^^^I find this so funny that NL posted a bit of an atomic bomb that should redirect the discussion yet the thread continues on as before! 🤪 Did theY not see it? Don’t care? Just to annoy some people I will post a few additional images from the article!

IMG_9898.jpeg




IMG_9897.jpeg
IMG_9896.jpeg
 
rbt said:
... When Porter began operations I suddenly couldn't sleep with my window open before 11pm or after 6am ...
Click to expand...
lenaitch said:
Setting aside that I think they were being sarcastic, I'm often curious about people who live in an urban area then complain about noise (planes, trains and automobiles)... Similar to people who move to the country then complain about smells and slow moving machinery on the road.
... No doubt many of the same people would complain that getting to a distant airport is soooo inconvenient.
Click to expand...
I have trouble sympathizing with anyone doing that kind of complaining, at least about the "regular" noises. I live very close to where the subway runs above ground, and for the most part I only remember how loud it is it on the rare occasions when I open my apartment window, and even then I can use earbuds if I'm trying to listen to something. If someone near Bloor and Christie was complaining about the noise of the IndyCar race, when I've only ever heard it after I've gotten south of King Street, how long and carefully were they waiting for the wind and atmospheric conditions to be just right to maybe think they could barely hear it? 🤪

I think the complaining about the noise of the planes is more of a knee-jerk thing left over from 50+ years ago when few people had air conditioning and spent more time with their windows open, and the planes of the time actually were louder with a higher and more screeching sound.
From what I heard from the anti-airport (YTZ) people during that executive meeting, they seemed to have now changed gears to move to on to more saying that they want it to be a park, as opposed to claiming that the noise was unbearable.

When staying at a relative's house on the edge of the GTA, there was a couple of times I had left a window partly open, and been awakened at sunrise by a loud blue jay in the tree immediately outside of it, and in the spring well before sunrise by a robin and nearby cardinal having their bird larynx measuring contest to establish territorial rights.
 
Last edited:
SubHuman said:
I have trouble sympathizing with anyone doing that kind of complaining, at least about the "regular" noises. I live close to where the subway runs above ground, and for the most part I only remember how loud it is it on the rare occasions when I open my apartment window, and even then I can use earbuds if I'm trying to listen to something. If someone near Bloor and Christie was complaining about the noise of the IndyCar race, when I've only ever heard it after I've gotten south of King Street, how long and carefully were they waiting for the wind and atmospheric conditions to be just right to maybe think they could barely hear it? 🤪

I think the complaining about the noise of the planes is more of a knee-jerk thing left over from 50+ years ago when few people had air conditioning and spent more time with their windows open, and the planes of the time actually were louder with a higher and more screeching sound.
From what I heard from the anti-airport (YTZ) people during that executive meeting, they seemed to have now changed gears to move to on to more saying that it should be a park as opposed to claiming that the noise was unbearable.

When staying at a relative's house on the edge of the GTA, there was a couple of times I had left a window partly open, and been awakened at sunrise by a loud blue jay in the tree immediately outside of it, and in the spring well before sunrise by a robin and nearby cardinal having their bird larynx measuring contest to establish territorial rights.
Click to expand...

I'm going to suggest that the noise issue is a subjective one..............though I don't feel like 'trouble sympathizing' is a particularly good take when someone's experience is that they have real difficulty sleeping, and enough such that they end up moving.

It should be possible to sympathize w/that issue, while also saying that that may, in your judgement, be insufficient reason to oppose the airport.

****

I would now ask everyone to move on from the noise issue............. I posted two significant news links...........one very germane to the current matter before Council, the other more aspirational if no less interesting.

Can I ask people to please follow those links and contribute to the discussion accordingly. I think that's better that endless relitigation of "But I like, but I don't"
 
Northern Light said:
On the heels of Matt's Column in the The Star, is a column by @AlexBozikovic which is a wonderful exploration of what could be done with BBTCA if it were transformed into a Park. The Globe hired Public Work to reimagine the space.

www.theglobeandmail.com

Airport to park: A bold vision for the Toronto Island

The Globe and Mail offers the most authoritative news in Canada, featuring national and international news
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

From the above and courtesy Public Work
Click to expand...
Super interesting article. I'm interested in the why of Toronto failing on previous opportunities described by Alex: The ravaging of Ontario Place, the waste of Exhibition Place, the indefensible rebuild of the Gardiner Expressway, and a half-forgotten plan to make the Don Valley a park: all of them missed opportunities.

