Get the facts about Billy Bishop Airport

72 thoughts on “Get the facts about Billy Bishop Airport”

1. I support Billy Bishop Airport and its expansion. I live at the harbourfront. In fact, my living room window is directly in front of the lake and I can see planes flying by (though I can’t hear them). I feel the airport has given me a wonderful option of closer, and less stressful, commute for certain destinations and wish that list would expand. Porter has made travel more sophisticated and less stressed compared to the experience of air travel in general these days. Having been in the harbourfront area for many years, I have seen it grow and evolve to what it is today. The cluster of office buildings and condos with insufficient streetcar capacity has done more to wreck the area of its tranquility than the airport ever has. None of my friends who live downtown are opposed to the Island airport so I think there is a small but vocal group of populists that are shaking this issue out of proportion.

2. It is a complete shame that the city and Porter airlines would put the kids that attend the schools in the area in such harms way. It amazes me how ignorant people are of the facts about the health issues that exist when living by an airport that flies jets. The black carbon alone should be enough to make people question some aspect of it. The majority of the people living close by do not know the harmful effects. The rise in asthma rates, the rise in cancer rates and cardiovascular disease, the mental health, and the lowering of cognitive abilities for children. This is just one study there are many just like them that studied the effects of jets on the health of those living nearby. It is a shame one CEO and the city or the people supporting this expansion would put their convenience and ego and money before the health of the children and elderly. Where are your priorities? Are we really becoming the USA, very uncaring of our neighbours?

3. http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/AQ-Reports/Supplement_GA_Report.pdf

4. http://airportnoiselaw.org/hansen.html

5. ah123abc must be a troll. Nobody living at the waterfront thinks it’s a good idea to pave the lake and cannibalize an entire community with an industrial-style airport – unless they’re a masochist. For those “on board” with Porter, get off and choose to inform yourself with REAL facts: http://www.nojetsto.ca/issues/

6. Get with it what really is going on, any thing for a buck, right?.
   Shame on you for your decision to print this stuff.

7. So now the answer is to get rid of all the apartment buildings just to increase the air traffic to your little convenience, choke to death, it is coming. Glad your are not in the planning department, you have no back bone to look in to the future. Do give a damn about the people of Toronto that will live here after you? Right, another selfish …..with a few parts on Back-order.

8. Not everyone who lives at the harbourfront opposes the airport and its extension. I’ve lived at Harbour Square for years and I support it. If I am a troll, then you’re a whiney little populist.

9. I hate to break it to you but City Hall has abdicated its responsibility for urban planning years ago, enabled by Toronto’s own voters. Have you looked at the unbridled development of condos and office buildings all over the city? And where is the public transit conversation going these days? The one thing that actually is getting it right is an airport that serves the city the size of Toronto besides Pearson. As long as they are regulated and monitored, I don’t have a problem with it. Selfish is a two-way street: Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it has no benefit to many others.

10. With that logic, we should shut down Pearson because it would harm kids in Mississauga.

11. ……………………………………………zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

12. That’s what happens when you’re on the losing side.

13. Real progress is when as many as possible will be served, just as the Union – Pearson train will do, as it takes Porter’s clients to Pearson. Because after all the investment to fly Porter you will have to quite a bit of money if it is to stay afloat. Oh right, it could always be sold to West Jet. Vision of future…hmmm by Law airlines from the USA will have rights to land on that runway. You will have convenience, Hope you have good lungs…..

14. OK, so this is a advertisement paid by Porter. It is not news, nor “facts”. Anybody with some trace of common sense understands that “sponsored” and ‘facts’ cannot coexist in the same title. The same hypothetical individual who would still posses some common sense understands that a busy, jets flying airport and a very highly densely populated area don’t coexist. Comparisons with Pearson’s situation don’t stand any ground. Pearson is not located in a very dense residential and also recreational area. Yes, there are people living somewhat close to Pearson. But there are people living within 150 meters from the runaway at the Island airport!These residents had no choice but to adjust to the noise and fumes of the existing airplanes at the Island airport; their children had no choice but to learn to walk to school among hundreds of cars, taxis and fuel transporting trucks for the airport. But enough is enough. They should not have to accept even more, for the benefit of Porter’s CEO. We, the residents of Toronto who enjoy the Islands (with the bike paths, beaches, birds sanctuary, etc.) should not have to give up our quality of life for the benefit of one CEO and the so called convenience of somebody who would want to walk to catch a flight. For the latter: I am sure you can find some really cheap real estate next door, walking distance to Pearson. Settle there and enjoy the convenience of over 155 direct destinations, not just a handful. Allow the rest of Torontonians, as well as the millions of visitors of the waterfront, the possibility to enjoy a vibrant, livable waterfront and Islands, where they can hear each other, breath, swim and watch their kids play.

