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

[Northern Light]

Who is paying for Option 1 if that's what they go with?

Ports Toronto via the Airport Improvement Fee and Borrowing, the latter, subject to sufficient borrowing authority conferred by the Federal Government.

* Option one is less costly, and there may be sufficient reserves (within Ports Toronto) to cover all or a substantial portion of it.

 

[rdaner]

I still don’t understand why extending the western end of the runway more to minimize eastern extension isn’t an option?! Technical reason?

 

[Northern Light]

I have work to do, so I haven't watched all the deputations.........but I did manage a couple (Ports Toronto and Nieuport, to see how Committee members handled them) .

I will say, I found it incredibly obvious who has been lobbied heavily by those same interested parties.......

 

[mburrrrr]

I have work to do, so I haven't watched all the deputations.........but I did manage a couple (Ports Toronto and Nieuport, to see how Committee members handled them) .

I will say, I found it incredibly obvious who has been lobbied heavily by those same interested parties.......

Lots of interesting input on both sides. The discussion about the 3 options seems insignificant to me.

The Ports want an extension to the 3 party agreement ASAP to get financing to build the City recommended option #1 by July 2027. Ports want the more expensive option #3 to benefit “all” and keep the airport alive.

I think the City will get sued (again) if they approve this RESA work and don’t state their attention to shutdown the airport in 2033.

So if this goes ahead it is a done deal for ~40 more years from 2033 or a waste of money.

I can’t imagine how the City can make any decision.

2077 it is I guess.

 

[generalcanada]

I think the City will get sued (again) if they approve this RESA work and don’t state their attention to shutdown the airport in 2033.

I dont see how. The city isnt obligated to renew the lease. Nor are they obligated to renew it on demand.
I havent fully read the triparte agreement, but theoretically they can hold off for a long time on this right? All the way till at least 2030?

 

[Northern Light]

Lots of interesting input on both sides. The discussion about the 3 options seems insignificant to me.

The significance is, at first blush, mostly tied to the issue of the Tripartite extension.

The Ports want an extension to the 3 party agreement ASAP to get financing to build the City recommended option #1 by July 2027. Ports want the more expensive option #3 to benefit “all” and keep the airport alive.

This statement may require probing. (yes, that is their public position)

I think the City will get sued (again) if they approve this RESA work and don’t state their attention to shutdown the airport in 2033.

The City is under no obligation to renew or extend the agreement beyond 2033; that said, I wouldn't presume that it would be the City that ends up making that decision.

So if this goes ahead it is a done deal for ~40 more years from 2033 or a waste of money.

If RESA option 1 were approved and it came in at ~60M, on paper, there is probably enough revenue to support that choice, if service remains in place up to 2033.

Of course, its entirely possible that if the airport seemed likely to close (or maybe even if it didn't) that certain operators might significantly cut back their schedule at BBTCA.

I can’t imagine how the City can make any decision.

2077 it is I guess.

The City, rigidly speaking, has no practical ability to say 'no' to option 1. It may have some ability to say 'no' to other options; but its key, clear authority is on the subject of the Tripartite Agreement and extending it, or not.

 

[mburrrrr]

I dont see how. The city isnt obligated to renew the lease. Nor are they obligated to renew it on demand.
I havent fully read the triparte agreement, but theoretically they can hold off for a long time on this right? All the way till at least 2030?

The airport would have to close for those commercial airplanes that can’t land without the runway extension in 2027. If Ports spend $60m and the City doesn’t renew the agreement I bet they will get sued. They paid $60 million for the bridge lawsuit which I thought was crazy. How ironic…. Don’t you think.

 

[dowlingm]

The airport would have to close for those commercial airplanes that can’t land without the runway extension in 2027. If Ports spend $60m and the City doesn’t renew the agreement I bet they will get sued. They paid $60 million for the bridge lawsuit which I thought was crazy. How ironic…. Don’t you think.

Lots of people sue lots of people. Look at what going on with Crosstown and now Finch West. Issuance of a statement of claim does not mean victory nor does it even mean what is in is true, or that at a hearing they will press it in all respects.

I favour keeping the airport open and building the RESA but there is a difference between refusing permits capriciously and choosing not to sign a 40 year extension to a contract when you never promised you would.

If the Port want that extension, they can get it the same way Doug Ford got the Gardiner East - offer the Mayor and Council something they want, and which is large enough that most normies in the city would say “yeah, that was worth it”. So, some Port owned land holdings the City might like in the Portlands, close the seaplane base, etc. etc.

There has already been a similar deal where the Port did not resist the removal of the Harbour Lead rail line as part of the East Harbour/LSB East works, which they could have gummed up in the CTA process, but in exchange the city promised to pay to repair a bridge the Port wanted.

 

[DSC]

Here is the final motion passed by Exec last night:

In short, they agreed to the minimal work needed to extend the runway to meet Federal Regs.

 

[Northern Light]

@AlexBozikovic has a good question on 'X' / Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1841326991796056168

(For the preview deprived and the click averse):

I had thoughts on this............(above)

I have work to do, so I haven't watched all the deputations.........but I did manage a couple (Ports Toronto and Nieuport, to see how Committee members handled them) .

I will say, I found it incredibly obvious who has been lobbied heavily by those same interested parties.......

I wonder who Nieuport Aviation have been talking to at City Hall: (From the Lobbyist Registry)

Now..........that makes me wonder who Ports Toronto is talking to...............through Wright Strategies)

Hmmmmm

 

[christiesplits]

@AlexBozikovic has a good question on 'X' / Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1841326991796056168

(For the preview deprived and the click averse):



I had thoughts on this............(above)



I wonder who Nieuport Aviation have been talking to at City Hall: (From the Lobbyist Registry)



View attachment 600882


Now..........that makes me wonder who Ports Toronto is talking to...............through Wright Strategies)



View attachment 600891

Hmmmmm

I think I see a pattern lol.

 

[DSC]

I may be more confused than usual but I read the motion passed by Executive as NOT giving PortsToronto all they ask for and, at least initially, allows only the minimum runway extension that will meet Transport Canada requirements. Not to say that the subsequent Staff reports will not recommend that they be allowed to go further but ...

 

[evandyk]

Tom Gleason might as well have put his own picture on top of that press release instead of Shelley Carroll.

 

[evandyk]

I may be more confused than usual but I read the motion passed by Executive as NOT giving PortsToronto all they ask for and, at least initially, allows only the minimum runway extension that will meet Transport Canada requirements. Not to say that the subsequent Staff reports will not recommend that they be allowed to go further but ...

Yes, to the disappointment of Shelley Carroll.

 

[Northern Light]

I may be more confused than usual but I read the motion passed by Executive as NOT giving PortsToronto all they ask for and, at least initially, allows only the minimum runway extension that will meet Transport Canada requirements. Not to say that the subsequent Staff reports will not recommend that they be allowed to go further but ...

Your understanding is correct........

****

Councillor Carroll put out a statement in favour of extending the Tripartite agreement.

She has made no secret of the fact that issue may come up at Council next week.

McKelvie seems likely to align with her on this if she does so.

The latter has been particularly clear on advocating for option 2/3 over 1.