[SubHuman]

I don't think I'd heard this in previous stories on the subject.
https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/mun...yer-funds-for-billy-bishop-expansion-12232967

wtf how is this news? what do people think the expropriation money and runway extension money will come from ...

As I had said, I didn't recall seeing it specified previously, and it seemed to have been implied that it would be paid for in the usual way, by fees charged to users over time.

https://archive.is/fqy9I

Also, I think it's possible they may have realized that much more than the minimal expansion talked about 12 years ago would be required for the planes intended to use it, and for the increase from 2 to 10 million passengers a year, and therefore be much more expensive than they might have initially thought.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/waterfrontforall/pages/877/attachments/original/1774560658/Oliver_Wyman_Jet_Operations_BBTCA-Infrastructure_Requirements-FINAL_1.pdf

 

[afransen]

The more that comes out of this, the more it sounds like BB really should not be expanded, and if that means it is no longer suitable for commercial use because turboprops are no longer being produced, we should instead be thinking of alternate uses.

 

[nfitz]

You keep saying this, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting there could be conflicts between the airport and the planned building heights based on previous expansion studies. Even the port authority walked back the CEOs comments saying they can't guarantee those developments won't be affected. It's fair to say it's an unknown, but it certainly isn't "Nimby theories" it's a perfectly reasonable concern.

Where is this evidence? All I've seen are stray comments and tweets.

Nimby comments then, rather than theories. Do you really think that those who are complaining about the project, are doing so because they want very tall buildings along the western side of the Portlands? Seems to me it's more throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[urbanclient]

Do you really think that those who are complaining about the project, are doing so because they want very tall buildings along the western side of the Portlands?

I do, I want more densification of the lakefront. Goes hand in hand with WELRT. A proponent of expansion on this thread said they wanted midrises instead, they didn't like high rises. Must be a dozen pages back.

Also the evidence is in my post on page 49 of this thread.

[the post in question]

-----------------

It's early stages, we don't know what the new facilities at Little Norway park will look like. I have serious doubts the 509 and 511 and existing road infrastructure is enough to avoid bad congestion. But I could be wrong.

Given what has been revealed with the cronyism influencing Ford's airport expansion plan (and Ontario Place spa), I think it's very reasonable to be skeptical.

Leading American bank would be a major beneficiary of Billy Bishop takeover

The island airport’s terminal is owned by Nieuport Aviation, which is owned by a J.P. Morgan-controlled group of companies. Lobbyists for Nieuport Aviation have held jobs with the Ford and federal governments.

www.nationalobserver.com

 

[oakwoodsfinest]

There's a new case with the port authority taking the OLT over 309 cherry/65 Ookwemin

 

[nfitz]

There's a new case with the port authority taking the OLT over 309 cherry/65 Ookwemin

Yes, it would cause problems with the plans (which the city opposed afaik) of buildings taller than the planned 15 stories on Cherry Street. Is the city going to challenge that based on the height increase that the city opposed? Seems they are all sucking and blowing at the same time.

 

[Ward8]

Where is this evidence? All I've seen are stray comments and tweets.

I mean, I refer you to what urbanclient posted on the last page. There is some argument as to how that report will transfer to a novel runway design and different planes, but its a reasonable basis for discussion.

 

[dowlingm]

The more that comes out of this, the more it sounds like BB really should not be expanded, and if that means it is no longer suitable for commercial use because turboprops are no longer being produced, we should instead be thinking of alternate uses.

This specific assertion was debunked a few pages up. Why is it being persisted with?

 

[EnviroTO]

5. Redundancy - remember what the lack of redundancy did during COVID because of efficiency?

Are you serious? What load could Toronto Island ever take off Pearson?

7. Capacity - notably during peak times.

Again, you need to better understand volumes. This is like saying a two lane road seriously helps take the load off the 401.

7. Competition - pricing pressure on Pearson.

Airport fee pricing pressure, or airline pressure? Flair puts pressure on fares from Pearson. A big expansion of Billy Bishop will raise airport fees.

8. Economic Development - job creation, specialization, etc. Research supports multi-airport systems.

Specializing in baggage handling? How does the island airport lead to more economic development without taking from Pearson to fund Billy Bishop?