[bobbob911]

Oh yeah you’re right. I thought that was 2024. I distinctly recall stories of hanlans being overrun with frat bros these days, particularly on long weekends

 

[catcher_of_cats]

I wonder how a runway that close to an open air concert venue would affect that particular experience or the peace and quite of a spa.

 

[nightstreak]

You're saying "here it is" as if the final plans have been released. Can we please stop with the speculation and fear mongering?

The Port Authority provided this information today. Maybe try to keep up to date instead of accusing people?

 

[nfitz]

Here it is. It's not just the length of the runway, it's the frequency of landings and takeoffs, doubling or tripling as many as today. If you've tried to enjoy a performance at the Music Garden, you know how much this is going to ruin the nature of the park. As for Ontario Place, what was the purpose of spending billions there only to have it within a stone's throw of an airport tarmac?

View attachment 733057

Gosh, the (long-approved) safety zone in the east isn't as long as I thought. I thought that the land was being extended 150 metres. It looks closer to 30 metres in that graphic.

Meanwhile the Nimbys have been going on and on about all the impacts to the boats on the inner harbour. What impacts?

I always lean towards believing that if Nimbys need to make up stuff that's completely not true, that their case is so poor, that it shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Ward8]

Yes, look at downsview. Public access is restricted to certain areas and will be 10 - 20 years before it's a public space.

So a temporary colsure for construction of new park amenities and whatever else there might be is reason not to do it? I'm not following that. At Downsview they have to sell units to open up the land, which wouldn't be the case in the same way here. In any case, we're the airport to close, it could infact become something else.

You're surprised that someone who uses the islands is interested in protecting the island environment?

I too have long thought that bridge access to the islands would result in the islands being overrun and ruining what makes the islands special. The ferries are just the right amount of friction. If you want to go on a busy summer day, book ahead. Or pay $20 for a water taxi.

There is some circular reasoning going on in this thread. At one point the number of island visitors was used as a justification for the airport, because more people would use the airport, and hypothetical new parkland wouldnt change that. Now, if the airport were to be removed it would cause a deluge of, not only undesirable citzens, but creeps and perverts at the beach. I have been told I'm being hyperbolous for much less than this.

I belive that public space should be equally accessible to all citizens and that the airport is an inefficient waste of prime public space.

You're saying "here it is" as if the final plans have been released. Can we please stop with the speculation and fear mongering?

I read "here it is" as: here is a depiction of what the port authority has told us so far. It's also a graphic taken directly from the Toronto Star, so it's not really speculation or fear mongering.

Meanwhile the Nimbys have been going on and on about all the impacts to the boats on the inner harbour. What impacts?

I always lean towards believing that if Nimbys need to make up stuff that's completely not true, that their case is so poor, that it shouldn't be taken seriously.

If you go back in this thread, there is a graphic that fairly accurately depicts the length of this runway, and the person was accused of histrionics. They were off on the placement of the extension, but that does not constitute making things up. In fact, that person deserves an apology. They predicted a 2km runway and thats what we have.

 

[urbanclient]

In fact, that person deserves an apology. They predicted a 2km runway and thats what we have.

I mean, the minimum/typical runway length for a small narrowbody is public information. Extra safety margins for an island airport are common. And I am almost certain the 2 km figure was talked about prior to yesterday.

Yesterday, Deborah Wilson, VP of comms & public affairs for TPA: "She said in total, the landmass required to accommodate an extended runway of that size would be 2.1 kilometres, end-to-end. That would account for required Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) and airfield infrastructure."

Extended runway land at Billy Bishop could be more than two kilometres long

The Toronto Port Authority says it is eyeing a runway extension at Billy Bishop Airport in downtown Toronto that could add more than half a kilometre of land in Lake Ontario in order to accommodate jets.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[picard102]

I wonder how a runway that close to an open air concert venue would affect that particular experience or the peace and quite of a spa.

It's a water park, the screaming kids will be a larger issue I would think than planes nearby.

There is some circular reasoning going on in this thread. At one point the number of island visitors was used as a justification for the airport, because more people would use the airport, and hypothetical new parkland wouldnt change that.

What are you talking about? How would people going to the island increase passenger traffic at the airport? No one can go to Centre Island and then catch a Porter flight from there.

Now, if the airport were to be removed it would cause a deluge of, not only undesirable citzens, but creeps and perverts at the beach. I have been told I'm being hyperbolous for much less than this.

It's always interesting to me how many people are not users of the islands, who have not encountered the current issues there, are the ones who want the airport used as a new access point to the park.

 

[urbanclient]

Gosh, the (long-approved) safety zone in the east isn't as long as I thought. I thought that the land was being extended 150 metres. It looks closer to 30 metres in that graphic.

Meanwhile the Nimbys have been going on and on about all the impacts to the boats on the inner harbour. What impacts?

I always lean towards believing that if Nimbys need to make up stuff that's completely not true, that their case is so poor, that it shouldn't be taken seriously.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here.

My opposition hinges around noise etc. discouraging people from walking around the waterfront, and (potential) height restrictions, plus developers being discouraged from building along the waterfront due to the aforementioned (near the airport). If these problems can be adequately mitigated, I would be happy with an airport expansion. I just don't see how enough mitigation can happen given the proximity.

The real question I have for the anti-HSR, pro-airport expansion Yimby(s) is how do you reconcile not deigning to take a train from Union by travelling down from say, Wilson Heights North York, but be ok with travelling to Billy Bishop? Or are we assuming Billy Bishop will relieve Pearson?

Being pro-HSR, pro-airport expansion I can understand. Being anti-HSR, pro-airport expansion, while flippantly calling people "very conservative" over mundane things is a real head scratcher for me.

