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

[EnviroTO]

So then you'd agree that the buldozers once done with the island airport should continue on to the island houses and take those down as well? Certainly having people living on the island does nothing to contribute to the 'Park' that we envision the islands to be.

That would be a good plan.

Maybe those bulldozers should continue north to Yonge and Bay knocking over the Rogers Centre, CN Tower, First Canadian Place, Scotia tower and the TD Centre right?

I don't think those are as much of an obstacle to having a great park.

We have a choice...
a) One of the greatest waterfronts.
b) One of the greatest airports.
or c) A mediocre airport and a mediocre park.

If you put Central Park next to an airport it wouldn't be one of the world's best parks. If you jam Singapore Changi airport onto a property the size of Toronto City Centre Airport and made the only access to it a couple of two lane residential roads it wouldn't be one of the world's best airports. We can aim to have one of the greatest waterfronts, we can aim to have one of the greatest airports, or we can aim for mediocrity. Greatness will be heard about in other places, mediocrity will not. However mediocrity is cheaper, requires less effort, and best of all we are already there.

Toronto City Centre Airport with its current constraints will quickly become congested and with little competition and little room for expansion the prices will rise and tickets will be ever harder to find. To allow it to continue to appeal to the average Torontonian we would need to allow it to expand it's footprint or it would eventually price itself to the high end of the market.

A public waterfront park by comparison would always be affordable and accessible to the average Torontonian.

 

[sjc]

My point wasn't so much that Porter will go bankrupt, just that it its prospects for long term growth are minimal.....All the fuel efficiency on Earth won't let Porter run flights to Vancouver or Calgary or much more than the current destinations.

Expansion doesn't just have to happen at YTZ. While they cannot fly Toronto-Calgary, they could certainly do Thunder Bay - Calgary which would allow for connecting traffic. Or they could not worry about connecting traffic and look at routes connecting various western cities.

I think there is likely room for new routes out of Ottawa and/or Montreal and/or Halifax, either regionally or to the US. Porter already has done non-YTZ routes (YOW-YHZ, YQB-YHZ, YTM-YUL)

Toronto City Centre Airport with its current constraints will quickly become congested and with little competition and little room for expansion the prices will rise

While there isn't much in the way of direct competition in the way of airlines flying out of YTZ, Porter is competing with Air Canada, Westjet and VIA (and/or Amtrak, US airlines) on most of their routes. If there was a substantial price difference, many people will make the hike to Pearson or take the much longer trip by train. For many people, taking the car is an alternative as well.

We have a choice...
a) One of the greatest waterfronts.
b) One of the greatest airports.
or c) A mediocre airport and a mediocre park.

If we can't have B, then C is a reasonable alternative.

 

[EnviroTO]

Let's get rid of the noisy streetcars and return to horse drawn cars. Wait the horses are smelly and poop everywhere.

By the way, the city is trying to deal with noisy streetcars as well. New track installations are much quieter, the new streetcars are lighter, and the city often has water running onto the tracks at sharp turns to lubricate things which reduces the noise.

 

[valkoholic]

I finally had the opportunity to fly porter and it was a great experience. I'm really disappointed in the way local politicians (the mayor and mayor-in-waiting) won't get behind something that's good for the downtown business community. If the airport makes downtown more attractive to businesses, then a responsible mayor would explain this to people rather than hop on a populist bandwagon. Every City has things that aren’t beautiful or perfect but are necessary for the downtown to thrive. Toronto has a horrifically scarring GO transit line (what a park that would make!) cutting through its downtown that we’ve come to accept as a necessary evil.

 

[EnviroTO]

I finally had the opportunity to fly porter and it was a great experience. I'm really disappointed in the way local politicians (the mayor and mayor-in-waiting) won't get behind something that's good for the downtown business community.

Having no business property taxes would be something that's good for the downtown business community.

If the airport makes downtown more attractive to businesses, then a responsible mayor would explain this to people rather than hop on a populist bandwagon.

Porter flying from the airport downtown will have little impact on making the downtown more attractive to businesses especially when the airport becomes fully congested and the airport rail connection is running. How many businesses have enough of their employees flying regularly enough to justify locating all their staff downtown simply because of an airport? Businesses are about bottom lines, profitability, savings, and don't care about parks and leisure. People care about quality of life so by catering to a "populist bandwagon" it is catering to what voters want.

Every City has things that aren’t beautiful or perfect but are necessary for the downtown to thrive. Toronto has a horrifically scarring GO transit line (what a park that would make!) cutting through its downtown that we’ve come to accept as a necessary evil.

Transportation into the core is required for a downtown to thrive. That is how a large number of workers get to their job. An downtown airport is not required for a downtown to thrive. Hardly any of the workers in downtown Toronto use air to get to work. I would suggest that you can provide no evidence that a downtown has failed or declined due to lack of downtown airport.

 

[sjc]

Having air access to downtown is very good for those of us who need to meet with government officials from Ottawa from time to time. It used to be that all federal government consultations would be up at the Airport Strip hotels along Dixon Road, but now more and more meetings are occuring downtown which is a lot easier for me to get to.

 

[valkoholic]

I would suggest that you can provide no evidence that a downtown has failed or declined due to lack of downtown airport.

Haha. No, of course I can't. Do you have any examples of a perfect downtown?

