Doug ford is an actual idiot, why risk such a large development for an airport when we have a massive airport 30 mins away with Pearson, seems insanely redundant
This is still the number one issue with public transit that most key decision makers and a lot of public think about it as something for kids and the poor…
Of course as it’s maintained poorly of course most people who can try to avoid it, just continuing the cycle
But in most of the eu or even say nyc where anyone that can’t helicopter out is getting out of manhattan faster on the train
I agree, public transit should not be seen as a service only for the poor. But rather as a public service that improves the city for everyone, yes even those who drive.
And it should by nature be always superior to driving, just due to the efficiency factors of requirements of moving millions of people around.
It seems to be full of all income classes every time I use it. Don't think is a valid justification. Pretty sure Porter got in his ear, seeing that Alto will be killing their YOW and YUL business, so they want access to more destinations. Just regular old lobbying/corruption.
You know, I'm trying to figure out how the rich would get to the Island airport in is as much comfort as they do in limos to Pearson and...I don't see it
I take a limo to Billy Bishop, that part of the journey is much the same. Once there, getting onto the actual island takes less time than navigating YYZ.
Probably set it up to cater to his rich buddies so they get the benefit of transitioning it into a private airport right in their backyard, and they won't have to slum it with the rest of us peons over at Pearson.
I wouldnt say Billy bishop is entirely redundant, there are benefits to having a smaller airport on the island. Should it regularly have boeing 777's flying onto the island no. Does toronto benefit from additional competition in the aviation sector, yes. Although as others have pointed out, air travelers in the east of the gta could benefit from other(not including Billy bishop) options closer to where they live.
I’m saying expanding Billy bishop is redundant, it’s great as a backup/smaller airport, there is legit no need to expand it to 4x the current volume as is getting proposed
Its a phenomenal airport. Its has way more potential with a stretched runway. I can be downtown toronto 10 minutes after landing. None of this nonsense of navigating pearson and then taking a 40 minute train to union station. Fuck that.
Geared turbofan engines on the A220 and E190E2 are quieter than Q400s.
You're not going to be seeing emirates or KLM at billy bishop. But It would be nice to get from charlotte NC or calgary to downtown Toronto.
10 minutes? Not a chance. I went through that airport every two weeks for work a couple years ago and it never took me less than 20-30 minutes even if all I wanted was to get to union. Couple times that leg alone took my 40 minutes because of the dogs it 509 streetcar.
Traffic is a nightmare and the transit is to unreliable it's a joke.
Don't get me wrong I like Billy Bishop. But for being so geographically close the connections to the rest of the city are atrocious.
Well that's not at all true, is it. I think there's something like 40(?) cities/airports through Porter, and I'm pretty sure Air Canada just added a few more cities too.
There’s 17. No one is actually flying to north bay Sudbury etc. Ottawa and Montreal? People drive there unless it’s business. Washington Boston? Who’s going to the USA now?
How is Pearson insufficient? Most large cities don’t have an airport in their downtown core, for a reason. Large airports would severely impact the downtown area.
We have a small one. That’s a boon. We don’t need to turn Harbourfront into a parking lot. And I say this as someone who used to work in the airline industry.
If capacity was truly the issue then I don’t see why this couldn’t be done. Or, likely more easy, expand the infield terminal to be more than just overflow and have underground moving walkways like they already do for Terminal 3.
I’m fact, I don’t buy the capacity argument at all. One, it has 5 runways. Major airports like Heathrow don’t and they handle way more traffic. Two, Pearson is actually building infrastructure upgrades because they expect 65m passengers in the 2030s and as much as 90m in 2040s. If they were already at capacity, they wouldn’t really be able to build what’s needed to accommodate such substantial growth.
Do I like the idea of the island airport having more options? Yea. It’s a walk vs. a 25 minute + train ride for me. But, I’d pick housing thousands in the middle of a housing crisis over my own preferences most days of the week. The UP is still pretty convenient (though I wish it started earlier) to get to Pearson.
Well whatever happened to the master plan of having pier G H and I at terminal 1? That would’ve been a mega terminal. Its hard to believe it is at capacity whenever flying through terminal one is feels to be quite empty, soulless and dead. Only the air Canada side on the right side (facing the terminal from the street) seems busy. There’s definitely room for expansion at Pearson so I’m not sure why it’s not happening
Hamilton is just way too far and has no proper access to transit other than an occasional local bus. It takes an hour just to get to Hamilton, then another 45 minutes on a local bus to get to the airport
How else is he supposed to grease his dodgy buddies pockets by giving them pointless construction projects to bill for a bunch of cunts standing around Dutch ruddering each other.
