[kEiThZ]

It's interesting how NIMBYs are treated on these issues. Nobody really takes the Weston NIMBYs seriously over a massive increase in the # of trains by their house. They are told to shut it and accept it. Nobody would take any campaigners against Pearson in Rexdale, Malton, etc. seriously if they started an Heathrow like campaign against Pearson expansion. But if you buy a waterfront condo? Well the airport over there should shut down....

And people wonder why the 'burbs look at downtowners as elitists.....

 

[44 North]

It's interesting how NIMBYs are treated on these issues. Nobody really takes the Weston NIMBYs seriously over a massive increase in the # of trains by their house. They are told to shut it and accept it. Nobody would take any campaigners against Pearson in Rexdale, Malton, etc. seriously if they started an Heathrow like campaign against Pearson expansion. But if you buy a waterfront condo? Well the airport over there should shut down....

And people wonder why the 'burbs look at downtowners as elitists.....

There was a front page interview with Richard Florida a couple days ago where he sort of touched on this issue and used opposition to BBA as an example: "I call this phenomenon of the reactionary, regressive left 'new urban Luddism,' since it entails a refusal to accept the city as a dynamic, dense, shared space". But I thought he was a bit one-sided in that he went on to express opposition to fixing the Gardiner, which imo is also a 'refusal to accept the city as a dynamic space'.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's interesting how NIMBYs are treated on these issues. Nobody really takes the Weston NIMBYs seriously over a massive increase in the # of trains by their house. They are told to shut it and accept it. Nobody would take any campaigners against Pearson in Rexdale, Malton, etc. seriously if they started an Heathrow like campaign against Pearson expansion. But if you buy a waterfront condo? Well the airport over there should shut down....

And people wonder why the 'burbs look at downtowners as elitists.....

Conversely, people in Malton or Weston probably wouldn't give a damn about what happens on the Waterfront either, and keep in mind, it was Weston that milked a GTS burial from the provincial government, so calls to class-warfare notwithstanding, it was hardly as one-sided as one imagine.

As to the comparator to Heathrow - the latter foresee some degree of (often massive) expansion in the airport footprint, with some plans basically wiping out entire villages off the map. If you have that level of expansion even contemplated for Pearson you bet there will be a significant amount of opposition. Heck, just look at how the discontent at Pickering had been simmering for years.

AoD

 

[ShonTron]

It's interesting how NIMBYs are treated on these issues. Nobody really takes the Weston NIMBYs seriously over a massive increase in the # of trains by their house. They are told to shut it and accept it.
And people wonder why the 'burbs look at downtowners as elitists.....

The Weston opponents got a lot of concessions; they were taken VERY seriously. And until they got silly, their reasons for opposition were, in fact, valid. All that new infrastructure that would disrupt the local neighbourhood, with no local benefit. The conflict of interest of SNC Lavalin being both the EA consultant and the proponent of the Blue 22 proposal. Even now, there are only a handful more GO trains stopping at Weston then there were when it was a single track line, while there are 140 UP Express trains coming through. But at least most of the infrastructure is now built for GO RER (a fourth track, which is "roughed in" is still needed.)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The Weston opponents got a lot of concessions; they were taken VERY seriously. And until they got silly, their reasons for opposition were, in fact, valid. All that new infrastructure that would disrupt the local neighbourhood, with no local benefit. The conflict of interest of SNC Lavalin being both the EA consultant and the proponent of the Blue 22 proposal. Even now, there are only a handful more GO trains stopping at Weston then there were when it was a single track line, while there are 140 UP Express trains coming through. But at least most of the infrastructure is now built for GO RER (a fourth track, which is "roughed in" is still needed.)

Also keep in mind they are basically getting a new subway line in the form of ECLRT as well - and it is probably only a matter of when, not if Weston becomes a transit hub with extended GO service. It's truly ironic that someone would cry about "downtown elitist" when the majority of infrastructure funds thus far are provided to anywhere but downtown.

