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

[picard102]

We have to live together and there is a contract says how.

A contract that was never written in stone on Mount Sinai, never written with a view to the future. Just another myopic piece of paper signed by people who had no idea what the future would hold. Only of benefit to people who want to see the airport gone entirely, brandishing it about as the sole reason to deny the request, ignoring the real issues the agreement meant to solve.

Let's change the curfew and make it between 8pm to 10am? How does it sound?

It sounds unreasonable. Which seems to be a theme you got going.

You are not bringing any intelligent argument to the table, just repeating the same song: nimbys, nimbys, nimbys, jets, jets, jets...

Your tune is of a different key, but no less repetitive.

 

[EnviroTO]

A bunch of whining Nimbys concerned that's there's too much traffic on a major artery like Bathurst?

Bathurst south of Lakeshore and Queens Quay are not major arteries. They are two lanes plus streetcar lanes. There isn't much room for vehicular growth. The focus of the waterfront initiatives are pedestrian environments.

It's so bizarre ... if people don't want traffic in a city, they are living in the wrong place.

That is the type of logic used against all dissenters. If you don't like who got elected go live somewhere else, if you don't like what is happening to the neighbourhood go somewhere else, if you don't like X then avoid it and shut up.

I start to wonder if we have come full circle in urban thought and now people might approve of the Spadina freeway in large numbers. We might need to call it the Porter-Matlock Freeway but it seems the thoughts about what makes a livable city are changing in the public eyes once again. Convenience of long distance travel may trump neighbourhoods as it once did before.

 

[sjc]

Bathurst south of Lakeshore and Queens Quay are not major arteries. They are two lanes plus streetcar lanes. There isn't much room for vehicular growth. The focus of the waterfront initiatives are pedestrian environments.

Does Waterfront Toronto have any plans to integrate the airport/ferry terminal into their development plans? For example, how do you get people coming off of the planes to walk to waterfront destinations rather than simply hop in a cab?

Does the TTC have any plans to increase service/accessibility to the airport? As a start, I'd like to see the streetcars on Queen's Quay and Bathurst go to/past the ferry terminal. This would likely get many passengers out of taxis, especially ones heading north/west where going through union station is well out of the way (you could take the Bathurst streetcar to the Bloor Subway). Express buses to subway stations (such as Yorkdale and/or directly to Pearson) might be interesting too.

As long as the TTC pretends that the airport doesn't exist, most people will find other ways to get there.

 

[nfitz]

You are not bringing any intelligent argument to the table, just repeating the same song: nimbys, nimbys, nimbys, jets, jets, jets...

Every point I've made, you've simply ignored. You focus on my referring to the selfish nimbys as nimbys. How about countering my points, instead of sticking your fingers in your ear.

By any change do you have any relationship with Rob Ford?

Ah, you've got me. As everyone here knows I'm the biggest Rob Ford supporter going! I'm not sure your point here is though. What does my neverending support for one of the finest mayors in the history of the universe have to do with a bunch of whining Nimby's who want do kill poor helpless children in Weston by forcing them to breath fumes from horrible, horrible, polluting diesel trains.

 

[nfitz]

Bathurst south of Lakeshore and Queens Quay are not major arteries. They are two lanes plus streetcar lanes.

6 lanes (2 lanes plus a streetcar lane in each direction) isn't a major artery?

There isn't much room for vehicular growth. The focus of the waterfront initiatives are pedestrian environments.

However consideration has to be made for vehicular connection to a major international airport. The conflict with cars and people in that area is difficult. Widening Eireann Quay to 4 lanes, and building a bridge to the island, eliminates all the taxi and parking issues in that area. Even 2 lanes to a bridge would be an improvement, with no loss to sidewalks, etc ... and a gain by recovery of the parking areas. I'm surprised the community isn't pushing for pragmatic solutions like this.

That is the type of logic used against all dissenters. If you don't like who got elected go live somewhere else, if you don't like what is happening to the neighbourhood go somewhere else, if you don't like X then avoid it and shut up.

There's nothing wrong with that logic here. Moving next to a major international airport, and then campaigning against it? Really? You only have to read "cinammon"s stuff briefly to see that they don't simply want to stop these jets ... they actually want to completely eliminate the airport. I really can't comprehend such a massively self-centred suggestion, and can't comprehend why anyone would suggest anything so utterly ridiculous!

