cplchanb said:
any TLDR for those who arent subscribed?
Click to expand...
It wasn't paywalled when I clicked.

Basically PP is promising to extend the runways at the Island airport to enable jets to use the airport. Porter is unlikely to stay at the airport unless they can use jets, so it's likely a matter of extending runways or closing the airport. The tripartite deal is up in 2033. It is time for opponents of the airport to craft a compelling vision of what the islands (and airport) can become in terms of public space.
 
afransen said:
The tripartite deal is up in 2033. It is time for opponents of the airport to craft a compelling vision of what the islands (and airport) can become in terms of public space.
Click to expand...
Public space? There's tons of public space there already. We'd be better to fill it with high-density condos and find a way to extend the Bathurst Streetcar through where the airport would once have been.

Though as one airlines disappears, another generally fills it spot.

I'd be surprised if Porter actually leaves Billy Bishop. That's really their biggest selling point. I doubt they'd last long at Pearson. I'd think it's a bluff, and at best they'll run some niche jet routes from Pearson.
 
As per updated regulations by Transport Canada, the runway end safety areas (RESA) of the Billy Bishop Airport must be extended to 150m from 90m on each end of the runway by 2026-2027. This 60+60=120m extension can only be accommodated either by reducing the current length of the runway, or extending the runway into the lake on each end. Billy Bishop Airport quickly commented that they have no money and landmass to comply with this regulation. Instead, they would like to wait until a final (?!) decision is made regarding their landmass extension request, before looking at other options such as Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS).

Canada Gazette, Part 2, Volume 156, Number 1: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, III and VI {|mdash|} RESA)

January 5, 2022, Part 2, Volume 156, Number 1, Canada Gazette
www.gazette.gc.ca www.gazette.gc.ca
 
Billy Bishop Airport (PortsToronto) also received another $14M of taxpayer money in 2022 to support the operations of a private business, which pays $1/year rent for a 215 acres property in Downtown Toronto.

Government of Canada supports Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport with new funding for critical infrastructure projects

As Canada works towards recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, investments in our airport infrastructure continue to be crucial to maintain safety, security, and connectivity for travellers, workers and communities. Government of Canada investments also help ensure Canada’s aviation industry is...
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca
 
cplchanb said:
any TLDR for those who arent subscribed?
Click to expand...
Buckle your seatbelts. Raise those tray tables. Prepare for turbulence.

Pierre Poilievre, the current front-runner to be the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, visited Toronto’s waterfront last week and announced he would, if elected Prime Minister, support expanding Toronto’s Billy Bishop island airport to allow for jets.

Toronto has already had several contentious debates about the fate of our tiny airport on the lake. Poilievre is signalling the start of another one.



“Porter Airlines proposed not long ago to extend the runway by 300 metres. That would allow Porter to buy $2 billion worth of Bombardier jets that would take passengers to places like Western Canada, San Francisco, Miami and other faraway destinations,” Poilievre explains in a video filmed at Toronto’s lakefront, before announcing his support to revive that plan.

He decries “gatekeepers” like “wealthy waterfront condo owners” and “millionaire mansion owners who live on the island” for opposing the plan, and the Liberal government for blocking it when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took office in 2015.

There’s a lot to quibble with in Poilievre’s arguments. First, there are no mansions on the Toronto Islands. Obviously. And Bombardier is no longer in the mix to provide jets for use at Billy Bishop. Porter has recently been sourcing jets — to fly out of Pearson Airport — from Brazilian aerospace company Embraer. And the runway extension is no simple matter. It requires filling in parts of Lake Ontario.


But quibbles aside, let’s thank Poilievre for pushing the airport back into the spotlight. A debate over its future was always inevitable. The tripartite agreement governing Billy Bishop is set to expire in 2033. It needs to be proactively renewed by Toronto council, Ports Toronto and the federal government to allow the airport to continue operating. A decision must be made. The clock is ticking.