Studying and thinking about another ambitious project with the same systems in place would likely lead to the same outcome. It would seem that the way things are planned and executed, or the system required to do that better, needs to change first. (I would offer long terms for mayors and councilors, say 6-8 years, with higher pay to attract decent candidates with useful resumes, and no career politicians, i.e. no incumbents, no second terms).

On the glass-half-full side, the Lower Don Lands is one project that will get completed and is of quite the size and scale, though I don't know the ins and outs of who should get the credit. Seems like it was a Fed, Province, City, Waterfront, and more project.

The description of the islands as "Toronto’s defining public space" doesn't seem accurate, but I'm not sure what else would be the defining public space.

Even though I use and enjoy the Island Airport, I would love to see an ambitious project like this go ahead if there was the addition of another airport to the region to increase competition with Pearson (and add another hockey team while we are at it for competition sake), along with access to the island not by car, but by bike and walking (use the existing tunnel as some have suggested, though I favour beautiful bridges) to allow such a park to call itself the "Defining Public Space" of the city.

I often get asked by friends and visitors from abroad "What to do in Toronto". Over the years I've worked on a boilerplate email response depending on the time of year, and where you're from. It would be great if "Visit Toronto Islands" topped that list. I don't think it does today despite maybe being the city's defining space.
 
rdaner said:
^^^I find this so funny that NL posted a bit of an atomic bomb that should redirect the discussion yet the thread continues on as before! 🤪 Did theY not see it? Don’t care? Just to annoy some people I will post a few additional images from the article
Click to expand...

It would be sensational if this actually comes to life - it would become Toronto's defining landmark/destination
 
Carpe Diem said:
Super interesting article. I'm interested in the why of Toronto failing on previous opportunities described by Alex: The ravaging of Ontario Place, the waste of Exhibition Place, the indefensible rebuild of the Gardiner Expressway, and a half-forgotten plan to make the Don Valley a park: all of them missed opportunities.
Click to expand...

So, I wouldn't want to get us on too much of a tangent here, nor do I wish to pretend that these are all the same answer, or answers.

I will say that two things really help....one is a compelling vision.

If I asked you to tell me about any past grand plan for Exhibition Place, I imagine you'd draw a blank, while not being unaware that there have been a bevy of ideas through the years.

You need the vision, and you need the package and person who can sell it too.

Second, aligned interests really help. Are we getting a beautiful new Don River mouth because of the ecological passion of federal, provincial and municipal politicos? Or is it possible that there was a confluence of interests, both public and private that stand to benefit from ....... all that newly developable land?

Disaster resilience, ecology, and profit are a fine combo when it comes to motivation.

Carpe Diem said:
On the glass-half-full side, the Lower Don Lands is one project that will get completed and is of quite the size and scale, though I don't know the ins and outs of who should get the credit. Seems like it was a Fed, Province, City, Waterfront, and more project.
Click to expand...

That's it, see above.

Carpe Diem said:
The description of the islands as "Toronto’s defining public space" doesn't seem accurate, but I'm not sure what else would be the defining public space.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, its a good space, especially in the warmer seasons........but I'm not sure it resonates as 'The Space'............ but it could.
 
Apologies if this has been posted previously.

"Air Canada and French train operator SNCF Voyageurs have joined a consortium vying to build and operate a new multi-billion-dollar fast electric train between Windsor, Ont., and Quebec City."

"French lawmakers are trying to ban short flights between Paris and cities already connected by TGV high-speed trains, such as Lyon, Nantes and Bordeaux, something Air Canada must be watching closely and with some trepidation.."

