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

[adma]

At the airport the runways and all buildings except for the original terminal building would not be seen as historic and the airport lands would become park and not developed. Much easier to rip up and sod the same way it occurred in Chicago's Meigs Field.

Though actually, I wouldn't be surprised if whenever the time came and they're still around, the old brick hangars to the E and the butterfly-roofed ones to the W might also be deemed worthy of retention, too--and who knows whatever else.

Remember that the opposition has been more t/w the airport as a functioning facility, than t/w the buildings which serve that function per se...

 

[adma]

I find this thinking astonishing, as though respecting the squatters bedtime is more important than activities that would contribute to the waterfront as a social\cultural destination and as a transportation\business centre. 700 privillaged squatters are dictating land use to 5.5 million people. Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Believe it or not, said "squatters" might actually contribute, in their way, to the desirable "social/cultural destination" qualities. More so than angry, disenfranchised conservative grumps who vent on web message boards and don't know how to spell "privileged".

 

[Comrad Miller]

An airport, the sound of turboprops being run up for maintenance, and the smell of jet fuel is appropriate in a public park but a quiet cottage is not?

More people use the island for recreation and relaxation than use the airport.

The world over areas surrounding airports are commonly used for developing recreational areas, because their proximity to an airport land values are lower and they are therefore less suitable for commercial or residential development.

The silos haven't been taken down because they are seen as semi-historic landmarks that represent the ports industrial past and many would like to incorporate them into future developments.

That is a fantasy, the plant was already falling down when it was closed.

At the airport the runways and all buildings except for the original terminal building would not be seen as historic and the airport lands would become park and not developed. Much easier to rip up and sod the same way it occurred in Chicago's Meigs Field.

What happened at Meigs Field was criminal - and still no basis on which to believe that Toronto would be capable of a suitable re-development of the airport. Given how successful Toronto has been at redeveloping the rest of the waterfront there is no reason to believe the airport would be anything but wasteland for decades to come.

Yes. Noise complaints related to the Docks and concerts do come from a very small group of islanders. You have labeled all of the islanders as "squatter scum" whose occupancy should be made as inhospitable as possible. If a large concert was held in Rosedale Park you would also get noise complaints and Rosedale Park and many other parks are also "in the middle of Canada's largest city".

The political relationship between the squatters and the rest of Toronto is unique in that you would be hard pressed to find any group of 700 people anywhere with the political clout the squatters have accumulated due to their close relationship with the NDP.

Everybody lives somewhere and every neighbourhood deserves equal protection.

Show me another community anywhere in Ontario that has had the level of "protection" the squatters have. A community that owes its entire existance to political graft isn't deserving of much.

The airport is as much a squatter sitting in the way of the city's plan for islands dedicated to recreation as the residents are. Fortunately for the airport there is a level of government and rules that prevent the city from closing it down. Fortunately for the island residents there is a lease agreement for them which allows them to be there as well.

The airport is public infrastructure, the residents are squatters who were supposed to be evicted almost thirty years ago, they only got their sweetheart leases because of their ties to the NDP. You couldn't lease a parking spot for what the squatters paid Bob Rae.

Noise and nighttime in residential areas is mutually exclusive.

It isn't a residential area, it is a public park!

They don't have any veto activity. They have the right to lodge a noise complaint like every other person. The only reason the city can't close the airport is because of its close ties to business and the federal government.

The squatters have a veto through their incredible political clout, my parents neighbourhood has been complaining about a couple of rowdy clubs for years, where people periodically get stabbed and the mayor hasn't taken up their cause. The difference between the squatters and the other communities complaining is that the squatters have a direct line to City Hall and beyond and their presense on the island was only enabled by their close ties to the NDP.

 

[kEiThZ]

More people use the island for recreation and relaxation than use the airport.

As Porter's numbers pick up, it might become the only sustained year round activity on the islands. And those numbers might start pulling into a tie.

They don't have any veto activity. They have the right to lodge a noise complaint like every other person. The only reason the city can't close the airport is because of its close ties to business and the federal government.

Why should the transportation needs of 2.5 million residents be held hostage by a few downtown residents. Just imagine if Mississauga residents had the same NIMBY attitude to Pearson. Thank goodness the federal government does not cave to NIMBYs as easily as Toronto city council does.

