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

Peepers said:
The NoJetsTO group is holding a public panel discussion (apparently all one-sided) this evening.

If I am not mistaken that is our very own Craig White sitting behind David Miller so I suspect we will get a full report on this

BbFT74_CUAA8dmX.jpg


photo credit : @JohnLorinc
Click to expand...


That crowd is so not representative of the general population of the city at all. Just proves how little value the city places on the interests of the more diverse residents that live in Rexdale, Malton, Downsview, etc.

If you can afford a $400 000 condo in the core, then you get to stick the burbs with anything that you don't like.
 
EnviroTO said:
Porter wins in quality of service and proximity to downtown. Take those two things away and it doesn't win anyone over. From a transportation planner perspective or efficiency of transportation service delivery perspective I don't think an argument can be made that somehow servicing two airports would be cheaper. It is more efficient for some users to use Toronto Island but many efficiencies come from a single airport. If air service was run by the government the cheapest way to deliver things would be to run larger aircraft less frequently. Not saying that would be thing to the consumer, just that pure transportation planning is meeting real needs. Shifted work schedules, night deliveries, etc aren't about convenience as much as they are about efficient use of less infrastructure.
Click to expand...

We had decades of air transport controlled by government and even owned by government. Fares were higher. Service was worse.

If you want to see how well government works for transport planning, just look at the under-investment and lack of planning on the transit side today.

As for the rest of your argument. You act as though those features are irrelevant. Yes, Porter has better service. And that attracts customers. And yes, Porter has a better location. Something Air Canada often chose not to use after running the competition out of business (something they can't do with Porter). The rest of your argument is bunk. It all depends on traffic flows. Different airports serve different purposes. And not all traffic can or should be consolidated at one airport. Take London City. Several major airlines do quite well servicing LCY in the UK, with their regional ops, while simultaneously servicing Heathrow. And over there, British Airways, splits its operations between Heathrow, Gatwick and London City. Each operation is tailored to a different audience. Heathrow is a major hub with lots of transfer traffic. Gatwick focuses on lower-yield holiday trippers from the London area. And London City focuses on higher-yielding business travellers from the core. There is absolutely no reason that the GTHA could not end up with a similar setup with Pearson as a national and international hub, Hamilton and Pickering catering to low cost and charter flights and BBTCA focused on centre to centre travel with a regional focus. For example, if BBTCA were to get US preclearance, that would open up flights to Washington Reagan and New York LaGuardia. Both those would be quite useful for business travelers to those regions.

I might have actually considered supporting the closure of the airport. But I've realized we will never have infrastructure that offers even a modicum of alternative. The UPE is too expensive for regular travelers. And servicing Ottawa and Montreal will require HSR, which won't happen in my lifetime in this country. Canadians are too cheap to pay the taxes required for proper transit (so we fight over second rate solutions like 30km LRTs). HSR? A pipe-dream. Given these realities, I support maximizing use of the infrastructure we have.
 
kEiThZ said:
That crowd is so not representative of the general population of the city at all. Just proves how little value the city places on the interests of the more diverse residents that live in Rexdale, Malton, Downsview, etc.

If you can afford a $400 000 condo in the core, then you get to stick the burbs with anything that you don't like.
Click to expand...

Yes, play up the downtown vs. suburb argument - the city just decided to spend 1B to build a subway there using the entire property tax base, so much for not placing value to the interests of said residents. I suppose we can claim that the city places little value on the interest of downtown residents because the city is refusing to bury the Gardiner?

As to the bit about the 400K condo, I believe it's been noted that detached housing in said areas often cost more.

AoD
 
I'll say one thing about this place its convenient. Woke up at 6:10am in Regent Park and I'm sitting on the plane now ready for take off.
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
That crowd is so not representative of the general population of the city at all. Just proves how little value the city places on the interests of the more diverse residents that live in Rexdale, Malton, Downsview, etc.

If you can afford a $400 000 condo in the core, then you get to stick the burbs with anything that you don't like.
Click to expand...

Look like the same demographic you see on the ferry to the airport. Airport users are not lower income suburbanites either.
 
