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

sjc said:
A lot of those 500,000 are people from outside of Toronto bringing their dollars (many of them US$) to spend in Toronto. Since they arrive in downtown, they are likely to spend at least some of those dollars in or near downtown.

I think this puts an end to the argument that only "a few" people benefit from having an airport.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The NIMBYs seem to think Porter is some premium service used exclusively by Bay Street types. The truth is, their fares are very competitive and their service is very good. People who LIVE (not just work) all over downtown use Porter frequently because it's a far superior option.
 
CTV has an article with a video story attached. In the video, you can see the area that is under construction. It is going to be a pretty good size terminal.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090427/Island_protest_090427

Although the expansion is being funded by Porter, Deluce acknowledged that it could open the door to more competition at the airport.

"Porter will be the prime tenant in the new facility but yes, the building has been designed in order to accommodate other requests as well," he said.

Deluce insisted he's not worried about the likes of Air Canada encroaching on his turf and breaking up his monopoly on flights in and out of downtown Toronto.

"Particularly on the service side, we've managed to set ourselves apart from some of our competitors and I think that'll put us in good stead for a point in time when there may well be other competitors on this airport and elsewhere."
Click to expand...
 
Olivia Chow said:
Where a million people can go in, and play, and have a wonderful time rather than a few hundreds, maybe a thousand over a year or two in terms of passengers, it serves such a small number of people that its not for a good public interest.
Click to expand...

More proof that the Tories don't have a monopoly on NIMBYs...
 
It's ironic how Porter is exceeding every one of the City's goals, and yet it's getting so much bad rap. It's transit friendly. It's centrally located. It's rejuvenating otherwise underutilized land. It's bringing more people and business to the downtown core. It's creating "well paid Union positions" at Bombardier. All the while, it's generating tax dollars and development fees for the City.

Does anyone really think that a park would replace the Island Airport if it closed? Shut down YTZ, and the land will sit vacant and unused for the next 50 years until our useless municipal government finally agrees on what to do with it, and how that will be achieved. Please refresh my memory - how many years ago did the City of Toronto decide to redevelop the Portlands?
 
Chuck said:
Does anyone really think that a park would replace the Island Airport if it closed? Shut down YTZ, and the land will sit vacant and unused for the next 50 years until our useless municipal government finally agrees on what to do with it, and how that will be achieved. Please refresh my memory - how many years ago did the City of Toronto decide to redevelop the Portlands?
Click to expand...

There is already 600 acres of parkland on the Toronto Islands for people to enjoy, thats almost twice as big as High Park which is Toronto s largest park. I agree if the airport is scraped the 140 acres of land that it sits on will most likely just stay vacant for a couple of generations until all governments decide what to do with it. :mad:
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
I'd hardly thinkthat if they turn the airport into more parkland, that they are going to attract an extra 500,000 people a year to the islands.
Click to expand...

You could probably convert Central Park in New York City to condos and office buildings and get way more people using that space as well. Actually you could easily fit the length of La Guardia's longest runway into Central Park and that would be much more convenient than going to La Guardia which doesn't even have a subway connection. La Guardia handles 23.1 million passengers and is maxed out with a runway system that is less than ideal, so a parallel runway system in Central Park could easily handle upwards of 30 million I would think. Right now Toronto wastes money maintaining High Park but it could be a real revenue generator for the city if it accepted toxic waste dumping.
 
^ We aren't talking about bulldozing a park and building an airport here though. We are talking about NIMBYs who want to take down an airport that brings in revenue for the city, business into the core, will have a thousand employees and has kept hundreds of people employed in Toronto by sourcing only Toronto built aircraft. There is nothing close in your example.

For New York, that would be as though some NIMBY advocated the shut down of La Guardia to be turn into grass fields or concrete ruins after an airline was setup with its base of operations in New York, that used environmentally low impacting aircraft built in Queens. Can you imagine New Yorkers saying, "No way"?
 
If US preclearance is coming, the list of potential destinations could increase substantially.

They have talked about Cleveland as a destination. Can BKL (Burke Lakefront) accept international precleared flights? That looks to be a very convenient downtown airport. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is practically right next door.

Too bad Meigs Field is gone from Chicago.

DCA and LaGuardia are no brainers.

I like the Central Park idea but I don't think it would fly.

EDIT: with all these planes coming, sooner or later they are going to hit the limit of allowed large aircraft movements. I think it is around 160 and they would likely have to give up some if any competing airlines were to come in.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure the reason for current flights into Newark instead of LGA is so much customs as gate slots. A minnow like Porter would likely have a very tough time breaking into La Guardia.
 
sjc said:
If US preclearance is coming, the list of potential destinations could increase substantially.

They have talked about Cleveland as a destination. Can BKL (Burke Lakefront) accept international precleared flights?
Click to expand...

Why would any airport not be able to take an international precleared flight? Preclearance turns it into a domestic flight.

42
 
To continue the discussion from other threads which were not correctly placed (concerning the Porter expansion), I find it amazing that they are able to skirt through an expansion this big when the whole downtown core opposes it. Miller was voted in solely for this reason (In my opinion). I know so many people who hate the airport. Sure a few like the convenience of it, but should the sanity of the lot be sacrificed for the convenience of a few?

Also, what the heck was Jim Flaherty doing there. Get out of Toronto. We don't need your wacko Conservative projects and ideas downtown.
 
confusion said:
To continue the discussion from other threads which were not correctly placed (concerning the Porter expansion), I find it amazing that they are able to skirt through an expansion this big when the whole downtown core opposes it. Miller was voted in solely for this reason (In my opinion). I know so many people who hate the airport. Sure a few like the convenience of it, but should the sanity of the lot be sacrificed for the convenience of a few?

Also, what the heck was Jim Flaherty doing there. Get out of Toronto. We don't need your wacko Conservative projects and ideas downtown.
Click to expand...
Based on the posting in this thread, the anti-airport crowd is very small.

I really can't fathom why anyone would be against one of the few businesses in this city that is growing. And one must be really anti-Environment to want everyone to go all the way to Pearson.

People living near the aiport say they don't really hear any planes. Who'd be against it? Perhaps you should run a poll here ...
 
confusion said:
To continue the discussion from other threads which were not correctly placed (concerning the Porter expansion), I find it amazing that they are able to skirt through an expansion this big when the whole downtown core opposes it. Miller was voted in solely for this reason (In my opinion). I know so many people who hate the airport. Sure a few like the convenience of it, but should the sanity of the lot be sacrificed for the convenience of a few?

Also, what the heck was Jim Flaherty doing there. Get out of Toronto. We don't need your wacko Conservative projects and ideas downtown.
Click to expand...

The whole dowtown core opposes it? Really? Maybe Miller was voted in partially on the bridge controversy the first time, but in the second election, the island airport was a non-issue.

Anyone who's sanity is tied into this doesn't have much to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top