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

I will confess: I was staunchly against Porter back in the day with their rogue strategies to build the (ugliest possible) bridge to the island and sue the city for not allowing it.

However... in the last several years, they've proven that their planes are quiet enough to not disturb the waterfront community. In fact, I'm looking at buying a condo @ Queens Quay + Bathurst, a 1 minute walk from the airport.

I like their business model and their company's niche positioning as an ode to the olden days of air travel. I will surely fly with them in the near future.

I'm also beginning my path to my recreational pilot's license at Island Air flight school.

I'm a convert. Let's develop the airport, make it an asset to the city's business class. It needs a shot in the arm in this bad economy and in the face of the attractive option of doing business in the suburbs.

So at this point, there's no way Deluce is going to back off. As long as the airport remains jet free, I think it's time to consider building a pedestrian link to the airport. The 30 second, $5 ferry ride is quite silly.

As long as there is an open competition, favoring beautiful design (this will be our most visible and best known bridge), I'm all for building a link. Since Porter is so eager, let them front the bill.
 
I think it's time to consider building a pedestrian link to the airport.
Click to expand...

There are a few logistical issues to be considered:
- that any bridge must either be high enough to let ships to pass under or have a mechanism for it to get out of the way (lift/swing/etc).
- although it isn't really very far, it would be a bit a hike for people with luggage.
- It would also be pretty unpleasant in winter unless it was covered.

Since there will always be a need for the ability for vehicles to cross over, you would still need the ferry.

If you are going to build a bridge, it might as well be a vehicle bridge. It isn't like you can get anywhere from the airport so it isn't going to increase the number of cars driving around the rest of the island.

I don't really see the point of a pedestrian bridge.

EDIT: personally, I would like to see a vehicle tunnel with streetcar tracks. An underground streetcar loop on the far side would be nice, although I have no idea how practical that would be.
 
^ Good points.

I guess you're right. Porter's shuttle should be able to transport passengers into the terminal. Other than the shuttle, support and emergency vehicles, this bridge should barre other vehicular traffic. I'd hate to see the island become a parking lot.

A tunnel does make the most sense if vehicular traffic is taken into consideration. I'd like to see an underground parking lot on the mainland side, through which the shuttle (and all other permitted vehicles) would access the tunnel into the island. On top, extend Little Norway Park (just north of the terminal) towards the shore to connect it to Ireland Park.
 
Last edited:
I believe this is on record as the shortest ferry ride in the world.

It's a lousy 120m gap. So just extend the ferry piers on either end by 60m and have them meet in the middle.

Or buy one or two more ferries, then line them all up end-to-end so traffic can drive across!

(Half joking. But only half.)
 
The ferry they were using for the Rochester-Toronto run was 86.6 meters in length. Park that behind the regular ferry and people could drive through it.

It wouldn't be a "fixed link" (you could move it a little bit every few minutes if necessary). If boats had to go through, you could just turn to let them past.

EDIT: Does anyone have a link to or copy of the Tripartite Agreement? Does it or does it not currently prohibit a fixed link? They had changed it to allow it -- did it ever get changed back?
 
Last edited:
In many airports like Atlanta and Pittsburgh you need to take a train to the concourse after checking in. The ferry really doesn't take that long. A bridge would probably create more issues than it would solve. There is hardly any space on the island for cars and Bathurst gets backed up with cars and taxis currently. Creating a bridge and then trying to clear out the traffic jam before some boat going through the gap plows into the bridge wouldn't be fun. A pedestrian tunnel is probably the most feasible solution. I think with the depth of the channel a tunnel would end up being four storeys deep.

There is no possibility a bridge will be built without the city approving it. The payout was to ensure the topic didn't come up for a long while.
 
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...o-invest-45m-in-expanded-island-terminal.aspx

Porter Airlines to invest $45M in expanded island terminal
Posted: April 27, 2009, 8:49 AM by Shane Dingman
Porter Airlines

Porter Airlines announced a $45million investment in Toronto's City Centre Airport this morning, as a handful of protesters demonstrated outside.

The first phase of the expansion to 150,000 square feet will be completed by November.

The changes will bring enhanced services, such as car rental kiosks, retail and restaurants to the intimate Toronto Island airport.

There will be 10 gates and both Canadian and U.S. Customs will set up shop.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent. I too was sceptical about Porter at the beginning, but I'm a huge supporter now. They (and VIA1) make my Montreal-Toronto travels much more enjoyable.
 
Not everyone is supportive. Some comments from the protesters outside the airport this morning from CP24:

Olivia Chow (NDP):
Where a million people can go in, and play, and have a wonderful time rather than a few hundreds, maybe a thousand over a year or two in terms of passengers, it serves such a small number of people that its not for a good public interest.
Click to expand...

Brian Iler (Community Air):
Well, ultimately this airport has to shut down, it doesnt fit in our communities, it is totally incompatible with every other use of this waterfront and it is the barrier to the redevelopment and the rejuvination of our waterfront.
Click to expand...
 
I don't get it ... there's huge tracts of recreational land already in the islands. Why would we want more? If we were going to have more recreational land, wouldn't it make sense if it wasn't adjacent to existing recreational land?
 
sjc said:
Olivia Chow (NDP):
Where a million people can go in, and play, and have a wonderful time rather than a few hundreds, maybe a thousand over a year or two in terms of passengers, it serves such a small number of people that its not for a good public interest.
Click to expand...

"Maybe a thousand over a year"? Is she absolutely blind? I'm guessing Porter probably flies that many in a busy weekday out of YTZ, or it will soon when they're up to 14 - 18 flights per day to Montreal and Ottawa. It makes her seem pretty out of touch throwing around numbers like that.
 
Hmm, where it notes that "500,000 passengers are now using the facility annually".

I'd hardly thinkthat if they turn the airport into more parkland, that they are going to attract an extra 500,000 people a year to the islands.
 
where it notes that "500,000 passengers are now using the facility annually"
Click to expand...
A lot of those 500,000 are people from outside of Toronto bringing their dollars (many of them US$) to spend in Toronto. Since they arrive in downtown, they are likely to spend at least some of those dollars in or near downtown.

"When the second phase of this terminal is built, upward of one million passengers will be using this airport each year," said Deluce.
Click to expand...
I think this puts an end to the argument that only "a few" people benefit from having an airport.
 
Last edited:
Olivia Chow sez:

Where a million people can go in, and play, and have a wonderful time rather than a few hundreds, maybe a thousand over a year or two in terms of passengers, it serves such a small number of people that its not for a good public interest.
Click to expand...

Even if her numbers were accurate (or even reasonable), that logic would make it imperative to bulldoze the 262 cottages on public land on Ward's Island and Algonquin Island, and turn that land into something to be enjoyed by "a million people".

Brian Iler sez:

Well, ultimately this airport has to shut down, it doesn't fit in our communities, it is totally incompatible with every other use of this waterfront and it is the barrier to the redevelopment and the rejuvenation of our waterfront.
Click to expand...

Only if your idea of a redeveloped and rejuvenated waterfront community is highrise condos walling off the lake from the rest of the city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top