EastYorkTTCFan said:
The airport is in a secure area of the islands and isn't acsecable from the rest of the islands for security and safety reasons.
Click to expand...

The idea of nixing the airport, which is clearly longer term, was the point of that comment.
 
Northern Light said:
The idea of nixing the airport, which is clearly longer term, was the point of that comment.
Click to expand...
As much as people want to see it go I don't think it's going to happen unless airlines are interested in serving it. If Porter goes Air Canada and WestJet would probably take over its spots.
nfitz said:
So run a secure bus.
Click to expand...
Not going to happen. I don't really see any reason for people to walk through the tunnel and get on a bus to get to the islands.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
As much as people want to see it go I don't think it's going to happen unless airlines are interested in serving it. If Porter goes Air Canada and WestJet would probably take over its spots.

Not going to happen. I don't really see any reason for people to walk through the tunnel and get on a bus to get to the islands.
Click to expand...

The City's lease of the land to Ports Toronto expires in 2033. So there's a clearly a window. Whether the City runs w/that, TBD
 
Northern Light said:
The City's lease of the land to Ports Toronto expires in 2033. So there's a clearly a window. Whether the City runs w/that, TBD
Click to expand...
I think people are getting their hopes up that something is going to happen before then. A lease could be renued before it expires. Like I said if there is are flights going out of it I don't see the city doing anything other than renewing the lease. If Porter airlines leaves and no airlines take its place only then could I see it happening but that's a big if.
 
Driving a streetcar tunnel rather than a pedestrian one under the Eastern Western Gap to the airport terminal, then continuing under the runway, could have met both objectives. But that would have been unacceptable to councillors who would normally consider themselves pro-transit.
 
Last edited:
dowlingm said:
Driving a streetcar tunnel rather than a pedestrian one under the Eastern Gap to the airport terminal, then continuing under the runway, could have met both objectives. But that would have been unacceptable to councillors who would normally consider themselves pro-transit.
Click to expand...
I don't think that was even brought up as an option at the time or even thought of by city council or the TTC.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
Not going to happen. I don't really see any reason for people to walk through the tunnel and get on a bus to get to the islands.
Click to expand...
How is it different than using a ferry?

Heck, it's faster than the ferrry. And more scalable too.

I thought the issue here was the boats were overloaded.
 
nfitz said:
How is it different than using a ferry?

Heck, it's faster than the ferrry. And more scalable too.

I thought the issue here was the boats were overloaded.
Click to expand...
The current issue is that they can't load any boats to full capacity water taxi or ferries.
 
nfitz said:
Which means the bus wouldn't even have to be permanent!
Click to expand...
What bus? You seem to have this idea that the airport would be allowed to have people board a bus that levas the airport and transports them to an unsecured location. It's an absurd idea that wouldn't be allowed unless the federal government allowed it as they have athorety over all airports.
 
Does anyone remember clearly about the pre Miller bridge plan: was is totally clear that the bridge, like the current tunnel, was to be for airport access exclusively? I have vague memories of columns in the Star, say, arguing that keeping the islands just a bit inaccessible was good and that's why there shouldn't be a bridge. In addition to the anti airport opinions of course.
 
Isn't the airport closed right now except for helicopters? There is a big X on the runway... but maybe that is for the secondary runway.
 
calimehtar said:
Does anyone remember clearly about the pre Miller bridge plan: was is totally clear that the bridge, like the current tunnel, was to be for airport access exclusively? I have vague memories of columns in the Star, say, arguing that keeping the islands just a bit inaccessible was good and that's why there shouldn't be a bridge. In addition to the anti airport opinions of course.
Click to expand...
all bridge plans were for the airport only and were proposed by porter airlines. A bridge really wouldn't have worked there because it is one of the entrances to the iner harbour and it would have spent more time up then it would down.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top