TheBulletin.ca Journal of Downtown Toronto
The Billy Bishop Airport, formerly known as the Port George VI Island Airport—and unofficially known as the Toronto Island airport—has been part of the Toronto landscape since 1939.
It was built around the same time as the Malton airport, which we now call Pearson International Airport. The Island airport was always one of the busiest airports in Ontario. With Porter’s arrival in 2003 as a regional airline carrier, the airport passenger traffic increased significantly.
For the last 10 years the residents of the Downtown core and the Island have remained rather quiet in regards to the changes that have taken place at the Island airport. Of course, people in the area have always grumbled about air and noise pollution. The number of flights in and out of the airport was also a concern. But nothing substantial ever materialized from these grumblings until a few years ago.
The community rallied together when the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) proposed a bridge to the Island airport. It was believed that a bridge would mean a busier airport, that it would result in a larger environmental footprint, and that it was bad for the area in general.
In 2010, the Toronto District School Board Trustee for the area, Chris Bolton, led an initiative to study the situation. It was determined that during an 8-hour period approximately 4000 taxis passed through the intersection of Bathurst and Queens Quay—the foot of the Island ferry dock.
Eventually, the TPA proposed a pedestrian underground tunnel to the Island airport. The Island residents and those who live along the waterfront agreed this would be a more appropriate plan for the area.
It seems, however, that when one battle ends, another ensues. Porter Airlines has since proposed to use Bombardier CS100 jets at the airport. This proposal means that larger jets would be used at the Island airport for the first time. The community has come together again, even more determined than ever, and formed a group called “NOJetsTO.” This coalition is concerned about the noise level that these jets may bring. They are also concerned about the amount of pollution that these jets will discharge upon landing and take-off.
This past May, Toronto city council voted in favour, 29-15, to study Porter’s proposal to bring jets to the Island airport. If the proposal for the jets is approved, then the Island airport runway would have to be increased by 168 metres at each end. Approval would also make Porter the third largest airline in the country.
Island and waterfront residents share similar concerns. Parents of children at the Island and waterfront schools have voiced concerns about their children’s long-term exposure to the noise and pollution of the jets. Several yacht clubs have said they may not be able to use the harbour as they now do.
And this is just a fraction of concerns that have been raised.
I, along with many other residents who live in the core of the city, are certainly puzzled as to why Toronto needs such a radical project like the Island airport expansion when the Ontario government—through Metrolinx—is building a multimillion-dollar rapid-express train from Union station to Pearson Airport. This project is to be completed in the next few years. With this in mind, whose interests are being served by an Island airport expansion?
I am of the opinion that if Porter and others want to grow their fleets, then they need to speak to, and co-ordinate with, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA). The expansion of their business should happen at Pearson.
The people of Toronto have made more than enough concessions for the sake of large corporations’ profits. The city’s waterfront has been divided and carved up to the point that local residents have little to no access to a great part of it. When will this city become a leader like Vancouver and other coastal cities in Canada and around the world?
On Sept. 19, a town hall meeting was held at which both proponents and opponents spoke. Many, if not most, of those who spoke in support of the airline were employees who were bused in by the company. The opponents were residents of the Islands and those who live in the near vicinity on the shore. It was argued that many of the reports about the new jets have not been made public. For example, the noise and pollution output questions have not been publicized.
City council is expected to make a decision on this expansion. However, the TPA and Transport Canada have not yet commented upon or made any decisions about the expansion. Indeed, city council’s decision may not even matter.
Winning the battle will hinge upon gathering public support. It is apparent to me that this issue is really only just starting. It is far from over and I, for one, will stand with the area residents—being one of them—and say “NOjetsTO.” May those who represent us hear our pleas and, for a change, accept the will of the people.
October 29, 2013
Dear Mr. Ian Wilcox (Re: letter to the Bulletin dated October 11, 2013)
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify some of your misconceptions, or deliberate misinformation you are spreading through your letter. I understand you are an employee of the Porter Call Centre.
The issue under discussion has been succinctly explained in this remarkable video, by two 16-year olds, one of who lives in Councillor Matlow’s ward, well away from the Waterfront.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDJHMSac3-M
The illusion that is being propagated about the convenience of the Island Airport to the financial district is fast disappearing, as you will see from these two videos taken to provide a reality check.