Everybody lives somewhere and every neighbourhood deserves equal protection.

So when residents of Rexdale and Mississauga complain about noise and pollution from larger jets that's not as important as when a few downtown residents complain about the same issues. And Pearson's approach paths have a much larger noise and emissions footprints and are directly over residential areas.

Every neighbourhood. Community groups exist everywhere protecting their neighbourhoods over the interests of others. The same thing is happening in Weston as GO Transit / Blue 22 tries to expand the rail corridor.

So you see the irony here.....

Fortunately for the airport there is a level of government and rules that prevent the city from closing it down.

Yes, thank the fates for that one. The feds would be stupid to allow any municipality randomly take down built and federally funded infrastructure.

Noise and nighttime in residential areas is mutually exclusive. Look at airports around the world and they are surrounded by light industrial properties and have restrictions on new residential developments. Look at open air concert venues around the world and they are not located next to residential areas.

You should see Washington Reagan, London City, New York La Guardia.... They have housing, green space, tourist attractions, hotels, all nearby and they seem to manage fine.

If a huge party happens in the house next to yours that annoys you enough you will probably call someone to lodge a complaint and you will not hold back because the math is 3 or 4 occupants in your house trying to sleep versus 50 people trying to party next door.

Parties are optional....air transport is vital for our economic well being.

The goal of the city is to make the islands a park with trees, grass, picnics, and beaches. People cram onto island ferries all summer to go to a place which is not filled with cars, buildings, and other aspects of city hustle and bustle.

Let's encourage more and better use of High Park and Downsview instead and save the hassle of the ferries and all the transit to service them.

There are parks all over this city. This is the largest city in Canada. That does not make every park appropriate for concerts, aircraft, helicopters, freeways, and trains. One can argue that Algonquin Park is underdeveloped and under used, but most others would argue that that is the whole point of a park. To develop and over use a park would make it no longer a park.

And that is the crux of the problem and why we should not be so hasty to rip up the runway at YTZ. For you the island airport is not part of the waterfront vision. For me, I see a city that has no waterfront vision (except to build condos). Let them fix up the rest of the waterfront first and then i'll support them. Till then, let Porter do the excellent job its doing now. To me, it puts forward a great impression of this city. What could be better than an airline that uses green locally made aircraft, run by a Canadian, using Torontonian staff bringing visitors directly into downtown Toronto.

 

[EnviroTO]

The world over areas surrounding airports are commonly used for developing recreational areas, because their proximity to an airport land values are lower and they are therefore less suitable for commercial or residential development.

Can you give me an example of three or four recreational areas that were developed in the flight path of an airport? You admit the waterfront which is developed with residential and commercial development is less suitable for such because of the airport... thats a start.

That is a fantasy, the plant was already falling down when it was closed.

It is still standing now. With a bit more funding the Metronome project would be more than fantasy. Many older buildings in worse shape have been incorporated into new developments.

What happened at Meigs Field was criminal - and still no basis on which to believe that Toronto would be capable of a suitable re-development of the airport. Given how successful Toronto has been at redeveloping the rest of the waterfront there is no reason to believe the airport would be anything but wasteland for decades to come.

Yes, what happened in Chicago is criminal, just like purposely making the lives of people who live on the islands miserable would be. The lease the cottagers have is legal. Bob Rae's NDP government was democratically elected as are the few NDP who hold currently hold seats. If you feel under-represented then perhaps you aren't voting for the right people.

Toronto has redeveloped a large section of the waterfront from the Rouge River to East Point Park. It has redeveloped Cherry Beach and opened new sports fields, has redeveloped Marilyn Bell park, opened HtO, redone the boardwalk at Harbourfront, has West Don Lands under full construction, and opened new waterfront to the public from Norris Crescent to Superior Ave. The eastern bayfront can't be developed until the West Don Lands berm is complete because it is in the regulatory flood plain. I think the city can handle turning an airport into grass and trees to match the rest of the island.

The political relationship between the squatters and the rest of Toronto is unique in that you would be hard pressed to find any group of 700 people anywhere with the political clout the squatters have accumulated due to their close relationship with the NDP.

