Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

[nfitz]

I'd need to look into the research but I don't think it can be generalized. London should go from 6 airports to 1? Montreal and NYC should go from 3 airports to 1?

If you count 6 airports in London, then you should count 4, 5, or even 6 in New York (assuming you included Newark NJ), There's Stewart International in Orange County operated by New York's Port Authority. Both Allegiant and Breeze fly out of it, along with Fed Ex. And even busier airports with in Long Island (with the MTA rail connection), and Westchester County.

 

[lenaitch]

For one thing, you need a taxiway beside the runway, as not shown in some of the other images posted above. Otherwise the planes would be using the runway to taxi to or from one end, then turning around in place during every arrival and departure -- not very practical or efficient.

No you don't. There are four entry points from the parallel ramp area - essentially a taxiway - and extensions for runway 08/26 and two perpendicular taxiways for 06/24.

 

[JJTheJetPln]

Ford really doesn't understand aviation, like most things, and a lot of these decisions are really just him talking out of his backside.

In terms of jets Runway 06 would only be usable for landings and to extend it outward, runway 24 would only be usable for takeoffs. Runway 06 when extended would need to introduce at least CAT I if not CAT II or CAT III(?) with the potential for CAT IIIc for autoland in inclement weather. Though, that assumes there are any narrowbody jets that support IIIc, that I haven't looked into.

Depending on the jets that are intended to land after the extension of the runway or creation of a new runway... Where are they going to park? What obstacles exist on taxiways that larger jets would have to clear? Sure, we could do RJ2/7/900's, maybe even an E175?? However, without the expansion of the terminal to expand the gates, we're going to run into what Gate 173/175/177 in T1 at Pearson run into every time an A388 needs to use those gates for boarding.

I'm concerned that this entire thing is just going to be a massive cash sink when it could be better spent elsewhere.

I do not want this 'project' if we can even call it that having a single shovel hitting the ground because I know it's not going to be done in the how many other years he has left.

 

[afransen]

I'd need to look into the research but I don't think it can be generalized. London should go from 6 airports to 1? Montreal and NYC should go from 3 airports to 1? If we shouldn't have BB, the we also should not have ALTO.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While there may not be research specifically on BB, there is on secondary airport (as per asking AI):

Research in aviation and urban planning strongly supports the existence of "multi-airport systems"—where a major city is served by a primary hub and one or more secondary airports. This setup is generally viewed as a strategic response to capacity constraints and a driver for economic competition.

The supporting research typically focuses on four key areas:

1. Relief of Capacity and Congestion​

As major hub airports reach their physical limits, secondary airports act as "reliever" facilities.

• Operational Efficiency: Research from MIT suggests that available capacity at surrounding airports can be twice that of the core hub. Utilizing these secondary sites significantly increases the overall system capacity without the massive environmental and political hurdles of building a new "greenfield" primary airport.
• Delay Mitigation: Studies on the Chicago metropolitan area (O'Hare vs. Midway/Gary) show that secondary airports are essential in regional strategies to manage gate arrival delays and taxi times during peak traffic periods.

2. Economic Competition and Consumer Choice​

Secondary airports are often the primary catalyst for competition in the airline industry.

• The LCC (Low-Cost Carrier) Effect: Research indicates that the rise of "no-frills" airlines (like Ryanair in Europe or Southwest in the US) is inextricably linked to secondary airports. These carriers use secondary airports to avoid the high landing fees and "monopoly" pricing of legacy carriers at major hubs.
• Price Pressure: The presence of a secondary airport increases the price elasticity of the region. This forces primary airports and legacy airlines to keep their aeronautical charges and fares more competitive.

3. Regional Economic Development​

Smaller airports often serve as specialized economic engines for their immediate vicinity.

• Business Attraction: A joint report from aviation and highway officials found that for every dollar invested in general aviation (secondary) airports, there is an average return of $75 by companies utilizing those facilities.
• Job Creation: Research in Canada and the US shows that even small regional flights can generate millions in GDP. For example, a single regional flight can support between 126 and 210 jobs through direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts.

4. Urban Planning and "Metroplex" Dynamics​

Urban planners use the term "Metroplex" to describe metropolitan areas where multiple airports have highly interdependent operations.

• Specialization: Secondary airports often specialize in niches that would "clog" a major hub, such as corporate aviation, air cargo, or flight training. This allows the primary airport to focus almost exclusively on high-volume commercial international and domestic traffic.
• Geographic Coverage: Secondary airports provide better accessibility for residents living on the periphery of a major city, reducing ground travel time and local traffic congestion toward the urban core.

Except Pearson isn't at capacity, and Hamilton makes a lot more sense as a relief valve airport than BB, which is inherently an un-scalable airport.

 

[dowlingm]

Except Pearson isn't at capacity, and Hamilton makes a lot more sense as a relief valve airport than BB, which is inherently an un-scalable airport.

Except to intending passengers.

 

[ScreamingViking]

Ford is famously not the sharpest tool in the shed.. he's probably got a lot of misconceptions. I'd wait for the actual info instead of basing the whole plan off some off-the-cuff remark from him.

Now there's a "leftie" comment if I've ever seen one.

 

[ScreamingViking]

I think the government's "wisdom" is tied to the fact Billy Bishop serves a unique market, but also helps prop up their other investments in that area of Toronto (even just politically), never mind serve whoever has their nose up the premier's backside.

They're not thinking about the bigger picture of air travel on the network of airports in the Toronto vicinity. That's for the lefties in transportation planning to worry about.

