontario Place is an equally well located parcel of land, and was standing unused for years. Why not build the park and houses there?
What is the necessity to move the Science Centre to downtown, an area that already has many remarkable destinations. Could use the downtown land for the park and houses, while building the new Science Centre in one of the suburbs that currently doesn't have many destinations.
If Billy Bishop needs to close out of necessity - can no longer operate without the Runway Safety Areas, and cannot build RSAs because of the impact on the harbor - so be it.
But, nothing to celebrate here. It is often possible to get cheaper flights out of YTZ than out of YYZ. Apparently the competition between the airports matters, even when all the airlines involved can use Pearson.
What is the necessity to move the Science Centre to downtown, an area that already has many remarkable destinations. Could use the downtown land for the park and houses, while building the new Science Centre in one of the suburbs that currently doesn't have many destinations.
If Billy Bishop needs to close out of necessity - can no longer operate without the Runway Safety Areas, and cannot build RSAs because of the impact on the harbor - so be it.
But, nothing to celebrate here. It is often possible to get cheaper flights out of YTZ than out of YYZ. Apparently the competition between the airports matters, even when all the airlines involved can use Pearson.
6ixGod
New Member
The other interesting thing is that the proponent describes the area as the Island Transport Lands which is new and is an important signal. Btw I see a massive parking garage being proposed here.
This article is from today:
The only thing holding us back from Toronto’s best park? An airport
A well-run redesign of the Billy Bishop airport lands could create a beautiful, and distinctively Torontonian, space for cultural programming, good food and even some much-needed housing
Joined the forum only to say this….
That article is an absolute load of nonsense.
Before Bishop even became a major airport/alternative to Pearson, the islanders were opposing a bridge to the islands to keep people away. Now they claim the airport is preventing them in becoming the “Central Park” of Toronto…..for whom? A few hundred people only while the rest of us can’t access the islands without a ferry?
No thank you, we don’t need Toronto’s “Central Park”….Toronto already blows New York, London and Paris out of the water when it comes to tree canopy/coverage/planted trees. It already has High Park and the entire Don Valley which is arguably better than Central Park if you ask me. Couple this in with Thompson Park and you have yourself ranking 14th in the world when it comes to number of trees in a city (and this is the latest ranking from 2018).
The airport will stay and should stay now that PIckering is pretty much abandoned and Buttonville closed down. Stick it to them islanders.
6ixGod
New Member
Oh really? Except the same people crying about the airport existing also oppose a footbridge to be built to the islands and this has been doing on for decades.
This is just from a few months ago….
Faye Jordan has been on Ward’s Island for four years after spending 26 years on the waiting list for potential homebuyers. Out for a walk on Sunday, she said she couldn’t picture a bridge in the channel, funneling thousands of people through the narrow streets of her neighbourhood.
“Look at this, how tranquil it is,” she said. “It will create chaos.”
‘It will cause chaos’: Pedestrian bridge to the Toronto Islands? Here’s what residents really think of the idea
Maintenance issues with the city elderly ferry fleet and long lines at the Jack Layton Ferry Terminal have led to renewed calls for a more permanent solution to access the area.
www.thestar.com
And this is from 1998…fun fact:
Meanwhile, island residents are standing firm against what they see as the latest threat to their way of life. In the 1950s, they successfully fought a plan by the city to raze a neighborhood on the island and turn it into a park.
The ones who are complaining about the airport existing, also oppose any bridge to the islands and are the same crop of people who opposed the islands becoming a park in the first place.
I was able to find out all this in 10 minutes of google searching, and people at the Globe & Mail actually get paid to write up trash like that?
robmausser
Senior Member
I personally am for the airport and think the people at Wards should be kicked off the island.
What the heck are people doing living on what should be a shared public space? In city owned homes, using sketchy methods to hand the leases of the houses over to friends and family.
It screams of elitism and nepotism and all the things a liberal should be against.
What the heck are people doing living on what should be a shared public space? In city owned homes, using sketchy methods to hand the leases of the houses over to friends and family.
It screams of elitism and nepotism and all the things a liberal should be against.
6ixGod
New Member
Absolutely they should be. They are incredibly rude people, especially to folks who are from out of town and accidentally stroll onto home lawns. Reeks of entitlement and privilage.
dowlingm
Senior Member
I actually think that if enough money is thrown on the table for Chow to alienate some of her core supporters by agreeing to an extension of the Agreement, the seaplane base should be part of the non-cash benefits demanded. Floatplanes are in my view some of the most annoying aircraft movements because they don’t have the same climb rate and thus are lower and noisier over residential neighbourhoods.
I adhere to my prior opinions on this - if the airport wasn’t on the island I wouldn’t build it, but it’s there, and removing it would cost a ton of money before a single sod or tree planted or condo foundation laid. It does remove at least some pressure from YYZ and likely is delaying the advent of Pickering Airport. I do think 06/24 should be closed, leaving 08/26 as the sole runway.
Someone asked about a westward only extension. They seem to want to do this with minimum changes to marine exclusion zones and that wouldn’t be the case if all the change was to the west. I’m not a hydrologist but it seems to me a longer protrusion on one side would have a bigger impact on erosion (Hanlan’s Beach).
The other thing is the overrun risk. They are ruling out Engineered Materials Arresting Surface because they claim the snow removal equipment would damage it. We did have an overrun at Pearson a few years back (AF358) and it would be foolish to think it couldn’t happen at YTZ. The TSB specifically recommended stopping technologies and/or overrun areas as part of that investigation - and it has taken seventeen years (so far) for the Government to give those recommendations force.
I adhere to my prior opinions on this - if the airport wasn’t on the island I wouldn’t build it, but it’s there, and removing it would cost a ton of money before a single sod or tree planted or condo foundation laid. It does remove at least some pressure from YYZ and likely is delaying the advent of Pickering Airport. I do think 06/24 should be closed, leaving 08/26 as the sole runway.
Someone asked about a westward only extension. They seem to want to do this with minimum changes to marine exclusion zones and that wouldn’t be the case if all the change was to the west. I’m not a hydrologist but it seems to me a longer protrusion on one side would have a bigger impact on erosion (Hanlan’s Beach).
The other thing is the overrun risk. They are ruling out Engineered Materials Arresting Surface because they claim the snow removal equipment would damage it. We did have an overrun at Pearson a few years back (AF358) and it would be foolish to think it couldn’t happen at YTZ. The TSB specifically recommended stopping technologies and/or overrun areas as part of that investigation - and it has taken seventeen years (so far) for the Government to give those recommendations force.