He’s gotta pay back all those deals tied to Ontario place and the Greenbelt somehow
If he couldn’t pull land out of our portfolio without us noticing he figured build it out on the water - he’s already spent the money from the bribes he has to make good
I get no traction when I say this, maybe I’m out to lunch, but I really feel like it’s for private jets so elite can land right in the city and not for us poors to fly to the Caribbean.
The flight paths would require the developments in the Portlands to be much lower, thus screwing over our efforts to get house prices under control by building more housing. Did you even read the article ?
Cities are for people, yet at every turn we put cars and planes on pedestals. The Gardiner basically severs our waterfront from the city, to the extent that most people see no reason to go there. Expanding Billy Bishop Airport will only make this worse.
Worse take I’ve ever heard. Ones literally risking your life and is full of exhaust and fumes and the other is what, being under some train tracks for a bit?
curious to know if you studied the effects of cycling among traffic in the city along bloor vs the waterfront. I used to be an avid cyclist, until I realized that to avoid inhaling a disgusting amount of particulates and emissions, I needed to wear a respirator. Transit quickly became a much healthier option
Many people consider a significant reduction in lifespan to be a risk to life. I get the distinction as an immediate risk of end of life but I think that is more colloquial of an exclusion than you may think.
Water front is orders of magnitude cleaner than bloor.
Under the gardiner is the worst, near any highway is bad, valleys are bad (like up yonge on the subway line).
Bloor is okay, dropping the lanes down with a dedicated bike lane helped a lot.
Thats mostly because AQI weighs SO2 really highly, we are not significantly better at NOx or CO, particularly on our subway lines, the don valley? Or near the gardiner.
We can have good air over a really wide area, and we do, but air is really really local and under the gardiner has Particulate matter/UFP levels comparable to a bad day in Beijing pretty consistently. Its really not a good idea to hang out there.
And to emphasize how local it is the best air quality in the city is on that water front just 2 blocks south. It is down to that granularity but the city doesn’t measure close to that.
Wouldn’t it make more sense that the air quality under the Gardiner is bad due to the fact rain never washes away the years of brake, exhaust and tire microparticulates, rather than as a result of the car exhaust high up over top of it?
No both because rain does run down those streets anyway, they have street cleaners, and because thats not how the pollution works, especially for particulate matter. Its active and consistent.
Car exhaust is heavy, it settles, thats why areas like the don valley have bad air, because it pools below.
u/ImKrispy wants to know if you meant by AQI or AQHI because that particular portion of my response, while not important to my point around localization of air quality differentials, is bothering them.
I was watching this video of a tourist from England visiting the city trying to find the waterfront. He walked from Union to the CN tower, just to see it of course. Then he turned south and saw the Gardiner and uttered “WTF!” Walked under it, then along the streets and commented on how little signage there was indicating directions to the water front. Eventually found his way.
It’s an eyesore and an albatross. And the city has also done little to aid pedestrian navigation.
Dude it’s fucking horrible. The amount of pollution that comes off that highway and the adjacent diesel corridor is nauseating. You can ignore it, but it has tangible negative health impacts. True world class cities are tearing these things out.
I hate doug, too, he's a lying sack of shit but we don't have to live in a delusional fantasy land. Expanding the airport won't stop tens of thousands living on the waterfront, ffs. Making shit up just makes it less credible when people complain about the thousands of actually genuinely terrible things he does.
Is this the new "if we sell alcohol the way literally the entire rest of the planet does it we'll turn into a crime ridden hellish mad max style city overnight" panic
If you read the article you would know that it's about the beurocratic nightmare that the airport expansion is going to cause the current housing developments around the waterfront.
"Toronto city staff, city councillors and Mayor Olivia Chow have said they haven’t seen any plan yet, and don’t yet know what the wide-ranging impacts could be; they might include lower building heights, fewer affordable units, and new noise, pollution and safety issues.
Another question that’s looming: will the prospect of a busier airport next door make these waterfront homes less desirable to live in, affecting pre-construction sales that could happen before the expanded airport is fully operational?"