It already takes 24-26 minutes to and from the airport to the intersection of King and Bay Streets. The main reason is the TPA has from the start grown this airport in relative secrecy, without proper planning, EAs, and community consultation resulting in traffic chaos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNkAnepUObU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIEnAwCWxA0
In addition, I believe the total lack of credibility in the TPA is at an all time high in spite of extensive use of paid marketing experts and of Mark McQueen speeches to the old boys clubs.
You mentioned the potential creation of 4000 jobs. Waterfront Toronto is already creating 40,000 real jobs through its plans for cleaning up the heritage of last century’s industry. It has already attracted $3.4 B in private investment from developers. Mixed use will provide recurrent tax revenue to the City. If Porter can grow its popular jet offspring, it should take those jobs to Pearson. TO will not lose out at all.
The TPA must start contributing its fair share to the enormous drain of taxpayer resources in Toronto. So far it has behaved like a dead-beat dad. It is way behind on its back taxes and is whining about paying a fair PILT (payment in lieu of taxes). Worse still, it appears that in a ‘back-room deal’, ironically a replay perhaps of the monkey-business unfolding in the Senate, the TPA has given Porter a lease for incredibly expensive land at practically a nominal rate until 2033, at the taxpayers’ cost. Porter does not even contribute its share of property taxes to the City. http://communityair.org/Issues/Issues.html
An independent economic evaluation must have access to Porter Airline’s operating data, to even establish what financial risks the TPA has exposed all parties to the Tripartite Agreement, and what financial liabilities will accrue to TO taxpayers, in the event of a failure of Porter’s operations.
Not all of the various groups that have come together under the NoJetsTO umbrella to oppose expansion of the island airport have demanded the closure of Porter’s successful boutique airline. No one who is already employed need to worry about their jobs.
But jets belong at Pearson. The Waterfront belongs to the 17 million people who gleefully visit each year. This number is expected to grow exponentially as soon as the current phase of improvements on Queens Quay are completed in March 2015.
Mr. Wilcox, I am sure you are a decent man like any other Canadian. You will understand that the first priority must be to fix up the traffic management and other services that are under stress. The Community of 20,000 is undergoing tremendous stress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUTCr6wIAp4&feature=youtu.be
This will require a large infusion of cash to ameliorate. The scale of investment is not known. Neither is the source of financing. Will the federal government be willing to donate the sums required? Will the TPA put up the cash? Can it ask Porter to reopen its lease agreement and make a realistic contribution towards cost of infrastructure?
Then there is the issue of public safety and security. Currently, four double-tanker trucks loaded with highly inflammable aviation fuel maneuver their way daily through dense traffic, past residential areas and school playgrounds to get to the airport ferry. Passengers and private cars are also loaded on to the same ferry, without any security checks, presumably not in compliance with the stricter standards at Pearson, in order to maintain the illusion of speed and ease at the island airport. In an age of international terrorism, who is looking into this issue? How will growing the airports with jets, improve its security?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb7uICbxXjk
I have kept the most important issue for last. There are numerous studies that show conclusively the dangers of airport noise and fumes on health and safety, especially in relation to cardiac, pulmonary diseases and various forms of cancer. The City has been very lax in looking at these issues. When it did, earlier this month, it was a very cursory, closed-door session for invited guests. Presumably the TPA paid for this too.
Here is an outline of the health and safety issues explained by a Toronto doctor.
http://www.songcrate.com/songs/1331256/play
In order to have a broader discussion of the issues, a public meeting has been arranged by a group called: Citizens for a Safe and Healthy Waterfront. You and your friends are invited to listen and learn. Bring your neighbors. They will thank you.
https://www.facebook.com/healthytorontowaterfront
There are a couple of minor issues you raise. You quote, Logan Airport, Boston; Washington Regan; and New York Kennedy. None of these airports is located on prime waterfront but all appear close as the infrastructure is in place to cope with traffic and other servicing requirements. Please check it out. Our island airport, especially in the past decade is nothing but hi-jacked public land by any common sense-description.
You also keep repeating the line that the CS100 is manufactured in Canada. Not true. The aircraft is assembled in Canada at Mirabel while 50% of the manufacturing takes place in Ireland.
