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

[EnviroTO]

Toronto Island Airport really isn't sustainable over the longer term. For the amount of land it currently sits on, it is probably already at maximum capacity and even now the volume of traffic isn't enough to pay for any real connection to public transit. As Porter expands and Billy Bishop becomes a smaller piece of their entire operations I wonder how married to that business model they will be. I'm not sure if DeHavilland will restart Dash 8 400 production, there isn't as large a turboprop market as there once was, which leaves a question about what the future holds at this airport. ATR 72 with its lower performance and lift isn't getting good press these days. I like the novelty of flying into Billy Bishop and its central location, but for most trips it really isn't an option.

Until now one of the main reasons to not change anything was there was an existing agreement in place and ending that agreement early would mean paying out a substantial amount to keep other parties dependent on the agreement whole financially. With the agreement ending in 2033 the end of Toronto Island Airport becomes much more affordable. Legally nobody should be expecting the airport to operate beyond 2033... there are no guarantees and there is an agreement to keep the airport open ending at that time.

Connectivity to ground transportation network: Low. Expand-ability: Poor. Number of destinations: Low. Number of airlines: Poor. Compatibility with airline fleets: Poor. Fit with neighbouring environment: Poor. View and Coolness (Kai Tak Factor): High.

 

[turbanplanner]

Toronto Island Airport really isn't sustainable over the longer term. For the amount of land it currently sits on, it is probably already at maximum capacity and even now the volume of traffic isn't enough to pay for any real connection to public transit. As Porter expands and Billy Bishop becomes a smaller piece of their entire operations I wonder how married to that business model. I'm not sure if DeHavilland will restart Dash 8 400 production, there isn't as large a turboprop market as there once was, which leaves a question about what the future holds at this airport. ATR 72 with its lower performance and lift isn't getting good press these days. I like the novelty of flying into Billy Bishop and its central location, but for most trips it really isn't an option.

Until now one of the main reasons to not change anything was there was an existing agreement in place and ending that agreement early would mean paying out a substantial amount to keep other parties dependent on the agreement whole financially. With the agreement ending in 2033 the end of Toronto Island Airport becomes much more affordable. Legally nobody should be expecting the airport to operate beyond 2033... there are no guarantees and there is an agreement to keep the airport open ending at that time.

Connectivity to ground transportation network: Low. Expand-ability: Poor. Number of destinations: Low. Number of airlines: Poor. Compatibility with airline fleets: Poor. Fit with neighbouring environment: Poor. View and Coolness (Kai Tak Factor): High.

Isn't the Q400 going to be built in AB?

De Havilland plans new assembly site near Calgary, Dash 8 and Twin Otter reboot unsettled

De Havilland Canada has revealed plans to build a massive new manufacturing site near Calgary where it will assemble aircraft including its newly launched DHC-515 water bomber.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

Isn't the Q400 going to be built in AB?

De Havilland plans new assembly site near Calgary, Dash 8 and Twin Otter reboot unsettled

De Havilland Canada has revealed plans to build a massive new manufacturing site near Calgary where it will assemble aircraft including its newly launched DHC-515 water bomber.

www.flightglobal.com

I thought the Q400 is still a Bombardier type. The Dash 7, Otter, etc. are to be built at Vikings Calgary works.

 

[EnviroTO]

Isn't the Q400 going to be built in AB?

De Havilland plans new assembly site near Calgary, Dash 8 and Twin Otter reboot unsettled

De Havilland Canada has revealed plans to build a massive new manufacturing site near Calgary where it will assemble aircraft including its newly launched DHC-515 water bomber.

www.flightglobal.com

It is a possibility in that they have the rights to built it. I think the Twin Otter line has started but I haven't heard any news that DH have the stars aligned to restart Dash 8 400s. There is no doubt restarting that line in a completely new location and the fact that except for support parts many parts have also stopped being produced there will be a cost to get started again that will need to be justified by a significant number of orders. I can see a relaunch if the PWC hybrid electrics come to market because that would expand the market vs only serve dwindling fleet renewals.

 

[rdaner]

Interesting. I noticed that there is mention of potential development on a portion of this. And this would turn someone into an income generating agency thus ensuring its existence.