    There is a place for an expanded Porter in Toronto: it’s called Pearson Airport!

15. Just look at the others that do not agree with your juvenile beliefs

16. You are hiding behind your stupid wall, trying to make us believe that you know the alphabet and can count up to three, nice!

17. Oh, yes. NIMBYism and knee-jerk populist opposition is not juvenile at all. Sure. Now go sit at the adults’ table.

18. Since when can airlines just land anywhere they want? If Harper can pick a fight with Air Emirates to satisfy increased demand to help Air Canada keep out competition at Pearson to the point Canadians (mostly business people really) got slapped with entry visas to UAE, then it certainly isn’t just free for all to anyone. Besides, Porter’s success would have attracted more airlines already. Air Canada famously didn’t want to be there but now weaseled itself in there after seeing what Porter has done. I’ve got news for you: the congestion in the area from all the frick and frack trying to get onto the QEW and Gardiner in rush hour is much worse for my lungs than planes landing.

19. The Gardiner/Lakeshore is a lot worse for the waterfront than the airport: It blocks views, acts like a concrete curtain, rains down chunks of debris, encourages cars and fumes to be expelled along the lakeside corridor, takes away precious water front space, and is dangerous to kids with the sort of high speed traffic. If you think the airport is so bad as referenced above, are you also against the Gardiner for the same reasons? We can always convert it to like the NYC High Line and keep the waterfront car free.

20. I didn’t say any airline, I said the ones owned in the USA. There is a cross border agreement between Canada and USA the allows the sharing of the runways, and it is also part of NAFTA, Finally we agree, yes the congestion of auto’s is already bad, why make it worse and then on top of that add jets. It is obvious that no amount of information would change your mind, as your convenience is what matters the most. It will always take priority over others, you have made that clear. I am not against Porter expanding, just do with the rest of the airlines. The law also stipulates that there cannot be an exclusion for just one type of jet. It will become a jet port if it is allowed. Like I said though no amount of facts will change your mind as your convenience trumps all else, health, safety your own and your neighbours. I am not trying to be mean, for the only thing I want is for people to have the truth of what they are getting into and make an inform decision. This is what democracy is. I educated myself on the matters and made my decision that it is a very bad ideal for the waterfront. Most cities are turning the clock back to recreational space the they become more dense and the need grows for more green space for the population. The planes will not alone be the worst thing, but just something more to add to what your breathing. You really should take the time to read what is happening to you if jets are allowed. At least you might have a fighting chance if the unfortunate happens. Otherwise I wish you the best of luck, and can only hope that you see there are many more important things in life than just your convenience.

21. I am quite aware of the facts since I have lived at the harbourfront for many years. As a resident here, I find the rapidly increased traffic going through the area to get onto the QEW/Gardiner a bigger problem for health, stress, and quality of life than the Island Airport. I would happily support any effort to tear that down or turn it into something similar to the NYC High Line to make the entire corridor car free. Just because Toronto cannot find a solution for people who choose to live outside of the city and need to drive their cars selfishly through people’s residential areas and the city’s beautiful waterfront to get home shouldn’t take precedence over the same priorities you mentioned.

22. That will only get worse if the airport does expand, traffic congestion will be unbelievable. Not everyone will walk to the airport. It will become even more congested. Jets will only equal, more air pollution from the jets themselves and the increase traffic to the airport.