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

^Nfitz, usually I find your devil's advocacy thought provoking or at least entertaining, but in this case I think your anger at NIMBYism has gotten the better of you. A vehicular bridge to the island? Where would the cars park? Eirann Quay is 6 lanes? Looks like 2 plus a turn lane to me.

It may or may not be good public policy to expand the airport, but hyperbole about the awesomeness of (as yet nonexistent) whisper jets is not a basis for a public policy decision, and a public body that actively violates laws and undermines its own constating documents should not be entrusted with a role in policy decisions. Let's get actual, responsible and trustworthy people in charge of the TPA, and then let's have the three levels of government study the issue and come to a rational decision. You know: "governance".

 

[TOareaFan]

^Nfitz, usually I find your devil's advocacy thought provoking or at least entertaining, but in this case I think your anger at NIMBYism has gotten the better of you. A vehicular bridge to the island? Where would the cars park? Eirann Quay is 6 lanes? Looks like 2 plus a turn lane to me.

It may or may not be good public policy to expand the airport, but hyperbole about the awesomeness of (as yet nonexistent) whisper jets is not a basis for a public policy decision, and a public body that actively violates laws and undermines its own constating documents should not be entrusted with a role in policy decisions. Let's get actual, responsible and trustworthy people in charge of the TPA, and then let's have the three levels of government study the issue and come to a rational decision. You know: "governance".

Did he not say that Queen's Quay is 6 lanes?

 

[PinkLucy]

Queen's Quay at Bathurst is one lane in each direction plus the streetcar. Bathurst south of Lake Shore is the same, but south of QQ there is no streetcar so it's two lanes. That's what causes the congestion. Multiple lanes going down to single lanes at the only vehicular access point to the airport.

 

[EnviroTO]

6 lanes (2 lanes plus a streetcar lane in each direction) isn't a major artery?

That isn't what exists. What exists is two lanes of through traffic, two lanes for the streetcar on Bathurst and Queens Quay.

However consideration has to be made for vehicular connection to a major international airport. The conflict with cars and people in that area is difficult. Widening Eireann Quay to 4 lanes, and building a bridge to the island, eliminates all the taxi and parking issues in that area. Even 2 lanes to a bridge would be an improvement, with no loss to sidewalks, etc ... and a gain by recovery of the parking areas. I'm surprised the community isn't pushing for pragmatic solutions like this.

There isn't space on the island for all those taxis. Consideration wasn't made because it was a Nantucket like airport with private prop planes and some Dash 8s with 32 seats. They can put a bridge to the airport but really that was yesterday's solution to an access problem to a much smaller terminal. There are serious space constraints. Where are the cars going to sit on the island?

There's nothing wrong with that logic here. Moving next to a major international airport, and then campaigning against it? Really?

Toronto Island is a major international airport? With two airlines with underfilled 70 seat aircraft? Porter hasn't been around that long so the arguments about moving near to Pearson and not having a right to complain don't apply to the same extent at Toronto Island.

 

[EnviroTO]

Does Waterfront Toronto have any plans to integrate the airport/ferry terminal into their development plans? For example, how do you get people coming off of the planes to walk to waterfront destinations rather than simply hop in a cab?

These people aren't likely to be going to the Waterfront, but if they are they are making the pedestrian realm as good as the outdoors can be. The walkability of the area pales in comparison to almost every other airport that exists, although that would change with any plan to increase vehicular traffic to the airport significantly.

Does the TTC have any plans to increase service/accessibility to the airport? As a start, I'd like to see the streetcars on Queen's Quay and Bathurst go to/past the ferry terminal. This would likely get many passengers out of taxis, especially ones heading north/west where going through union station is well out of the way (you could take the Bathurst streetcar to the Bloor Subway). Express buses to subway stations (such as Yorkdale and/or directly to Pearson) might be interesting too.

