News   Mar 28, 2024
 711     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 487     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 797     0 

Time for a tunnel to airport island?

To begin with, clearly the airport is not popular amongst the downtown community.

Debatable. And by the time the next election rolls out I am willing to bet that quite a few residents will have experienced Porter....and that would certainly change their minds.

Yes it provides a slightly cushier and quicker airport experience that Pearson, providing you have a short-haul destination......

Slightly is an understatement. From downtown, Porter can save you up to an hour (shorter wait times for boarding, less security, shorter trip to the airport). That's hardly insignificant. Blue 22 might alter that equation a tad but it won't shift the balance.

N
...but the airport has no runway expansion capability....

That's entirely a policy decision. Given the choice, I would bet that Deluce himself would pay for a lengthening of the runway. There's room for some extensions and expansion. And a slight runway extension (700ft for runway 08/26) would allow for Porter to max out the Q400's range-payload. They would be able fly to over half the continent non-stop. Saskatoon, Havanna, St. John's, Miami, Halifax, Denver and Nassau are just a few of the places that would be possible. Imagine the tourism potential, inbound and outbound....

...it can't handle (and people would flip) if you put down full-sized jets.

Nobody has ever suggested running full-sized jets from the island. At best the debate has been about allowing business jets and regional jets. Yet, there's scarcely a jet aircraft available today that could operate without too many load restrictions (because of runway length) from the island. Moreover, once you start getting into Boeing and Airbus narrowbodies, the airport's footprint itself would have to grow significantly (runway, ramps, terminal areas) beyond the available space. That's just a few among many reason why it would not be possible run jets out of the island. Those who suggest the slippery slope to jets are either fear-mongering or have no clue what they are talking about. You can probably count on one hand the number of jets that have balanced field lengths that would permit operation from the Island and none of those could even carry a quarter of the board members of any decent sized corporation, in one go.

That inherently limits the functional use of the place; not to mention the paranoid 9/11 type security thoughts.

Reagan and London City do fine. And La Guardia, JFK and Newark aren't exactly in the sticks either.

Leave air traffic to the GTAA; and turn Hamilton Airport into a second full-fledged International Airport, if Pearson needs the support.

Pearson airport is already too far east for a good chunk of the GTA and the periphery. Hamilton would be even worse.

BTW, Hamilton is an international airport. The problem is that not too many airlines care to operate out of there. And should we ever get transit in the region, Hamilton would become even less of a choice. Indeed, if regional rail service really improves, Hamilton residents could start using Pearson.

In the alternative; you could imagine over 100 acres of new parks; or even a small wilderness area (I've canoed behind the airport and its quite serene except for the airport part! LOL)

OR you could envision a new sustainable community, car-free, near downtown, similar to the existing Islands community but denser, with a retail hub for tourists, who can then stroll to and island beach. Could be a model community and yet highly profitable for taxpayers.

Other than opposing the airport, the city have never put forward any reasonable vision for the airport lands. And note I say reasonable. This means something with a half decent business case. If the day ever comes when they do propose something reasonable, I'll back it. And I seriously hope it's not some plan to over run the islands with condos. Bang up job they've done with the waterfront they have today.

N
As opposed to the airport which is a sinkhole for money and hack patronage appointed boards and staff.

The airport has only been unprofitable because of it's constant abuse by the City and the previous tenants (Air Canada) who had no interest in really using it (other than to lock out the competition). Give it a reasonable tenant (just like Porter is doing) and it will flourish. It will be generating a profit in short-order. It's target of a million passengers in a year is hardly piddling. And they are flying in the most environmentally responsible way possible...transit to the airport (and that too a short transit ride) and flying on a turboprop (that's also the best in its class for fuel efficiency, noise, etc) in a single class (no space hogging business passengers).

Aside from that, how come nobody ever brings up the subsidies the Island residents get? How about starting with the fact that they get to stay on incredibly valuable land for a song. And what about the need to maintain waterborne civic and emergency services? Or the impact on ferry services? Would we really run ferry services in the winter if there were no residents there? And how much value added are they providing to the city? How many jobs are they generating? The way I see it, they are reducing potential park space! In my books, the residents will have legitimacy when they start footing the real bill of living on the Island. I find it particularly egregious that some poor schlub in Malvern or Weston has to pay higher taxes to support some privileged folks who happen to luck out yet still demand that they should have the final say on all economically beneficial activity in their vicinity.
 
Last edited:
From downtown, Porter can save you up to an hour (shorter wait times for boarding, less security, shorter trip to the airport).
An hour? Heck, I've spent over 90 minutes just trying to check in, and clear security for Air Canada flights to the USA (and that was after being ushered through the last stage, because the flight was about to depart) - let alone getting there. Doesn't always take that long, but you have to build it in to the time - particularly for US flights.
 
I say if we want to develop an island for condo development, then build a new one. We built Ontario Place. Leave the Toronto Islands alone, and just find a new place for a waterfront community.
 
