Street cars are cute, but I think there won't be too many people using 509 to reach the airport. It was already over crowded before they shut it down and not reliable at all. Especially if you have a luggage, forget about it. I generally walk to the airport or ask a friend to drive me.
Streetcars are cute? Seriously?

Anyway, I regularly see people taking both the 509 bus (the streetcar when it was running) and the 511 streetcar to go to the airport, suitcases and all. Not in droves, because it is a pain lugging a suitcase up and down the steps, but there are people who do it. And as someone mentioned, there is the shuttle which seems to be well used. The shuttle seems to be a lot of business travellers with just a laptop or a small bag; streetcar/bus seems to often be younger people, particularly on weekends. And of course there are the ever-present taxis.

If (when) the new jets arrive, I would expect more families travelling to places like Florida which would change the dynamics of how people get to and from the airport -- a family with luggage isn't as likely to take the streetcar or even the shuttle (how would they get to the shuttle in the first place?) They are more likely to drive and park, get a friend to drop them off or take a cab, all of which will add to the traffic congestion.
 
I don't think Pearson is any worse than any other airport. If you cannot walk you can get assistance though.

It isn't. That was my point. Going from the 509 stop to a Porter gate is not an unusual distance for an airline passenger to walk.
 
Street cars are cute, but I think there won't be too many people using 509 to reach the airport. It was already over crowded before they shut it down and not reliable at all. Especially if you have a luggage, forget about it. I generally walk to the airport or ask a friend to drive me.
I admit not the greatest while it's closed temporarily for construction. But not reliable? 509 was quite predictable. Less than 15 minutes to Bathurst/Queen, and seldom more than a 5-minute wait. That's faster and more frequent than the express train to Malton International Airport.

And forget about luggage? With today's luggage limitations? A carry-on bag and suitcase is easy enough in a streetcar. I've had no problems with myself, wife, and 2-year old and all the luggage for a 2-weeks on a streetcar (and subway, and Airport Rocket). (I wouldn't have tried, but we were landing in Vancouver the day after the Olympics ended, and it was quite clear the Airport would be a no-go zone for cars that day ... so I figured if we were taking the subway at that end, might as well do the same on this end. Quite frankly, it was easier than I ever imagined ... the short-walk to the stop, elevators, and buses ... was less than you often do simply getting from the the car at Pearson to the terminal. And far, far cheaper ... it's no more difficult than the Airport Express train ... which will still require you to get to Union with all your luggage ... the same place the 509 leaves from.

Unless one is handicapped, or carrying much more luggage than normal, streetcars are fine - even the current ones with all the steps.

Your just looking for excuses ...
 
In case anyone was wondering what Pam McConnell's stance on Porter's plans is (spoiler: she's against them), this is the text of an email I just got from her.

While she makes some valid points (the need to deal with increased traffic in the neighbourhood is one), I think that the tone of her email is bordering on hyperbolic at points (the peace in the music garden is "frequently shattered", emissions are "spewed" by the planes, Porter is "deliberately misleading", "utterly foolish", and "dishonest", etc.) and she seems to play fast and loose with the facts when it's convenient (I would like to know the source of her "scientific studies" regarding pollution caused by jets and I'm also somewhat disturbed by the fact that she has evidently decided that there is "little evidence" that the airport benefits Toronto and that it contributes "very little" to the city financially, despite much of what I've heard to the contrary). I expected a more polished email from an elected official, but perhaps I'm expecting too much. Anyway, enjoy.

****

Dear Hank,

Thank you for your message regarding the Island Airport. The recent announcement by Porter Airlines of its intentions to operate jets at the Island not only poses numerous problems but also highlights the serious issues surrounding the airport. I am very disappointed that the “dialogue” on these issues has only taken the form of public relations spin and avoids the true question of whether jets are appropriate in the downtown.

Although there have been minor efforts to mitigate the effects of the airport, neighbourhood disruptions remain constant. The noise from the planes, which starts around 6:30 a.m. and continues to 11:00 p.m., has only intensified over the last few years with additional slots given to the airport operations. Increasing the number of slots meant increasing the number of planes, and it has brought a constant level of activity.

An unfortunate example can be experienced at the Toronto Music Gardens. Intended to be a serene oasis for contemplation and the enjoyment of small music performances, the peace in this public space is frequently shattered and performances interrupted by air traffic. Porter's claims that a larger plane is quieter or that a jet can “whisper” is either deliberately misleading or utterly foolish.

