picard102
Senior Member
Certainly not, and especially not that it harms trade policy. But hyperbole sells more newspapers than facts.
|
|
|
- Thread starter hw621
- Start date
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Flights are not indicative of the number of seats offered. Toronto to Montreal is flown by a majority of 130 seat a220's (yes there's the odd a330/b787/b777 thrown in). Flying fewer but higher capacity planes means more seats are offered.
I'll add, Milan to Rome is a roughly similar distance as Toronto to Montreal. This source has milan-rome at 477 km, and Toronto-montreal at 504 km. The difference here is the service patterns, there are several non stop or limited stop trains that do the route in just about 3 hrs. And there's still approx 30 daily flights between the two
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
That is not the argument at all.
The real argument - which is based on a series of macroeconomic studies including one by Lindsay’s coauthor - is this:
Airports boost economies through “network effects,” attracting corporate headquarters and agglomeration, all of which are stronger with one airport that has a lot of international flights to countries that are trade partners.
On the other side, the only study that defends Billy Bishop‘s economic impact is one they commissioned from Richard Florida.
Florida talks about this same body of economics research but gets it totally backwards.
That is according to Lindsay, the guy whose book he is quoting.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
In addition to the WELRT and the fact it is a desirable location with the new river park, harbour views, near beaches and the Distillery, it is also only about 1km to the East Harbour GO, Ontario Line station, and Broadview car extension. Of places I could imagine living in the core in the future, this is certainly one of those places.
Most airports have looping roadways, traffic, and massive parking garages. There is definitely not enough land to grow the airport any significant amount.
I really don't see the perspective of a YTZ expansion as a net benefit to the city. Other than maybe the end of the runway at Sint Maarten, airports aren't a destination so it doesn't improve where it is. A downtown airport is to city building what a Spadina freeway would be.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Should the residents / voters always sacrifice their convenience for the sake of "city building"? Creating something that looks like a paradise for urbanists, but does not really make life better for the majority of residents.
SubHuman
Active Member
Ford to declare Billy Bishop Airport a ‘special economic zone’ to allow jets
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...d-billy-bishop-airport-special-economic-zone/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...d-billy-bishop-airport-special-economic-zone/
Northern Light
Superstar
Ford's declaration can by pass certain provincial regulatory burdens, but it can't bypass Federal assessments and approvals.
This may well happen, but it won't be all that soon, unless there are schematic drawings complete and submitted, even then, it will likely be quite a while off.
This is the presser:
Ontario Newsroom
news.ontario.ca
From the above:
bobbob911
Active Member
Yeah this changes nothing with the tripartite agreement. As always this depends on the Feds protecting the municipal rights here.
hw621
Senior Member
Doubt that Carney would cross Ford on such a matter...
Northern Light
Superstar
An outright veto isn't even required here, at this point.
The proposal, once formally submitted, would almost certainly require at least 2 years of study.
Its not just a runway extension, its flight paths, AZR amendments and regulations, considerations of marine impacts from wildlife and pollution to watercraft navigation, its an amended exclusion zone, that's before you consider the impacts on the terminal, general aviation, parking, pickup/drop off and more.
The odds of Ford being in power when (And IF) this sees a shovel in the ground, so to speak are fairly remote.
Not zero, but he would almost certainly need to seek and win another term.
bobbob911
Active Member
I am not sure. The issue is not if Carney is okay with jets, it’s if the liberals want to be seen as allowing Ford to bully local representation through the tripartite agreement. There are a lot of liberal seats on the waterfront.
generalcanada
Senior Member
I mean id be skeptical too, but If i missed something this is the 1st use of the "special economic zones". the thing that excempts basically all ontario laws to develop infrastructure.
If the really wanted to, anything environmental can be steamrolled over
txlseries4
Active Member
Back on March 12 after he announced he’d take over the airport and there were a flurry of articles, Davenport MP was quoted in The Star saying, “The conversation of 10 years ago has changed”. I’m assuming the reaction to the quote was swift among her constituents because later that day a statement about her stance on the airport was posted to her website. It doesn’t say much or take a meaningful position but curious to see what the feds do here. MPs supporting Ford and this move could create some pariahs by downtown residents.
Northern Light
Superstar
No they can't.
Federal regulations cannot be over-ridden by provincial statute. Filling Lake Ontario is a federal statute. (more than one actually) and federal regulators will deal with the AZR and flight paths.
There are expressly not provincial.
I'm not saying it will or wont' happen, I am, however, making a statement of fact that there are federal regulations and assessments here over which the Premier has no control.
If Carney wants to play ball and refer this to the major projects office...... who knows, but that's his decision, not Ford's.
DSCToronto
Superstar
Here's the Star story on this nonsense.
Doug Ford moves to seize control of Billy Bishop Airport
On Monday, Ford announced Queen’s Park was usurping the City of Toronto’s place on the tripartite agreement that governs the island airfield.SEE: https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...cle_199a3cc7-c760-4ef0-bd51-67d17b5d0d69.html