AoD

 

[bobbob911]

It's interesting how NIMBYs are treated on these issues. Nobody really takes the Weston NIMBYs seriously over a massive increase in the # of trains by their house. They are told to shut it and accept it. Nobody would take any campaigners against Pearson in Rexdale, Malton, etc. seriously if they started an Heathrow like campaign against Pearson expansion. But if you buy a waterfront condo? Well the airport over there should shut down....

And people wonder why the 'burbs look at downtowners as elitists.....

The difference is that the downtown waterfront is the most unique and important public space we have in Toronto. The interested parties are far more than just the local residents.

 

[picard102]

The difference is that the downtown waterfront is the most unique and important public space we have in Toronto.

As if. Water meeting landfill does not equal a unique space, especially when it's mostly occupied by condos. Unless that's what you think is unique or important. Well off people living on the waters edge.

 

[bobbob911]

I'm not sure why you think the composition of the soil is relevant? And there are very few condos on the waterfront - the vast majority are north of Queens Quay. As I said, I am referring to the public space on our waterfront, of which the vast majority of the inner harbour (both on the mainland and the islands) is.

 

[kEiThZ]

There was a front page interview with Richard Florida a couple days ago where he sort of touched on this issue and used opposition to BBA as an example: "I call this phenomenon of the reactionary, regressive left 'new urban Luddism,' since it entails a refusal to accept the city as a dynamic, dense, shared space". But I thought he was a bit one-sided in that he went on to express opposition to fixing the Gardiner, which imo is also a 'refusal to accept the city as a dynamic space'.

I'm of the same opinion as Florida. Infrasturcture is vital to a large urban centre. And if you want to live in the city, you have to accept that space (both physical and psychological (with noise and visual)) will need to be made to accomodate such things. How many Londoners complain about London City? They know it's an important asset in connecting their city with the other financial centres of Europe. Likewise, I want our businesspersons to have easy links to New York, Boston, Chicago, Montreal, etc.

The difference is that the downtown waterfront is the most unique and important public space we have in Toronto. The interested parties are far more than just the local residents.

Elitism. Like I said. "Your neighbourhood is not as "unique and important" as mine." Imagine, if we decided to cave to Weston residents on just such a premise over development of the rail corridor.

And if the "interested parties" include the rest of the city in any debate, what about the rest of us who find the Island far more convenient than Pearson (the entire eastern half of the GTA). Does our opinion count?

The Weston opponents got a lot of concessions; they were taken VERY seriously.

I wouldn't call those concessions serious. No electrification on UPE like they wanted. And absolutely no promise to cap the number of trains going through. Imagine, we applied this standard for "concessions" to the Island airport debate.

Now personally, I can see the airport being canned if we get better rail. But I'm just not a fan of double standards and an anti-development and pro-NIMBY mindset.

 

[bobbob911]

Elitism. Like I said. "Your neighbourhood is not as "unique and important" as mine." Imagine, if we decided to cave to Weston residents on just such a premise over development of the rail corridor.

Oh please. First of all, the waterfront is not my backyard, I live nowhere near it. I value it as a recreational, public space.

Talk to me when Weston has it's own tripartite, decades long revitalization project. Until then, the waterfront *is* more unique and important.

And if the "interested parties" include the rest of the city in any debate, what about the rest of us who find the Island far more convenient than Pearson (the entire eastern half of the GTA). Does our opinion count?

I guess not - all three democratically elected levels of government have a contrary opinion.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Likewise, I want our businesspersons to have easy links to New York, Boston, Chicago, Montreal, etc.

And they still do - no one except a small minority is proposing that YTZ be shut down in the foreseeable future, and the current debate has nothing to do with easy links to New York, Boston, Chicago, Montreal.

Elitism. Like I said. "Your neighbourhood is not as "unique and important" as mine." Imagine, if we decided to cave to Weston residents on just such a premise over development of the rail corridor.
And if the "interested parties" include the rest of the city in any debate, what about the rest of us who find the Island far more convenient than Pearson (the entire eastern half of the GTA). Does our opinion count?