"Air Canada appears to be getting a foot in the high-speed rail door ahead of any future move to curb short-haul flights here, to mitigate any potential future losses."

globalnews.ca

Air Canada, TGV train company join group bidding for high-frequency fast rail project - National | Globalnews.ca

SNCF Voyageur welcomed, but airline’s move triggers concerns among rail advocates
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca

Some interesting numbers:

Passenger volumes - 2023
  • YYZ - 44.8M
  • YTZ - <2M
  • ATL (Atlanta) 104.6M
  • DFW (Dallas Fort Worth) 81.7M
  • LHR (London Heathrow) 79.2M
  • CDG (Charles deGaulle) 67.4M
  • AMS (Amsterdam) 61.9M
 
Northern Light said:
Excellent Column out this morning from Matt Elliott in The Star:

www.thestar.com

Matt Elliott: Billy Bishop airport’s 40-year lease needs a much closer look before we clear it for takeoff

If there’s a vision for changed operations at the island airport, the public deserves to know about what changes may be coming.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
...
Click to expand...
It was a little silly that they tried to use the RESA situation to get the lease agreement extended by 40 years.
And if the airport is really as useful as claimed, why are there empty available slots with no airline wanting to use them?
... the airport under the current lease terms has plenty of capacity to expand the number of daily flights, but there have not been any airlines willing to step in.
Click to expand...
 
Bozikovic while well intentioned and right on many issues, is wrong here, I think. I do laud how he gets actual visions done up to show points - this isn't the first time the Globe has commissioned something like this.

The Toronto Islands park is already very underutilized and massive. It doesn't really need to grow per se, especially not at the sacrifice of an important piece of economic and mobility infrastructure. YTZ isn't Migs Field for general aviation hobbyists.

It's similar to attitudes about the Gardiner and other items - large cities need infrastructure to function, even if they don't fit that idyllic vision of a city where everyone rides their bike from their walk up apartment to the local park.

Attention would be better spent on getting improved connections to the existing, massive park right next door to the airport.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
Bozikovic while well intentioned and right on many issues, is wrong here, I think. I do laud how he gets actual visions done up to show points - this isn't the first time the Globe has commissioned something like this.

The Toronto Islands park is already very underutilized and massive. It doesn't really need to grow per se, especially not at the sacrifice of an important piece economic and mobility infrastructure. YTZ isn't Migs Field for general aviation hobbyists.

It's similar to attitudes about the Gardiner and other items - large cities need infrastructure to function, even if they don't fit that idyllic vision of a city where everyone rides their bike from their walk up apartment to the local park.

Attention would be better spent on getting improved connections to the existing, massive park right next door to the airport.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

I'll leave it there for now. .

***

Did you read the Matt Elliott column that I linked?
 
Northern Light said:
Disagree.

I'll leave it there for now. .

***

Did you read the Matt Elliott column that I linked?
Click to expand...
Matt's column doesn't conflict with my statement.

I don't disagree inherently with what Matt says - due diligence is always important, and he is right that Billy Biship needs to be forthright with their intentions.

But YTZ's stall in ridership doesn't discount it's utility even as is, and likely has more to do with it's limited operating ability to only service it with turboprops, limiting route options out of the airport, than anything. It's recovery has likely been slower than Pearson as it focuses on business travelers doing short-haul flights to relatively nearby destinations. Business travel has been the slowest airline demographic to recover, so that makes sense. It doesn't discount the utility of the airport though or it's potential to expand it's offerings.

Regardless of YTZ's subterfuge and hesitancy to be open about plans - that doesn't mean we should just demolish it and let people ride their bikes in circles on the runway, as fun as that may sound.

YTZ has good reason to be very, very careful with it's communications given the histrionic politics it's had to deal with in the past. Any time they have to go to council for literally anything it's big, problematic politics and is like pulling teeth. Anything they say can and does get used against them - they understandably need to be very careful about what they put out because there are a lot of decision makers who want to nothing but to shut them down.
 
I think it’s a bit premature to decide the likely trend for YTZ passenger numbers until preclearance is operational. If numbers are still flat or only marginally up when that is no longer a Pearson differentiator, that’s not a good sign for long run demand.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top