An even greater concern is the health risk caused by pollution. Not only are the emissions spewed as planes approach and leave the runway, but their exhaust during idling and run-up are captured by the wind and dispersed at ground-level along the waterfront. Scientific studies have demonstrated that the exhaust from jets is even more toxic and damaging than that from smaller planes. Jets are similar to operating a heavy industry, all in proximity to a dense residential neighbourhood and some of the most heavily used parkland in the city.

Further increasing the airport’s impact is the volume of vehicular traffic – shuttle buses, taxis, and private vehicles dropping off and picking up passengers – added to the regular traffic flow in the busy neighbourhood. Eireann Quay, the route to the airport ferry, is immediately adjacent to Little Norway Park, the Harbourfront Community Centre, and the Waterfront School. The traffic along this street is already in constant conflict with hundreds of neighbourhood children, and adding jets with a larger passenger load will only make a bad situation even worse.

While the airport brings noise, pollution, and congestion problems, there is little evidence that the airport provides added benefit to Toronto. Although some find the proximity of the airport to the downtown to be a convenience, it is doubtful that this convenience is the primary motivation for booking a flight. People who require a jet to get to their destinations will utilize Pearson. Despite the hype, adding jets to the Island will not create new jobs but simply relocate air traffic and vehicular traffic away from Pearson – which is better placed and designed to handle this volume and activity.

Meanwhile, the Island Airport contributes very little to the City. Federal properties and agencies are exempt from paying property taxes. Instead, they make Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILTs), which are intended to support the municipal services they use and based on equitable comparison with neighbouring property owners. However, the Toronto Port Authority (TPA), which operates the airport, continues to fight the City on an appropriate payment. Their last offer, significantly lower than the value determined by the province’s Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), was recently rejected by City Council. While the TPA and the airport benefit from City services, they refuse to pay their fair share. As a result, homeowners and local businesses are subsidizing airport operations.

The proposal from Porter is expressly forbidden in the Tripartite Agreement, signed by the City of Toronto, the Government of Canada, and the TPA. First, in recognition of the disruption and pollution, jets are explicitly prohibited at the Island Airport. Second, the necessary runway extension – more than the length of a football field at each end – is not permitted.

After decades of effort that has gone into cleaning the harbour to make it more enjoyable for residents and visitors and safer for commercial and recreational boaters, it is counterproductive to extend the airport into the lake. And with the City working with other orders of government and residents to unlock the value of our waterfront by making it a more attractive place for businesses to invest, for Torontonians to live, work, and recreate, and for tourists to visit and enjoy, the addition of jets disrupts those goals.

Residents and elected representatives from across the city were shocked and outraged that Porter made its intentions known through a media announcement without first exploring the concept with signatories to the Agreement. Since the announcement, all of Porter’s spin has been self-serving, dishonest, and focused on their profit margin. Their actions demonstrate poor judgement and a disregard for all Toronto residents, the public process, and the legislative process.

I am also disappointed that the TPA continues to operate more as a business agent for the airline than as a government agency and caretaker of a public asset. I am troubled that their lake fill project – being pursued despite community concerns and objections – seems to be literally laying the groundwork to accommodate jets, despite public assurances that they have no interest in extending the runway. Of course, we heard similar denials about seeking additional slots right up until the moment that the TPA announced that additional slots had been granted.

Clearly, if Porter’s operations have outgrown the Island Airport or they want to add more distant destinations, then their jets should fly out of Pearson. Not only is Pearson designed to handle jets, but the Union-Pearson link will be fully operational shortly, providing a fast and convenient route between the downtown and the airport.

While we should always try to balance different interests, it is apparent that there is no way to balance jet traffic with the goal of a healthy and beautiful waterfront that includes a dense residential neighbourhood and expansive green spaces for everyone to enjoy. Much like the concept of a casino in the downtown, this proposal is an attempt to sacrifice one of the city’s great assets and visions.

Thank you once again for your message. I will continue to discuss this issue with our community and my Council colleagues to ensure that we make the best possible decisions for Toronto’s communities.

Sincerely,

Pam
 
I expected a more polished email from an elected official, but perhaps I'm expecting too much. Anyway, enjoy.

Thanks for posting this!

