From the Toronto Star — Friday, July 24, 2026
With the news breaking yesterday that the federal government has ruled against the latest effort to expand Billy Bishop Airport, and especially its airstrip, so that jets airliners can ply their trade, I remembered a piece I wrote in August of 2013. At that time there was a big push in some quarters to jet-up Billy Bishop Airport.
Yes, the Toronto Sun... I know. Enjoy!
Toronto Sun columnist Simon Kent is against those who are against expansion of Billy Bishop Airport. He conveniently forgets to mention (he probably doesn't even know) that an airport, by its very nature, has a huge 'footprint'.
Kent states, "Opponents are warming up and already expressing doubts over the modest proposal by Porter Airlines to add 168 metres to either end of the tarmac."
Aircraft noise and smell (fuel) are issues, but there are others...
No. First of all, that measurement, for those who have a hard time with metric distances, is an over 500 foot increase in the airstrip's length. Anyway, the lengthening invites larger aircraft — jets — which will up the overall capacity for the airport (which, of course, is the whole idea; hello, Porter Airlines). I'm not against this on the surface but the major problem is that Billy Bishop Airport lacks multiple access points; roads which are essential for the amount of traffic that a larger facility demands. Anyone who lives in Toronto and is familiar with the current mainland-island connection knows that the intersection of Bathurst and Front Streets is "impossible", never mind what will happen, not might happen, with airport expansion. Believe me, it wouldn't beeping stop: Service and transport vehicles, fuel tanker trucks, personal cars; the commotion, constant commotion, would be immense.
"That airport near Canary Wharf was officially opened on Nov. 5, 1987, after heated debate and handled just four airlines going to just Brussels, Paris and Plymouth. Today it is a spectacular success and home to 10 airlines, serving 43 destinations and carrying as many as 10 million passengers annually."
Again, he loses. London City Airport has efficient road access and is more than a little distance away from the city-centre, so his comparison is inauthentic.
Either Simon Kent does not know what he's talking about, or it's the usual Toronto Sun propaganda; and you're an "idiot" if you are against airport expansion. Didn't you know? Well, I'm safe because I would like to hear the various assessments and, based on my already-in-place great interest in civil aviation, I will make my own decision. But, for now, it does not look good.
"If Toronto is to keep growing and keep connected to the wider world, a second airport is essential."
Oh, really? I did not know that. And it's somewhat surprising that Simon Kent knows....
... I find it comical that the Toronto Sun's photo editor chose a picture which obviously was taken on a smog day. That gets a grand "lol".
* * *
Postscript: "If Toronto is to keep growing and keep connected to the wider world, a second airport is essential." As it turns out, Toronto has been growing just fine... in spite of that idiotic comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment