[afransen]

Runway at Billy Bishop could need up to 900 metres of new landmass for jets, agency says

Toronto Port Authority CEO says plan would see most of the new runway jut westward, instead of east into harbour

www.theglobeandmail.com

"Plans to expand the runway at Billy Bishop Airport on the Toronto Islands to accommodate jets could involve adding up to 900 metres of extended land into Lake Ontario, much more than proposed when the idea was last quashed a decade ago"

"The proposed additional runway length itself is 600 metres, far more than the 442 metres floated with jet-expansion plans a decade ago. The increase would come on top of the new 150-metre buffer zones that are already set to be added to each end of the runway by next summer, for a total of about 900 metres."

"But Mr. Steenstra said he expects that most of the added landmass for the longer runway area – up to 750 metres of it – would jut out into Lake Ontario from the western end. That would see the runway parallel the shoreline of Ontario Place, where Mr. Ford’s government has plans for a spa and waterpark, science centre and expanded concert venue."

"The changes outlined by Mr. Steenstra on Monday would stretch the current 1,218-metre runway to more than 1,800 metres. That’s still short compared with the Toronto area’s massive Pearson International Airport and other full-size airports.
But it’s significantly longer than the 1,508-metre runway at London City Centre airport in the British capital. That airport accommodates the same kind of smaller, single-aisle jets that Mr. Streenstra says Billy Bishop hopes to welcome, such as the Embraer E195 E-2, which Porter flies out of Pearson, and the Airbus A220. Large jet aircraft are not on the table, he said."

Why not just go to 3000 meters and get some A380s into BB.

 

[T3G]

Good thing that's not what's happening.

And your proof for that, instead of just conjecture, is where...?

Again, if their intentions as regards the islands are entirely benign, why haven't they called a press conference to assure us all of that, and spared themselves a ton of bad PR?

People just love to complain, especially against the current prime minister and they will find ANYTHING to demonize his government.

Not everyone sees politics in a partisan way. It's insulting that you think that the only reason people can be against this project is because of petty party politics and not, you know, actually being against it. Don't expect this dismissal of your opponents to gain you many allies.

And are you aware of the fact that Ford is not the prime minister?

 

[mcbg1]

And your proof for that, instead of just conjecture, is where...?

Again, if their intentions as regards the islands are entirely benign, why haven't they called a press conference to assure us all of that, and spared themselves a ton of bad PR?


Not everyone sees politics in a partisan way. It's insulting that you think that the only reason people can be against this project is because of petty party politics and not, you know, actually being against it. Don't expect this dismissal of your opponents to gain you many allies.

And are you aware of the fact that Ford is not the prime minister?

*Premier. Once again, grasping at straws to complain no matter what.

 

[T3G]

*Premier. Once again, grasping at straws to complain no matter what.

Bullshit. I've voiced my reasons for opposing the expansion at length. The fact that you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm grasping at straws - if anything, the fact that you offer no more sophisticated an argument than accusing me of petty partisanship is a non-existent argument on your part. No one is going to change their mind just because you accuse them of having a petty grudge. Maybe if you had specific facts which undermine the assumptions your opponents are making.

 

[mcbg1]

Bullshit. I've voiced my reasons for opposing the expansion at length. The fact that you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm grasping at straws - if anything, the fact that you offer no more sophisticated an argument than accusing me of petty partisanship is a non-existent argument on your part. No one is going to change their mind just because you accuse them of having a petty grudge. Maybe if you had specific facts which undermine the assumptions your opponents are making.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion. Get a life

 

[nfitz]

So basically it would look roughly like this - green is the approved expansion for the emergency overruns, red would be the new landmass from the proposal:

View attachment 732554

I'm also not surprised to see that they are saying there will be no impact to development in the Portlands as well.

Overall I can't say i'm... thrilled about the extent of the extension. I was hoping they would keep it closer to a 1,500m runway. perhaps as @SubHuman identified if they move the runway south a bit it could work, but right now it's awfully close to Ontario Place.

Because Portlands already took into account the long-planned shorter eastern expansion that has been planned for years (to allow them to continue existing operations).

 

[nfitz]

I'm not going to trust the CEO of the Port authority that easily when he has every interest to say that development wont be affectd in the port lands. It might be that he is correct, but there are more independent sources that suggest otherwise. I'll wait to hear from sources that don't directly benefit from the extension getting built.

Why would one even suspect that the Portlands would be impacted, with no further eastern expansion? It's not like he's saying there'll be a new eastern expansion BUT no impact.

I'm not sure what reliable sources have said otherwise - perhaps I've missed something? I've seen councillors hyperbolically reacting to the NIMBYs.

Ford now wants to push through a drastic change that jeopardizes the waterfront with zero discussion or consultation?

I don't see how a western expansion has much impact on the waterfront, other than the already highly impacted Ontario Place.

 

[T3G]

I don't see how a western expansion has much impact on the waterfront, other than the already highly impacted Ontario Place.

The province has not been very forthcoming with evidence to the contrary. All that is known is outlined in the following article:

https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/municipalities-transit-and-infrastructure/map-these-are-the-plots-of-land-doug-ford-wants-for-billy-bishop-expansion-12193716

Again, I'd be very happy - thrilled, in fact - to be proven wrong. But the fact that the province hasn't come out and said that they won't be touching the bulk of the islands inspires very little confidence. For now, what alternative exists but to take them at their word, and to react - or not - accordingly? We can't travel in time and see how this shakes out.

 

[Ward8]

The hypocrisy of those against the airport expansion just occurred to me. I bet those people are pro public transit expansion, which benefits the greater good, and are okay with occasional demolitions in order to build subway stations. But when it comes to the airport expansion and its associated benefits, no siree Bob!