This is about what I would expect from McConnell. How this revolting woman keeps getting elected is beyond me. She says that "While the airport brings noise, pollution, and congestion problems, there is little evidence that the airport provides added benefit to Toronto" . She must be aware of the study done that showed Island Airport pumped $2 Billion into the Toronto economy and provided direct and indirect employment for up to 5700 including many jobs at Bombardier in Downsview - the largest manufacturing employer inside Toronto's boundaries.

I really hope that her opposition to the Porter proposal will backfire in the next election. A new survey by Porter was released today showing overwhelming support for Jets on the Island. Two thirds of Torontonians support the plan. People surveyed were asked about individual Councillors. Porter has not released this data yet but it will be interesting to see what it reveals. I suspect that it will reveal that Councillor's like Vaughan, McConnell, Layton, Perks etc. could face a political backlash over this issue during the next election. I hope it will lead to their defeat!

I think voters are starting to wake up and realize that these "progressive" politicians are standing in the way of progress in Toronto!

http://business.financialpost.com/2...support-jets-at-island-airport-porter-survey/
 
Last edited:
Letter to Ward 20 constituents from Cllr Vaughan

The current debate over jets is not about keeping or closing the airport. It's about our shared need to protect the livability of each other's neighbourhood. I hope this is a value we all share.

I recognize that some residents of the ward use this lake facility to fly in and out of Toronto. To some extent, a number of Toronto residents are comfortable with the vision of a small commuter and general aviation airport set out in the 1983 Tripartite Agreement, which governs the airport. The restrictions in the Tripartite Agreement were informed by the community around the airport and in turn, formed the basis for land use planning decisions over the past 30 years. The result is the vibrant mixed use, mixed income community of Bathurst Quay that is home to people, a school, daycare and public space.

Porter's plans to introduce jets to the Island Airport will transform Billy Bishop to a regional hub commercial airport. The proposed runway expansions will also impact land use and roads along the waterfront.

Regardless of what particular jet any particular airline chooses to buy, allowing any jet to land on the lake could allow every jet to land on the waterfront. Lengthening the runway into Lake Ontario, and further into the park on Toronto Island, potentially opens up the airport to big jets, small jets, loud jets, quiet jets, dirty jets and clean jets.

We have many airports in the Toronto area. We have only one lake. Filling it in, paving it over and putting industrial uses on the waterfront will turn the clock back on decades of work to make the waterfront clean and green. It will rob many of their sunset views, drown out music in our parks and fill the air with pollution while dumping even more toxic runoff into our lake. It must not be allowed to happen.

Thousands of people now live along the waterfront in Ward 20. New parks, a beautiful water's edge, a new pedestrian and cycling promenade along Queens Quay, not to mention a school, community centre, daycare and new concert facilities at Harbourfront Centre all have as much claim to exist along the shores of Lake Ontario as the airport does. But above all, people who live next to the lake have a right to clean air and quiet skies. They have a right to expect that their elected officials will fight to make life better not worse.

Cities, let alone downtown waterfronts, are busy, congested, and spectacular places. Balance and trade-offs are expected. In the case of the airport, competing interests make it next to impossible to reach a perfect compromise. It is safe to say that if the airport had never been built on the island a half century ago, it would never get built there today. However it does exist. Debates over the facility have been waged in this city since the day it opened. The notion that people moved into a community next to an airport and therefore should expect what they get is wrong. People have lived along the lakeshore and in harbourside communities for hundreds of years. All governments owe these people a duty of care.

That duty of care is actually a formal document known as the Tripartite Agreement. The agreement is a binding legal framework signed by the Port Authority, the Federal Government and the City of Toronto. It governs all aspects of the airport's operations. It's a fifty year agreement and it does not expire until 2033. No one party can amend the agreement unilaterally. Among the many protections and guarantees it provides people living next to the airport are explicit prohibitions on jets, runway extensions and nighttime flights. There are also strict and defined noise permissions and rules that protect non-commercial use of the airport by smaller aircraft. The requirement on the Port Authority to enforce this agreement is written into its operating charter as a federal port. The agreement is meant to protect both the airports rights and the neighbourhood's rights. In of itself, it constitutes a promise to the people of Toronto. This promise is now at risk of being broken.