[EDITED]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kEiThZ said:
People should have been tougher on the Liberals for doing diddly squat on intercity rail. Half of all YTZ commercial flights are to Montreal and Ottawa. No business case if rail takes those away.
Click to expand...
I think nobody comes off looking good about the amazingly small amount of actual WORK on improving passenger rail in Canada in the last 40 years. If anything, times between Montreal and Toronto have got worse - the Turbo Train sometimes managed to achieve it's promised 'less than 4 hours' boast, VIA's current fastest is listed as 4 hrs 53 mins.

Yes, there are studies, going back decades, and it is absolutely clear that if the passenger trains did not have to share tracks with freight (with freight getting priority!) it would be MUCH more competitive in all (or most) of the Quebec City to Windsor corridor. Though there has been some work done 'on the ground' to add 'passing lanes' there has always been the distant prospect of HSR on its own dedicated ROW to allow politicians to avoid spending $$ on smaller improvements. A 'perfect example' of the perfect being the enemy of the good! :->
 
DSC said:
I think nobody comes off looking good about the amazingly small amount of actual WORK on improving passenger rail in Canada in the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

Sure. But at the end of the day it hasn't happened. Airport opponents kinda remind me of fossil fuel opponents. Both sets don't seem to realize that what they advocate for, will be hard to achieve without building the alternatives first (or at least getting them substantially underway). Demanding that existing infrastructure purposely be underutilized is going to be a particularly tough sell, when doing so benefits a minority of the population (downtown residents) at cost to the majority (higher airfares for everybody else).

This is working out a lot like the housing debates and the Scarborough Subway. The majority of voters are sick of gridlock and a lack of progress. And increasingly NIMBYs of all sorts are seen one large privileged group pulling up the ladder behind them. I would prefer rail. But I expect a runway extension will be pushed through with a change in government. And downtowners who are upset should ask their MPs what the heck they've been doing all these years.

Politically, it's kind of crazy that the area consistently votes LPC or NDP and can't leverage those votes to even get HFR under construction from a Liberal-NDP soft coalition that has been power for 7 years. Let alone HSR, that would be truly necessary to compete with Billy Bishop.
 
kEiThZ said:
But I expect a runway extension will be pushed through with a change in government. And downtowners who are upset should ask their MPs what the heck they've been doing all these years.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the connection here. Proponents for a YTZ runway extension envision Billy Bishop competing with Pearson for long-haul flights, not with VIA for more regional travel. Not disagreeing with your point on lack of HSR investment, but I wouldn’t conflate that issue with any justification for jets at YTZ.
 
bowen said:
Proponents for a YTZ runway extension envision Billy Bishop competing with Pearson for long-haul flights, not with VIA for more regional travel.
Click to expand...

Which proponents? I think most people with a lick of common sense understand that a few extra hundred feet of runway isn't going to result in 777s using YTZ.

The push for extra runway is because the addition increases the range of the narrowbodies that use that airport today. That allows for more destinations. It may allow a few more airframe types. But there won't be any large aircraft showing up.

bowen said:
I wouldn’t conflate that issue with any justification for jets at YTZ.
Click to expand...

This focus on tech instead of objective noise standards isn't helping your cause at all. Can you actually tell the difference in noise level between a Q400 with turboprop and an A220 with a high bypass turbofan? The "No jets" argument was supposed to be a proxy for larger aircraft. It's now becoming an identifier for luddism and NIMBYism. Under the current logic, the RCAF could base C130s at Billy Bishop because they aren't "jets" as per the current bizarre definitions. I highly doubt anybody would think those are better than an A220.

More broadly, I said earlier, you can't expect the broader public to accept that infrastructure should be underutilized just because a few folks in the vicinity of said infrastructure don't like it. Imagine the same argument for a GO Corridor. The only realistic way to get YTZ closed is to build a real alternative. An alternative that would take share from a majority of the flights (to Ottawa and Montreal).
 
nfitz said:
Public space? There's tons of public space there already. We'd be better to fill it with high-density condos and find a way to extend the Bathurst Streetcar through where the airport would once have been.
Click to expand...

The centre of gravity for this decision isn't downtowners. It's the suburbs. And why exactly would the suburbs care about more condos along the waterfront?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top