Student99
Active Member
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I think what the poster meant was if the airport were to shut down, then the tunnel could be used for island access.
I might be wrong though and they are free to correct me if I am.
rbt
Senior Member
I'm not certain. The question "why not fill-in the Western Gap" was raised during both the airport bridge and Olympics proposals (Olympics intended to move it south of the airport lands) and in both cases it was stated that the harbour legally required 2 exits which could handle all ships (tall-ships specifically were an issue for a fixed bridge) for safety.
Perhaps due to the 200m width of the Eastern Channel? Some local code amendment related to the SS Noronic fire?
Hamilton also has a single thin entrance.
Last edited:
tsm1072
Active Member
I'd expect there would be some significant issues with water flow if you filled in the western gap. Here is a study on flow circulation in the harbour. I'm not sure of the Transport Canada regulations for protected harbours, but I expect Hamilton is treated differently than Toronto due to its size and the fact that the entrance is a fully controlled channel.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Hamilton's single entrance is also naturally occurring - Burlington Bay historically was linked to the lake solely by a small, extremely shallow (it was recorded as un-navigable) waterway near what is now the Joseph Brant Hospital.
Toronto strictly speaking was a single entrance harbour when the city was founded - the eastern gap opened naturally in a storm in 1848. The western gap is the "original" one, and my understanding is that historically it was much larger. The Airport is mostly constructed on fill in the former western gap.
Prior to settlement the Toronto islands looked much more like what you see at Erie, PA today or Erieau, ON
Toronto strictly speaking was a single entrance harbour when the city was founded - the eastern gap opened naturally in a storm in 1848. The western gap is the "original" one, and my understanding is that historically it was much larger. The Airport is mostly constructed on fill in the former western gap.
Prior to settlement the Toronto islands looked much more like what you see at Erie, PA today or Erieau, ON
Rainforest
Senior Member
Really? You want to close the City Airport? Make everyone travel 20 km to Pearson, and solidify the Pearson's monopoly?
Northern Light
Superstar
Sounds like a great idea to me.
The City Airport does not represent material choice to flyers with a single carrier operating (pre-Covid) a limited destination set .
What it does represent is 200 acres of land immediately adjacent to downtown Toronto.
While I would tend to favour greenspace; others might want housing or tourism-related development.
Any which way, it's hard not to think of better uses of 200 acres in that location.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Not sure I'm convinced.
1. The local airport might be a "greener" way to travel. It is more accessible by transit than Pearson, and is closer to the dense downtown group of origins. People from downtown can take a streetcar to Billy Bishop, or in some cases walk. Even if they take a taxi, it is a 3-5 km drive vs 20-25 km to Pearson. People from outside downtown might take transit to Billy Bishop, while a large majority of those using Pearson either drive or take a taxi.
Furthermore, Billy Bishop's fleet is largely or entirely turborpops, which are more fuel-efficient than jets for short and medium distance trips. And in the near future, if electric aviation advances, the first electric planes are likely to be small planes. There is nothing that prevents small planes from using Pearson, but the fact that Billy Bishop can only handle small planes might give that greener option a competitive advantage.
2. The local airport is kind of a tourist attraction on its own right. Small planes, going over open lake, easy to observe from the coast; that's kind of cool.
Highrises, walkable streets with retail, and parks are staples of the urban fabric, that's all good. But in order to have a city with character, some one-of-a-kind elements are needed, too. Otherwise we could say that CN Tower and Ripley Aquarium aren't needed, either, let's replace them with a condo and a small round park.
3. Billy Bishop wasn't a single-carrier airport. Both Porter and Air Canada were there, I don't remember whether WestJet was.
NY99
Active Member
1. meh... it might be marginally greener, but air travel ain't exactly green either way. We're way better off investing in HFR and a hefty dose of R&D with the aim of decarbonizing the sector as a whole.
2. Calling it a tourist attraction is a pretty big stretch... no one goes out of their way to fly at Billy Bishop for the view. Yeah, you get a great glimpse of the skyline, but the view is reserved to those who can afford to travel by plane (and even then, Billy Bishop clientele is disproportionately business-oriented, so incomes are even higher than at your typical airport).
Wouldn't it be better to democratize the site, making it accessible to all, and create an actual reason to go there? This place could be home to high-quality natural spaces, world-class cultural institutions, major public art installations/structures, eclectic (perhaps fully car-free) dense neighbourhoods... If we were smart, we'd aim to create all of the above.
Billy Bishop has so much potential. It's an absolutely enormous blank slate right in the heart of our city -- I cannot think of another city on this planet with a comparable city-building opportunity. We should take the principles and lessons we've learned from WaterfrontToronto and do it again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Come on. leave the measly 200 acres of Airport land alone for a transportation hub that has been operating for the past 80 years
....we have 880 acres @ the Portlands, another 820 acres @ the Toronto Islands, plus 260 acres @ Exhibition Place for all that other BLING
yin_yang
Active Member
So is this thing built yet? I've totally spaced on any news regarding it for like ten years.
What thing? The tunnel? It's been open for years.
Towered
Senior Member
*slow clap*
With the UP Express long established now, and continual improvements in the pipeline for both local and regional transit, this airport has become redundant and irrelevant. The time has come for it to be mothballed and replaced with a true destination attraction.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I'm OK with giving a greater support to HFR, the government covering both the capital expenses and a reasonable operational subsidy. While the airport should only be retained if it can pay for itself. That said, HFR isn't going to replace most of air travel in the foreseeable future, like in the next 20 years. Very optimistically, HFR may take over the Corridor (Quebec - Montreal - Ottawa - Toronto - Windsor / Niagara), and even more optimistically, Toronto to New York. All other trips of a comparable or greater distance will be mostly made by air. Closing Billy Bishop will merely shift those trips to Pearson.
The views of flying planes aren't limited to those on the plane; once I took my kids to watch the planes from the shore when we visited downtown. Of course, nobody will fly to Toronto just to see this airport, it isn't that special. But when the tourists come anyway, some might choose coming via Billy Bishop as a little extra perk.
It was strange to hear that air travel is undemocratic
; 90% of the Canadian residents can afford to fly occasionally. On the other hand, try "The Canadian" train; it will cost you several thousand for a one-way trip from Toronto to Vancouver, and that's a train for the rich. If the Billy Bishop clientele is disproportionately business-oriented, that's because of geography (business types come to downtown more often), not because Porter charges higher prices for the same destinations. I am not a frequent flier, and don't live in downtown, but I flew from Billy Bishop twice in the last ~ 5 years because the price was actually a bit lower than for flying from Pearson.Speaking of public spaces: if the city can replace the airport with something truly unique and remarkable, then maybe it is worth considering. But, what could that be? The city already has Toronto Island Park, Distillery, waterfront, Exhibition, underused Ontario Place. Adding one more district that's essentially similar to one of those will not really add more character to the city; people who visit the downtown anyway will spread out between more destinations, but it will not give more people a reason to come.