23. In my years of living here, from when Harbour Square is almost like a hamlet in downtown away from it all to now in the midst of things, the one thing that significantly worsened quality of life and environment here is the increased congestion of cars going on and coming off the QEW and Gardiner. Not so much the island airport. So I support the dismantling of the Gardiner over opposition to the airport any day

24. I hope people realize that this shameful pseudo-news article is actually paid content by deeply vested commercial interests. A visual manifestation of the saying “money talks”.

25. ah123abc, can you really not discern a difference between the residential radius around Pearson and that around BBTCA?

26. Why do proponents of airport expansion feel that finding something else noxious and noisy in the city justifies their position on airport expansion? The rail link to Pearson is some of the solution to both problems, by the way.

27. Can you not discern the fact that Pearson’s size and flight frequency, as well as proximity to certain parts of residential areas of Mississauga in the flight paths, pose similar concerns as those raised by the opponents of BBTCA?

28. Why do opponents of airport expansion feel that something they don’t like justifies their position on airport expansion and rationalizes it by citing concerns that actually apply elsewhere yet would turn a blind eye to it because it undermines their opposition?

29. If the BBTCA was “properly regulated and monitored” Porter wouldn’t even be there. Q400s violate the noise levels of the Tripartite Agreement, the flights go way beyond the terms of “limited commercial STOL use”, the airport already operates with exemptions on approach angles for incoming flights, etc. It’s ALREADY too big for its space and for the waterfront. And again, like your argument that Pearson equates to BBTCA on its residential impact, you are now arguing that poor control of condo development should somehow be a justification for poor airport planning also. I will agree that Porter/BBTCA benefits those who use it; it’s just that those benefits don’t outweigh its detrimental effects in so many other ways.

30. Which side do you want to play? First you argue that other airlines don’t see BBTCA as attractive, then you argue in the same post that AC “weaseled itself in there after seeing what Porter has done”. And yet again — this time on the subject of air pollution — you use one bad thing to justify another.

31. Why not support dismantling the Gardiner AND opposing airport expansion? Those are complementary positions, not competing ones — especially for someone like you, living where you say you do.

32. Residential proximities are quite different in the two cases, although the issues are the same. Also, try answering a question with something other than a question, in the interests of moving discussion along.

33. Then your issue really goes to more consistent monitoring and enforcement rather than the existence of the airport itself. Clearly there are many people who fly Porter and like the BBTCA across the city or we wouldn’t be arguing over this. So the cost benefits analysis you propose are skewed only to those who live in the area and are NIMBYists. However, you forget not everyone at the waterfront opposes it.

34. I don’t think that opponents to airport expansion are turning a blind eye to other things. But answering a question with a question as I point out above does not really constitute argumentation.

35. I am pointing out that if the argument is about quality of life, environment, and other concerns, then I would like to hear the positions on other matters that raise the same issues. Pearson and the Gardiner would fall in that realm.

36. I am asking what opponents of BBTCA here feel about other similar sites based on similar concerns. My position is clear: I support BBTCA and the dismantling of the Gardiner because I feel the latter much more significantly affects the quality of life, environment, etc of my existence at the harbourfront.

37. I am giving them an opportunity to comment on sites that share similar concerns as they raised. I am being accused of selfishness for supporting an airport for my own convenience without regard to other “bigger” issues so I am curious to know how these people who point fingers feel about the Gardiner and Pearson for exactly the same reasons.

38. I did answer the questions. How about those people answer some of mine? It seems we are the only two people talking and so far all I can tell is you oppose the BBTCA, Gardiner, but feel Pearson should be spared this scrutiny. Mean while, I’ve told you I feel BBTCA is more of a monitoring/enforcement issue and I support it, but not the continuing existence of the Gardiner, and question whether people would make the same arguments against Pearson as they would BBTCA since they both share the same issues.

39. Agreed, not everyone at the waterfront opposes BBTCA. But what I have seen — now at the BQNA meeting, the YQNA web site, three city meetings (one executive committee, two public consultations) –tells me that local opposition to airport expansion is a large majority. The TPA’s own survey commissioned from Ipsos Reid says that as well. But I myself live in Mississauga, strange that I would be arguing in your best interests rather than my own. As far as proposing more consistent monitoring and enforcement — absolutely agree. Also absolutely agree that most fliers with Porter are very happy with the service. I think on that last point that the expansion Porter wants will actually end the good experience that Porter passengers now enjoy, when traffic doubles and other airlines arrive en masse (and make no mistake- WestJet and AC want in big — they have said so publicly).