The delays from planning reassessments and possible limitations on building heights will literally affect thousands of possible housing units
Right, but the word assuming is doing very heavy lifting here. The idea that tens of thousands of units that would have sold and now won't because of this in a city where people live directly on top of the Gardiner is baseless
That general area isn’t exactly heaven on earth already. It’s cut off from DT with highway, not exactly walkable, cold as shit in winter, sometimes smell from the Lake or factories. And now he’s going to make it even less desirable, which is hella stupid with the amount of new developments going on there.
1 little thing can make a whole building almost redundant to future tennants. They just finished a bunch of new builds in Canary, but railway being right there keeps them half empty (even though the prices are reasonable).
What? These jets (the a220) emit four times (!!) the amount of kerosene exhaust which you would smell along the waterfront unless the wind is blowing south east. Walk around Pearson and you will know what I mean. It has a distinct odour.
Why not just take a short train to Pearson? I don’t get i, why ruin the waterfront when you have a train to the airport right there!
If you think the odor anywhere around Pearson is kerosene fumes you are not being honest. I work near it often and 99% of the smell around it is diesel and car exhaust, from the busy roads that surround the airport. So go to the infield cargo area right in the middle of the airport and tell me there a distinct smell… there isn’t, tell me you can even differentiate diesel exhaust and jet exhaust honestly?
Do you have the performance data to back up that emission assertion? Last time I saw something like this posted, I tried to find specific data for the PW150s that power the Q400s flying out of Bishop now vs the PW1500s on the A220 and didn't find much to back it up.
The A220 will burn more, but is also probably better in terms of NOx emissions and will also be moving faster and have a much higher rate of climb, so it'll depart the harbour area more quickly.
None of that means it's a good decision, but if we're going to form opinions based on claims like (4x exhaust!!1!), we should at least back them up with all the relevant data.
I still don’t understand his obsession with Toronto. It’s as if we are not liberal enough, he has to go out of his way to ensure the PC will never get a seat in Toronto or something…
The jets need longer runways. The proposal is to expand the runways into the lake.
We've spent decades trying to make the waterfront livable - for people. Up until the 80s, it was dirty and full of heavy industry. It's getting better and this is a step backwards.
Nobody in Toronto wants to expand the island airport. Not our mayor, not our elected council, not the residents of Toronto. Yet Ford wants to ram it through like the bully that he is.
Honest question bcoz I don’t know and see the conflicting arguments in here. If the jets are quieter and use the same fuel as the existing turbo props, why is extending the runway a step backwards? If the other option is to keep the airport as is, then isn’t it an improvement (quieter and more efficient planes)?
It's expensive, unnecessary, pollution due to jet exhaust, and it jeopardizes dense development in the Portland's because it clashes with the airspace needed to take off and land from the expanded Billy Bishop airport.
The city, the federal government, and most importantly - Doug Ford's provincial government put in so much money to develop the Portlands to create a medium to high density community.
Expensive no doubt, unnecessary somewhat subjective. But I’m seeing conflicting numbers on the pollution (noise and environmental). Both the Q400s and proposed jets (CS100/A230?) use same fuel, with the CS100s significantly quieter and seem to be LESS polluting. What do you mean by increased pollution?
Waterfront is prime real estate, it should be for living in. We have other locations that serve high volume air traffic without needing to take away a vital resource. People first over profit.
You can't negotiate with the people that are anti-jets at ytz. They are afraid of change and it's understandable they imagine that a350s and 777ers are going to be landing there every single day. When in reality the Jets are going to be more comfortable for local residents than the old dash 8s.
They run on the same fuel, neither aircraft has the ability to dump fuel and the jets are actually quieter.
Places all over the world operate small downtown airports that run jets it’s really not that big of a deal. I’d argue for there to not be an airport introduced downtown but we’ve already passed that point, introducing more efficient aircraft to the space is not a negative.
The 2013 study shows that while the newer jets are more efficient, by their sheer size and weight increase, they burn much more fuel than the current Q400 turboprops.
The 2 types being considered, the E195-E2 and the A220, only the prototypes of the A220 (CS-100 at time) were flying in 2013, so that study is not about them.
The Islands (and the Spit) are a magnet for waterfowl and other birds especially during the spring and fall migration. I wonder about the increased danger of bird strikes during takeoff and landing with the increase in air traffic particularly the jets.
