[Riverdale Rink Rat]

A "Toronto centric regional carrier" won't ever be worth more than >$200,000,000, though. In the long run it doesn't make sense to dedicate a large chunk of downtown land to something which is so minimal.

At some point people will make the same realization the railways made; that downtown land is much more profitably dedicated towards urban land uses.

I don't think I ever suggested that one should be done at the expense of another. Not sure what point you were trying to make here.

1. You were being more than a bit histrionic, IMO, about the future of the airport. I was just pointing out that it can stay what it is today. The long run can be really long sometimes - 50 or 100 years in this case. And how much Porter is worth is really a problem for Deluce. One of the problems with this whole scenario is how Porter's expansion has become equated with the airport's expansion. No need for either.

2. Despite the fact that we've had a historic run of building housing units frenetically without crashing the market, there's no way we need to build out both the WT projects and a massive conversion of the airport to housing. It took 20+ years for CityPlace to build out, WDL, LDL, the Portlands, and East Bayfront will take the same amount of time.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

215 acres of hyper-prime downtown waterfront property is worth 10 times what PT isn't paying in leu of taxes, and on top of it, represents a land use that is incompatible with the rest of downtown and has a detrimental effect of the development of the rest of the downtown waterfront.

I'm not against a small regional airport...just not in such an absurdly dumb spot. Put it at Downsview, where it already has jets, is next to a subway line, and nobody gives a crap as it's basically a suburban wasteland mess anyway.

It's time this obsolete, deadbeat 19th century federal agency was shown the door.

Meh. An argument about taxes between different levels of government is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Completely irrelevant, unless you have other agendas (which of course the City, you, I, and everyone else on this file does). The fact that you want to shut down the airport is the only reason to shut down Ports Toronto, and that's a non-starter, so why bother?

Downsview is a terrible idea for a regional airport. It's basically next to Pearson. You might not like the idea of a CBD airport (lots of reasons to argue against it, sure, but lots of reasons to argue for it as well), but putting a new regional airport at Downsview in order to shut Billy Bishop has absolutely no point whatsoever.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

...
I'm not against a small regional airport...just not in such an absurdly dumb spot. Put it at Downsview, where it already has jets, is next to a subway line, and nobody gives a crap as it's basically a suburban wasteland mess anyway.

...

Maybe you would like to explain to North York/Downsview residents why the island airport should be shut down only to activate Downsview airport? That's the very definition of NIMBY. "Oh it's a good idea to have a regional airport. Just don't put it down on the waterfront near me. Put it out at Downsview, yeah Downsview, nobody cares about those people."

Just a little history:
- Downsview was a military airport and a Bombardier facility. In it's 85 year history it has never seen commercial passenger flights
- The Island airport while beginning at a military airport has seen commercial passenger service for nearly 40 years from City express to Jazz to Porter.

So yeah lets close the island and open Downsview *cuucoo*

 

[Adjei]

Maybe you would like to explain to North York/Downsview residents why the island airport should be shut down only to activate Downsview airport? That's the very definition of NIMBY. "Oh it's a good idea to have a regional airport. Just don't put it down on the waterfront near me. Put it out at Downsview, yeah Downsview, nobody cares about those people."

Just a little history:
- Downsview was a military airport and a Bombardier facility. In it's 85 year history it has never seen commercial passenger flights
- The Island airport while beginning at a military airport has seen commercial passenger service for nearly 40 years from City express to Jazz to Porter.

So yeah lets close the island and open Downsview *cuucoo*

Yeah I don't get some of the insensitive attitudes of people here. Oooo let's not expand the airport downtown, let's put it at Downsview, it's only wasteland up there, no one lives there. With such elitist attitudes, no wonder why there so much divide between those living in downtown and the suburbs. We don't need to go further than these boards to see this evidence.

 

[freshcutgrass]

z

putting a new regional airport at Downsview in order to shut Billy Bishop has absolutely no point whatsoever.

Except my point is not to find an alternative to the island airport....we don't need a "regional airport" at all. Pearson has the capacity to handle all the passenger traffic we can throw at it. Didn't we just spend 1/2 $billion building a rail link that can get you to Pearson faster than you can get to BB anyway?

I only suggested it because it already is an operating airport with jets, with better access and less land use incompatibilities (like not being beach and bird sanctuary adjacent). Plus the feds already own that too.

 

[crs1026]

Downsview is a terrible idea for a regional airport. It's basically next to Pearson. You might not like the idea of a CBD airport (lots of reasons to argue against it, sure, but lots of reasons to argue for it as well), but putting a new regional airport at Downsview in order to shut Billy Bishop has absolutely no point whatsoever.

Agreed. You also have the problem of Pearson's runways having flightpaths very close to (and not that far above) Downsview.

