Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The airport has proposed to extend the runway, enabling Porter to fly to farther destinations such as Vancouver, Los Angeles and Miami as early as 2016.
I am fully supportive of it as it creates thousand of jobs in Toronto and Montreal, and provide convenience for travellers. Although NYMBYs hold different views.
Last edited by botticelli; 09-10-2013 at 07:44 AM..
Personally I don't support it. And it's not about Nimbysm, it's about impact on the environment, noise, congestion, etc. I would far rather efforts be put into connecting the subway to Pearson than anything else. Heathrow isn't exactly in london, but the fact it's connected via the tube and that they have a subway line with dedicated areas for luggage speaks to some damn good planning on their part.
It would great for the downtown crowd. I understand there is an argument that it could cause too much pollution, congestion and noise. An island airport was considered in Chicago a long while ago and was shot down by Major Dayley because they wanted to protect the serenity of the lakeshore, which is full of beaches, communities, museum district, etc. I don't know enough about how what the repercussions would be for the lakeshore of Toronto (which doesn't seem as build up) but I wouldn't mind it if they expand a little more to get to these destinations, not excessively, if that's possible.
it's about impact on the environment, noise, congestion, etc
and exactly what impact would that be? Would the noise caused by the flights be more than that from the buses, cars and trains going by? There is regulation on noise production so as long as the airport doesn't violate it. People often use noise as an excuse when in fact they simply hate the idea of an airport by the lake.
Environment - I don't know how extending the runway by a few dozen meters will impact the "environment". Will fish die because of this? Will it bring earthquakes and tornados? Isn't the entire land south of Front street made of land fill? When all of a sudden filling a little bit more becomes such an environmental problem? We live in the city, and we change the environment all the time by building skyscrapers, subways. Isn't that a bit hypocritical to argue the airport is that bad?
Congestion - a legitmate concern but nothing can't be solved. We probably should consider this an opportunity to improve the already nightmarish traffic in that area. With all the new condos by the lake, CityPlace and King West, congestion is already bad and something needs to be done to begin with.
Botticelli, you can't ask people if they are supportive of it and then start asking questions with hyperbole - I could reply "Will no fish die because of it?" Of course it won't bring earthquakes and tornados. Might it bring a terrorist attack to Toronto? Maybe. I don't think it will, but it's just as valid a concern as your earthquakes and tornados mocking concern.
Saying that something is already a problem so why not add to it doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense either.
A better question is: why exactly does the city need this? Because Pearson is at max capacity? Because we don't have an international airport already? Because we want to add to our list of problems?
Botticelli, you can't ask people if they are supportive of it and then start asking questions with hyperbole - I could reply "Will no fish die because of it?" Of course it won't bring earthquakes and tornados. Might it bring a terrorist attack to Toronto? Maybe. I don't think it will, but it's just as valid a concern as your earthquakes and tornados mocking concern.
Saying that something is already a problem so why not add to it doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense either.
A better question is: why exactly does the city need this? Because Pearson is at max capacity? Because we don't have an international airport already? Because we want to add to our list of problems?
Anything we do have environmental consequences. When you spit, it affects the environement too. The issue here is whether the pros outweighs the cons. Excessive emphasis on the enviroment is backwards and will only hinder progress.
Why does Toronto need an island airport - for one, there is already one, which is contributing to jobs and revenue. and two, so that the increasing number of people downtown, including business travellers have better access to an airport and don't have to travel 27 km away to Pearson when transit is so deplorable?
The union-Pearson link will cost $25-30 one way so don't use that as a reason of improved access of Pearson.
If trying to avoid any arising problem such as congestion is a primary concern for the city, well, why not just stop all the constructions, stop immigration and strive for decreasing population? The right path is to grow, encounter problems and solve them.
The union-Pearson link will cost $25-30 one way so don't use that as a reason of improved access of Pearson.
Sheesh. Yet another great example of 1 step forward, 5 steps back.
I'm sure many people would have liked to use this service as a commuting option to get to their airport jobs from downtown. At those rates, back into their cars they go, unless there is a steep discount offered to airport employees (highly unlikely).
How do other cities compare when it comes to airport transit to city centres? Does this potential fare seem a bit high to anyone else? Any why should a direct link be considered "premium"? Isn't this just a standard thing in other major cities?
Why does Toronto need an island airport - for one, there is already one, which is contributing to jobs and revenue. and two, so that the increasing number of people downtown, including business travellers have better access to an airport and don't have to travel 27 km away to Pearson when transit is so deplorable?
Is it increasing? How many new companies are putting in their head offices in Toronto? Far as I can tell, I see more companies headquartering in the godless lands of Oshawa and Brampton and Mississauga than downtown. (PS I'm an urban dweller).
Look, no need to argue. You asked if people supported it or not, and I said no and gave in my opinion reasonable answers as to why not (PS "we should expand the airport because it's here already" is questionable logic.)
Last edited by AlsoNotMe; 09-10-2013 at 02:17 PM..
I'm all for it.... I think that there is huge convenience for the business and even leisure crowd being able to use Toronto's Island airport. The positive economic impact that Porter has had on the city is unquestionable so any growth that it can command would spinoff in direct and indirect ways. The aircraft Porter has chosen for its growth is made in Canada as well... On all fronts its win/win... If you want to live and peace and serenity why would you live in the heart of Canada's economic hub and probably its most dense and growing part? Move already...
You know just because I don't support the airport expansion doesn't mean I should get told to get the hell out of town either. I don't like the idea of our islands becoming a major aviation hub, and stand by that. The islands are about the only decent part of our waterfront we have left after selling out to economic growth decisions in so many ways already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