What airport benefits? The blight and opportunity cost that we put up with, so that a small percentage of flyers can have a slightly shorter wait at security, is a drag on our city.

Why would one even suspect that the Portlands would be impacted, with no further eastern expansion? It's not like he's saying there'll be a new eastern expansion BUT no impact.

I'm not sure what reliable sources have said otherwise - perhaps I've missed something? I've seen councillors hyperbolically reacting to the NIMBYs.

There is a lot of talk about this earlier in the thread. The jets have a lower approach angle and there is evedence suggesting that some building heights already approved may be too high. I don't know that we'll have a reliable answer until more information is public.

 

[DSCToronto]

I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion. Get a life

One of the main rationales for discussion forums like this is surely to influence others. If you are not trying to 'convert' people to your point of view, why are you spending time posting here?

 

[nfitz]

The province has not been very forthcoming with evidence to the contrary. All that is known is outlined in the following article:

https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/mun...ord-wants-for-billy-bishop-expansion-12193716

The only takeaway I see from that is that there's but a single PIN for the entire island.

What airport benefits? The blight and opportunity cost that we put up with, so that a small percentage of flyers can have a slightly shorter wait at security, is a drag on our city.

What opportunity cost? Why do we need another park, between a park and a park?

There is a lot of talk about this earlier in the thread. The jets have a lower approach angle and there is evedence suggesting that some building heights already approved may be too high.

Those comments also included fake news about even further eastern expansion. Hard to take too seriously. Questions should be asked ... but the NIMBY "I want to subject other parts of the city to this noise" is very self-centred.

This is the very definition of NIMBY - they literally want the noise in other people's back yards (where they actually have back yards).

 

[innsertnamehere]

The province has not been very forthcoming with evidence to the contrary. All that is known is outlined in the following article:

https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/municipalities-transit-and-infrastructure/map-these-are-the-plots-of-land-doug-ford-wants-for-billy-bishop-expansion-12193716

Again, I'd be very happy - thrilled, in fact - to be proven wrong. But the fact that the province hasn't come out and said that they won't be touching the bulk of the islands inspires very little confidence. For now, what alternative exists but to take them at their word, and to react - or not - accordingly? We can't travel in time and see how this shakes out.

Which is taken out of the legislation the province has tabled identifying parcels it can take control of. Not will take control of. The PINs have to align with the existing parcel fabric, so it identifies the entire islands as it's one parcel.

https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2026/2026-04/b110_e.pdf

The legislation is clear in identifying the PINs that they are "lands that CAN be prescribed".

All the legislation does is allow the province to assume control of the land it needs for the airport from the City. To do that though, the province needs to identify what parcels it applies to, as they don't want to allow themselves to take any city owned land anywhere.. they do this by identifying the required PINs. They can't describe in the legislation "a small portion of PIN XXXX Identified by X metres from X.." it gets too complicated.

Again, the province should be identifying what they actually want to do so people understand it, but I can assure you they do not plan on paving over the entire islands.

A direct quote from the Globe and Mail today:

His statement reiterates the mayor’s opposition to Mr. Ford’s unilateral expropriation, which also includes a third of the city’s Little Norway Park on the mainland across from Billy Bishop.

Mr. Steenstra told The Globe that the property is needed to expand the airport’s mainland terminal. Other nearby land will be handed to the city for parkland, he said.

and:

The fine print of the province’s expropriation bill would also allow Ontario to seize almost all of the rest of the Toronto Islands parks and beaches, although it says it will only take land needed for the airport expansion.

So the Province is taking some parkland, but will offset with new lands elsewhere. And definitely is not deleting all of the Toronto islands.

Regarding flight paths, part of my frustration with opposition to the airport is that they seem to love misinformation. There are good reasons to oppose this, they don't need to go inventing facts. Just like in 2013 though, they can't help themselves.. The Proponent is stating that there won't be flight path impacts on the Portlands, and this generally aligns with precedent of airport zoning regulations and how they have been designed for Pearson as I have previously described in this thread. The angle of the existing runway means that the approach surface will avoid Villiers Island. The only way there are major impacts north of Commissioners Street is if Billy Bishop gets stricter approach surface regulations than Pearson does, for some reason..

 

[bobbob911]

Where do you propose a new airport within 50km of Downtown Toronto?

If we need another airport, it should go in Pickering. It was recently decided that actually we don’t need that capacity which is why it was finally abandoned.

We also have capacity to grow in Hamilton Airport which is 84km away

 

[bobbob911]

This is the very definition of NIMBY - they literally want the noise in other people's back yards (where they actually have back yards).

Oh please - there’s a massive difference between “My Backyard” and the backyard for the entire downtown Toronto. The waterfront is special. It should not be used for this.

 

[dob467]

Why would one even suspect that the Portlands would be impacted, with no further eastern expansion? It's not like he's saying there'll be a new eastern expansion BUT no impact.

I'm not sure what reliable sources have said otherwise - perhaps I've missed something? I've seen councillors hyperbolically reacting to the NIMBYs.


I don't see how a western expansion has much impact on the waterfront, other than the already highly impacted Ontario Place.

We really don't know much about the impact to the waterfront with this supposed 900 metre extension. For example, we already know that the beach at Hanlan's Point has been eroding over the years, with some work currently underway to protect the shoreline from further erosion supposedly due to water current changes stemming from the Scarborough Bluffs. My point is, changes of this nature with an extended runway even if only on the western side of the waterfront should be examined to determine the multiple impacts that will undoubtedly occur.