Mayoral candidate wants to replace Toronto island airport

[The Flight Level 2,124]

With a park! Current airport lease with the city ends in 2033. Memories of Meigs.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mayoral-candidate-wants-to-replace-toronto-island-airport-with-park-1.6109632

[polosim 870]

Not another Merrill C. Meigs Field Airport (ICAO: KCGX)

NO, please not again. 

[stans 717]

It's easy enough to do, just send in a city work crew with bulldozers and carve up the runway in the middle of the night.  If he has any questions, just call Richard Daley.

[dmwalker 614]

4 hours ago, stans said:

It's easy enough to do, just send in a city work crew with bulldozers and carve up the runway in the middle of the night

Not so easy. The only connection with the mainland is through a pedestrian underpass.

[birdguy 3,962]

27 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

Not so easy. The only connection with the mainland is through a pedestrian underpass

They still have boats and helicopters.

I remember sittng at a window table in the restaurant atop CN Tower and looking down at airplanes landing there.

Noel

[DaviiB 104]

In the past 15 years, I have:

- Lived in downtown Toronto

- Spent lots of time on the waterfront near the airport (in all different atmospheric conditions which affect noise porpogation) 

- Spent lots of time on the island (on the park side) 

- Worked at the island airport

- Flown out of the airport as a flight instructor

- Been flown in/out of the airport as a passenger on Porter Airlines

- Continued to visit the island park several times per year

 

The airport property is about 212 acres while the adjacent park is about 600 acres. 

Accessibility problems (congestion) with the park are simply a problem of matching demand (for ferries) with supply and frequency of sailings (and maybe further upgrading the land-side facilities) . This has been an obvious issue for years, and as far as I can tell, no effort has been made to increase capacity during peak periods. 

Very little seems to have been invested in the park over the years to improve facilities there. Not sure if that was deliberate to keep it 'rustic'. 

 

The airport, on the other hand, has had massive investments (with public and private funds I believe) to improve connectivity. They're moving over 2 million pax per year through the facility fairly seamlessly (yes, there is a traffic problem at the foot of Bathurst street where the airport entrance is) 

Noise-wise, the airport / aircraft are far from the loudest / most aggravating sounds on the waterfront. You can barely hear them from the park (even in the absence of traffic noise). 

Removing the airport, besides the obvious downside of eliminating all the employment it provides, convenience for business/travellers, economic benefits, Medevac base, organ transfer options, tourism boost, etc...... to increase park space by 30% when the existing parkspace is underutilized (and underfunded) makes no sense. 

Not to mention that the crux of their argument relies on using the fixed (airport) tunnel connection to increase accessibility to the parks..... But it's on the wrong side of downtown, a couple kilometers away from the transit hubs (subway & regional trains), and not very convenient to get to (unless you enjoy standing in long lines for a streetcar at Union Station). The existing ferry terminal to the island park is a 5 minute walk from Union Station. 

Stop trying to create new problems instead of fixing the ones you have.

 

I could go on..... 

DB

Edited October 15, 2022 by DaviiB

[birdguy 3,962]

You've laid out a pretty good argument for keeping it DB.  

Sometimes, for whatever reason, politicians get and itch in their nose to change something that works.  It's up to people like yourself to lay out the arguments at city council meetings.  Many times it works.

I live across the street from a park.  Cinco de Mayo weekend was a nightmare because they had a two day celebration right across the street.

I went to a city council meeting and laid out an argument that parking on our residential street for the celebration posed a problem.  The street is narrower than city standards and if two full size pickup trucks were parked opposite to each other there was not enough space for a fire truck to get through in case of emergency.

The following year they put out no parking signs on our street.  People complained that there was no parking space left for those who wanted to attend the celebration.

The next year they moved the celebration to the old, abandoned city airport that was just a few blocks away.

Be a squeaky wheel DB.  It's a beautiful airport.  Save it.