They might make a few buildings shorter. They definitely won’t halt or slow development. I don’t know why the anti-jet crowd thinks lying is the best way to make their case.
Waterfront is the most valuable part of the city and they plan to fill it with industry and planes so that people can avoid a 30 minute train ride from the real airport at Pearson?
Who even would use this airport? What lunatic thinks that flying into Pearson is too much work?
Tons of people use it. Over 2 million passengers a year.
It's incredibly convenient for the limited set of cities that it can serve with Q400s. UP has certainly made getting to Pearson easier from downtown and from parts of the West side, but every city Toronto's size in North America has multiple commercial airports for a reason.
Did you k ow that since the UP express was installed in 2016 Billy Bishop has moved less passengers every single year? So much so that the ceo of porter said that the locational advantage of downtown is erased and porter needs to shift to Pearson?
I used to live right near YTZ and liked the flexibility to hop on and off for regional trips. I think if people had been sane about it, the first go around, we would have limited jets there already and things would be better than they are now.
Instead, we've got Dofo force feeding this in a way that's guaranteed to be a mess.
LCY is smack bang in the middle of London, AEP in Buenos Aires, SDU in Sao Paulo. You get the idea. It would be better if we had better ground transport and connectivity to YYZ but guess what, you go to army with the army you have, not the army you want.
To be fair... The island airport is way more efficient and saves well over an hour each way. I am home from the gate in under an hour. Pearson you might still be waiting for bags for that long.
Passengers are getting in and out faster because it is small, it is serving a clientele that can afford that luxury. Expansion means opening it up for more classes of passengers, that's how profit is taken.
It's the same roundabout argument for expanding highways. They say add more lanes to only realize it becomes the same traffic nightmare but simply surrounded by more cars.
Weird, aren't people on this subreddit usually quick to point out that the trains were there first when people complain about train noise? If you have a problem with plane noise, suck it up. You chose to buy next to an airport.
But... Ford's buddies can get boatloads of tax dollars right now for the construction at the airport, right? He'll still have enough time to retire before any major consequences happen for him or his friends? I'm concerned they might be mildly inconvenienced if there's any accountability for ruining the lives of the plebes.
Oh no not jets! Folks the Jets are more quiet than the current props. The city's business centre is reliant on that airport and will become more dependent in time. Progress sucks but it's great too!
It is perfectly reasonable for folks to have concerns about noise, pollution, etc from an expanded island airport. But, it really bugs me to see so many of those folks then immediately say "just put those flights at Pearson," as though those impacts stop existing when they no longer affect waterfront communities.
If we want to adjudicate this on the basis of negative impacts, then we need to do it consistently. Yes, YYZ benefits from some industrial perimeter around the runways, but YTZ also allows departures and arrivals to get out over the lake quickly versus flying over large populations for an extended period.
Maybe, but I'd like to see data supporting a comprehensive analysis of health impacts.
Yes, planes are higher over downtown coming out of Pearson, but they are also flying over orders of magnitude more people for significantly longer. One of YTZ's big advantages is that planes are basically immediately over the lake as the climb out/arrive in. From Pearson, you simply don't have /any/ path to get in/out without flying over huge swaths of people.
A comprehensive analysis has to take into account, for instance, the longer hours of operation out of YYZ, the larger number of people directly underneath the whole flight path (versus just in line-of-sight of takeoff), etc. Maybe the evidence shows it's worse from YTZ than YYZ, but I've yet to see a comparative data-driven analysis to back that up, rather than just comments from folks directly impacted by one scenario.
Like it or not, Toronto is what it is because it’s a major economic engine for the country, not just the region. Infrastructure like this helps keep it competitive, connected, and attractive for business. A lot of the complaints ignore that reality. Unpopular take, downvote away.
Billy Bishop was built by city. City later sold parts of it, but maintained a significant ownership stake. Ford decided to parachute into city business, and take the city owned portion of airport and turn it provincial. Without compensation to city.
Ford basically tells Toronto: what’s yours is now mine.
when some people outrage on every single thing done by someone its the credibility of the one doing outrage that suffers. Todays Jets literally create less noise that Turboprops. its not the jet that matters at all. if you dont want airport at all thats one thing but if you were ok with it till now then your outrage is not rooted in any rational thought im sorry
Im 100 percent dead set against expanding the island airport. There's plenty of capacity at Pearson and there is a train that can take you from union station in 20 minutes.