40. But even if the Gardiner is a bigger problem, why not also deal with the smaller problem too? Why do you force yourself to choose only one battle?

41. I can’t say I know as much about Pearson as I should, to comment on what scrutiny it receives or escapes. Good point.

42. Aren’t those meetings rather unrepresentative of the overall sentiment when opponents are rather motivated to show up and be the small vocal minority? The fact that you have this attitude that you are arguing in my best interests shows how arrogant those who oppose this are. I have lived in the area for many years and actually face the airport. I know many neighbours who also like BBTCA. It seems this cause has become a populist ones for those who aren’t even directly affected the way they claim to be. The fact that BBTCA went ahead despite populist opposition from high profile politicians clearly shows there is enough public support for it to go as far as it has. This didn’t just happen in a vacuum despite widespread opposition. And the fact that expansion will create chaos and end the good experience, isn’t that simply hypothetical fear mongering? On the other hand, one could say exactly the opposite as well and it would be equally valid.

43. I chose. I support the BBTCA and the dismantling of the Gardiner. It’s not one over the other. How many times do I have to say this?

44. Well, to speak for myself only, I can live with the BBTCA at its current size, but see that the expansion proposal is a quantum jump in size and character inconsistent with general waterfront uses. I believe the Gardiner is a civic embarrassment rivaled only by the mess in Montreal. Boston cleaned their expressway up. Pearson is a big airport, with big airport characteristics I would not want to see at BBTCA. I use the Toronto waterfront recreationally, that’s my interest. Pearson has no waterfront and is lousy for birdwatching and picnicing.

45. At the meetings the opponents are the large vocal majority. You’re right — I don’t know your interests well enough to position myself as arguing on your behalf. Nor should you argue on behalf of residents surrounding Pearson – they might have moved there to be closer to jets. The political reality is that many things happen because of power, not people, as you point out in the case of waterfront condos. As far as my projection of the effect of expansion on the flying experience from BBTCA, I do say it’s my view only.

46. Perhaps the issue then is the size of expansion to accommodate the increased interest in the airport, or stricter enforcement/controls. Categorical opposition will only come across as populist and alarmist since clearly there are plenty of people who like and use BBTCA or it wouldn’t become the 9th busiest airport in Canada despite its size. Flight paths of planes flying in and out of Pearson are smack dab in the middle of many houses. A couple have had frozen poop fall into their backyards, certain communities are labeled as warning zones for airplane noise and presumably fumes, and I would imagine traffic isn’t exactly a non-issue considering the increased congestion in general around the GTA. As for the water front, I am there every day. I face it from my window. The bigger problem affecting my enjoyment is the rapid development of the area without any proper planning in terms of sudden density much more so than BBTCA ever has been.

47. So we both are advocating our views. However, the reality is there are people who support it and are probably more than opponents ever imagined. That is why BBTCA and Porter came to be despite past and current opposition from certain politicians who see this as an easy populist cause for votes.

48. I know you chose. My question was why choose one battle and not the other, when you point out the issues of both are similar.

49. Thanks for the interesting discussion — my bedtime is here.

50. I am happy to support any movement to have the Gardiner dismantled. In fact, every time there is a discussion on the matter, I speak up about it. So I am not choosing battles, just adding my voice when it is up for debate. Since BBTCA is the current subject, I am doing exactly that.

51. I think a lot of opposition is because people see a threat to an agreement they believed limited airport expansion. Without that agreement, they don’t see limits to BBTCA growth.

52. I bet you work for Porter, you sing his song that gets presented to you

53. The current expansion proposal doesn’t threaten existing agreements in terms of numerical slots as long as maximum noise exposure forecast contours are not breached. And if there are further expansion suggestions beyond this one, I will certainly be more likely to consider opposition because I believe in balance of the lake and waterfront, and the viability of the island airport as an alternative to Pearson.

