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

[TOareaFan]

I think there is enough skin in the game (new terminal, tunnel) that closing it don't won't be an option at this point - besides, if Porter couldn't survive with the current business model under the existing rules (barring the closed books and the insistence than the business is profitable), that's frankly a private sector issue - why should rules be changed just to enable the survival of one business that has frankly been utterly opaque?

I tend to agree that Porter can probably survive...if not grow much in their current operating mode. That would not (and, I think, does not) stop people of imagining/hoping for the slippery slope to airport closure I outlined above. I was speaking of the intent of some opponents, not what I thought would happen.

Let's put it this way, the jets issue, or the runway issue was being posed by the proponents in so many different ways, they aren't leaving this one as a saint. Recall the ironclad insistence by Deluce that there will be no jets? That's a compact with the community being violated.

I don't think I said anyone was up for sainthood.....in fact, I may even have started my last post with "slippy slopes work in both directions" . As I have said before, though, the problem with a "no jets" approach to this is that it stops you from actually saying "what are the best planes to allow for the benefit of all involved {including neighbours}".....the C series jets did not exist in 2006.....based on the available jets at the time it could be that the initial no jets promise was sincere (and easily given)....the problem with banning technology rather than performance is that it closes the door to improvements that technology may create.

Not quite, considering the jets enables the use of the airport for long distance routes, which will create upward pressure. That's also one reason why TP was quite adamant about not negotiating or respecting the cap that council demanded as part of the EA enabling vote (the talk about respecting the council direction nothwithstanding).

AoD

Well, if the response to a new deal (presuming there was one) that said "those jets ok...with X slots {may be the same number} and a terminal of Y size {may be the same size} and an investment on the ground side of the airport of Z dollars" is "you may have well said "no jets" then that is fine....but the components are unrelated to the technology of the plane......just some perception of what that technology brings.

 

[picard102]

Didn't we just spend 1/2 $billion building a rail link that can get you to Pearson faster than you can get to BB anyway?

Unless you live next to the Bloor Station, there is little chance it's faster, and certainly not cheaper.

I only suggested it because it already is an operating airport with jets, with better access and less land use incompatibilities (like not being beach and bird sanctuary adjacent). Plus the feds already own that too.

Or you know, Downsview National Park.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't think I said anyone was up for sainthood.....in fact, I may even have started my last post with "slippy slopes work in both directions" . As I have said before, though, the problem with a "no jets" approach to this is that it stops you from actually saying "what are the best planes to allow for the benefit of all involved {including neighbours}".....the C series jets did not exist in 2006.....based on the available jets at the time it could be that the initial no jets promise was sincere (and easily given)....the problem with banning technology rather than performance is that it closes the door to improvements that technology may create.

Except your statement of "what are the best planes to allow for the benefit of all involved" is pretty loaded - is an extra-regional airport with far higher levels of demand necessarily the best fit with the waterfront? As to the sincerity of the statement - one is running dangerously close to telling someone that they know best what's for them, despite the compact and the gross changes required of the airport footprint.

Well, if the response to a new deal (presuming there was one) that said "those jets ok...with X slots {may be the same number} and a terminal of Y size {may be the same size} and an investment on the ground side of the airport of Z dollars" is "you may have well said "no jets" then that is fine....but the components are unrelated to the technology of the plane......just some perception of what that technology brings.

Except those things don't exist in a vacuum - and the technology of the plane is in this case what basically changes the nature of the airport itself. Others might consider "no jets" as "no jets", I personally consider it a limiter for YTZ to remain a regional airport, especially since the parties in question have shown absolutely no interest in capping the number of flights.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

Except your statement of "what are the best planes to allow for the benefit of all involved" is pretty loaded - is an extra-regional airport with far higher levels of demand necessarily the best fit with the waterfront? As to the sincerity of the statement - one is running dangerously close to telling someone that they know best what's for them, despite the compact and the gross changes required of the airport footprint.

it is only a loaded question if you assume some bias in the person asking it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

it is only a loaded question if you assume some bias in the person asking it.

My default assumption is the presence of bias (perhaps a better word is "positioned") - because it's ultimately a normative question in the first place.

AoD

 

[CDL.TO]

Here's some promotional materials for those new Whisperjets we've been hearing all about!

(And there's my attempt at a WK Lis-style post...)

 

[freshcutgrass]

- Pearson has room to grow now but should be reaching is max capacity some time in the 2030-2040's.

If and when Pearson reaches it's absolute capacity, the island airport's comparatively insignificant passenger numbers are never going to represent any kind of relief anyway. So that argument is a non-starter.

However I repeat Downsview does not have nor ever had passenger jet service.

And how does that translate into never being able to accommodate passenger jet service? Right...it doesn't. The operative point is that it does accommodate jets. The island airport doesn't, nor ever did, and more importantly, nor does it look like it ever will.