Just because something is rare doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of it. Here's some examples of cities with thriving waterfronts or riverfornts with things as bad or worse than a small airport.

Toronto - expressway, rail lines, goose crap
Montreal - active port and rail lines
Barcelona - major container port
Vancouver - ports
London (which also has a 'downtown' airport) - rail viaducts everywhere

 

[EnviroTO]

If there was a substantial price difference, many people will make the hike to Pearson or take the much longer trip by train. For many people, taking the car is an alternative as well.

But that would be awful because if the prices went up people would need to go all the way to Pearson and then downtown wouldn't be that great for business.

If we can't have B, then C is a reasonable alternative.

I hate mediocrity so lets make A or B happen.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

At this point, I don't think TIA/Porter is much of a concern. That said, it's not at all clear as to whether the business is viable given the existing infrastructure envelope, and in case it isn't, what sort of interventions will be required. I mean, do we argue that we should build a bridge/longer runway and allow jets to operate? That's very different from the initial scenario painted by the operators. Shouldn't there be some iron-clad guarantees against that - otherwise, what you have is basically a Trojan Horse.

AoD

 

[EnviroTO]

Just because something is rare doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of it. Here's some examples of cities with thriving waterfronts or riverfornts with things as bad or worse than a small airport.

Toronto - expressway, rail lines, goose crap

They are trying to take down the expressway. There are plans to build a land bridge over the rail lines in some places an more than half of the railway tracks that were downtown have been removed. Geese... the city didn't put them there.

Montreal - active port and rail lines

They have converted most of the port that is near downtown to parks and public area. Most of the port activity has been moved north of the downtown.

Barcelona - major container port

IF Barcelona has a triving waterfront it is nowhere near its container port.

Vancouver - ports

They have been slowly pushing out the port activities out of downtown. All the thriving parts are the parts no longer impacted by port activities.

London (which also has a 'downtown' airport) - rail viaducts everywhere

Charring Cross station and the central riverfront is 11km as the crow flies from London City airport. That is only slightly shorter than the distance between the waterfront and Downsview airport.

 

[EnviroTO]

Haha. No, of course I can't. Do you have any examples of a perfect downtown?

There are no examples of a perfect downtown because perfection is something you never reach but should always strive for. I can give examples of places which closed centrally located airports to improve the quality of their city though. I can give examples of civic improvments like parks which led to increases in tourism and quality of life.

 

[hyland]

Alvin, you say, "it's not at all clear as to whether the business is viable given the existing infrastructure envelope, and in case it isn't, what sort of interventions will be required. I mean, do we argue that we should build a bridge/longer runway and allow jets to operate?"
First, what is there to suggest that the business is not viable given the existing infrastructure envelope? I have seen nothing to indicate that the business is challenged in any significant way. Help us out.
Secondly, bridges have nothing to do with jets. The only group that tried to make that connection was Air Canada in 2003 as part of the bridge discussion.
Thirdly, maybe I have missed something but I haven't heard or seen any thing from Porter with respect to either jets or longer runways. What do you know?
Finally, I thought it was clear from the outset that jets were a no go under the agreement governing the TIA. That's what I remember from the 2003 discussion. Isn't that true? If it is true, it wouldn't appear any interventions are necessary at all.

 

[nicetommy]

I still remember the BS ad campaign with drawings of 737's that Miller was putting forth during the first election campaign. Smoke & mirrors and misinformation was the game plan. Good to see that the masses have since stopped paying attention to all the naysaying doom and gloom that supposedly was going to befall us all with Porter.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

hyland:

First, what is there to suggest that the business is not viable given the existing infrastructure envelope? I have seen nothing to indicate that the business is challenged in any significant way. Help us out.

None of us has seen anything since Porter is a private corporation and not legally required to release any information to the public. Thus, under this lack of information, why is any suggestion that the business is not viable under the current envelope being an impossiblity? I didn't say that Porter is inviable - I said there are more or less some unknowns in that area - and I won't be the first one to say so.

Secondly, bridges have nothing to do with jets. The only group that tried to make that connection was Air Canada in 2003 as part of the bridge discussion.

I listed the bridges and jets as potential outcomes that are diametrically different from what is. It doesn't mean it "will be".

Thirdly, maybe I have missed something but I haven't heard or seen any thing from Porter with respect to either jets or longer runways. What do you know?

Not having heard doesn't mean it can't happen - which is what ironcladdng against that particular outcome is about. It isn't about shutting down Porter in its' current form (and surely if those outcomes are considered undesirable, they should be protected against, no?)

Finally, I thought it was clear from the outset that jets were a no go under the agreement governing the TIA. That's what I remember from the 2003 discussion. Isn't that true? If it is true, it wouldn't appear any interventions are necessary at all.

It's the Tripartite agreement - which expires in 2033. That said, the presence of the agreement and its' prohibition on the building on a fixed link didn't prevent the issue from arising, vis-a-vis the dealings between THC/TPA and the city back in 2003, did it?

AoD

 

[Hydrogen]

Turboprops are essentially a kind of "jet" engine.

I've been using Porter for trips to Ottawa. Typically, the door-to-door time for that is about two hours and twenty minutes (I live in the K-S neighbourhood and stay downtown when in Ottawa). In comparison, I've done trips on transit out to western Mississauga that have taken about two hours.