54. You are running out of steam, repeat, repeat and repeat again

55. That’s because I need to repeat what I have been consistently saying all along since some people clearly do not read or pretend they don’t see.

56. Well put hgushee. Bravo

57. If you’re not a troll (which is doubtful), then you should be embarrassed to show what a sucker you are. And I’m a fighter, not a whiner, sucker. And I support government BY the people FOR the people – not government OF the people BY corporations. Get a clue. You’re an embarrassment to thinking people everywhere.

58. ah123abc, stop spouting Porter talking points. A car is not comparable to a jet, so stop obfuscating with BS.

59. ah123abc, did you dream up that “brilliant” handle in your tiny Porter cubicle?

60. By definition, an Internet troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    It’s nice to meet you, troll.

61. So anybody who doesn’t agree with you is a shill for Porter? How dictatorial of you. And the concerns stated for the airport mirror those applicable to the Gardiner. You can’t pick and choose only those projects you oppose. As a long-time resident of the harbourfront, my position is that the Gardiner and the unbridled development in the area are more of a quality of life and environmental issue than the airport would be.

62. I do not know how old you are, but it is obvious by your opinion ( just another seat in the theater) that you don’t give a damn how situations can get out of hand really quickly, and you will find yourself asking, what happened here.

63. Billy Bishop airport in its current shape, though already noisy and disruptive to the enjoyment of Toronto waterfront by the residents and tourists alike, is all that Toronto waterfront needs. Its further expansion will not be good for the waterfront. Start from the increased air and water pollution, noise levels, increased vibrational frequencies from the jet engines, and air traffic that cannot be good for the airspace security with the proximity to downtown Toronto.
    The fact is, if jets allowed to fly from Bishop, Air Canada, WestJet and other airlines will join. Try to enjoy the waterfront when you have a mini-Pearson airport right there, literally in- front of you where jets and turboprops planes landing every minute. Basically the airport expansion is equals to the death of Toronto Waterfront.

    it would be the most significant damage to the city of Toronto done by those who dislikes it.

64. I have said in previous posts that my time at Harbour Sq goes back many years so that should give you a clue how old I am. Just because I support the airport and its expansion doesn’t mean I don’t give a damn about situations. Or are you just saying that because my position disagrees with yours? By that logic, you don’t give a damn about benefits of the airport so the whole argument is moot. There’s a distinct difference between supporting something and not caring. Having lived in the area all these years and witnessed its transformation and recent rapid development, I feel my quality of life and the surrounding environment have been severely and negatively impacted much more by the sudden rush of office towers and mega condos all around here that brought unsustainable levels of traffic and density without any accompanying increase in public transit options than the airport ever has. That’s why I choose to support the airport and advocate for the Gardiner being dismantled or turned into a green space.

65. For you it is just a sport to write this crap, do you really believe your dribble or make money as a Yellow Jacket to serve the Queen Bee

66. So you’re saying it’s not okay for someone on the other side of this issue to feel passionately about it besides those on your side? How fascist of you.

67. What came first…Island Airport or waterfront condos? As a prospective condo owner I would think twice about buying property in close proximity to an airport because common sense would tell me that as a commercial enterprise the owners of that enterprise would expand if their current enterprise demanded it. You got conned by condo developers..

68. Bravo Puravida! Couldn’t have said it better myself!
    Toward NO Jets on Toronto’s Waterfront great success!

69. Maybe it time to build the Pickering airport with fast train to Union station and keep the city lake shore for public uses

70. @ah123abc:disqus …i support the airport expansion as well! Why would you want to travel to Mississauga if you don’t have to? And its cheaper. And now with the new airplanes we can fly farther. So why not! This isn’t going to do any damage to the waterfront or to traffic or any other concerns that they have. If you compare the condo’s going up in the down town core to a lousy few airplanes? They don’t compare what so ever. Bring on the bigger planes and let Porter rock!

71. Not exactly facts, so much as public relations.

72. This sort of advertorial baloney makes any claims by the magazine to journalistic integrity a farce, don’t you think? We all know that Porter is pushing a cynical campaign of sheer self-interest. Kind of a smarmy collusion going on here…

Comments are closed.