There is considerable public Canadian investment in Bombardier and to capitalize on it, flying this jet from Pearson, rather than the smaller island airport should improve its visibility and attraction to other airlines.
Finally Mr. Wilcox, I want to assure you I am not a paid consultant. I was moved to action to join NoJetsTO, like hundreds of others, to try and save our precious waterfront from total destruction. I am a writer, but when it comes to fiction, airport expansionists win hands down.
Braz Menezes
Dear Mr. Wilcox,
First, I must ask, are you Ian Wilcox, the Manager of Call Center Operations at Porter Airlines Inc. ?
You are missing the point Mr. Wilcox. We, opponents of flying jets from Billy Bishop Airport, are not against the jets or against technology in general (both of which we get accused of, I suppose from lack of other arguments)
We are against jets flying from Toronto Islands, the most beautiful park in the downtown core, its ‘lungs’ and the only open space, Toronto’s main waterfront.
Pearson Airport is surrounded by web of highways for easy access and industrial/empty area separating it from residents living in Brampton and Mississauga. Billy Bishop is in the middle of growing residential area. You see more strollers on Queens Quay during the day than you would at a suburban playground. There is a school and a community center as well as several condos and co-op buildings FEW HUNDRED METERS away from the Billy Bishop runways. Another issue, is that there is only one narrow street leading to the airport. It is already littered with hundreds of idling vehicles sitting there all day long. It also means bringing fuel tanks several times a day via that street right next to hundreds of children in the school and users of the community center. I wonder, if Porter’s passengers are aware that they are taking the ferry to the airport with these fuel tanks right beneath them, have a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb7uICbxXjk
If the traffic to the airport increases any further, it will probably take longer to get from Union to Billy Bishop than it will to the Pearson via the Union-Pearson Express (25 minutes).
You raise the cost issue. I don’t know where the $35 one way comes from as the Metrolinx website says this:
‘How much will a trip on the Union Pearson Express cost?
As it’s just over a year from launch, the fare for the Union Pearson Express has not yet been set. The service, however, will be priced competitively and offer value to its guests.’
But Do you know that every time you fly Porter you’re paying user fee ( I think it’s $25, but correct me if I am wrong) to cover the cost of the tunnel construction? I am sure it will be much more, if Porter also needs to cover the cost of expanding the runways.
If Porter moved all or part of its operations to Pearson, it most likely wouldn’t mean job loss for any of its employees, just a longer commute to work for some. Or perhaps those who think that living next to an airport has so many benefits, could move closer to Pearson, the real estate there is MUCH CHEAPER, especially right next to the airport.
And of course Porter would still be able to spend hundreds of million of Canadian dollars buying and maintaining Canadian built aircraft (Most parts are actually manufactured outside of Canada). I am all for it and I think it’s admirable on Porter’s part to be choosing Canadian.
Yes, Orange helicopters are the noisiest aircraft at the airport, but they, like other emergency vehicles, come and go during emergencies and not every few minutes.
Mr. Wilcox, we only have one waterfront. Together with the Island Park it is our biggest asset. Right now, it’s being used by many; residents, tourists, visitors, boaters, children from all over GTA as well as neighborhood (for whom it’s their backyard), Porter and its customers and we seem to be able to coexist in some sort of ‘balance’. Although, in my opinion, already this airport is making all other activities at the waterfront less enjoyable. Already it’s hard to hear a concert at Music Garden or Harbourfront Center, it’s not fun to go to the playground at the Little Norway park because you can smell exhaust from the ferry and cars on the other side of the fence, many residents complain about noise in their living space, children at local school breathe increasingly polluted air, and are endangered by car traffic, fuel tanks passing by several times a day, and planes touching down few hundred meters from their classrooms. Expanding Billy Bishop will make living at and enjoying waterfront in any other way than taking a flight from the airport impossible.
LET’S KEEP OUR WATERFRONT JETS FREE FOR ALL TO ENJOY. IT IS OUR BIGGEST PUBLIC ASSET.
Magdalena Waszul
Firstly, there have been jets flying all over TO for many years and many areas of the city I have lived in, are directly over the flight path with big 747’s and A340’s flying over – I know this because I have lived in those areas — so to say no jets TO seems a bit silly.