There's no pleasing everyone, so it basically boils down to picking the dog with the least fleas.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Once Pearson is full, why don't we build a proper island airport, further out in the lake. I'm thinking something Hong Kong sized,

but further out... like Kobe's

Use landfill, put the airport equidistant between Toronto and Oshawa, approx. 5 km from shore, with rail links, etc... The Oshawa Port Authority would likely be up to the challenge, http://www.portofoshawa.ca/

 

[picard102]

And how does that translate into never being able to accommodate passenger jet service? Right...it doesn't. The operative point is that it does accommodate jets. The island airport doesn't, nor ever did, and more importantly, nor does it look like it ever will.

The island airport only requires a few meters of runway to accommodate jets.
Downsview has the runway, but needs every other piece of infrastructure needed to become a passenger airport.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

If and when Pearson reaches it's absolute capacity, the island airport's comparatively insignificant passenger numbers are never going to represent any kind of relief anyway. So that argument is a non-starter.

It's not about relieving Pearson it's about adding Billy Bishops traffic to Pearson's. The island airports 2,300,000 passengers may be insignificant compared to Pearson's 38,000,000 however that still represents 114,000 flights to Pearson's 432,000 flights. Even with the new runway Pearson is planning they only expect to max out at 680,000 flights. So it's not as simple as saying Porter should fly out of Pearson.

And how does that translate into never being able to accommodate passenger jet service? Right...it doesn't. The operative point is that it does accommodate jets. The island airport doesn't, nor ever did, and more importantly, nor does it look like it ever will.

There's no pleasing everyone, so it basically boils down to picking the dog with the least fleas.

I don't think you appreciate the difference between an airport that has existing passenger service, and one that has none.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Once Pearson is full, why don't we build a proper island airport, further out in the lake. I'm thinking something Hong Kong sized,

but further out... like Kobe's

Use landfill, put the airport equidistant between Toronto and Oshawa, approx. 5 km from shore, with rail links, etc... The Oshawa Port Authority would likely be up to the challenge, http://www.portofoshawa.ca/

These are ultra-high cost solutions for jurisdictions that really don't have much of a choice, besides I think these are examples located in relatively shallow seas - and the lake gets pretty deep (50m+) at 5km from the lake - reclaimation probably won't be all that feasible.

AoD

 

[freshcutgrass]

The island airport only requires a few meters of runway to accommodate jets.

Porter's plan called for extending the main runway from 1216 meters to 1658 meters, so a "few" meters is actually 442. The current estimate for this runway extension is $92 million.

But wait!!! There's more.

Outside consultants say that’s not long enough for Bombardier’s CSeries jets, and actually requires an additional 161 meters to meet unrestricted CSeries operations requirements.

But don't go away yet!!

Transport Canada has brought in new safety aerodrome standards that require wider runway strips, safety areas and greater runway to taxiway separation, which could add significant infrastructure costs.

So...the real cost of runway upgrades to the island airport??? who knows.

Additional infrastructure costs to accommodate all this jet passenger business has been pegged to possibly over $1 billion. The detrimental affects to the surrounding mainland will make things much worse than they already are. Area traffic and a lack of mass transit service to the island airport is just an added bonus.

It's all a moot point anyway, as....YOU CAN'T FLY JETS FROM THE ISLAND AIRPORT!!

But you can at Downsview. Which also happens to be right next to its own subway line (already conveniently named Downsview...would't even have to spend any money changing the signs). And at the crossroads of the 401 & the Allan.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The island airport only requires a few meters of runway to accommodate jets.
Downsview has the runway, but needs every other piece of infrastructure needed to become a passenger airport.

Not that I'd agree with using Downview for said purpose, but lest I remind one that YTZ went through a recent series of developments to enable the current level of usage as well. It isn't rocket science if you have to do it..

AoD

 

[muller877]

Use landfill, put the airport equidistant between Toronto and Oshawa, approx. 5 km from shore, with rail links, etc... The Oshawa Port Authority would likely be up to the challenge,

Why would we spend so much money to build an airport so far out (while we have land so close to that already designated)? Talk about a white elephant.

The problem with Lake Ontario right near Toronto is that it gets pretty deep pretty fast.

http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/14800.shtml

You can build near the shoreline but as soon as you get out a km it's almost impossible.

 

[muller877]

It's all a moot point anyway, as....YOU CAN'T FLY JETS FROM THE ISLAND AIRPORT!!
.

The owners of the island airport can wait it out. Maybe Toronto should consider what will happen in 2033 when the agreement ends....get a 25 year extension to the deal in exchange for giving up something?

After 2033 if I was Porter I would be flying out the noisiest planes to force Toronto into an agreement.