[lenaitch]

I highly doubt that Ports would accept such an outcome - they control the harbour at the end of the day as well remember and have an interest in keeping that open for their other operations.

There are no actual plans available still, just little snippets of quotes from execs. I personally wouldn't be surprised if the runway is planned to be shifted slightly south to minimize impacts on the western gap and on Ontario place, but that's just speculation.

The Western Gap only sees small/recreational vessels. Commercial shipping (such as it is) uses the Eastern Gap. I don't know if there are any NOTMAR restrictions, but the Western Gap is quite narrow and has a very tricky approach.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The Western Gap only sees small/recreational vessels. Commercial shipping (such as it is) uses the Eastern Gap. I don't know if there are any NOTMAR restrictions, but the Western Gap is quite narrow and has a very tricky approach.

Oh sure, but forcing everything through the eastern gap would impede their commercial operations more too.

Here is my (rough) estimate of the design based on what's been described and assuming the runway is not shifted south at all (not a guarantee). Red would be the MEZ - the eastern MEZ is apparently not changing so I've left it where it is today, and I've made estimates of the western MEZ based on approximate distances the eastern MEZ will be from the runway. Orange is the existing western MEZ for comparison of impacts:

 

[Ward8]

I always thought that London City was the closest analog to YTZ.

That would be the closest. But even London city is significantly further from Central London than Billy Bishop is to central Toronto. It's well into the suburbs, not in the middle of Hyde park.

 

[lenaitch]

Oh sure, but forcing everything through the eastern gap would impede their commercial operations more too.

Here is my (rough) estimate of the design based on what's been described and assuming the runway is not shifted south at all (not a guarantee). Red would be the MEZ - the eastern MEZ is apparently not changing so I've left it where it is today, and I've made estimates of the western MEZ based on approximate distances the eastern MEZ will be from the runway. Orange is the existing western MEZ for comparison of impacts:

View attachment 733421

In terms of pleasure and charter traffic, I don't see much of a need to push everything to the east. It would likely be a narrow bouyed channel to the west but it shouldn't be much of an issue. I'm not sure the volume is particularly significant; perhaps on the weekends.

Besides, there is supposed to be an OPP marine unit, like right there.

 

[innsertnamehere]

That would be the closest. But even London city is significantly further from Central London than Billy Bishop is to central Toronto. It's well into the suburbs, not in the middle of Hyde park.

Depends how you frame it. Canary Wharf is the largest skyscraper cluster in London and sits directly under the flight path about 4 kilometres away. That would be like if the largest skyscraper cluster in Toronto was in the southern Portlands, directly underneath the approach path for YTZ.

YTZ doesn't really have anything under it's flight paths, the areas with the largest impacts.

Also, London City has the closest private residential properties just 160 metres from the runway - comparatively, the closest residential properties to YTZ are about 500 metres away!:

It's not technically closer to the Downtown of London, but definitely operates in a much denser environment and is less removed from it's surroundings than YTZ is.

YTZ benefits by being on an island in the middle of the lake, the location means it sits about half a kilometre from basically any other use, which means a lot of it's worst impacts are mitigated.

 

[rdaner]

I am not panicking because I see this as a red herring to extract maximalist demands from the city. But the bigger picture of developers + airports + hsr is what seems to be the real story.

 

[Civdis]

Oh sure, but forcing everything through the eastern gap would impede their commercial operations more too.

Here is my (rough) estimate of the design based on what's been described and assuming the runway is not shifted south at all (not a guarantee). Red would be the MEZ - the eastern MEZ is apparently not changing so I've left it where it is today, and I've made estimates of the western MEZ based on approximate distances the eastern MEZ will be from the runway. Orange is the existing western MEZ for comparison of impacts:

View attachment 733421

I am glad that the extension will be mostly at the western end as this has the least impact on the waterfront, specifically the harbour. The extension also has less impact on residences as it is adjacent to OP and the CNE.

 

[cogito ergo]

I honestly think a valid alternative would be to turn existing runway into a taxiway + build a new parallel runway +/- 100M south..
it could solve many problems with western gap, yet re-routing slightly one Hanlan's Point Ferry route should not be a major obstacle..
See this very crudely illustrated here:

 

[narduch]

Would never what?

Stand up to Ford

 

[urbanclient]

Depends how you frame it. Canary Wharf is the largest skyscraper cluster in London and sits directly under the flight path about 4 kilometres away. That would be like if the largest skyscraper cluster in Toronto was in the southern Portlands, directly underneath the approach path for YTZ.

YTZ doesn't really have anything under it's flight paths, the areas with the largest impacts.

Also, London City has the closest private residential properties just 160 metres from the runway - comparatively, the closest residential properties to YTZ are about 500 metres away!:

View attachment 733428

It's not technically closer to the Downtown of London, but definitely operates in a much denser environment and is less removed from it's surroundings than YTZ is.

YTZ benefits by being on an island in the middle of the lake, the location means it sits about half a kilometre from basically any other use, which means a lot of it's worst impacts are mitigated.

You mention Canary Wharf being 4 km away, but the CN Tower is 1.2 km away from Billy Bishop, Union is 1.8 km away, Toronto's Financial District is 2 km away.