Noel

 

[dmwalker 614]

39 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

Stop trying to create new problems instead of fixing the ones you have.

Would you also say stop trying to extend the runway to allow B737s to operate there? The way it is now seems the best compromise.

[DaviiB 104]

1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

Would you also say stop trying to extend the runway to allow B737s to operate there? The way it is now seems the best compromise.

The proposed runway extension on the island airport was specifically to accommodate the operation of the A220 (then Bombardier C-Series) from the field. 

Total runway length would be around 5,000ft (up from ~4,000) and the displaced thresholds (to maintain obstacle clearance on the exiting steep approaches) would leave the available landing distance close to the existing 4,000ft.

 

.....so nowhere near the lengths needed to operate a 737, or anything larger in/out of the airport. 

If I remember correctly, the existing exclusion zones (in the lake, off either end of the main runway) were to stay the same size.....so technically the airport's footprint would remain exactly the same. 

Let's keep the facts straight. The media completely missed the mark (and most of the facts) on that issue. Most of the discussion at the time was based on factual inaccuracies..... or flat out lies. 

Whether or not the expansion should be allowed, on the basis of swapping some Q400 flights for A220s (the total number of available TO/LDG slots was to remain the same)...... is something we can discuss. 

...... Granted, the issue may be moot now that Porter has committed to the Embraer E2, and operating them from YYZ.... a shame for Canadian Aviation, and a bit disgraceful IMO (but that's a matter of opinion/politics) 

DB

Edited October 15, 2022 by DaviiB

[regis9 4,048]

Not the first wannabe politician in Toronto to propose this and unfortunately won’t likely be the last.  

There are a few uncomfortable realities for the waterfront NIMBYs that push for this:

- The noise produced by Q400’s and others flying into the airport is minimal compared to other background noise in Downtown Toronto.

- The supposed message from supporters of closing the airport is that it ruins the public experience of the Toronto waterfront.  Ironically the biggest barrier to public enjoyment of the downtown Toronto waterfront is the wall of condos (which are generally inhabited by the anti-airport NIMBYs) that limit public access.

- I *think* that the federal government would need to make the final call which is quite a wildcard.

My thoughts as a former Toronto resident.

Edited October 19, 2022 by regis9

[MarkW 1,502]

Here is my fantastic idea for the airport.  Build a large airport out in lake Ontario (similar to Hong Kong) with two sets of parallels that are closer to the normal north/west wind direction and close Pearson and build housing.  New airport can be accessed by rail only from various points in the GTA.  Will never fly, likely too costly, etc, etc. but something to think about.

[Stavros 295]

On 10/14/2022 at 8:19 PM, polosim said:

Not another Merrill C. Meigs Field Airport (ICAO: KCGX)

NO, please not again. 

Honestly, as an aviation enthusiast I of course mourn Meigs and have a nostalgia for it. But from a pragmatic perspective I am fully on board that closing airports like Meigs and Toronto Island are beneficial for the community as a whole.

I'm hard pressed to justify using prime real estate in the most expensive real estate market in the entire country for an airport serving <300,000 passengers year. There are certainly better uses of that land than providing a mildly better airport experience to a few hundred business travelers a day.

[DaviiB 104]

10 hours ago, StAgre said:

I'm hard pressed to justify using prime real estate in the most expensive real estate market in the entire country for an airport serving <300,000 passengers year. There are certainly better uses of that land than providing a mildly better airport experience to a few hundred business travelers a day.

The actual passenger number was almost 3 million per year pre-pandemic.  Nowhere near the numbers at YYZ, but certainly not insignificant. 

Keep in mind that, pre-pandemic, YYZ could only maintain its schedule if the weather was good. It was very close to capacity. If the weather deteriorated around one of the peak periods, things would go south quickly Ask anyone who works in ops there what they think of the slot & de-ice slot systems. 🤢

Regarding the land under YTZ, what would be a better use for it? (Genuine question).