Porter has free buses to the core so a $3 streetcar might not be that enticing, but I agree that they should run the streetcar to the terminal. I doubt that the TPA would invite that change though since it would likely take away a taxi queue lane. Express buses to Yorkdale and Pearson seems to defeat the purpose of why people would go to Toronto Island... convenience of location.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Porter has free buses to the core so a $3 streetcar might not be that enticing, but I agree that they should run the streetcar to the terminal. I doubt that the TPA would invite that change though since it would likely take away a taxi queue lane. Express buses to Yorkdale and Pearson seems to defeat the purpose of why people would go to Toronto Island... convenience of location.

I streetcar loop near the terminal is unnecessary. The walk to the Bathurst Street isn't that long, but it's pretty pedestrian unfriendly. Improving the sidewalks, and maybe covering the sidewalks to the streetcar stop at Bathurst would be a good quick-fix.

 

[picard102]

Express buses to Yorkdale and Pearson seems to defeat the purpose of why people would go to Toronto Island... convenience of location.

I live near Yorkdale and it is far more convenient to get to Porter then go to Pearson unless I drive.

 

[sjc]

These people aren't likely to be going to the Waterfront, but if they are they are making the pedestrian realm as good as the outdoors can be. The walkability of the area pales in comparison to almost every other airport that exists, although that would change with any plan to increase vehicular traffic to the airport significantly.

There are things that could be done, at varying amounts of expense to make the airport more accessible to walking traffic: build up a walking route to Queen's Quay along the water, past Ireland Park and up, extend the pedestrian tunnel right up to Queens Quay, or run a separate shuttle bus (sponsored by local businesses perhaps) with stops along Queens Quay.

If you could get Queens Quay to be "closer" to the airport, you might also get some connecting-passenger traffic that have an hour or two to kill to spend some of their money along the waterfront.

Porter has free buses to the core so a $3 streetcar might not be that enticing, but I agree that they should run the streetcar to the terminal. I doubt that the TPA would invite that change though since it would likely take away a taxi queue lane.

Anyone not going to the core will likely need to pay $3 once they get to Union, so it doesn't cost any more to take the streetcar right from the airport. I'd look at running the streetcar down bathurst, then right along the water up to the Lakeshore on that next street.

Express buses to Yorkdale and Pearson seems to defeat the purpose of why people would go to Toronto Island... convenience of location.

If you don't have a car, the Island is more convenient that Pearson for just about everyone in Central or Eastern Toronto, and accessibility to the GO train makes it pretty convenient even for people people pretty far out. That doesn't mean that you can't make it more convenient for people. I think there should be a lot more express buses to Pearson too from all over Toronto.

An express bus from the Island to Pearson might make it more convenient for people to transfer from one airport to the other. The Pearson train, when it opens, will help with that as well.

 

[sjc]

There isn't space on the island for all those taxis. Consideration wasn't made because it was a Nantucket like airport with private prop planes and some Dash 8s with 32 seats. They can put a bridge to the airport but really that was yesterday's solution to an access problem to a much smaller terminal. There are serious space constraints. Where are the cars going to sit on the island?

They could build down or up. A multi-level parking garage on the island would get all the cars off of the mainland and put them right where the flights are, a win for everyone. Connect it by tunnel all the way up to the Gardiner, or even better to a new Underwater Gardiner that goes right past the airport.

EDIT: An alternative might be to run the car tunnel underwater to the base of Spadina, which is better able to handle the traffic.

 

[nfitz]

A vehicular bridge to the island? Where would the cars park? Eirann Quay is 6 lanes? Looks like 2 plus a turn lane to me

I never said Eriann Quay is 6 lanes. I was talking about Bathurst. As was the previous poster, as they were talking about streetcar lanes, and there are no streetcar tracks on Eirann Quay.

A bridge is the solution as far as I can see. Cars could park at the airport on the island. There's already one car park on the island. If further space is unavailable, build a parking structure on or under the existing parking lot on the island. There isn't much parking on the north side of the western gap anyways.

Most importantly, a bridge would move all the cars milling around picking up people, dropping them off, and blocking pedestrian access to the water. And it would get all those taxis out of the way.

Let's get actual, responsible and trustworthy people in charge of the TPA, and then let's have the three levels of government study the issue and come to a rational decision. You know: "governance".

Sorry, the shock of having joined "Ford Nation" must have made me snap ... either that or the flask of vodka in my pocket ...