Funnily enough though, when the topic is subways or whatnot, all of a sudden it's all about local interest, the rest of the city be damned - resources are finite afterall. And gawd forbid those downtown elitists living beside the USRC should be complaining about how much traffic increase they are dealing with and all they got is a lousy ditch and crummy viaduct. The fact is, we did cave to Weston residents. We did cave to Scarborough residents. But gawd forbid someone from downtown should demand something, then it becomes "elitist" because the opinion of the rest of GTA matters. Really. Let's be honest with ourselves and drop this class warfare nonsense - it is neighbourhoods looking after its' own interests, simple as that.

On the matter of access, just how interested would say the entire eastern half of the GTA be having a second airport at Pickering to increase the level of convenience, if that is indeed the point?

I wouldn't call those concessions serious. No electrification on UPE like they wanted. And absolutely no promise to cap the number of trains going through. Imagine, we applied this standard for "concessions" to the Island airport debate.

Let's get real here - I don't call putting a line into a tunnel at the cost of what, hundreds of million not "serious" - and we all know electrification was coming in any case. I don't recall similar levels of investment at the YTZ and bending over backwards for the sole benefit of local residents.

AoD

 

[dowlingm]

The issue about Weston was that they wanted to consider a movement of a 2 car Tier 4 DMU as functionally the same, disruption wise, as a 4000hp+1000hp MP40. Meanwhile folks on the Lakeshore Lines have to put up with way more frequent GO *and* Tier 0 VIA.

 

[kEiThZ]

@alvin

With all due respect, pulling in the Scarborough subway debate is both a red herring and strawman comparison. To begin with, there's quite a difference between NIMBY and YIMBY. To start with, an extended network (subway or otherwise) allows the rest of the city more access to Scarborough. And next, the rest of the city and even the province has gotten quite a bit of say. After all, they are paying for it and it will not have without the city and province paying for it. The subway can be cancelled and substituted with any other plan, any other time. Scarborough actually has zero control over what get's built. And City Hall and Queen's Park has in the past had zero issues pushing whatever plan they want on Scarborough. However, somehow in the Island debate, this kind of imposition wouldn't be considered acceptable.

As for the Pickering airport. Hard to say. I think there's quite a few people that would support it. And there's probably some who would oppose it. I personally think there's not much of a business case for a large commercial airport in GTA East. If the Island is gone, we'll simply see consolidation of commercial traffic at Pearson, with a massive rise in fares as competition reduces. I also do think that Pickering, at least as a large general aviation airport, is an inevitability, with the closure of Buttonville and eventually Oshawa. And as a (part-time) east-end resident, I'd certainly not oppose that.

Finally, the Weston comparison. So they spent some money to mollify the concerns and then still rammed through a massive increase in traffic. Again, imagine we applied the same standard to the Island airport debate. So a noise barrier at the airport would be sufficient to allow an increase in traffic?


Again, I don't mean disrespect to any downtowner, but surely some of you must realize the optics of how the issues are dealt with, appear to the rest of the city.


Personally, I think Porter should be planning for a reduction in Ottawa and Montreal traffic as rail gains modal share. I think it's inevitable that VIA's travel times will become more competitive on downtown-to-downtown travel with government investment (especially from this Trudeau government).

 

[bobbob911]

With all due respect, pulling in the Scarborough subway debate is both a red herring and strawman comparison. To begin with, there's quite a difference between NIMBY and YIMBY. To start with, an extended network (subway or otherwise) allows the rest of the city more access to Scarborough.

Ha - as if the reason for the SSE was so that downtowners have an easier way to get to the Scarborough Town Centre!!!

And next, the rest of the city and even the province has gotten quite a bit of say. After all, they are paying for it and it will not have without the city and province paying for it. The subway can be cancelled and substituted with any other plan, any other time. Scarborough actually has zero control over what get's built. And City Hall and Queen's Park has in the past had zero issues pushing whatever plan they want on Scarborough. However, somehow in the Island debate, this kind of imposition wouldn't be considered acceptable.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for here - City Hall and Queen's Park are *both* opposed to Island Airport expansion.

