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

I'm surprised the city hasnt brought up the "funicular walkway" option up for a study. I mean if they were stupid enough to study replacing the Bay street streetcar tunnel with the walkway, why dont they waste some more time and money doing it here right?

In all seriousness though, the option that makes most sense (if we're not talking about converting the Island Airport) to getting people over to the island is more ferries. There's simply no other cost effective method to create more green space for downtown residents. The city cant even afford to deliver 2 relatively straightforward parks (Rees St and Harbour St), so in what world could they afford to do anything that's even more complicated?
 
Amare said:
The city cant even afford to deliver 2 relatively straightforward parks (Rees St and Harbour St), so in what world could they afford to do anything that's even more complicated?
Click to expand...

Rees Street is funded.

Not sure what you're aiming at in respect of Harbour Street.
 
Northern Light said:
Rees Street is funded.

Not sure what you're aiming at in respect of Harbour Street.
Click to expand...
Well that's news to me, are you aware of what the has been delay in getting the construction started is if it's not a cost issue?

Regarding Harbour St, this is the parcel i'm referring to:

1726505823872.png
 
Amare said:
Well that's news to me, are you aware of what the has been delay in getting the construction started is if it's not a cost issue?
Click to expand...

The Waterfront DRP didn't like the design direction at all, (they were right), it led to the Landscape Architect contract being terminated.

A new RFP for Park design should be going out shortly.


Amare said:
Regarding Harbour St, this is the parcel i'm referring to:

View attachment 596706
Click to expand...

This one is being built by the developer. The timing is normally triggered by different building permits, I can't recall if that's the case here, but seeing as they seem to be readying to move the school ahead, I think you'll find the park is likely going to be tied timing wise to the school opening.

*note that this section of street is no longer to be named Harbour, but instead Downes Street.
 
Northern Light said:
The Waterfront DRP didn't like the design direction at all, (they were right), it led to the Landscape Architect contract being terminated.

A new RFP for Park design should be going out shortly.
Click to expand...
Well that's definitely reassuring and good to know, hopefully the cost doesnt escalate and lead to the city needing to find additional funds to deliver it.

Northern Light said:
This one is being built by the developer. The timing is normally triggered by different building permits, I can't recall if that's the case here, but seeing as they seem to be readying to move the school ahead, I think you'll find the park is likely going to be tied timing wise to the school opening.

*note that this section of street is no longer to be named Harbour, but instead Downes Street.
Click to expand...
News to me again, I was under the thinking that the park would be delivered by the city and not the developer. But since that's the case, makes sense why the timeline is delayed with this one.

@Northern Light is bringing the heat the details, always appreciated.
 
Amare said:
Well that's definitely reassuring and good to know, hopefully the cost doesnt escalate and lead to the city needing to find additional funds to deliver it.


News to me again, I was under the thinking that the park would be delivered by the city and not the developer. But since that's the case, makes sense why the timeline is delayed with this one.

@Northern Light is bringing the heat the details, always appreciated.
Click to expand...

Not to side track this thread too much, but here's a link w/the current'ish status of Rees:

Rees Street Park | Waterfront Toronto

www.waterfrontoronto.ca www.waterfrontoronto.ca

RFP was due to be out by now, I thought.
 
lenaitch said:
So . . . the city wants tourist, just not in its peaceful places?
Click to expand...
Wanting tourists is one thing. Wanting tourists everywhere in equal numbers is quite another.

It’s the last thing tourists themselves want in a city. Some come for hustle and bustle, big attractions and shopping. Some come for more intimate experiences. They don’t need to be led by the hand. In fact that's a good way to ruin it. Let them enjoy the journey as well as the destination. Yes, the Bay Street docks are stupidly inefficient and uncomfortable. Everything else about the ferries is good. Have you ever seen unhappy kids on board?

As for the airport: I don’t fly any more. But the stories I hear regularly about Pearson suggest it would be close to urbanist malpractice to rip out a centrally located aviation alternative that’s as accessible or more to half the city. How big YTZ should be and for what kind of flights it should be used are fair questions. Closing it on the ground that downtown needs a big park, when the city repeatedly flubbed opportunities to make such a space in actual downtown, smacks of the worst kind of central planning.