 

[nfitz]

My opposition hinges around noise etc. discouraging people from walking around the waterfront, and (potential) height restrictions, plus developers being discouraged from building along the waterfront due to the aforementioned (near the airport). If these problems can be adequately mitigated, I would be happy with an airport expansion. I just don't see how enough mitigation can happen given the proximity.

The real question I have for the anti-HSR, pro-airport expansion Yimby(s) is how do you reconcile not deigning to take a train from Union by travelling down from say, Wilson Heights North York, but be ok with travelling to Billy Bishop? Or are we assuming Billy Bishop will relieve Pearson?

Being pro-HSR, pro-airport expansion I can understand. Being anti-HSR, pro-airport expansion, while flippantly calling people "very conservative" over mundane things is a real head scratcher for me.

The noise should be a bit more frequent, but needn't be louder. Nor is there any indication of new height-restrictions - this, like the huge extension into the central harbour - seems to be fear-mongering by those opposed.

Is anyone who is pro-airport, anti-HSR? And how long would HSR to Vancouver or Halifax take to get there? And how long before we can expect HSR to New York City?

 

[urbanclient]

The noise should be a bit more frequent, but needn't be louder. Nor is there any indication of new height-restrictions

Good, I hope so. Edit, actually the height of the Port Lands will likely be affected:

"A 2014 report warned that an expanded flight path would limit buildings on the western edge of the Port Lands to a maximum of roughly 15 storeys. The towers currently planned for that precinct range from 19 to 46 storeys."

This is for small Bombardier CS100 jets, so not looking good for the Port Lands if A220s need to land:

For the occasional go-around or landing from the east.

https://www.torontotoday.ca/local/politics-government/billy-bishop-airport-expansion-plans-ford-seize-land-toronto-12183671

Is anyone who is pro-airport, anti-HSR?

The location, "Wilson Heights" should be your clue.

 

[Ward8]

What are you talking about? How would people going to the island increase passenger traffic at the airport? No one can go to Centre Island and then catch a Porter flight from there.

Definitely not that.

My point is that park attendance is being used to support the airport expansion in a circular argument. There have been conflicting arguments that say 1. Not enough people go to the island to justify removing the airport and 2. If the airport is removed too many people will go to the island. Also they'll be perverts.

I mean, the minimum/typical runway length for a small narrowbody is public information. Extra safety margins for an island airport are common. And I am almost certain the 2 km figure was talked about prior to yesterday.

Right, but if you'll remember, that was considered hyperbolic, fear mongering and histrionics. Also now a made up NIMBY lie because the location of the extension wasn't perfect.

 

[nfitz]

The location, "Wilson Heights" should be your clue.

Perhaps it should be ... but I didn't say anything, because I literally have no idea what this is referring to - other than the North York area near Earl Bales, and that the Line 4 western extension could go past one day.

I guess it would be serviced by Doug Fords new transit tunnel alongside the 401 tunnel - are you suggesting there'd be high-speed rail in that tunnel?

 

[SubHuman]

Extended runway land at Billy Bishop could be more than two kilometres long

The Toronto Port Authority says it is eyeing a runway extension at Billy Bishop Airport in downtown Toronto that could add more than half a kilometre of land in Lake Ontario in order to accommodate jets.

www.ctvnews.ca

... Billy Bishop is just too small,” said NDP MPP Chris Glover, who represents the area. “It’s only 200 acres. The next smallest airport in North America that has jets is 600 acres, and that’s San Diego. It’s too crowded.”

Glover also suggested the government is facilitating the expansion in order to help the airport’s owner and investors protect their stake in the airport by buoying lagging passenger numbers.

I don't think we've heard much yet from the airlines on if or how eager they would be to make great use of an expanded YTZ. The Toronto Port Authority and provincial government say they want and hope YTZ would go from 2 to 10 million passengers a year, but is that realistic and backed up by market research from the airlines? Not quite a Mirabel-sized white elephant, but it could be one if it gets built and then under-used.
At best it would have only Canada and U.S. flights (and maybe Caribbean?), but none of the passengers that use Pearson to transfer to and from other international flights.

I wonder how a runway that close to an open air concert venue would affect that particular experience or the peace and quite of a spa.

I only noticed it once when a Q400 flew low over it when I was sitting in the uncovered area in the time between the opening and main act. But otherwise I think it goes unnoticed.
If it actually did get as busy as hoped, I wonder if that would mean no more CNE air show?

 

[nightstreak]

Gosh, the (long-approved) safety zone in the east isn't as long as I thought. I thought that the land was being extended 150 metres. It looks closer to 30 metres in that graphic.

Meanwhile the Nimbys have been going on and on about all the impacts to the boats on the inner harbour. What impacts?

This is the saving grace here. The impact on the inner harbour is negligible. In fact, if we had no other choice than to accept this expansion, I'd be inclined to say push the runway further west and replace the current eastern MEZ with a marsh and shoreline with trees to create some separation that isn't a blast wall.

The noise should be a bit more frequent, but needn't be louder.

Increased frequency isn't a minor detail, it's the entire deal. 150 of the allotted 250 slots are used daily and Bathurst Quay is already a mess with traffic and noise is disruptive of waterfront uses like Music Garden performances. It's tolerable because it's short and spread out. Not only is an expanded airport expected to use up the existing 250 slots, it would at least be tripled or worse multipled by five given the growth Ford has stated: YTZ served two million passengers last year, which would grow to serve ten million. That's 750 landings and takeoffs per day.

 

[picard102]

My point is that park attendance is being used to support the airport expansion in a circular argument. There have been conflicting arguments that say 1. Not enough people go to the island to justify removing the airport and 2. If the airport is removed too many people will go to the island. Also they'll be perverts.

Who is saying number one? How many people visit the islands has nothing to do with the airport or whether it should stay or go.