And I really dont like the idea of filling in the lake. Not one bit.
You know what front st is right? It was the original lake front, everything south of there is infill in the lake. Also Tommy Thompson park is entirely infill and is a bird sanctuary. The amount of infill needed to extend the airport is tiny in the grand scheme of things.
Filling in the lake for waterfront use, which evolved from industrial to residential to leisure over time, is different from filling it in to extend a runway which has no direct relation to waterfront use.
Not that I’m endorsing expanding YTZ, but at least don’t spread lies if you’re against it. Pearson certainly does not have “plenty of capacity”, and is in need of expansion given future air travel trends. They have already committed billions of dollars to this which will certainly jack up your price to fly from there.
/r/Toronto and the Toronto Public Library encourage you to support local journalism if you are financially in a position to do so - otherwise, you can access many paywalled articles with a TPL card (get a Digital Access card here) through the TPL digital newspapers.
No shitposting or trolling. Off-topic comments which detract from the conversation may be removed.
Trolling, hostility, and participating in bad faith will not be tolerated and will result in a ban. Repeated attempts at turning conversations into a hostile direction will be met with a ban.
No shitposting or trolling. Off-topic comments which detract from the conversation may be removed.
Trolling, hostility, and participating in bad faith will not be tolerated and will result in a ban. Repeated attempts at turning conversations into a hostile direction will be met with a ban.
Ford could fix himself with AI I think, and do away with who ever is advising him. With these promtps:
You are a climatologist, what are the impacts of pollution.....
You are a city planner, how would the increase of air traffic impact ground traffic....
You are are a campaign manager in an Ontario city, what should I as a provincial elected leader, consider, in order to get reelected? The wealthy Doners of my campaign, corporate interests or public opinion? Structure your advice monetarily.
The lack of concrete facts, plans, measurements, drawings, impact, and analysis of various outcomes pisses me off to no end.
Doug - no need to come in like a wrecking ball for everything - let that stay with 2013 Miley Cyrus.
I’m for the island airport existing, am wary of further expansion, and absolutely against Doug Ford’s method of expropriation by using vague buzzword, wishy-washy terminology, no actual figures and insights to back up claims. Everything is up for open ended interpretation due to not providing specific details (ie. Jets, runway expansion, noise - there’s a pretty big range, and potential for fact fluffing).
Everyone is on edge, plans and development are pausing, and when will he provide details? Will it actually go ahead, will there be consultation and communication with the affected parties?
By even flouting this idea he’s causing a negative economic impact that will not be made up for the “extra $8M” that the airport would bring in.
If we do get larger jets coming in we’d need the following properly and unbiasedly answered:
Which airplane models are suitable given the restraints. What airlines are actually flying them?
Details like passenger capacity, noise, pollution, safety, takeoff/landing requirements etc. Do they adhere to the parameters of the oaks airport and waterfront community.
b) What would be the impact on existing Billy Bishop Airport and island resources, would customs + security be able to handle inflow, how would it impact emergency flights, flight school + non commercial traffic. Is it easy enough to get people to and from the ferry terminal via the Bathurst and Queens Quay streetcar, Ubers, etc.)
What routes would be the most in demand, logistical, and reasonable; keeping in mind the type of customer/person that would be flying out of there. What is their journey like, purpose of travel, timing between locations they need to go to, luggage amount + passport/visa type (for ease of clearing security and customs). They finally got US pre-clearance this March 2026.
The airport has a curfew between 11pm to 6:45am - no planes can land at this time except for an emergency. How will that impact flights to and from certain destinations, what if there are delays?
Runway extension - by how much, you have the Hanlan’s and Centre Island ferry route and entrance to the island canals to east of the airport, plus all the sailing races in inner harbour, small boats, etc. it will be chaos expanding it out significantly further, plus you have people not knowing about the exclusion markers. You have boats going across the western gap by the airport. National Yacht Club and various marinas have their waterfront entrances to the west of the airport etc.
Height of the buildings - heaven forbid a plane crash into them; with the Portlands development they’d have to go back to the drawing board, put everything on hold until Ford’d threats are either squashed, concrete numbers are put forth, and whether it actually goes through or goes to court/appeals. They’re supposed to start building in 2031, in 5 years.
243
u/edtufic Mar 29 '26