There is a debate going on at City Council surrounding Billy Bishop Airport. It focuses on their proposal to extend the runway to allow larger jets to fly out of Billy Bishop Airport. If you need more background on the topic, a quick google search should do the trick.
As usual, everyone seems to have an opinion and the ones with the least to gain or lose on the topic are usually the ones with the loudest voice. From my research, I have yet to hear any convincing arguments against the proposal except for two I’d consider. One surrounds the supposed $300 million public price tag for the project. The other is the potential increase in pollution. Otherwise, all the other arguments are seem short sighted and irrelevant.
Some of the most prevalent points of concerns are:
1. Accessibility
One advantage of increasing the flight volume at the island airport is accessibility. For those living in the downtown core, especially those that fly on a regular basis, this is huge. Many Torontonians fly to Ottawa, Montreal, New York or Vancouver several times a month. A downtown airport would save them both time and money. The new jets can also handle longer flights to major cities such as Las Vegas and Miami. Not only will this lessen dependence on Pearson, it will also has some spillover effects in traffic congestion. For those working on downtown who fly 8-10 times a month or a couple times a year, a downtown airport is a huge value add.
2. Traffic
Expanding the airport would reduce the amount of people commuting from the downtown core to Pearson. This would have a direct impact on traffic congestion. Considering their circumstance, certain flyers would fly out of Billy Bishop rather than Pearson. This would alleviate the already growing traffic issues we have in Toronto. Our four major highways would see a noticeable drop in congestion. People would opt to fly out of Billy Bishop to avoid the traffic or time required to use Pearson.
3. Noise
Some who’ve opposed the proposal have stated they are worried about the increase in noise that the new jets could bring. To this I have three points. First, there are laws on the books against noise violations. The plan to expand Billy Bishop should not be predicated on the assumption that all other laws will go unenforced. Secondly, the new jets would still be required to meet the airports noise bylaw. They would not be exempt and would thus have to operate under the required decibel level. Plus, flights would only be able to fly out of Billy Bishop between 6:45am-11pm. Lastly, there will undoubtedly be an increase in general traffic in the area but that’s expected. If you want to live peacefully on a lake, buy a cottage in Muskoka. This is Toronto and it’s a growing metropolitan center.
4. Environment
I think more unbiased studies would need to be conducted on the environmental effects of the new jets in the area. It would be interesting to look at the tradeoffs. We should calculate how the drop in vehicle traffic balances with the supposed increases the new jets would bring. That would offer a fair evaluation of the real environmental effects.
5. IPO
During a recent City Council debate, the point was raised about whether Porter’s attempt to pass this deal was tied to speculation of a looming IPO. The councillor (I think it was Kristyn Wong-Tam) alluded to the fact that if that was the case, a provision would be added that would void the agreement if an IPO was to take place. I don’t think Ms. Wong-Tam understands that an IPO means that rather than Porter being in the hands of a few private owners, it would be open to the public. The paradox of this line of thinking is that governments always tout their support for startups. But when a startups becomes successful and expands, they are suddenly too successful.
Maybe the $300 million price tag is too much and this project should be fully funded by the private sector. That would mean that private companies would manage and own the new infrastructure (mostly roads) that would be built to accommodate the increase traffic. But if that’s the case, don’t be surprised if tolls are implemented to recuperate costs. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Statement of Support
written by NoJetsTO
City Council will have before it a request from Robert Deluce, President and CEO of Porter Airlines, to undertake a study on the feasibility of amending the Tripartite Agreement.
The Tripartite Agreement was established to protect the City’s interests on the waterfront. As such, it specifically prohibits lengthening runways and use of jet aircraft at the Island Airport.
The organizations and individuals signing below respectfully request that Council vote against commissioning a feasibility study and reconfirm the City’scommitment to protect our waterfront by enforcing the Tripartite Agreement’s existing restraints.
RATIONALE
We believe that Toronto’s waterfront is a unique natural PUBLIC resource that should be protected for in order to protect the residential, leisure and recreational uses of our waterfront for present and future generations.
The Tripartite Agreement was signed to protect the City’s interests on the waterfront. As such, it specifically prohibits lengthening runways and jet aircraft.
If approved, this proposal will affect:
Our environment (water and air pollution)
Development (Waterfront TO, Ontario Place and others) and projected growth on the waterfront
Traffic, already congested at Bathurst Quay
A decision to allow jets will profoundly and permanently damage our waterfront’s potential, in favour of a noisy and polluting industrial use.
Pearson has the capacity to accommodate this growth. With the Metrolinx fast rail link from Union Station to Pearson, now under construction, jets belong at Pearson.