I'd still love to see an analysis of competing options for the forthcoming investment, including the "do nothing" scenario. But that will not likely happen.

 

[McGillicuddy]

• Business Attraction: A joint report from aviation and highway officials found that for every dollar invested in general aviation (secondary) airports, there is an average return of $75 by companies utilizing those facilities.

Complete garbage. These "studies" inevitably turn upon counting every single dollar of economic activity radiating in multiple directions as if it were solely attributable to the quantity in question. They are nothing more than PR exercises.

Many of the factory's workers sometimes eat at a local diner. The diner's manager often buys supplies at a local dollar store. One of the dollar store's cashiers has a child in a local school. One of the local school's teachers attends First Methodist Church. The priest at First Methodist has a cleaning lady. And the factory produces all five of those jobs! In fact, if you count all the knock-on effects, the factory employs 160,000 of the town's 40,000 people!

 

[TRONto]

Complete garbage. These "studies" inevitably turn upon counting every single dollar of economic activity radiating in multiple directions as if it were solely attributable to the quantity in question. They are nothing more than PR exercises.

Many of the factory's workers sometimes eat at a local diner. The diner's manager often buys supplies at a local dollar store. One of the dollar store's cashiers has a child in a local school. One of the local school's teachers attends First Methodist Church. The priest at First Methodist has a cleaning lady. And the factory produces all five of those jobs! In fact, if you count all the knock-on effects, the factory employs 160,000 of the town's 40,000 people!

I found that hard to believe myself. I think much of economic impact on both sides of this issue would involve a bit of voodoo and to truly find a possible answer you'd have to dig into the research to see what it actually shows.

I think the biggest pros for BB boil down to competition and redundancy while also making Pearson more profitable as the % of flights skews even higher to international. Whether those issues are enough to warrant an expansion are a different question.

 

[GrayLake]

How about a gondola over the rail tracks from union and down on Spadina to an expanded BB airport terminal with a casino, convention centre and perphaps a ferris wheel?

Only half joking.

 

[picard102]

Except Pearson isn't at capacity, and Hamilton makes a lot more sense as a relief valve airport than BB, which is inherently an un-scalable airport.

Who in Toronto is going to choose Hamilton to fly in and out of over BB?

 

[DSCToronto]

Now there's a "leftie" comment if I've ever seen one.

I consider myself 'centrist' and the statements that Ford is not terribly smart and comes up with 'off the cuff' ideas on multiple topics seem pretty accurate to me. Most of his odd ideas are NOTHING to do the most things he was actually voted in to do - improve health care and education, for example.

 

[DSCToronto]

1 - Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor Josh Matlow (Carried)
That:

1. City Council request the City Solicitor to report to the April 22, 23, 24, 2026 meeting of City Council on potential legal options to defend the City of Toronto’s interests, including property ownership, in the Billy Bishop Airport lands and other important City-owned Waterfront lands.

Vote (Amend Item (Additional))Mar-25-2026 4:43 PM​

Result: Carried	Majority Required
Total members that voted Yes: 21	Members that voted Yes are Paul Ainslie, Brad Bradford, Alejandra Bravo, Jon Burnside, Shelley Carroll, Lily Cheng, Rachel Chernos Lin, Olivia Chow, Paula Fletcher, Parthi Kandavel, Ausma Malik, Josh Matlow, Chris Moise, Amber Morley, Jamaal Myers, Frances Nunziata (Chair), James Pasternak, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Dianne Saxe, Neethan Shan
Total members that voted No: 3	Members that voted No are Mike Colle, Vincent Crisanti, Stephen Holyday
Total members that were Absent: 2	Members that were absent are Nick Mantas, Michael Thompson

2 - Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor Mike Colle (Out of Order)
That:

1. City Council request the federal Minister of Transportation, as part of any tripartite discussions and decision making about the future operations of Toronto Island Billy Bishop Airport (including any proposed expansion of runways and jet aircraft), to conduct and independent and transparent safety study including the impacts on future Waterfront Toronto city building initiatives, other future development, recreational uses in the harbour and safety and quality of life for local residents.


Motion to Adopt Item as Amended (Carried)

Vote (Adopt Item as Amended)Mar-25-2026 4:44 PM​

Result: Carried	Majority Required
Total members that voted Yes: 22	Members that voted Yes are Paul Ainslie, Brad Bradford, Alejandra Bravo, Jon Burnside, Shelley Carroll, Lily Cheng, Rachel Chernos Lin, Olivia Chow, Paula Fletcher, Parthi Kandavel, Ausma Malik, Nick Mantas, Josh Matlow, Chris Moise, Amber Morley, Jamaal Myers, Frances Nunziata (Chair), James Pasternak, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Dianne Saxe, Neethan Shan
Total members that voted No: 3	Members that voted No are Mike Colle, Vincent Crisanti, Stephen Holyday
Total members that were Absent: 1	Members that were absent are Michael Thompson

 

[afransen]

Who in Toronto is going to choose Hamilton to fly in and out of over BB?

If it is cheaper, the millions of people in the West GTA, Niagara, KW/Guelph, etc area could use that airport instead of BB to provide relief to Pearson passenger volumes.

 

[innsertnamehere]

If it is cheaper, the millions of people in the West GTA, Niagara, KW/Guelph, etc area could use that airport instead of BB to provide relief to Pearson passenger volumes.

Hamilton has been around for decades with capacity for flights and low landing costs to little success. It’s been a revolving door of airlines and destinations.

Porter is making a run at it now again, we’ll see if that’s successful.

The island airport has 20 years of successful, stable operations at this point. Demand is well proven.