Don’t miss Ken Greenberg’s opinion piece in the Toronto Star, July 8, 2026; if the Federal government delays quashing the BBTCA jets proposal, the resulting uncertainty will hurt the multi-billion Toronto Waterfront revitalization project because key investments won’t happen.
City Council will vote at its meeting October 9 - 11, 2024 whether to adopt the recommendations in the September 27 Staff Report .
It should do so! Here's our brief communication to Councillors as to why.
We believe and hope most Councillors will vote tomorrow to follow the Staff recommendations, adopted by Executive Committee, the Mayor and Councillor Ausma Malik: authorize the smallest, least intrusive option for Runway End Safety Areas, known as RESA 1, so as to deal with the pressing federal safety requirements now (RESAs must be built by July 14, 2027). As a separate matter, recommends Staff, take the time to study the bigger issues, such as whether the Tripartite Agreement, the airport land lease and operation agreement, should be extended in some form past its 2033 expiry, whether the airport should be expanded, including studies and public consultation exploring its adverse impacts and upsides, including we hope consideration and study of potential alternative uses of the land.
It would be a crazy leap for Councillors to do what Ports Toronto and Nieuport want: reject city staff‘s recommendations, meaning: extend the tripartite agreement for 40 years NOW, and authorize the airport to build the other, bigger RESA options - allowing a huge non-safety-related airport expansion immediately. Ports Toronto and Nieuport demand Council vote to agree to all this NOW without any study of the local impacts, ecological and health issues, transportation efficiency, economic effects or consequences on future development in the Portlands and elsewhere.
We are deeply concerned that airport industry lobbyists have been misrepresenting the position of community representatives.
Contrary to the findings in the Staff Report, Ports Toronto claims it needs an extension of the Tripartite Agreement because it otherwise can't afford to build RESA 1. That's not true.
Latest posts
Bob Rae talks with Steve Paikin on The Paikin Podcast about Billy Bishop Airport & other current issues. [Note: Bob Rae's remarks on Billy Bishop begin at the 24:10 min mark.] Click here to go to the video.
Recommending Sandford Borins' excellent blog post on the lessons for us today from the Pickering Airport debate and analysis in the 1970s:
In 1972, it was clearly understood that air traffic in Toronto was increasing, and it would be accommodated at either Pearson or Pickering. Both were seen as having a regional economic impact, in that Pearson would contribute to growth on the west side of Toronto, while establishing an airport at Pickering would shift some growth to the east of the city. Overall economic activity in the GTA would be the same whether Pearson was expanded or a new airport built at Pickering. This is different from the Toronto Port Authority and Ford Government refusing to acknowledge that, if Billy Bishop is not expanded, traffic will be accommodated at Pearson, and overall economic activity will be the same.