When it comes to the Toronto Port Authority (TPA), broken promises are nothing new. In 2012, when the airport proposed dumping the earth from the tunnel excavation now underway for its passenger tunnel at the end of the runway, the TPA publicly said that it had no plans to use the fill to lengthen the runway. When the TPA proposed a fixed link to the airport like the one now under construction, they promised that they had no plans for jets. When they added new flights to the schedule the TPA promised to honour the noise restrictions and declared that they had no desire to change the rules. When noise complaints and curfew violations mounted in the wake of Porter's arrival, the TPA promised sound barriers and a run-up berm to deflect noise and respect local residents. These promises have not come to fruition. The list goes on.

We have an agreement, people have a right to expect the federal agency to honour that agreement. I will not back down from my commitment to respect and enforce the terms of that agreement. It is my duty.

I have run twice and been elected twice in Ward 20 on a very clear promise to protect residents from the noise, congestion, air pollution and environmental impact the airport has on our waterfront, and downtown neighbourhoods. I have no intention of surrendering my commitment now. If the residents right next door to the airport cannot rely on their city councillor to protect their interests at City Hall who will? My opposition to the proposal to land jets along the waterfront must been seen in this context.

Lake Ontario is precious, it belongs to everyone in Toronto. Save it, don’t pave it.

Thanks for reading,
Adam Vaughan
 
^ So much nonsense to refute in Vaughan's newsletter it's hard to decide where to begin!

It will rob many of their sunset views,

Who is Vaughan taking about? The only people that enjoy sunset views from the waterfront are the vacation home owners on Ward and Algonquin Islands. Who cares if the planes will interfere with their enjoyment of sunsets?

The restrictions in the Tripartite Agreement were informed by the community around the airport and in turn, formed the basis for land use planning decisions over the past 30 years.

Take a look at the below photo (copyright S.P. Tiley Photos). This was taken in the 1980's from the CN Tower, i.e. around the time that the tripartite agreement was signed (1983) which Vaughan claims was "informed by the community around the airport". Notice something interesting in this photo? There was NO community around the airport at that time!

DS090328201629.jpg

www.sptileyphotos.com for more Toronto images from the 1980's


We have many airports in the Toronto area. We have only one lake. Filling it in, paving it over and putting industrial uses on the waterfront will turn the clock back on decades of work to make the waterfront clean and green

No we don't have "many" airports in Toronto. Downsview is closed to most traffic. Buttonville is slated to be closed down. Other than Island Airport - Pearson is our only Airport for commercial. Vaughan stupidly states that "filling in" the lake will turn the clock back decades. Does he not realize that much of the waterfront & Toronto Island were formed from landfill? If we were to "turn back the clock" by many decades a good part of the waterfront would not exist!

allowing any jet to land on the lake could allow every jet to land on the waterfront. Lengthening the runway into Lake Ontario, and further into the park on Toronto Island, potentially opens up the airport to big jets, small jets, loud jets, quiet jets, dirty jets and clean jets.

Again totally baseless. The CSeries is the only jet currently that can meet the stringent noise standards already established. Allowing it to land at the Island will not open the door to "louder" and "larger" jets.

The notion that people moved into a community next to an airport and therefore should expect what they get is wrong. People have lived along the lakeshore and in harbourside communities for hundreds of years. All governments owe these people a duty of care.

Yeah right Adam! Thriving residential communities have existed on our waterfront for hundreds of years!

aerial_Toronto.jpg

photo credit: www.trainweb.org
 
Last edited:
^Looking at the above picture that I posted it occurred to me that the community that is opposing this expansion the loudest ( the co-ops and Condo's built around Little Norway Park ) was built on what was once green space. Instead of leaving this large area of green space a public park to be enjoyed by ALL Torontonians, housing was built for a select group of privileged people so that they could enjoy waterfront living. This mirror's what happened on the Island where a group of elitists were given 99 year leases for their vacation properties instead of turning over the land to public parks for all to enjoy. These groups of entitled people have a lot a gall to be complaining now that the expansion of the airport is going to interfere with their enjoyment of the waterfront!

I don't know when housing started to be built adjacent to the Island Airport but I note one of the Co-op's wasn't completed until 1987 which was four years after the tripartite agreement was signed!


http://windwardcoop.ca/
 
Take a look at the below photo (copyright S.P. Tiley Photos). This was taken in the 1980's from the CN Tower, i.e. around the time that the tripartite agreement was signed (1983) which Vaughan claims was "informed by the community around the airport". Notice something interesting in this photo? There is NO community around the airport at that time!