You seem to think so at least. I disagree though. Why would the NDP treat them any different? I don't think the island is populated with union leaders. Each resident on the island still only represents one vote. The residents of Rondeau Provincial Park were also given long leases and it wasn't by the NDP. The Weston community seems to have a lot of clout.

Show me another community anywhere in Ontario that has had the level of "protection" the squatters have. A community that owes its entire existance to political graft isn't deserving of much.

Most communities in Canada owes its existence to political graft. The British and French showed up and claimed the land. Most of the west was practically given away. Pearson Airport pays a fortune in rent to the federal government, the island airport is subsidized.

The airport is public infrastructure, the residents are squatters who were supposed to be evicted almost thirty years ago, they only got their sweetheart leases because of their ties to the NDP.

A large swath of residences from Allen Road to Spadina and Bloor were supposed to be evicted to develop freeway. A community group stopped it in its tracks. Front Street was going to be extended to Dufferin, a community group stopped it in its tracks. When like minded people get together and form a community group and make a loud argument it gets heard regardless of who is in government.

It isn't a residential area, it is a public park!

Anywhere there are houses and people living is a residential area. If I say "it isn't an airport, it is a public park!" it doesn't make it so.

The squatters have a veto through their incredible political clout, my parents neighbourhood has been complaining about a couple of rowdy clubs for years, where people periodically get stabbed and the mayor hasn't taken up their cause. The difference between the squatters and the other communities complaining is that the squatters have a direct line to City Hall and beyond and their presense on the island was only enabled by their close ties to the NDP.

Your community isn't organized or hasn't chosen a very good political representative. A good councillor, MPP, and MPP is one that you could call and deal with these issues. The mayor and Adam Vaughan are making moves to close down the club district so why is your community unable to deal with rowdy clubs? Obviously the mayor isn't pro-clubs.

Why should the transportation needs of 2.5 million residents be held hostage by a few downtown residents.

Porter is a "transportation need" or is it a choice? I think most people would put a residence as a higher need than the ability to fly to Montreal without driving to Pearson.

So when residents of Rexdale and Mississauga complain about noise and pollution from larger jets that's not as important as when a few downtown residents complain about the same issues. And Pearson's approach paths have a much larger noise and emissions footprints and are directly over residential areas.

The ends of the runways are over light industrial properties. Due to those residents you mention Canada's largest international airport has night operation restrictions. Just recently those same residents successfully petitioned against regional jets taking off and banking below a certain altitude. Those same residents are the reason north-south arrivals and take-offs are the non-primary path to only be used when weather forces it. There are noise monitoring stations all over the Pearson flight paths to monitor things. The residents in Rexdale and Mississauga are equally important.

So you see the irony here.....

It is the same with every persons right which is protected. A person cannot have a right without taking away someone else's right. There can't be private property without taking property out of the public domain and vice-versa. The greater needs of the public will be determined by the democratically elected city government, the democratically elected province, and the law.

You should see Washington Reagan, London City, New York La Guardia.... They have housing, green space, tourist attractions, hotels, all nearby and they seem to manage fine.

Toronto manages fine too but the same arguments exist in those places that exist in Toronto. Restrictions are in place at all those airports to limit growth such as flight path restrictions, maximum trip length, and noise restrictions.

Parties are optional....air transport is vital for our economic well being.

We already have an airport. An airport much further away from development is being proposed in Durham which would do much more to increase capacity but for some reason there is a lot of objection to it.

Let's encourage more and better use of High Park and Downsview instead and save the hassle of the ferries and all the transit to service them.

People choose to take the ferries to the islands in much larger numbers than choose to use Downsview and High Park. Even with the hassle of the ferries people choose to go there. The Toronto Islands can provide a waterfront that nowhere else in the city can. The atmosphere of the Toronto Islands can't be duplicated elsewhere.

And that is the crux of the problem and why we should not be so hasty to rip up the runway at YTZ. For you the island airport is not part of the waterfront vision. For me, I see a city that has no waterfront vision (except to build condos). Let them fix up the rest of the waterfront first and then i'll support them. Till then, let Porter do the excellent job its doing now. To me, it puts forward a great impression of this city. What could be better than an airline that uses green locally made aircraft, run by a Canadian, using Torontonian staff bringing visitors directly into downtown Toronto.