Waterfront Toronto says (I'm paraphrasing) that the Airport Expansion threatens the return on their own investments, primarily due to traffic concerns.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/1999...ail&utm_term=0_d2454d00da-c39a800703-10588678


So, investment A has return $X and investment B has return $Y; but making both investment A+B will not yield $X+$Y without additional changes. I would guess they're trying to get TPA to fund some roadway or transit improvements to support their increased passenger load.
 
rbt said:
Waterfront Toronto says (I'm paraphrasing) that the Airport Expansion threatens the return on their own investments, primarily due to traffic concerns.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/1999...ail&utm_term=0_d2454d00da-c39a800703-10588678


So, investment A has return $X and investment B has return $Y; but making both investment A+B will not yield $X+$Y without additional changes. I would guess they're trying to get TPA to fund some roadway or transit improvements to support their increased passenger load.
Click to expand...

Waterfront Toronto's vision and revitalization project aims to reduce the traffic load in the area, not to increase it. After spending $1.3b public fund and years of hard work, I don't think Waterfront Toronto is after TPA for funding of road improvements.

Waterfront's letter to City of Toronto Executive Committee is clear about their vision:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo...e_committee_re_bbtca___december_2__2013_1.pdf
 
SimonP said:
Look like the same demographic you see on the ferry to the airport. Airport users are not lower income suburbanites either.
Click to expand...

Right. But the ones complaining about pollution in the core (while completely ignoring that the airport is miniscule compared to the Gardiner and all the other auto traffic) are more than happy not to give one hoot about foisting more air traffic over Malton and Rexdale. Shades of socioeconomic elitism all around.

I like to believe in environmental principles. But it grinds my gears when the people who bring them up are primarily beneficiaries of such policies and what they advocate results in someone else getting dumped on further. If we want to talk about reducing pollution in the core, would anyone support development bans or traffic limiting measures? Of course not. But relocating air traffic so that kids in Malton and Rexdale are even more exposed? Perfectly acceptable.

Sorry. But we live in a modern society and part of that is bearing the impact of modern infrastructure. Be that living near a rail corridor that's ramping up for regional rail service. Or putting up with a bit of air traffic.
 
Right. But the ones complaining about pollution in the core (while completely ignoring that the airport is miniscule compared to the Gardiner and all the other auto traffic) are more than happy not to give one hoot about foisting more air traffic over Malton and Rexdale. Shades of socioeconomic elitism all around.

I like to believe in environmental principles. But it grinds my gears when the people who bring them up are primarily beneficiaries of such policies and what they advocate results in someone else getting dumped on further. If we want to talk about reducing pollution in the core, would anyone support development bans or traffic limiting measures? Of course not. But relocating air traffic so that kids in Malton and Rexdale are even more exposed? Perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

Well, we did mention burying or tearing down the Gardiner but you seem to think that drivers from elsewhere have a case against it. Really, it's not all that different - and definitely not some sinister class warfare that you are framing it to be. I mean, let me frame it another way - would those from Rexdale or Malton give one hoot about foisting more car traffic downtown if a) it benefits them and b) they could? I have a feeling they wouldn't either. So what would that make it - socioeconomic popularism?

AoD
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
Contradiction in terms. All that development and they think traffic will go down?
Click to expand...

Actually they do, and I think they can.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/our_waterfront_vision/our_future_is_green/transit_first
the five-minute transit commitment
Each community will be fully served by transit, and the plan focuses on streetcars with right-of-way and light rail. Virtually every residence will be within five minutes of a transit stop, minimizing the need for vehicular traffic.


Currently I don't need a car, like many others living in the same building with me, our parking is 30-40% vacant. If we can achieve and maintain a "healthy urban living" as Toronto Waterfront promises, I don't see any reason to move to suburbs and spend 3 hours of my life everyday for commuting.

Remember, if you promote use of cars, people will use it. Look at exhibition place, almost 50% of an " prime recreational" area is paved and dedicated for parking:

exhibition.jpg


And yes, we have tons of traffic there, good luck trying to get in.

Look at downtown of Munich, close to the main rail station, heart of the city. You will not be able see any parking, and traffic is much easier. Message is clear here: leave your car at home.

munich.jpg
 

Attachments

  • exhibition.jpg
    exhibition.jpg
    99.9 KB · Views: 271
  • munich.jpg
    munich.jpg
    100.7 KB · Views: 274
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top