Faye Jordan has been on Ward’s Island for four years after spending 26 years on the waiting list for potential homebuyers. Out for a walk on Sunday, she said she couldn’t picture a bridge in the channel, funneling thousands of people through the narrow streets of her neighbourhood. “Look at this, how tranquil it is,” she said. “It will create chaos.”

Meanwhile in 1998….

Island residents are standing firm against what they see as the latest threat to their way of life. In the 1950s, they successfully fought a plan by the city to raze a neighborhood on the island and turn it into a park.



They should build a thousand bridges to the island….each bridge should end at the foot of every islanders house. Then use the ferries a potential commuter ferry service along the GTHA lakeshore. Probably won’t happen, but one can dream.
 
So upon further reading, I get the sense that the federal govt will be the deciding factor on whether jets are brought to the table.

I think Toronto/GTA proper would benefit greatly from having a second airport for longer ranged USA/latam flights but I don't know if Billy Bishop is the place to do that. Who knows what the Federal Conservatives will do at Pickering.
 
I didn't realize the islands were for only the residents that live there to decide on what is done. For Toronto to of allowed them this life for all these years is crazy. Islands for all should be the slogan.

Urban Toronto had dozens of posters who agreed that people downtown should be deciding issues like bike lanes on Bloor, streetcar right-of-way on King, or removal of bike lanes from Jarvis without suburban interference. I.e. those travelling through the neighbourhood shouldn't have an over-riding say over those living in the neighbourhood.

Ward island residents having a veto on a bicycle highway through their neighbourhood is consistent with that opinion.

Of course, Urban Toronto also has had dozens of posters disappointed the city can't seem to jam sidewalks into some specific suburban streets due to resident opposition.
 
Well...........


From the above:

1726245139320.png


1726245160676.png


This may have implications beyond the obvious..........
 
Goodbye Ferries, hello bridge.

The only way a bridge is going in is if the Island Airport is leaving. (because that's where it would go, but its not practical for use with the airport active)

That's not a political position, that's a practical and well informed assessment.
 
The only way a bridge is going in is if the Island Airport is leaving. (because that's where it would go, but its not practical for use with the airport active)

That's not a political position, that's a practical and well informed assessment.
I'd think an underpass under the runway would be cheaper or at least no more expensive) than another (desperately needed) new ferry. The last ferry cost $90 million. Even a big underpass is in that ballpark.

And they need more than one more ferry beyond what they've already ordered!
 
The only way a bridge is going in is if the Island Airport is leaving. (because that's where it would go, but its not practical for use with the airport active)

That's not a political position, that's a practical and well informed assessment.

The latest plans for the airport expansions exercise an option to allow pedestrian access through the tunnel and around the outside perimeter of the airport to get to Hanlans.

Might be possible still with the airport there.
 
The latest plans for the airport expansions exercise an option to allow pedestrian access through the tunnel and around the outside perimeter of the airport to get to Hanlans.

Might be possible still with the airport there.

The pedestrian perimeter is extremely unlikely to happen, regardless, it does not replace the ferries in practical use /capacity.
 
Well...........


From the above:

View attachment 596022

View attachment 596023

This may have implications beyond the obvious..........
I couldn't find the incident report on the TSB website but will assume, from the tone of the article, that it was a navigational error. The MEZ is well marked. I will assume the ferry has radar. If at least some of the MEZ don't have radar reflectors, that's a deficiency but not a cause. When you are the master of a ship, it your responsibility not to hit things, particularly solid ground. It would be a navigational problem regardless of whether there was an airport there or not.
 
No access but maybe someone can summarize.


its mostly a profile/bio of the CEO of Ports Toronto, Roelof-Jan “RJ” Steenstra.

It gives you background/CV, and how he came to be CEO of Ports Toronto in 2022.

There's some general hyping of the airport and the Port (marine) which he also oversees.

There is nothing consequential about flying taxis, LOL, the headline writer should be shipped off to BlogTO.

On the airport's future, which I would imagine would the topic of interest here, there isn't much that's novel here.......but I'll bring that bit forward: (the quote is of Steenstra)

1726486965938.png


Source: https://www.thestar.com/business/fl...cle_7d347266-4f76-11ef-abcb-5fd69caeb928.html
 
The pedestrian perimeter is extremely unlikely to happen, regardless, it does not replace the ferries in practical use /capacity.

I honestly don't get all of these people saying the "solution" to make the islands accessible is a bridge (or tunnel) at one far end or the other. Unless you are going to Hanlan's Point Beach, you're looking at hiking an hour after getting out of the western tunnel to get to the parts of the island that people want to go to. It's like 5 km from the airport dock to Centreville around the perimeter, or 2.5 km if you built a few bridges to make a direct route between the islands.
 

Back
Top