Who is being hasty to rip up the runway? As I stated I use Porter and the airport and believe it has a right to be there. The vision of the Toronto Islands was set a long time ago when the city started removing buildings and focusing the island as a car free park retreat. Eventually the airport should go. I believe that the city should focus on petitioning for high-speed rail to the airport (in a form other than Blue 22) and to Ottawa and Montreal and I believe the government should stop subsidizing the airport and port authority because it is a waste of taxpayer dollars and is completely unjustified considering the rent being charged to the GTAA.

 

[kEiThZ]

Porter is a "transportation need" or is it a choice? I think most people would put a residence as a higher need than the ability to fly to Montreal without driving to Pearson.

Air transportation is an economic necessity. Capitalism requires that we create choice to ensure that our transportation needs are met efficiently. Porter is not a need but it is a choice that ensures our transportation needs are fulfilled more effectively.

As to the choice of a residence vs. the ability to fly to Montreal...straw man. The resident is choosing to live near the airport....one which has been there well before most of the residents in that area. Would it be acceptable for me to move beside a fire hall and then complain about the sirens?

The ends of the runways are over light industrial properties. Due to those residents you mention Canada's largest international airport has night operation restrictions. Just recently those same residents successfully petitioned against regional jets taking off and banking below a certain altitude. Those same residents are the reason north-south arrivals and take-offs are the non-primary path to only be used when weather forces it. There are noise monitoring stations all over the Pearson flight paths to monitor things. The residents in Rexdale and Mississauga are equally important.

...

Toronto manages fine too but the same arguments exist in those places that exist in Toronto. Restrictions are in place at all those airports to limit growth such as flight path restrictions, maximum trip length, and noise restrictions.

The island has many more restrictions than any of the other airports in the region and more than many of the urban airports I cited (with the exception of perhaps LCY). We aren't talking about flying out RJs over houses at night. We are talking about flying out turboprops over a few island houses during very reasonable hours.

It is the same with every persons right which is protected. A person cannot have a right without taking away someone else's right. There can't be private property without taking property out of the public domain and vice-versa. The greater needs of the public will be determined by the democratically elected city government, the democratically elected province, and the law.

So if that's the case, shouldn't the needs of the more numerous Rexdale/Mississauga crowd outweigh the downtowners. I am fairly sure the former do not want to see an increase in air traffic either. The residents living beside Buttonville would also make the same argument. And the residents in Pickering are already campaigning against a new airport. So what makes the views of downtowners much more important than all those other residents and Weston residents campaigning against Blue 22?

We already have an airport. An airport much further away from development is being proposed in Durham which would do much more to increase capacity but for some reason there is a lot of objection to it.

So your view is....NIMBY. Better that it be in Durham than downtown.

People choose to take the ferries to the islands in much larger numbers than choose to use Downsview and High Park. Even with the hassle of the ferries people choose to go there. The Toronto Islands can provide a waterfront that nowhere else in the city can. The atmosphere of the Toronto Islands can't be duplicated elsewhere.

I would dispute that the atmosphere can't be duplicated elsewhere in the city. We have a number of waterfront parks which are underdeveloped and have just as much potential as the islands. WRT Downsview and High Park, I said they should be promoted more. They are accessible by bus and much more centrally located in the city. Were the use of other waterfront parks and other larger parks (Downsview, High Park, etc.) encouraged for many of the islands activities, the island might diminish in importance fairly quickly.

Who is being hasty to rip up the runway? As I stated I use Porter and the airport and believe it has a right to be there. The vision of the Toronto Islands was set a long time ago when the city started removing buildings and focusing the island as a car free park retreat. Eventually the airport should go. I believe that the city should focus on petitioning for high-speed rail to the airport (in a form other than Blue 22) and to Ottawa and Montreal and I believe the government should stop subsidizing the airport and port authority because it is a waste of taxpayer dollars and is completely unjustified considering the rent being charged to the GTAA.