As to the elitist concerns, point taken. I can't align with the sentiments as some have expressed them. However - Toronto has only one harbourfront, it's currently pretty decent, we can't afford to mess it up. Whereas our suburbs all look the same and none are what I would call "models for the future". They are somewhat expendable.

Lose the harbourfront and we lose tourism, a good locus for densification, and a good place to house the most people at the lowest per capita infrastructure cost, in proximity to Toronto's largest economic engine. If people in the 'burbs don't wish to partake in the lifestyle, fine - but without downtown your taxes will rise. Take care of it.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

The biggest problem with the "land on the island is too valuable to have an airport" argument is that, well, it is false. It is another example of people clouding their true objective with superficial "facts" that don't hold up to scrutiny.

To get to the sort of valuations that people opposed to the airport like to throw around you have to consider a world where the airport is closed and hundreds/thousands of residential units or millions of s.f. of commercial development are allowed.....can people really envision that? If they can, let's discuss what the fixed link to the airport lands would look like to get the cars, buses, trucks needed to build and service that new neighbourhood looks like.....is that what the airport opponents want....a fixed link of much larger size and capacity than they fought before? It also brings into discussion, again, the discussion about the road and transit network....it is apparantly not sufficient to handle any increase in the airport traffic which (last time I heard) was 1.9MM a year....so if that was all restricted to weekdays (it is not) is about 7,300 people a day.......but that same road/transit network would be able to handle the traffic created by people trying to get to and from that new community over that new fixed link?

The airport pays the court agreed PILT fees....and those fees, if I am not mistaken, are based upon (as most PILTs are) comparison to other similar uses in other places....in the case of YTZ they pay $0.94 per passenger.....interestingly, the same number per passenger that Pearson pays for a lot less restrictive airport operation.

 

[rbt]

To get to the sort of valuations that people opposed to the airport like to throw around you have to consider a world where the airport is closed and hundreds/thousands of residential units or millions of s.f. of commercial development are allowed.....can people really envision that? If they can, let's discuss what the fixed link to the airport lands would look like to get the cars, buses, trucks needed to build and service that new neighbourhood looks like.....is that what the airport opponents want....a fixed link of much larger size and capacity than they fought before?

The rapidly killed proposals for large events (Olympics/Expo) included moving the Western Channel about 500m south to the other side of the airport lands, and filling in the near-side so it becomes continuous chunk of land with the existing shore.

Bathurst and Stadium road would be extended to this new land mass and play roughly the same role as Cherry street will in the future. It's not the worst way of generating new land downtown for 2050 when the Portlands are fully developed.

 

[44 North]

If anyone wants a refresher of what was once planned for the airport area, there was some cool stuff proposed. Considering the traffic nightmare it would cause tho, I'm not so sure if it would've been that great. But if it were to be done in the 21st C I'd support no fixed links (other than railed transit), and having a true car-free neighbourhood like the current islands.

didn't know this video existed, and haven't watched it yet. But could be good.

 

[TOareaFan]

z


Except my point is not to find an alternative to the island airport....we don't need a "regional airport" at all. Pearson has the capacity to handle all the passenger traffic we can throw at it.

It has the same effect though....pushing the noise/inconvenience on to others. I grew up in Brampton....for our own reasons, my family has continued to live in Brampton. When we bought our current house 13 years ago part of the reason we chose it was because our local knowledge told us that, unlike the house I grew up in or the house my wife grew up in a different part of town, we would be free of jet noise....you get to know the flight patterns and which parts of town are most effective.

As the airport expands, however, that all changes and, low and behold, a change occurred about 4 years ago whereby several times a day we have to pause conversations in the back yard until the noise abates.....as Pearson grows so does its "noise envelope" and continually pushing more/all the traffic into one airport simply expands the number of people "near" that airport who are adversely effected by the noise.

That's life, we adapt and learn to live with it and if it becomes to much of an inconvenience/impedement to enjoyment we would make the decision to change locations. But people advocating the closure of YTZ and moving the air traffic to Downsview/Pickering/Pearson have to acknowledge that they are suggesting that as necessary as air traffic is .....someone else should just deal with it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It also brings into discussion, again, the discussion about the road and transit network....it is apparantly not sufficient to handle any increase in the airport traffic which (last time I heard) was 1.9MM a year....so if that was all restricted to weekdays (it is not) is about 7,300 people a day.......but that same road/transit network would be able to handle the traffic created by people trying to get to and from that new community over that new fixed link?

Except that the current plans are proceeding with "expectations" that there will be increase in caps and passenger traffic in any case. Let's not be under any illusions that having jets is some kind of quid pro quo to keep the number of flights and overall usage the same (we've been through this slippery slope before).

