Actually it is quite true that there can be tons of recreational areas around airports; this is one way to use the land which cannot be used for residential purposes. Racing tracks, golf courses, expo centers, lots of green space to reduce the carbon footprint, all very common. However, they are not the prime recreational areas of the city, you don't see an airport next to Central Park or Hyde Park.

If you look at the ongoing major airport projects (dubai, istanbul, etc) you would be amazed with their footprint; idea is same: "keep your distance". Similar or comparable project in Toronto is proposed Pickering Arirport and its footprint is bigger than entire downtown Toronto.
 
DarnDirtyApe said:
So, which do you think looks like a better place for an airport?
Click to expand...

The airport with runways out over the open water, rather than into millions of homes, looks better to me. But the annual average income around Pearson is a third of that in the cities condo corridor, so who cares what those poor slobs have to deal with. As long as it's somewhere else.
 
picard102 said:
The airport with runways out over the open water, rather than into millions of homes, looks better to me. But the annual average income around Pearson is a third of that in the cities condo corridor, so who cares what those poor slobs have to deal with. As long as it's somewhere else.
Click to expand...

So you accept the correlation between real estate prices and proximity to an airport?
 
Cinnamon said:
It is a part of the tripartite agreement and very open to interpretation. Before there was a lawsuit between TPA and City of Toronto regarding installation of speed bumpers (or something like that, I don't remember) in front of the public school, in which TPA was claiming that it was causing unnecessary delays and traffic congestion for those trying to access the airport. And they won.
Click to expand...

Interesting bit of fiction you have worked up here. Last I checked, these things never happened. The speed bumps were never installed, nor the subject of any legal action. City staff did not recommend they be installed, despite the instance of the local councilor.
 
Cinnamon said:
So you accept the correlation between real estate prices and proximity to an airport?
Click to expand...

High priced condos with high income residents next to the island airport, sure looks like these people are being egregiously harmed by the island airport.
 
picard102 said:
The airport with runways out over the open water, rather than into millions of homes, looks better to me. But the annual average income around Pearson is a third of that in the cities condo corridor, so who cares what those poor slobs have to deal with. As long as it's somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Millions of homes huh? We're talking about low-level flying here... but basically this boils down to the fact that you want to stick it to those latte-sipping downtown elitists who actually go downtown and have to deal with the impacts of the airport? Something tells you you've never even been to the island airport. Maybe you're just a troll.
 
Automation Gallery said:
She is not the only one that dislikes the airport and would want it eliminated
Adam is on the same page..................http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/...ter-to-Councillor-Adam-Vaughan-Nov.-13-12.pdf
http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/...cillor-Adam-Vaughan-Nov.-13-12-enclosures.pdf
Click to expand...

Adumb has been opposed right from the get-go. I think the number of council members who are willing to support the request by Porter can be counted on one hand by now and they include the Ford Bros..

Of course the lefties have long been opposed. They include in addition to Vaughan and KWT, McConnell, Davis, Perks, Layton, Fletcher, Carrol

Some of those in the middle or to the right are getting cold feet. Matlow , Minan-Wong, Milclyn, are leaning towards accepting the staff report -i.e. putting off making decision until after the next election. Norm Kelly is try to postpone a decision till next year sometime. I believe Stintz has been opposed to the start .

It seems if a council member is not outright opposed to the airport expansion then they are trying to use it for a cash grab saying they need $300 Million for infrastructure. This is complete nonsense because having an airport downtown currently eliminates over 2 million passenger trips to Pearson Airport , i.e. it saves on infrastructure by reducing wear and tear on the Gardiner, QEW and other city roads to Pearson. Another way to look at this is the city is spending $500 Million (if it comes in on budget) to build a diesel train link from downtown to Pearson that can handle 5,000 passengers a day or 1.8 Million a year. Billy Bishop already handles that many passengers and could easily double!

When it comes to infrastructure costs the city enjoy's a net gain by having an airport downtown (same with air quality - a net gain by eliminating over a million car trips per year).