1) You are the one who suggested applying the Megis field precedent.

2) While I believe that the island airport can and should be closed eventually, I strongly believe that the moment has not arrived yet. Often it seems to me that city politicians simply use the island airport as an excuse for not doing anything else on the waterfront. When they finish putting in more green space, tourist attractions, etc and the airport is the final obstacle, then we can discuss its closure. Till then I doubt most residents would support removing built infrastructure.

3) As much as I would love to see a HSR built in Canada, I don't believe it will happen in our lifetime. First off, there is no federal government that could get away with committing 12 billion to a project that solely benefits Ontario and Quebec. Second, the implementation of HSR could well result in the loss of conventional rail service to many smaller communities along the Quebec City - Windsor corridor and they would all be dead set against HSR if that appeared to be the case. And giving them service would quite easily erode the value of HSR in the first place.

4) Blue 22 in its current form or in any other form, still can't compete with a downtown airport, with an airline that has check in at Union Station, and can be accessed easily by TTC for less than 1/2 - 1/4 of the proposed Blue 22 fare. And that does not even take into account faster check-in at the island and Porter's fantastic lounge and services. Does anyone seriously think that a Blue 22 train taking you to an Air Canada or Westjet flight will compete with a quick and cheap taxi/streetcar/bus ride to the island and a Porter flight out. And all that does not even take into account the lower total emissions of that trip.

5) I find the argument that YTZ is subsidized and therefore we should close it to be the most specious. Most of the time we are clamouring to get the federal government to fund infrastructure in this city, and yet we want them to close one of the few things that they have built and funded entirely on their own. If the city of Toronto isn't footing the bill why should we work to close it down? The way I see it, YTZ provides free airport capacity to the city. And I would argue that as Porter grows (and they have very ambitious plans), the subsidy argument might become a non-issue. Running 7 Porter flights an hour (with a reasonable 80% pax load) during the standard airport operating hours alone will generate the airport's entire annual revenue. To cover the airport's current deficit, Porter needs to run only 2 flights an hour. I wonder what its critics will say when the airport starts making money....

 

[adma]

The silos haven't been taken down because they are seen as semi-historic landmarks that represent the ports industrial past and many would like to incorporate them into future developments.

Not just "semi-", either. And it's been on the Inventory of Heritage Properties since 1973.

Of course, knowing this "Comrad Miller" character, said Inventory is a byproduct of the same minority special interests that allowed the "squatters" free reign. Ah, I love these letter-to-the-editor-writing angry reactionary geezers; they're like Mitch Miller grumbling over rock'n'roll...

 

[jn_12]

Hey Comrad, for someone who hasn't used Porter, you seem to have quite the love for it (based on the subject matter of ALL of your posts on UT). Just wondering where the passion comes from?

 

[Comrad Miller]

Back before my job and my ass got shipped to Calgary, I flew out of the island atleast twice a week for years.

I could get from my bed in Toronto to our office in Ottawa in 2 hours flat - so I am really excited about what Porter is doing since all Air Canada was offering at the bitter end was Ottawa.

I love the island airport, it was the only thing that made splitting my workload between Toronto and Ottawa practical.

 

[Comrad Miller]

Not just "semi-", either. And it's been on the Inventory of Heritage Properties since 1973.

Of course, knowing this "Comrad Miller" character, said Inventory is a byproduct of the same minority special interests that allowed the "squatters" free reign. Ah, I love these letter-to-the-editor-writing angry reactionary geezers; they're like Mitch Miller grumbling over rock'n'roll...

I have no problem with historical preservation, but putting up a chainlink fence and waiting for a building to fall down on its own isn't preservation.

 

[Disparishun]

I use Porter airlines. I feel they provide great service. I agree the airport has a right to be there. I look forward to the day high-speed rail connects downtown to the airport and Ottawa and Montreal rendering the downtown airport obsolete so it can become part of the Toronto Island park.

Come to think of it, maybe Islanders should look more seriously into directing some of their political clout towards lobbying for high-speed rail ...

 

[EnviroTO]

Air transportation is an economic necessity. Capitalism requires that we create choice to ensure that our transportation needs are met efficiently. Porter is not a need but it is a choice that ensures our transportation needs are fulfilled more effectively.