Airport	Destination​	Straight line distance​	Transit trip - Google Maps	Time including waiting​
London City Airport (LCY)	Canary Wharf​	4.1 km​	DLR + Jubilee line	20-23 min​
London City Airport (LCY)	The City of London / Bank station​	8.9 km​	DLR	30 min​
London City Airport (LCY)	Trafalgar Square​	11.65 km​	DLR + District line to Embankment station + Walk	55 min​
London City Airport (LCY)	Oxford Circus​	12.65 km​	DLR + Central line	43 min​
Billy Bishop (YTZ)	Union Station​	1.8 km​	Walk + TTC	24 min​
Billy Bishop (YTZ)	Financial District / Bay at King​	2.0 km​	Walk + TTC + Walk	30 min​
Billy Bishop (YTZ)	UTSG Front Campus Field​	3.1 km​	Walk + TTC + Walk	46 min​
Billy Bishop (YTZ)	Bloor-Yonge​	4.15 km​	Walk + TTC	40 min​

 

[Ward8]

Depends how you frame it. Canary Wharf is the largest skyscraper cluster in London and sits directly under the flight path about 4 kilometres away. That would be like if the largest skyscraper cluster in Toronto was in the southern Portlands, directly underneath the approach path for YTZ.

Canary wharf is a tower cluster at the edge of town. Having an airport that is 4x further from canary warf than BB is from central Toronto is pretty different. It also differs in that it's not taking up space in a culturally important place. They are contextually very different places.

I am not panicking because I see this as a red herring to extract maximalist demands from the city. But the bigger picture of developers + airports + hsr is what seems to be the real story.

I think they mean what they say.

I honestly think a valid alternative would be to turn existing runway into a taxiway + build a new parallel runway +/- 100M south..
it could solve many problems with western gap, yet re-routing slightly one Hanlan's Point Ferry route should not be a major obstacle..
See this very crudely illustrated here:

I think this is likely given the port authority CEOs claim that density in the Portland's won't be affected. This is also going to make people absolutely FREAK. If the runway expands into the dunes people will lose their minds.

 

[nfitz]

That would be the closest. But even London city is significantly further from Central London than Billy Bishop is to central Toronto. It's well into the suburbs, not in the middle of Hyde park.

Hyde Park is hardly the centre of London. The heart of the City, and the traditional business centre of London is the Bank of England, about 5 km east of Hyde Park Corner. Though the centre of modern bank towers, etc. in the City is near the Gherkin.

But there's also a signficant cluster of commercial skyscrapers around Canary Whart - only about 4 miles from the airport. Billy Bishop to King/Bay is about 2 km. Nothing is perfect, but it is comparable.

I'd hardly call 4 km from Canary Wharf, well into the suburbs. Would you say the Royal Albert Dock and Thames Barrier are is in the suburbs?

It's not a perfect comparison - I don't think there's any such thing. But it's a half-decent example.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I will also say that once you are more than like a block off the waterfront the impacts of the airport completely disappear.

Sure the CN tower is 1.2km from the airport - but do you even hear planes landing from there? Not really.

I bet you hear them land in Canary Wharf as it’s actually directly under the flight path though. Noise profiles are very directionally based - those jets will be passing just above those buildings in Canary Wharf, while they will be over a kilometre away from Union or the CN tower.

 

[EnviroTO]

I understand the attraction of an airport downtown, but I don't think it is a good idea. Kai Tak was cool, the airport in Sint Maarten is cool, but in both cases those airports were or are THE main airport. With the replacement to Kai Tak built you don't need to open a new central airport.

1. Billy Bishop is not the main airport... not even close.
2. Pickering lands were disposed of because there is no capacity issue in the GTA.
3. Expanding the airport for growth and larger planes would require much more than a runway.
4. Nobody decides they aren't traveling to Toronto or from Toronto because there isn't a downtown airport, so the economic development argument is a rob Pearson and Hamilton to pay Billy Bishop argument.
5. Believing that island fares will be lower after a major infrastructure build can only be true if the users aren't the ones paying to recover the cost.
6. Limits to the enjoyment and use of neighboring properties. It isn't coincidence that around the world airports are largely in remote, industrial, poor, or low density areas.
7. Limits the use of the harbour and lake.
8. Limits the land development potential due to development restrictions that will arise due to the new flight path.

The arguments for the airport are typically that of:
1. Convenience: Not substantial convenience considering UP, weather impacts, downtown traffic, and the decreased efficiency one could expect from more passengers flying from a space constrained airport with poor ground transportation... again nobody is not flying at all because alternatives are too inconvenient.
2. Transportation/ aviation enthusiasts: I totally get this, Kai Tak and Sint Maarten are cool, but Kai Tak is "no more" for a reason and the runway at Sint Maarten doesn't draw huge crowds without the tropical weather.
3. Porter fans: Porter will be forced to compete rather than be niche (and I would expect that the Porter dominance would not be protected at Billy Bishop if public funds are being poured into the airport... Porter's lands can be expropriated too). That there is not a modern STOL aircraft in the works is unfortunate, but it speaks to how the aviation world has changed. There used to be many shorter runway downtown airports but few remain because big is more efficient due to economies of scale.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The arguments for the airport are typically that of:
1. Convenience: Not substantial convenience considering UP, weather impacts, downtown traffic, and the decreased efficiency one could expect from more passengers flying from a space constrained airport with poor ground transportation... again nobody is not flying at all because alternatives are too inconvenient.
2. Transportation/ aviation enthusiasts: I totally get this, Kai Tak and Sint Maarten are cool, but Kai Tak is "no more" for a reason and the runway at Sint Maarten doesn't draw huge crowds without the tropical weather.
3. Porter fans: Porter will be forced to compete rather than be niche (and I would expect that the Porter dominance would not be protected at Billy Bishop if public funds are being poured into the airport... Porter's lands can be expropriated too). That there is not a modern STOL aircraft in the works is unfortunate, but it speaks to how the aviation world has changed. There used to be many shorter runway downtown airports but few remain because big is more efficient due to economies of scale.

4. Novelty. I know that flying from Pearson often makes more sense, but YTZ is a lark.