11 responses to “We Were Much Smarter 50 Years Ago”

1. 

   Ian Darragh

   1 July 2026

   You might also consider adding:
   1. The Alto high-speed rail project will divert 2.3 million passengers per year from air to rail in the GTA according to a KPMG study commissioned by Transport Canada in 2024. This weakens the market business case for expanding BB Airport.

   2. What has changed since Transport Minister Marc Garneau nixed Porter’s proposal to fly jets out of BB AIrport in 2015? One thing that has changed is there is now even more residential housing on the Toronto waterfront, and more planned for the Portlands, directly under the flight path of the proposed jets. The City of Toronto Housing Dept. has reported on the negative effects on projects to build affordable housing in the Portlands and in Etobicoke.

   3. BB Airport is poorly served by road access and public transit. In contrast, Toronto Pearson is well served by the UP Express train, which is now accessible via TTC from Bloor Street West, Eglinton Crosstown LRT (Mount Dennis Station) and at Weston Station. This means travellers don’t have to go downtown to take the UP Express train to Pearson.
   In contrast, BB Airport is really only convenient for travellers leaving or arriving in downtown Toronto.

   4. Toronto Port Authority has stated numerous times that the proposed expansion of BB Airport will cost $5 billion. Numerous analysts have questioned how the TPA would pay for this project given the small annual net income of the TPA, e.g., $17 million in 2025. Toronto Pearson Airport is investing $3 billion in airport improvement fees from passengers to expand its capacity by 18 million passengers per year by the early 2030s. This is a much more economical expansion plan than Billy Bishop’s. The TPA has not explained on what basis its $5 billion estimate was calculated, or provided the consulting reports it is based on to the public or the City of Toronto.

2. 

   Max Moore

   2 July 2026

   Wow, Sandford. Tell it like it is..

   What you say is so true… I hope Carney reads this. Everyone should see this…

3. 

   Diane Jameson

   2 July 2026

   Thank you for sharing this, Professor Borins. I love the title. It is an excellent and timely piece. Your historical perspective and firsthand knowledge of airport planning add an important dimension to the current consultation.

   I hope you’ll consider sharing it widely—with governments, elected officials, community organizations, and the media—as I think it makes a valuable contribution to the public discussion.

4. 

   Peter Patch

   2 July 2026

   Reassuring that disciplined economic analysis is being applied to this important question. Thank you Sandy for shedding an informed perspective on this issue. The only question now is: who is listening? And what is their response to this informed line of analysis?

5. 

   Perry Caicco

   2 July 2026

   Following the money here is interesting. Porter did not ask for this. Air Canada wasn’t even consulted. All of the lobbying has been by terminal operator Nieuport Aviation (and their fanboys at the Toronto Port Authority who collect per-passenger fees from airlines). Nieuport is wholly owned by JP Morgan through its infrastructure fund which would have very few Canadian investors. I have reconstructed the economics of the terminal (using public, industry and comparable-airport numbers) and its performance has been a disaster for the amount that JPM paid for it (twice). And it’s just getting worse. By tossing a hail-Mary proposal for a $5 billion expansion at everyone else’s expense (including waterfront destruction), they can not only salvage their investment but substantially boost their EBITDA and ROIC. Their only investment would be a $150M terminal expansion. This is essentially a bail-out of a U.S. private company using Canadian government dollars.

6. 

   Corinne F Murray

   2 July 2026

   Thank you Professor Borins for describing the context of decision-making regarding another airport alternate to Pearson. I think it is important to ask why there has been a change in the process leading to the past decisions. I have asked myself why and offer a few reasons I have gleaned:
   (1) It cannot be overstated that Premier Ford himself as a decision-maker is a major change – his decision-making style in his business career continues as Premier. He is a solo act, shuns any planning or consultation and relies on his salesmanship to carry the ball. His expansion of the family labels business into New York State shows this style. It ultimately foundered after resorting to vulture capital funding. I wonder whether he is influenced in taking his decisions by the presence of JP Morgan etc who would find it attractive and congruent with its financial goals as part of Newport.

   (2) The second change is the attitude of the federal government toward airports as infrastructure. There is far more comfort with private ownership/administration which takes airport services out of the public domain and has not stated any outlook on the quality/nationality of purchaser/funds that would be acceptable. At this point in time, American investment should be no longer be treated agnostically. The destructive history of American corporate culture for Canadian manufacturing and telecoms, among other enterprises must be weighed carefully to ensure that the Jack Welch/GE numbers game is avoided.
   This comfort is the reason why the federal government is content with a rather flimsy collection of public opinion on the Jets issue.

   Perhaps most important from a big picture vintage point is the multi-jurisdictional nature of the decision-making process with no fixed or agreed weight of each or even the requirement to allow the City to be a separate party anymore in the tripartite agreement operational years ago.

   What seems to be needed is the creation of a better process along the lines of a Citizen’s Assembly that worked well in Ontario when Electoral Reform was a complex, unfocused issue needing organizations the data and assurance of balanced consideration of it.