Toronto got along fine with almost no service from Toronto Island for years. City Express simply closed up shop and if people had filled the seats on City or Jazz and the Toronto Island airport was an economic necessity I don't think we would have seen service end up with a flight or two a day to Ottawa. The fastest growing economies in the US have been places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Atlanta... none of which have a downtown airport.

As to the choice of a residence vs. the ability to fly to Montreal...straw man. The resident is choosing to live near the airport....one which has been there well before most of the residents in that area. Would it be acceptable for me to move beside a fire hall and then complain about the sirens?

But the ability to fly to Montreal already exists so it is a choice to fly out of downtown and create noise impacting the residents and recreational users of the waterfront. The airport has existed for a long time, the residences even longer, but what has changed is how busy the airport is. I think a resident living next to a fire station would have a case if fire service operations, ambulance, and police were consolidated later on at that location tripling the sirens heard.

The island has many more restrictions than any of the other airports in the region and more than many of the urban airports I cited (with the exception of perhaps LCY). We aren't talking about flying out RJs over houses at night. We are talking about flying out turboprops over a few island houses during very reasonable hours.

What restrictions? Porter flys out without much restriction at all at all hours the airport is open. What have they been prevented from doing?

So if that's the case, shouldn't the needs of the more numerous Rexdale/Mississauga crowd outweigh the downtowners. I am fairly sure the former do not want to see an increase in air traffic either. The residents living beside Buttonville would also make the same argument. And the residents in Pickering are already campaigning against a new airport. So what makes the views of downtowners much more important than all those other residents and Weston residents campaigning against Blue 22?

Obviously there is a requirement to have an airport in the GTA. Currently Pearson is the airport that has the ability to serve the needs of the city from very large aircraft to commuter aircraft. I have no problem with closing Pearson if that capacity is replaced elsewhere. It isn't about residents being more or less important. There is a need for capacity. There is no need for Toronto Island airport.

So your view is....NIMBY. Better that it be in Durham than downtown.

Not NIMBY. Logic. Residential properties are 800m from the Toronto Island Airport and 1km from the glide path. In Durham there is a huge buffer of at least 4km in all directions. If there is a need to increase capacity beyond what Pearson is capable of the Durham site can provide it but Toronto Island cannot. If you think a 4km buffer from residential properties is too little then a site could be found elsewhere further from the city but if you do believe that then the viability of Toronto Island is ruled out as well.

I would dispute that the atmosphere can't be duplicated elsewhere in the city. We have a number of waterfront parks which are underdeveloped and have just as much potential as the islands. WRT Downsview and High Park, I said they should be promoted more. They are accessible by bus and much more centrally located in the city. Were the use of other waterfront parks and other larger parks (Downsview, High Park, etc.) encouraged for many of the islands activities, the island might diminish in importance fairly quickly.

The islands aren't that developed. It is largely trees and grass. The only attraction besides the natural ones that I can think of is Centreville Island. High Park seems equally developed in every other sense.

1) You are the one who suggested applying the Megis field precedent.

I suggested the same end result. A waterfront free of an airport and its glide path.

2) While I believe that the island airport can and should be closed eventually, I strongly believe that the moment has not arrived yet. Often it seems to me that city politicians simply use the island airport as an excuse for not doing anything else on the waterfront. When they finish putting in more green space, tourist attractions, etc and the airport is the final obstacle, then we can discuss its closure. Till then I doubt most residents would support removing built infrastructure.

I'm in no rush either, simply cut of the subsidization of the Toronto Port Authority. If it can survive and is important then it can pay for itself.

3) As much as I would love to see a HSR built in Canada, I don't believe it will happen in our lifetime. First off, there is no federal government that could get away with committing 12 billion to a project that solely benefits Ontario and Quebec. Second, the implementation of HSR could well result in the loss of conventional rail service to many smaller communities along the Quebec City - Windsor corridor and they would all be dead set against HSR if that appeared to be the case. And giving them service would quite easily erode the value of HSR in the first place.