As for the islanders, I care about the ones I know, who are far, far removed from the smug elite leaseholder caricature that endures among self-styled levellers. And isn’t it true that having people live on land is the best way of avoiding historic mistakes in determining its use?
 
Did anyone happen to virtually attend the public meeting about the runway expansion last night?
 
rdaner said:
Did anyone happen to virtually attend the public meeting about the runway expansion last night?
Click to expand...
I attended the meeting. The dominant sentiment from the crowd was "Close the airport, don't let this safety requirement be a backdoor way for PortsToronto to re-open the tripartite agreement and extend their lease, expand their operations or bring in jets." People wanted city council to consider withholding consent of the RESA as a way to keep the airport from being compliant with the regulation and therefore ending operations there. They want any studies to consider a "no airport" option. Others were concerned about environmental and ecological impacts as well as construction impacts to neighbourhoods in the area. Some were pretty angry the last minute nature of the consultation itself and the speed at which this decision needs to be made without opportunity to investigate the potential impacts.

There was also a vocal portion of the crowd from/aligned with Friends of Hanlan's who were concerned about one detail in one of the options that suggested a public pedestrian access road around the perimeter of the airport, which could potentially signal a fixed link to the mainland in the future, which they don't want because of concerns around safety at Hanlan's Beach -- Basically if there's a bridge at Bathurst Quay, that would become the main entrance to the islands which would bring way more traffic past the historically LGBT+ space, no longer making it secluded and perhaps attracting unwanted attention/harassment.

Here's a CityNews report on this angle.

And of course there were some there who like the airport as it is and wanted to maintain or even expand it's operation.
 
Last edited:

Agenda Item History 2024.EX17.5

Agenda Item History 2024.EX17.5
secure.toronto.ca
Staff report is out to the executive committee on wednesday
Gives a great summary of where were at. including why that 2027 date matters.

this caught my eye. HEELLLLL NAWWWW lol. Staff said so as well lol

As noted above, PortsToronto has requested that Transport Canada and the City amend the Tripartite Agreement so that it run for 48 years from 2025, meaning an extension of term from 2033 to 2073 (an extra 40 years). Among the evidence provided is that this is the length of time needed to finance a RESA project that could cost approximately $200 million. It was also noted that airports across Canada typically have 50-60 year lease terms to allow for long-term planning.
Click to expand...

As noted above, PortsToronto has requested that Transport Canada and the City amend the Tripartite Agreement so that it run for 48 years from 2025, meaning an extension of term from 2033 to 2073 (an extra 40 years). Among the evidence provided is that this is the length of time needed to finance a RESA project that could cost approximately $200 million. It was also noted that airports across Canada typically have 50-60 year lease terms to allow for long-term planning. The City has requested information on the amortization period that is required for other RESA options, including the City's recommended Option 1 which is anticipated to cost approximately $61 million-$64 million. This information has not been provided, as PortsToronto has said that its analysis and borrowing request of Transport Canada was based on the highest cost option (required for Option 3) which could be pursued.
Click to expand...

In order to assess possible amortization periods for smaller RESA options, City staff reviewed available information. Analysis undertaken by City staff included a review of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport - RESA Page 28 of 38 precedents (i.e. the airport pedestrian tunnel which was $82.5 million and has a 20-year concession agreement with a private sector consortium), review of municipal practices for borrowing (which are typically 20-30 years), staff led analysis of PortsToronto's financial statements and ability to pay, and external research on the typical practices of airport operators
Click to expand...
 
milkycontent said:
From my read of the report, it seems like staff are recommending going along with the minimum RESA requirements but rejecting PortsToronto’s ask to extend the agreement from 2033 to 2073 until a broader airport master plan can be updated, along with robust public consultation.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1840035826035544187
Click to expand...

This is correct.

Essentially, the City is prepared to 'support' Option 1 (the minimum necessary change to facilitated RESA). The City views this as more or less obligatory under the current Tripartite agreement.

The City is opposed to more far reaching changes without a through discussion of their immediate and future implications, a discussion for which there likely is not sufficient time to meet the RESA deadline.

****

Of note, Ports Toronto has taken one of its carrots off the table:

1727537993602.png


I'm fine w/this as the proposal as laid out was grossly impractical.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top