As to closure - I don't think most are rushing to close YTZ at this point (especially given the amount of physical improvements). More like a modicum of status quo.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Except that the current plans are proceeding with "expectations" that there will be increase in caps and passenger traffic in any case. Let's not be under any illusions that having jets is some kind of quid pro quo to keep the number of flights and overall usage the same (we've been through this slippery slope before).

As to closure - I don't think most are rushing to close YTZ at this point (especially given the amount of physical improvements). More like a modicum of status quo.

AoD

I actually liked the ferry 'status quo'. It wasn't keeping the airport from expanding at a slow rate, but it sure got up the noses of somebody. Now that there's a tunnel, the Porter / Ports Toronto bright lights will be pushing to expand slots since they can get more passengers to the airport in the same amount of time as before.

It's exactly the same argument that takes place with adding a new lane to a road: the demand will increase until we're back to people complaining about the commute. As soon as the airport has filled all available slots with full-ish planes, we'll get the next demand -- 2nd runway (for safety!) is my bet. Whether that's a long way off or not will depend on whether we pave over the harbour. #NoAsphaltInMyHarbour

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

z


Except my point is not to find an alternative to the island airport....we don't need a "regional airport" at all. Pearson has the capacity to handle all the passenger traffic we can throw at it. Didn't we just spend 1/2 $billion building a rail link that can get you to Pearson faster than you can get to BB anyway?

I only suggested it because it already is an operating airport with jets, with better access and less land use incompatibilities (like not being beach and bird sanctuary adjacent). Plus the feds already own that too.

See TOAreaFan's comment re. Pearson's growth.

You are so misiniformed:
- Pearson has room to grow now but should be reaching is max capacity some time in the 2030-2040's. In an industry where creating more capacity can take up to a decade (just the construction, never mind planning, consulting, etc) 15 years is a short timeframe. Once that capacity is reached we can't just "throw more passenger traffic at it". In fact the GTAA is already looking at ways to off load some of it's private and charter flights to free up landing slots for passenger planes.
- Never mind the impact that increasing traffic at pearson has on Mid town residents, who are already complaining about the noise levels today
- I'm assuming you were talking about your suggestion of moving flights to Downsview. However I repeat Downsview does not have nor ever had passenger jet service.
- Etobicoke creek passes west of Pearson airport and is considered environmentally sensitive enough that the airport has to have underground resivoirs in order to contain run off from the airport activities from running into it.

 

[TOareaFan]

Except that the current plans are proceeding with "expectations" that there will be increase in caps and passenger traffic in any case. Let's not be under any illusions that having jets is some kind of quid pro quo to keep the number of flights and overall usage the same (we've been through this slippery slope before).

As to closure - I don't think most are rushing to close YTZ at this point (especially given the amount of physical improvements). More like a modicum of status quo.

AoD

I think slippy slopes work in both directions.....as much as there are some that might see allowing jets as a slipply slope to more gates/slots/flights....there are likely an equally forceful opposition to jets that are thinking....no jets = hampered Porter business plan = Porter out of business = commercially not viable airport = airport closing = new use for airport lands.

I think anyone using the Jets issue as a wedge to get in and push an alternative agenda is being equally disingenuous.

As I said before.....number of slots, size of planes, size of terminal, etc. are issues separate from what kind of plane is landing and using the current number of slots and terminal....so craft/create and agreement that deals with them individually.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think slippy slopes work in both directions.....as much as there are some that might see allowing jets as a slipply slope to more gates/slots/flights....there are likely an equally forceful opposition to jets that are thinking....no jets = hampered Porter business plan = Porter out of business = commercially not viable airport = airport closing = new use for airport lands.

I think there is enough skin in the game (new terminal, tunnel) that closing it don't won't be an option at this point - besides, if Porter couldn't survive with the current business model under the existing rules (barring the closed books and the insistence than the business is profitable), that's frankly a private sector issue - why should rules be changed just to enable the survival of one business that has frankly been utterly opaque?

I think anyone using the Jets issue as a wedge to get in and push an alternative agenda is being equally disingenuous.

Let's put it this way, the jets issue, or the runway issue was being posed by the proponents in so many different ways, they aren't leaving this one as a saint. Recall the ironclad insistence by Deluce that there will be no jets? That's a compact with the community being violated.

As I said before.....number of slots, size of planes, size of terminal, etc. are issues separate from what kind of plane is landing and using the current number of slots and terminal....so craft/create and agreement that deals with them individually.

Not quite, considering the jets enables the use of the airport for long distance routes, which will create upward pressure. That's also one reason why TP was quite adamant about not negotiating or respecting the cap that council demanded as part of the EA enabling vote (the talk about respecting the council direction nothwithstanding).

AoD