Well, if you look more carefully you will notice more interesting things, like there is no island or airport too. You are looking at wrong direction.

But I agree with you about condos, waterfront should belong to all Torontonians.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you look more carefully you will notice more interesting things, like there is no island or airport too. You are looking at wrong direction.

But I agree with you about condos, waterfront should belong to all Torontonians.

You cannot see the airport in this picture but it is directly to the left of the grain silo. What you are viewing is lower Bathurst street where the Airport Ferry docks. That large park between the Silo and Tip-Top Tailors is where the Co-ops and Condos were built beginning in the 1980's. This is the area where opposition to the airport is strongest. When this picture was taken there was already an established airline on the Island called "City Express". It flew four-engine Dash 7's to many of the cities served today by Porter as well as some far flung destinations in Mexico!

1926803.jpg

photo credit: Airliners.net Photographer : Marc Hasenbein Island Airport 1986
 
Last edited:
For some reason the National Post article with the Porter survey results has been scrubbed from their website.

Here is a link to another website with the survey results.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/115...aircraft-at-billy-bishop-toronto-city-airport

Maybe the National Post realised it should not run a story based only off of a Porter press release with spin based off of a, no doubt robocall conducted, phone survey by a non-credible polling firm. Try to find any information on iFusion. All I've been able to turn up is complaints about incessant robocalls.
 
Parkland? It's never been parkland. Much of it was lakefill. Just because you might wish it to be parkland, doesn't make it parkland, any more than the Redpath sugar refinery is parkland.It's quiet conceivable that if it is disposed of, that it could become something other than parkland. How about condos? For that matter, how about turning much of Algonquin Island into condos. It could be done without any loss of parkland - and we surely could do with having more people on the islands.

Well, according to a letter issued by dear TPA to dear Mr. Ford, it is parkland, and of course TPA wants to change it. (Item 5)

Linky: http://www.torontoport.com/getattac...8c970eaccec/Letter-to-Mayor-Rob-Ford-(1).aspx

Notice the date of the letter: February 13, 2013. TPA was already in action before Porter's announcement.

Still doesn't change my question, which you still didn't answer: Are they paying taxes?

I will tell you the answer: NO
 
How calm Deluce's minimum extension requirement for his new jets (168m) can be higher than Transport Canada's minimum safety requirement (150m)? Something is wrong here. Based on this data, expect another runway extension to meet with Transport Canada's new recommendations.

But does the 168 m extension that Porter want, include the 150 m that will have to be done anyway, or will it actually be 318 m (at each end)? If what we are looking at, at a minimum to maintain the status quo, is a 150 metre extension. And to operate the jets we only need 18 metres more ... than this is really making a mountain out of a mole hill. And really badly handled by Porter, which should have presented it differently.

Question is, are those 150m additional unpaved run-offs have been included in Porter's 168m calculation or not. What is your opinion?

Yes, they have. And my experience having flown military jets and an undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering tells me that Porter doesn't need more than the 4100ft operational that is planned to operate out of YTZ. And if you are correct, then Porter has seriously erred in not asking for an extension to the Maritime Exclusion Zone that would be required to incorporate 150m+168m at each end of the runway. They haven't asked for that. So it's quite logical to assume that they want 168m at each end, of which 150m will go to the runoff area and 18m to the runway extension. In essence, they are moving the existing runoff area into the water and converting the current runoff area to runway. You won't have aircraft rotating out into the lake. I suspect Transport Canada would have some reservations about that. Again, go look at Satellite View on Google Maps. The existing Chevron area is the runoff area. Imagine that converted to runway and a new 150m chevron area at each end built out into the water.


TPA and Porter are working from both ends. Please see item 6 on TPA's letter to Mr. Ford:

Linky: http://www.torontoport.com/getattac...8c970eaccec/Letter-to-Mayor-Rob-Ford-(1).aspx

So my guess is total expansion of the runway will be 168m as per Porter's plan + 150m as per Transport Canada's "possible" requirement = Total 318m from each end. Total 636m, or 2050 feet

As kEiThZ explained, those additional 150m at each end requested by Transport Canada will be for safety only and will not be paved; so Porter doesn't need to worry about other airlines, it will be still a "tailor fit" airport for them.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top