As for the Pickering airport. Hard to say. I think there's quite a few people that would support it.

As an eastern Toronto resident, I would enthusiastically support it. Naturally I suspect most people who live in Pickering would oppose it. One difference is that a Pickering airport has been in the official plans since the 60's - it would hardly be a surprise. Whereas jets at the island airport has never been so - in fact the *opposite* has always been the official plan.

Finally, the Weston comparison. So they spent some money to mollify the concerns and then still rammed through a massive increase in traffic. Again, imagine we applied the same standard to the Island airport debate. So a noise barrier at the airport would be sufficient to allow an increase in traffic?

Look, its obvious that you clearly don't have an appreciation for the downtown waterfront as a public space/tourist destination/aesthetically desirable. Most others do. A giant noise barrier wall extending deep into the Inner Harbour is not a good thing.

Personally, I think Porter should be planning for a reduction in Ottawa and Montreal traffic as rail gains modal share. I think it's inevitable that VIA's travel times will become more competitive on downtown-to-downtown travel with government investment (especially from this Trudeau government).

First thing you've said I agree with.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ha - as if the reason for the SSE was so that downtowners have an easier way to get to the Scarborough Town Centre!!!

Again. What's the point of continuing this red herring/strawman discussion? The SSE debate doesn't even come close to discussing the principles involved in the Island debate, other than Alvin's tangential assertion that they are the same because of the rest of the city doesn't get a say. But that's not true, because the rest of the city is the one who is deciding on and paying for the SSE. Scarborough residents can yell and scream all they want. They aren't actually deciding.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for here - City Hall and Queen's Park are *both* opposed to Island Airport expansion.

Would this be the same City Hall that supported and allowed studies on expansion until quite recently?

As an eastern Toronto resident, I would enthusiastically support it. Naturally I suspect most people who live in Pickering would oppose it. One difference is that a Pickering airport has been in the official plans since the 60's - it would hardly be a surprise. Whereas jets at the island airport has never been so - in fact the *opposite* has always been the official plan.

The stupidity here is relying on some technological demarcation as opposed to a noise standard. That's the issue I have with it. If the policy goal is to reduce noise at the Island, then set hard standards for noise. And enforce them. Why set standards for types of equipment? Helicopters (which use turbine engines) are allowed to land at BBTCA. Any idea how noisy those are?

As for Pickering, to be honest, given that it will be a General Aviation airport at first, I would bet money that 90% of residents won't even notice when the airport is first built. They might notice if the place starts taking in some regional traffic. But really, other than a few bizjets, there's zero demand for commercial service based specifically in the East end.

Look, its obvious that you clearly don't have an appreciation for the downtown waterfront as a public space/tourist destination/aesthetically desirable. Most others do. A giant noise barrier wall extending deep into the Inner Harbour is not a good thing.

When you have no clue who I am, you should avoid such ridiculous assertions. I lived at Fort York and Spadina, in a waterfront facing condo. I'm quite aware of the "downtown waterfront as a public space/tourist destination/aesthetically desirable" and of the noise and traffic issues in the area. I just don't share your viewpoint that somehow all that is completely incompatible with a small airport that I consider an asset for our commercial sector. Heck, how much of the waterfront is being woefully under-utilized today just because that airport is there? I don't see people putting off trips or living on the waterfront because "airport". I want to see more infrastructure in this city. Not less.

Now that doesn't mean that we shouldn't study or even reject some proposals. What's asinine is not studying proposals, or weighing the benefits to the city as a whole. For example, the runway extension proposal could have been had with more noise restrictions on the airport, noise barriers, and even a good chunk of land transfer from the southern half of the airport. Heck, they could have even gotten the runway extension with the no jets policy in place. With a good chunk of all that paid for by the passengers using that airport. But apparently sophisticated policy thinking beyond black/white thinking is beyond us in this town.

First thing you've said I agree with.

Because smug condescension will get your quite far?