Something else that occurs to me is the potential for a cruise ship terminal at this location. Cruise passenger traffic is exploding and the current facility is inadequate and in a bit of a remote location. Montreal, Halifax and SJ all have ambitious central facilities that I guarantee all parties involved have become intrigued by.

I would like to see the Federal government exited from this quagmire to simplify things. Unlikely though.

 

[lenaitch]

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!!

The Boeing (Pan Am) Clipper and its contemporaries were a fairly niche service that tried to re-create the atmosphere of passenger sailing (berths, fine dining, lots of space). Any newer version would similarly be fairly niche at a time when commercial service needs to maximize volume and minimize costs.

To be sure, you can put floats on pretty much anything, but at a high cost in terms of aerodynamics, payload and range.

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.

Typically, at high power settings, for longer periods, and finer blade pitch to overcome the added drag of water. That and sound travels well over open water.

Something else that occurs to me is the potential for a cruise ship terminal at this location. Cruise passenger traffic is exploding and the current facility is inadequate and in a bit of a remote location. Montreal, Halifax and SJ all have ambitious central facilities that I guarantee all parties involved have become intrigued by.

Any salt water cruise ships wanting to enter the Great Lakes would be limited by the dimensions of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

 

[rdaner]

The Boeing (Pan Am) Clipper and its contemporaries were a fairly niche service that tried to re-create the atmosphere of passenger sailing (berths, fine dining, lots of space). Any newer version would similarly be fairly niche at a time when commercial service needs to maximize volume and minimize costs.

To be sure, you can put floats on pretty much anything, but at a high cost in terms of aerodynamics, payload and range.


Typically, at high power settings, for longer periods, and finer blade pitch to overcome the added drag of water. That and sound travels well over open water.


Any salt water cruise ships wanting to enter the Great Lakes would be limited by the dimensions of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

I was referring to the current boom in Great Lakes cruises such as those offered by Viking.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I was referring to the current boom in Great Lakes cruises such as those offered by Viking.

I took a 14-day Viking cruise in 2022 from Stockholm to several Baltic ports and ending in Bergen. It was an amazing. No kids, no casinos, no art shows, no photographer chasing you to peddle pics, no fees for special restaurants, no charges for alcoholic drinks or food, etc. and everyone gets a balcony. And the price is high enough, yet still affordable to attract similarly minded and educated folks. They offered a military history seminar as we sailed past the Oslo Forts and a retired CIA agent presented on the Cold War. It was so much fun.

 

[Amare]

I thought the Q400 is still a Bombardier type. The Dash 7, Otter, etc. are to be built at Vikings Calgary works.

Bombardier is completely out of the passenger aircraft business, they have nothing to do with it and DeHavilland has the full rights to it. For all intents and purposes, they will be going ahead with producing the planes once the manufacturing facility in Alberta is complete.

 

[Rainforest]

Connectivity to ground transportation network: Low. Expand-ability: Poor. Number of destinations: Low. Number of airlines: Poor. Compatibility with airline fleets: Poor. Fit with neighbouring environment: Poor. View and Coolness (Kai Tak Factor): High.

Connectivity to ground transportation is pretty good. Frequent streetcar #509, then a 170 m work to the entrance. Flying out of / into Pearson involves much longer walks.

Number of destinations and number of airlines: Low, because only the most popular destinations are served. This is a feature, not a shortcoming.

Fit with neighbouring environment: does any commercial airport fit well?

Agreed re. poor expand-ability and poor compatibility with fleets.

 

[Dr. Snoot]

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).

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/the-12-cities-with-the-most-trees-around-the-world/

The airport will stay and should stay now that PIckering is pretty much abandoned and Buttonville closed down. Stick it to them islanders.

The issue isn't the number of parks or trees in the entirety of Toronto, but where the parks and trees are concentrated.

High Park and the Don Valley are nowhere near downtown. It is well documented that downtown Toronto is hugely park-deficient. There is little vacant land land left to turn into parkland and purchasing property is prohibitively expensive. As such, we need to find space somewhere. Billy Bishop is an obvious location.