I say if we want to develop an island for condo development, then build a new one. We built Ontario Place. Leave the Toronto Islands alone, and just find a new place for a waterfront community.
Well, the discussion was about what would be done with the land if the Airport were closed.

If you're gonna close the Airport, you may as well use the land. And no, I don't think Toronto Island really needs parkland expansion... unless the city improves cost efficient access to it.
 
The problem I have with condo development on the Islands is the cost to service residents and businesses there. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing what's supposed to be a wealthy community. If and when the airport is shutdown and the tarmac is traded for penthouses, I want the developers to pay for all the fixed links (road, water, sewer, etc) that need to be put in. Precious tax dollars should not be spent on waterborne services like they are today to service a few Island residents.

That's why a fixed link is not such a bad idea. If it's built for the airport today, it'll still be useful when the airport is converted into something else in the future.
 
isn't the topic for the thread about building connection to the island airport? The airport isn't going to close. They're even expanding. Unless porter goes bankrupt, I don't see how they would be forced to close down. Or a major accident happens to force government intervention to close them down (eg. planes crashing into buildings)
 
The airport isn't going to close. They're even expanding. Unless porter goes bankrupt, I don't see how they would be forced to close down.

Even if Porter goes bankrupt there will always be someone to take over. This airport has been there for 70 years and most likley will still be there in 70 years.
 
There should be a streetcar that goes from union to the island airport, crossing on a bridge. most of the route would be reuse of the 509 tracks. and could be an extra fare route.
 
Environmentalists Rally In Support Of Manhattan Airport

How about a subway to the Island Airport, because if NYC...

From The Manhattan Airport Foundation:

Project Vision

New York City is the cultural and financial capital of the world. It is also our nation’s most densely populated urban area. Yet surprisingly, New York City has no viable airport. JFK, La Guardia and Newark may work for people who live in certain outer boroughs. But they are not an acceptable option for the majority of New Yorkers, requiring travel through some of the most congested traffic arteries in the nation. A journey which by train takes nearly two hours and by automobile can take up to three hours. For a place which purports itself to be the greatest city in the world, this is not a workable model.

Davenport, Iowa has an airport. Tallahassee has one. And so does Lexington, Kentucky. But New York City doesn’t. Amazingly, there is still a large, undeveloped and underutilized site in the center of New York City. In fact, this site has remained undeveloped for so long that many of us forget it even exists. It’s called Central Park. Ask most New Yorkers when was the last time they visited it. Statistically that number is fewer than one visit per person per year. But how many times did those same New Yorkers go the airport? It doesn’t take long to realize Central Park squanders 843 acres of the most valuable real estate in the world.

But it doesn’t have to stay this way. In the past decade residents of high-density areas the world over have empowered themselves to reclaim disused and blighted urban spaces and infuse them with new life and new sense of purpose. From London’s Tate Modern to Paris’ Promenade Plantee to New York’s own High Line examples abound of this enlightened philosophy of urban conservationism. Our regional airports are more overcrowded than ever. Millions of skilled workers are without jobs. And Congress stands ready to spend billions on shovel-ready stimulus programs to reenergize our economy and get New Yorkers back to work.

One day New Yorkers will move seamlessly between Midtown and Shinjuku without ever setting foot in an automobile. We will cross 59th Street and enter into a unique urban oasis, a place seemingly apart from the rest of Manhattan yet existing at its very core. And figuratively serving as its very lifeblood. A relic of our past magically transformed and reinfused with purpose. An unprecedented transportation amenity connecting us with London, Hong Kong, and the other great cultural capitals of the world.

Public dollars helped create Central Park in the 1850s. And public responsibility dictates that we transform this underutilized asset into something we so desperately need today. Manhattan Airport will prove New York City no longer allows it’s vestigial prewar cityscape to languish in irrelevance but instead reinvents these spaces with a daring and inspired bravado truly befitting one of the world’s great cities. The moment is now.

map4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Is that supposed to be a joke?

And "New York City" doesn't have an airport? The Borough of Manhattan may not have one, but last I checked Queens is still a part of the City. Downtown-to-airport distance notwithstanding, it's like saying "Toronto" doesn't have an airport serviced by jet-operated international flights because Pearson is in Etobicoke, and worse than saying "Vancouver" doesn't have an airport because YVR is in Richmond.
 
Pearson is in mississauga not etobicoke.

But wow... are they crazy? Turn Central Park into an airport? :O It's one of the things that makes NYC famous. I love it. It's tranquil for those who want to escape the noises of the city for a short period of time. I see a lot of people there actually every time I visited Central Park when I go to NYC. As for 2 hr train to the airport. Why not build an airport line instead for faster access. Beats turning CP into an airport. Tokyo has an airport line. Otherwise it would take nearly 2 hrs to get into the city too. HK has airport line as I'm sure other cities also. Last time I went to Seoul, they're planning an airport line.

Anyhow why build tunnel to porter. The boat going across to the airport is a short trip. If porter wanted one, they would have built one.
 
>>>I see a lot of people there actually every time I visited Central Park when I go to NYC.<<<

More people than you would see if you went to LaGuardia or JFK?
 

Back
Top