What kind of infrastructure changes are needed at the foot of Bathurst? The city has spent nothing down there since the airport opened. Maybe its about time that the city spend some of the $MILLIONs it gets each year from the Airport (in lieu of property taxes) and make whatever changes are necessary.

Approval of this airport expansion should have been a no-brainer. The fact that it looks ready to fall to defeat say a lot about how dysfunctional this city is. It explains why Toronto - the fourth largest city in North America is so mediocre. Most people outside of Canada didn't even know where Toronto is on a map until our Mayor admitted to smoking crack.
 
picard102 said:
Interesting bit of fiction you have worked up here. Last I checked, these things never happened. The speed bumps were never installed, nor the subject of any legal action. City staff did not recommend they be installed, despite the instance of the local councilor.
Click to expand...

Looks like you know the history very well too, yes it was not the speed bumpers, it was the "no-stopping" bylaw for the roadway in front of the ferry dock to build a sidewalk for the school. Same story, TPA launched a lawsuit and won.

Point here is TPA has a leverage to launch lawsuit against City of Toronto based on "safe" access clause in the tripartite agreement. The word "safe" here is interpreted as "easy" or "convenient".
 
Peepers said:
Adumb has been opposed right from the get-go. I think the number of council members who are willing to support the request by Porter can be counted on one hand by now and they include the Ford Bros..

Of course the lefties have long been opposed. They include in addition to Vaughan and KWT, McConnell, Davis, Perks, Layton, Fletcher, Carrol
Click to expand...

'Adumb'? Seriously? Your arguments don't need Sun comment level cheap insults.

There's plenty of (good and reasonable) reasons to dislike Adam Vaughan, but he is a smart guy.
 
Last edited:
What kind of infrastructure changes are needed at the foot of Bathurst? The city has spent nothing down there since the airport opened. Maybe its about time that the city spend some of the $MILLIONs it gets each year from the Airport (in lieu of property taxes) and make whatever changes are necessary.
Click to expand...

How many millions in property taxes does the city get from TIA (via TPA) exactly? I am sure you have that number handy.

AoD
 
DarnDirtyApe said:
So, which do you think looks like a better place for an airport?

View attachment 20567View attachment 20568
Click to expand...

Actually Billy Bishop does from the standpoint that planes arriving or departing never have to fly over homes in Toronto. When taking off or landing from the west the flight path is entirely over water. When taking off or landing from the east aircraft fly very briefly over the mostly vacant tip of the port-lands, i.e. Cherry Beach, Polson Pier.

Planes arriving and departing Pearson must fly over residential parts of the city as well as industrial. Even in some of our most exclusive neighborhoods such as Forest Hill it is a common site to see aircraft at an altitude of less than 3000 feet making their final left hand turn onto final approach to runway 24L at Pearson.

Even living downtown I regularly see aircraft arriving or departing Pearson fly directly over me (doesn't bother me). Not once have I ever seen a Porter Aircraft fly directly over downtown.
 
Last edited:
picard102 said:
High priced condos with high income residents next to the island airport, sure looks like these people are being egregiously harmed by the island airport.
Click to expand...

Good. That means I can sue City of Toronto to compensate my capital losses and if necessary moving expenses if they allow the proposed changes in the tripartite agreement without any proper study and totally in favor to a private company.

Also lower real estate prices means lower property taxes and lower land transfer taxes. In an area home to thousands, reduction in tax income will be quite significant. Why City of Toronto should give up a goose which lays golden eggs? For a private company? For $1 year lease? For a Federal Agency who refuses to pay its property taxes?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
How many millions in property taxes does the city get from TIA (via TPA) exactly? I am sure you have that number handy.

AoD
Click to expand...

94 cents per passenger (same as Pearson) so about $2 Million a year based on current passenger numbers. Of course this number can go up if the city would stop being so anal about allowing Porter to expand operations.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top