I think in Ontario we need to come to the understanding that anything we want to be built in Ontario will not come from the federal government. Ontario will need to build its own HSR and forget about the feds. The federal government has admitted that the equalization process will likely be thrown out before Ontario reaches the have-not status. The federal government takes more from Ontario than it will ever give back. The 12-Billion cost isn't so unreasonable considering the MoveOntario 2020 / Metrolinx costs.

4) Blue 22 in its current form or in any other form, still can't compete with a downtown airport, with an airline that has check in at Union Station, and can be accessed easily by TTC for less than 1/2 - 1/4 of the proposed Blue 22 fare. And that does not even take into account faster check-in at the island and Porter's fantastic lounge and services. Does anyone seriously think that a Blue 22 train taking you to an Air Canada or Westjet flight will compete with a quick and cheap taxi/streetcar/bus ride to the island and a Porter flight out. And all that does not even take into account the lower total emissions of that trip.

I think it easily could. There could be check-in at Union Station for Air Canada, Air Canada provides a much larger network and better frequent flier program, and Blue22 being a private company could come to an arrangement with Air Canada. The reality is that Toronto Island is impacted often by inclement weather, is capacity constrained, and can only provide a limited number of destinations.

5) I find the argument that YTZ is subsidized and therefore we should close it to be the most specious. Most of the time we are clamouring to get the federal government to fund infrastructure in this city, and yet we want them to close one of the few things that they have built and funded entirely on their own. If the city of Toronto isn't footing the bill why should we work to close it down? The way I see it, YTZ provides free airport capacity to the city. And I would argue that as Porter grows (and they have very ambitious plans), the subsidy argument might become a non-issue. Running 7 Porter flights an hour (with a reasonable 80% pax load) during the standard airport operating hours alone will generate the airport's entire annual revenue. To cover the airport's current deficit, Porter needs to run only 2 flights an hour. I wonder what its critics will say when the airport starts making money....

Why does Pearson have to pay all that money to the federal government? Far more Canadians are served by that airport than could ever be served by Toronto Island. Why isn't Toronto Island Airport being charged rather than subsidized. The GTAA had to fund itself for all its terminal construction and airfield redevelopment after the federal government slowly allowed it to fall into disrepair but the Toronto Island gets a free ride to serve one commuter airline. People are talking about how Toronto Island airport provides competition but it seems to me that they are stacking the deck taking a fortune from the GTAA and subsidizing Toronto Island.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ EnviroTO....some responses by topic....

1) Proximity to residences and businesses. Your argument is that airports should be placed far from housing and commercial business. The problem here is that the further away you place the airport the more inaccessible and less useful it becomes. What could be more convenient than a downtown airport? There will always be a trade-off in this regard, aircraft noise impact on residents vs. convenience for thousands of downtown workers.

2) Choice. You are right that Toronto got on fine without Porter, but you can't argue that Porter has had no impact on the fare prices of the sectors it operates on. Air Canada has started responding to Porter's Ottawa and Montreal fares. Capitalism works.

3) Noise and restrictions. Like I said its a trade off. But the island has many restrictions. One of the big ones is that you can't operate turbofan and turbojet aircraft. And the operating hours themselves constitute a restriction. If you know anything about aviation, you'll know that most airports dont 'close', they simply revert to uncontrolled status after hours without any restriction on ops. The island has several other restrictions that also impact flight ops: departure noise abatement procedures, modified traffic patterns, etc. These restriction increase fuel burn and reduce safety margins, but they are in place almost directly to the benefit of island residents. As for noise complaints, having slept less than 800m from departing fast jets, I can assure you that noise can be engineered against. Perhaps those downtown developers need to be chastised for not insulating those condos better. That being said, the noise from turboprops is very limited and your argument about being under the glidepath is bunk. On approach, all you get is airframe noise (caused by airframe drag...about the same as most large semis); the engines are usually at 25% of power or less, quite often as low as 2%. I strongly suspect that the noise from other activity in the area has far more impact than Porter's Q400s. And I see no drop in waterfront property values; apparently, quite a few folks have no problem living beside the airport.