   Finally, as a resident of the Provincial & Federal constituencies within which Billy Bishop is located, attendee at a number of “town halls” where my elected representatives were sometimes present and attendee in the gallery at Queen’s Park when impressive presentations were made by my MPP and an MPP of Rosedale were given to almost empty seats opposite, it is painfully clear that both the federal liberal party and provincial conservative party do not see any legitimate place for elected members from the constituencies affected to present the opinions and feelings of those who live and work at the rim of Lake Ontario. A Citizen’s Assembly would hear those voices as a matter of mandate.

   Corinne F Murray

7. 

   MMG

   3 July 2026

   To further the contrast you underscored regarding Public Consultation, namely: “…From 1972 to 1975 – for three years – there was a robust public consultation about the Pickering Airport proposal, a far cry from the federal government’s current two-month consultation consisting of an online questionnaire and address to receive written submissions…” PortsToronto now offers a 30 minute VIRTUAL info meeting (with barely a 9 days notification to the public) for the RESA construction plan, in violation of the “COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS” “required” by City Council: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2024.EX17.5 We can all agree that both types of Public Consultation is blatantly and purposefully reductive, and woefully and distressfully inadequate.

8. 

   Toronto Resident

   3 July 2026

   What hasn’t been mentioned, and should also be considered with a proposed expansion of BB Airport, are the health risks to people living on the waterfront due to the jet fuel pollution – an increase of respiratory issues, cancer. In hearing from studies made from various engineers, the sewage waste release which is currently working well, would be compromised with an expansion making the release narrower. A wall would have to be built along the waterfront destroying any viewpoint to the water from Little Norway Park onwards easterly. Let’s not forget the ecological environment and the noise pollution which would also be affected. We have the land by which to expand Pearson International Airport. Do that instead of disrupting BB Airport.

9. 

   Graham Churchill

   6 July 2026

   Dear Professor Borins,

   I enjoyed reading your submission. I think you’ve identified several important shortcomings in the Province’s approach—particularly the narrow consultation process, the lack of transparency around the economic analysis, and the need to consider opportunity cost rather than simply the benefits of airport expansion.

   As I read it, however, I felt there is one important question still missing.

   Your paper asks whether expanding Billy Bishop Airport has been properly justified. I would go one step further and ask whether an expanded airport is the highest and best use of Toronto’s downtown waterfront over the next century.

   That may sound like a subtle distinction, but I think it fundamentally changes the debate.

   The Province is asking whether airport expansion makes economic sense. I believe Torontonians should instead ask what use of this unique piece of waterfront creates the greatest long-term value for the city.

   Airports are transportation assets. They can be built, expanded, or relocated in many places. Toronto has only one downtown harbour. Once more of that waterfront is committed to aviation infrastructure, those choices become increasingly difficult to reverse.

   In economics, this is the question of opportunity cost. The relevant comparison is not simply “airport expansion versus no expansion,” but airport expansion versus every other possible use of one of Canada’s most valuable public spaces.

   My concern is that the current debate has become trapped in transportation planning when it should really be about city-building. Cities today compete for residents, talent, visitors, and investment. Cities such as Sydney, Singapore, Chicago, and New York understand this, which is why they have transformed their waterfronts into defining civic assets. The leaders of these cities recognized what they were competing for and chose to imagine what their cities could become.

   I have proposed a concept called “The Toronto Harbourlands” as a way to unify our waterfront and help Toronto become a “must visit” destination. Rather than allowing Billy Bishop to evolve into an ever-larger airport, Harbourlands envisions transforming the Islands and Port Lands into one idea—a place defined by exceptional public spaces, culture, recreation, architecture, and nature. It would connect the harbour with the Port Lands through new parks, public transit, pedestrian links, and landmark attractions that would make Toronto’s waterfront a destination in its own right.

   My argument is not that transportation is unimportant. It is that airports are replaceable; Toronto’s downtown waterfront is not. If the region requires additional aviation capacity over the coming decades, there are other locations where that capacity can be developed. There is only one opportunity to determine the long-term future of Toronto Harbour.

   Whether Harbourlands is ultimately the right answer is, of course, open to debate. But I believe the debate itself is essential. Before deciding how to expand an airport, we should first ask what we want Toronto’s waterfront to become over the next century.

   Your paper makes a compelling case that the Province has not yet justified airport expansion. I think we should be demanding that they answer an even larger question: what is the highest and best use of Toronto’s most valuable waterfront over the next hundred years? Until we answer that question, it is impossible to know whether expanding Billy Bishop is truly the right decision.

10. 

    Sandford Borins

    7 July 2026

    Thanks for your very thoughtful comment. One can debate the future of BBA from a variety of viewpoints, including the perspective of the best use of Toronto’s limited waterfront. And from that perspective I would take the position that the airport land should be converted to recreational use, as I’ve argued in several blog posts over the years. I wrote this particular post from the more limited perspective of contrasting public consultation about the Pickering proposal with public consultation about BBA. And, even from that limited perspective, the current public consultation is woefully inadequate.

11. 

    Udo Kaul

    24 July 2026

    Three decades of commendable cooperation between three levels of government, community associations and acclaimed architectural firms to create a world-class waterfront redevelopment are being jeopardized by narrow foreign-based interests.
    Taxpayers have already funded the billions in remedial and environmental measures to make the desperately needed residential and recreational goals possible. At the very least, the proponents of BB expansion owe full economic and city-building justifications.