Of course, there's the access issue, but this is one part of a much larger puzzle. If we want to protect the land for a park, we need to do it now before the airport agreement is renewed for another 30-40 years.

The island residents argument is a red herring. The point of the article is that Billy Bishop serves an extremely small segment of the population, is sitting on prime land that would give a better return on investment if it were parkland, and that Pearson is now very accessible from downtown.

I don't often agree with Alex, but his article makes perfect sense.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The issue isn't the number of parks or trees in the entirety of Toronto, but where the parks and trees are concentrated.

High Park and the Don Valley are nowhere near downtown. It is well documented that downtown Toronto is hugely park-deficient. There is little vacant land land left to turn into parkland and purchasing property is prohibitively expensive. As such, we need to find space somewhere. Billy Bishop is an obvious location.

Of course, there's the access issue, but this is one part of a much larger puzzle. If we want to protect the land for a park, we need to do it now before the airport agreement is renewed for another 30-40 years.

The island residents argument is a red herring. The point of the article is that Billy Bishop serves an extremely small segment of the population, is sitting on prime land that would give a better return on investment if it were parkland, and that Pearson is now very accessible from downtown.

I don't often agree with Alex, but his article makes perfect sense.

Purely being a devil's advocate here but how many people live on the island? If 2 million people per year using the airport is an extremely small segment, than what does that make the 700 residents of the islands?

 

[Dr. Snoot]

Purely being a devil's advocate here but how many people live on the island? If 2 million people per year using the airport is an extremely small segment, than what does that make the 700 residents of the islands?

If you want to kick off the island residents, have at it, but how is it relevant to whether Billy Bishop is better used as a private airport or public space?

For context, 1.5 million people visit the Toronto Islands each year. If Billy Bishop were turned into parkland with better public access, this would undoubtedly increase.

 

[picard102]

High Park and the Don Valley are nowhere near downtown. It is well documented that downtown Toronto is hugely park-deficient. There is little vacant land land left to turn into parkland and purchasing property is prohibitively expensive. As such, we need to find space somewhere. Billy Bishop is an obvious location.

If Pearson is "very accessible" from downtown, then so is High Park and the Don Valley. The latter being the boundary of downtown itself.

 

[just east of the creek]

The issue isn't the number of parks or trees in the entirety of Toronto, but where the parks and trees are concentrated.

High Park and the Don Valley are nowhere near downtown. It is well documented that downtown Toronto is hugely park-deficient. There is little vacant land land left to turn into parkland and purchasing property is prohibitively expensive. As such, we need to find space somewhere. Billy Bishop is an obvious location.

Of course, there's the access issue, but this is one part of a much larger puzzle. If we want to protect the land for a park, we need to do it now before the airport agreement is renewed for another 30-40 years.

The island residents argument is a red herring. The point of the article is that Billy Bishop serves an extremely small segment of the population, is sitting on prime land that would give a better return on investment if it were parkland, and that Pearson is now very accessible from downtown.

I don't often agree with Alex, but his article makes perfect sense.

How exactly do you measure the RIA on turning BB into pure parkland? It is an airport in the top ten within Canada (no 8 or 9 I believe) in terms of travellers, so not imaterial. And can you define an 'extremely small segment' of the population? And do they not count? Or maybe they should have a higher or lower weighting depending on this segment?

Do not get me wrong. I am not blindly against the lands of BB being changed? But to what? Olympic villages, geared to income housing, pure parkland, some version of all? They have all been discussed and all have worthy attributes. But to dismiss an improved BB as not worthy of consideration is also wrong.

I would also point out that the Island's are not really a close destination park for those downtown - downtown being where? The city and province have been creating parklands - Tommy Thompson, Downsview etc, to add to those that exist and are being improved, such as the Don Valley Parks. But those also would not really be categorized as 'downtown parks'. But they are parks, and really terrific parks at that. And bound to become better as further services are added in the Portlands and the Downsview area. I am not including Ontario Place, which could be a focal point for a vastly improved and expanded public park, but Doug has his friends to keep happy, so that is not in the cards.

And if you are going to say goodbye to BB based on some RIA figure, how do you justify the continuation of the Island residents in their cottages? If you are looking to expand parkland, that is the first option.