A Porter passenger plane takes off from Billy Bishop Airport in Toronto, in March.Cole Burston/The Globe and Mail
Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s plan to expand Toronto’s Billy Bishop airport and allow jets has been met with loud opposition from community groups. While many different potential impacts are being discussed, the key question is if the economics of the expansion work. This is a question that private investors – not governments – should answer.
Toronto waterfront residents purchased or rented homes knowing they would live near the airport, which was established on the Toronto Islands in 1939. It’s not reasonable for them to demand the airport be frozen in time, or to limit its financial viability by preventing growth.
To spur the expansion, the Premier used provincial powers to take over the City of Toronto’s role in the tripartite agreement that governs the airport. The province also took over the airport’s city-owned lands and intends to create a special economic zone to speed up approvals. The expansion needs backing from the federal government, which is currently holding consultations.
Critics have pointed to increased noise as one of the main problems, but the small jets that would be allowed, such as the Airbus A220, are on par or quieter than regional turboprop planes that currently fly into Billy Bishop. In a more modest expansion scenario, adding jets could mean fewer flights overall – small jets hold 100 to 160 passengers, compared to 78 for the typical turboprop. An increased number of flights would make noise more frequent, but this can be mitigated by restrictions on flight times.
The arguments around air pollution are equally unconvincing. Unless the opponents are advocating for the end of air travel, preventing growth at Billy Bishop only shifts the problem to Toronto Pearson International Airport, where Mississauga residents will be impacted. Critics also say the airport expansion would require the scrapping of thousands of homes planned in the Port Lands. While conflicts would need to be examined, a City of Toronto report says the impact on development is likely to be “localized.”
Claims from opponents that “jets will wreck our waterfront” are also overblown. There may be some impact on boats in the harbour, but conflicts can be managed. Likewise, increased congestion on roads near the airport is a problem, but this can be mitigated with improved shuttle service and the planned opening of an Ontario Line subway stop nearby.
There are no deal-breakers for the airport expansion, but there are drawbacks. Does the economic upside make it worth it?
Billy Bishop Airport expansion could cost $4-billion to $5-billion, port authority CEO says
Ontario’s pitch that this small, regional airport would hit a projected 10 million passengers a year, up from the current 1.7 million, and boost the economy by $8.5-billion annually, needs further scrutiny. Currently both Billy Bishop and Pearson airport, which is planning a large expansion, are below pre-pandemic passenger levels.
It’s also unclear if taxpayer funds will be involved. The Toronto Port Authority, the arm’s-length federal agency that owns the airport, said that little, if any, public money will be used in the $4-billion to $5-billion expansion. Yet it has also floated the idea of seeking federal funds.
If the Billy Bishop expansion is truly viable, the airport should be able to raise the funds for expansion privately, without seeking government handouts. The federal government is currently musing about privatizing airports. The path to Billy Bishop’s expansion would be clearer if it was in private hands, as opposed to the current structure, where the private company Nieuport Aviation owns the terminal and the airport is owned by the Toronto Port Authority.
Opinion: Doug Ford is right to expand Billy Bishop airport and bring it, and Toronto, to new heights
Many big cities around the world, such as London and New York, have several airports that serve different purposes and are able to operate in dense, urban areas. This creates competition, keeping airfares and air passenger fees lower.
While Mr. Ford’s aggressive approach has got residents’ backs up, there is another way. Instead of leaping to a massive expansion, Ontario could work with the feds to have the ban on jets at Billy Bishop lifted. Then the Toronto Port Authority could do the minimum expansion required to add some jets to the mix.
Waterfront residents might find that the jets don’t destroy the waterfront after all. In fact, they could find that competition improves the two airports, boosting connections and adding to city life. Private investors could pitch in and expand the airport on their own dime if they see fit. If there’s a solid business case, Billy Bishop should be allowed to grow.