4) Air traffic capacity. You say that we need an airport in the GTA but that we don't need the island airport. You obviously have no understanding of the air picture in this regard. The airspace over southern ontario is one of the most crowded in the world. The fact that we have too few airports is a major contributing factor. Other than Pearson, the next major commercial airport is Hamilton. And for non-commercial aviation flying westbound along the lake, other than buttonville, the island is the only other destination in the event of a diversion. Buttonville is too far and too busy. Brampton is further away. Downsview is a semi-private field with no services. And there's no other airports anwhere along the shore line. Flying eastbound, there is no airport along the shore line other than Oshawa. This will remain the case until the Pickering airport is built. As for Pearson, it is very difficult to mix commercial and non-commercial traffic efficiently, so the ability of Pearson to absorb non-commercial traffic is limited. Indeed without the recent expansion, Pearson's commercial capacity would have been insufficient.

5) Subsidies. So what if the feds choose to subsidize the island? They subsidize dozens of small air and sea ports in this country. Just as they subsidize our roads. It is part of their mandate to maintain transportation networks. The money for those subsidies comes out of nav can charges, fuel charges, etc that the aviation sector pays. And these charges are some of the highest in the world. Given that most governments in the world subsidize airports, I think its outrageous that Pearson pays rent. This has a direct impact on the economy of this city. And the subsidy argument will quickly diminish as Porter grows. By the end of 2009, not only will the airport be profitable but it will be exapnding as well, making the cry to cut subsidies a moot point.

6) High Speed Rail. I don't disagree with you. Sadly, it'll be a long time before HSR is a reality. However, why should we close the airport down before it happens?

7) Emissions. This issue is rarely brought up by the island airport's opponents. Total CO2, NOX, particulate emissions, etc are all lower when flying out of the island....even if Blue 22 was in place. The fact that TTC can and is used regularly to access the island makes the commute more environmentally friendly than Blue 22. The island's restriction on turbofan aircraft ensures that it will always have more fuel efficient turboprops operating out of there. And its shorter taxi times, approach times, etc. ensure significantly less fuel burn than Pearson. If a carbon tax is implemented, the financial case for Porter will improve substantially as total emissions are now costed into the traveler's price.

My conditions for closing down the airport are simple:

1) Build an alternative; the Pickering airport. This could consolidate traffic from other airports such as Buttonville, the Island, Oshawa and Markham (none of which have the 4km buffer you discussed). However, that air ambulance will take a lot longer to get there....oh well.

2) Develop the waterfront and the islands. There is still tons of work to be done. Why so much focus on the airport? Like I said, the airport seems to provide a convenient excuse. Its critics will have much more of a case when everything else is finished and the airport remains the final obstacle holding up major projects. Till then its rather ridiculous to shut down the airport and leave it to become a weed filled asphalt paradise.

 

[k.w.l.]

2) Develop the waterfront and the islands. There is still tons of work to be done. Why so much focus on the airport? Like I said, the airport seems to provide a convenient excuse. Its critics will have much more of a case when everything else is finished and the airport remains the final obstacle holding up major projects. Till then its rather ridiculous to shut down the airport and leave it to become a weed filled asphalt paradise.

Exactly. Waterfront Toronto has enough on its plate as it is (in fact they just announced delays of years to several projects). Anyone who thinks that shutting down the island airport will instantly result in parkland is dreaming. Thankfully, Porter is doing just fine and the airport won't be going anywhere any time soon. Lets keep the focus on fixing that part of the waterfront that needs it most (east of Yonge).

 

[Chuck]

There is no need for Toronto Island airport.

I thought I'd jump in and comment on this. Is there really a need? No, you are correct. However Porter provides a fantastic service, therefore its a one that I and many others want, which is why Porter is flourishing. In my opinion, the inception of Porter Airlines ranks right up there with the opening of the Sheppard Subway as one of the defining improvements to the GTA's transportation system in the past two decades. Last time I flew Porter, I didn't even have to drive!

When I am at the waterfront, I enjoy watching planes take off and land because it's something you don't get to see in many other places in the city. When a plane takes off, it's no more noisy than a passing fire truck with its sirens on. The Island Airport was there before any of the condos were built, it has a right to be there, and provides a benefit to far more people than it disbenefits. Besides, there are much larger obstacles to the redevelopment of the waterfront than the Island Airport.