You’re not really against jets in TO or you would be arguing and fighting with Pearson and all the increased international and heavy aircraft they are supporting. Perhaps your real beef is with them if you really don’t want jets in TO. Pearson is part of the Metro TO area.
Secondly, I was at the town hall meeting and spoke in support of the plans to expand and am also a resident of the waterfront. I live at 70 Distillery Lane and my condo faces out onto the flight path. I can tell you I DON”T hear the Porter planes – however what I DO hear are the GO trains and traffic and trucks – which are far more noise producing, frequent and environmentally unfriendly.
You mention that Porter should expand at Pearson – however as a frequent flyer from both Pearson and the Island, and a resident of the downtown community, I am sure you would agree that the commute costs and time to the island from any downtown condo or office tower is far shorter and less expensive than going to Pearson. And yes I’m very aware of the Metrolinx plans – which will cost 35.00 each direction – just from the train station.
I can take a cab from my waterfront condo to Billy Bishop for $14 and it takes 12 minutes – even at rush hour – less time and more convenient than Metrolinxs. And lets face it – the Island airport and Porter is all about business flights and travelers who do not have to spare and budgets to keep to.
It is a accurate statistical comment that Toronto has amongst the worst unemployment statistics in Ontario and in fact – Canada – yet your willing to support almost 4000 proposed jobs in Toronto, to say no to the expansion – I can only hope you have no family, children or grand children looking for jobs, because you just cut 4000 opportunities away from them.
“Shop Canadian” – I bet is a term you would agree with – isn’t that EXACTLY what Porter wants to do by spending hundreds of millions of CANADIAN dollars buying CANADIAN made and maintained aircraft. What kind of Canadian does not support that!?
You mention the noise level these planes may bring – the fact is – they are still measuring the noise and I believe Porters stance is – if the planes make more noise than they are suppose to – they won’t buy them.
So, why don’t we wait till we have the facts before we march to this one.
I don’t know if you were at the Sept. 19 town hall or not – however as mentioned – I was and the majority of people I heard talk in support of the plan was actually NOT employee’s – they were employed citizens that have careers, pay taxes, see value in the expansion, many of them being waterfront residents – and provided relevant facts as to why the plan should move forward. The fact is – nothing is being taken AWAY from the waterfront, this simply adds another reason for people to come to the waterfront. If we are so proud of it – lets use it as a way to bring people in and out of Downtown.
Some examples of successful waterfront airports are Boston Logan, Washington Regan Airport, and even to a degree, New York Kennedy Airport – all in very close proximity to downtown (of which Pearson is not).
Regarding the school safety issue – there are both traffic lights AND crossing guards at the singular intersection where traffic increases to the airport – Bathurst and Queens Quay – as long as those remain in place – I don’t see any increased danger – no more so than in ANY area of the city where schools are on major traffic arteries.
Re the encroachment of the airport into the lake? – I am also assuming that you do not support the Leslie street spit, the beaches at Woodbine, nor MOST of the waterfront and the condos on which they stand as that is all reclaimed land that WAS under water – lets remember – many of the people who are complaining bought properties that are from reclaimed land where they had to “pave the lake” as people like to say – in order to give people the homes they are living in today.
Noise is a fact of life when you are a downtown resident – if ANY one of us wanted to have the sounds of crickets only from our windows – I don’t think any of us would choose to live downtown – and frankly, the GO trains and traffic, and very much so – all the construction trucks being used to build the condos of the residents who are now complaining about noise – MAKE noise.
The noisiest aircraft I hear coming and going from the Island airport are the ORNGE helicopters – they are far louder than any Porter plane. Do you propose we stop them? I believe they are exempt from the noise restrictions yet we allow them with all the noise they produce.
I am a Downtown waterfront resident, who pays taxes, gets inconvenienced by downtown traffic, noise and all the rest of what goes into living downtown – who has spent his career travelling and flying – both out of Billy Bishop and Pearson, and I assure you: I will always choose Billy Bishop over Pearson when ever I get the opportunity – and the Billy Bishop Airport expansion with Porter – will give me and all of us Downtown folk – the opportunity to make their own decision.
Nojets.TO does NOT speak on behalf of all waterfront owners and residents and I assure you – I have and continue to email the mayor and the opposing Pam McConnell with my feelings as a tax paying constituent of my waterfront ward.
Ian Wilcox