The surrounding parks are underutilized, the harbourfront is overbuilt with condos, there is plenty of entertainment space nearby (hokey/basketball arena, baseball stadium, tourist attractions, amphitheaters, restaurants), and demand for business (office) space has not really recovered. What's left after that? Industrial?

Easy access to transport is something that makes cities liveable. YTZ has demonstrated far greater utility than Meigs Field ever had. Yes, you can argue that there is a rail link from downtown to YYZ now (UpExpress), but it's just another example of Toronto's not-well-thought-out transit infrastructure (and a whole different rabbit hole). 

YTZ is a very unique airport, and adds to the mix of diverse land-uses, and services available around downtown. The only other comparable is probably LCY. Does it benefit absolutely everyone? No......but not every person uses every transit service or entertainment venue. What is the minimum (threshold) positive impact before an airport is deemed worthy of being kept? And how many people is it negatively impacting at the moment?

Also, the passenger experience is vastly better than YYZ (based on my experience).

 

20 hours ago, MarkW said:

Here is my fantastic idea for the airport.  Build a large airport out in lake Ontario (similar to Hong Kong) with two sets of parallels that are closer to the normal north/west wind direction and close Pearson and build housing.  New airport can be accessed by rail only from various points in the GTA.  Will never fly, likely too costly, etc, etc. but something to think about.

There's an "old geezer" at the island airport who would rant on and on about how 40-50 years ago, when land was being reclaimed to build-out the current port lands, they should have just kept extending the Leslie St spit further into Lake Ontario, and put a big airport out there to replace YTZ and YYZ. 

Sadly hindsight is 20-20, foresight is almost nonexistent, and the time (and money) to do that is long gone. Would have been cool though (and less affected by lake-effect snow and airmass thunderstorms than YYZ is). 

 

DB

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by DaviiB

[Stavros 295]

8 hours ago, DaviiB said:

The actual passenger number was almost 3 million per year pre-pandemic.  Nowhere near the numbers at YYZ, but certainly not insignificant.

Regarding the land under YTZ, what would be a better use for it? (Genuine question).

Also, the passenger experience is vastly better than YYZ (based on my experience).

Fair point regarding pre-pandemic passenger numbers, and I'm fully on board that the airport is a better experience than YYZ having flown through Billy Bishop a few times myself.

I also think demolishing it to expand the park is a waste as well - that's the "I hate the airport and I just want it gone" approach.

 

That said, I think there's a fair argument that there are better uses of that land than the airport from a financial and quality of life perspective as well. A good example is the neighborhood of Ijburg in Amsterdam. It's a newly built residential neighborhood on reclaimed land in the bay: https://goo.gl/maps/FxqmkvU2Nmu7A3yq8

Currently, Ijburg is about 1.5km2, similar to the size of YTZ, and houses 22,000 people in a livable urban neighborhood with businesses, schools, and public transportation (and it doesn't even have any ugly condo towers!)

I think there's a fair argument that given Toronto's obvious shortage of housing, and the revenue and economic activity that an urban neighborhood generates, that YTZ is not maximizing the opportunity cost of the land it sits on.

 

Just my opinion as an urbanite who has only visited Toronto though.

[fidiyikovo 11]

6 hours ago, StAgre said:

I think there's a fair argument that given Toronto's obvious shortage of housing, and the revenue and economic activity that an urban neighborhood generates, that YTZ is not maximizing the opportunity cost of the land it sits on.

It is important to consider when determining the 'economic value' of a neighborhood VS the airport that Porter Airlines would lose a significant portion of their competitive advantage over other airlines. A lot of passengers fly Porter for the experience at Billy Bishop, and the airline would most certainly meet a grizzly fate, if not completely dying then certainly coming close to it. As of current, LinkedIn estimates Porter employs roughly 1,200 people, and when considering the additional employment that the airport generates, I'd be surprised if a primarily residential expansion brought with it that many high-paying or unionized jobs.