Airport Expansion Could Block Housing Growth

Summary#

This item is a City Planning report to Council about the possible expansion of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. It explains what is known so far about housing and transportation impacts if the runway is lengthened and jets are allowed. The report notes there is no detailed plan from the airport or the Province, and many details are still unknown. Its goal is to inform Council and the public about likely effects and what would need further study.

Key points:

• The Province passed Bill 110, which allows it to take over the City’s role in the airport’s Tripartite Agreement and to transfer certain City-owned lands to the Province with set compensation rules.
• The Province has also said it may declare the airport a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), which could exempt the project from some municipal approvals.
• Media reports describe an emerging idea to extend the runway west and allow jets, with a long-term vision of up to 10 million passengers a year; however, no formal plan has been filed with the City.
• Past studies (a 2017 Environmental Assessment) found that even a smaller runway extension with jets would add notable noise, air, marine, and community impacts.
• City analysis indicates that changing flight paths and protections could affect where and how tall housing can be built along parts of the waterfront and South Etobicoke.
• Major upgrades to transit, streets, and curbside operations would likely be needed around Bathurst Quay if passenger volumes grow a lot.

What it means for you#

• Who is affected: Most people see no immediate change. This report does not approve construction; it provides information. If an expansion moves ahead, effects would likely include:

• Residents near the waterfront, South Etobicoke, downtown, and the Port Lands

  • More people would live under flight paths (City estimate: about 25% more than today under a westward extension scenario).
  • You could experience more aircraft noise and emissions if flights and aircraft size increase.
  • New buildings near flight paths may need design changes (for example, sealed windows and mechanical ventilation). This could affect liveability and costs.

• Homebuilders, landowners, and developers

  • Airport zoning and flight procedure protections may limit building heights in areas outside the current zoning map (e.g., parts of South Etobicoke, Liberty Village, central waterfront, Port Lands).
  • NAV CANADA has already objected to some tall proposals under existing procedures; a westward runway shift could add about 8,200 more proposed units to the potentially affected area (about 94,000 units in total in the current pipeline and precinct plans).
  • Early coordination with NAV CANADA would remain essential.

• Park users and waterfront visitors

  • Little Norway Park was identified in Bill 110’s land list; Province and PortsToronto have since stated in media that the park would remain a park, but details are not final in regulation.
  • Trillium Park/Ontario Place and other quiet waterfront spaces could face more noise and changed views if the runway moves closer.

• Boaters, marinas, and water users

  • A longer runway and larger exclusion zones could make the Western Channel harder to navigate, especially for small craft.
  • Jet blast risks and deflectors were identified in past study scenarios; hovercraft, water taxi, sea bus, and ferry operations may be affected and would need reassessment.

• Commuters and travelers to the airport

  • Eireann Quay and Bathurst/Lake Shore/Fleet are tight pinch points. Handling far more passengers would likely require big transit upgrades and street operations changes (more transit priority, new infrastructure), not just more shuttles.

• Toronto Island residents and City services

  • City vehicles that must cross airport pavements to serve the Islands (e.g., for certain materials) could face more constraints with more frequent flights; this would need detailed review.

• Indigenous communities

  • The Toronto Islands and nearby waters are culturally and spiritually significant. The report expects robust, transparent engagement with First Nations rights holders and Indigenous communities on any proposal.

• Public health and environment

  • Prior assessments and new analysis point to added noise and air quality pressures in a dense urban setting if activity and aircraft size grow.
  • Lakefill to extend the runway could slow Inner Harbour water circulation by more than 50% (per 2017 study of a smaller extension), which could worsen water quality and undermine ongoing cleanup investments.

Expenses#

No direct public cost is identified for receiving this report. Future costs depend on whether a proposal advances.

• The City may need to fund more analysis, engagement, and technical studies if an expansion is proposed; a similar 2013 work program cost about $1 million and was reimbursed by the Toronto Port Authority at that time.
• Major infrastructure investments (transit priority, street operations, curbside management, possibly new transit track/overhead) would likely be needed to serve large passenger growth; no estimate is available.
• Bill 110 sets compensation rules if the Province transfers City land to itself; some elements (e.g., any “clawbacks,” how disturbance or injurious affection are treated) await regulation. Fiscal impact is not yet known.
• Council has directed that no City costs to comply with the provincial legislation be borne by the City, including staff time.

Proponents' View#

• The Province’s and PortsToronto’s public statements have highlighted airport modernization and economic development as reasons to look at expansion and jet service.
• A larger runway could allow newer jet aircraft (e.g., A220/E195-E2 types) and more destinations from a downtown location, potentially improving connectivity for business and leisure travelers.
• The airport operator’s past Master Plan set a vision to manage growth in an urban setting with mitigation measures; supporters may argue that careful design and operations can address many impacts.
• U.S. preclearance opened at the airport in 2026, and airlines have announced added cross-border flights; supporters may see expansion as building on that momentum.
• Media reports suggest a long-term horizon (up to 30 years) and significant private investment; supporters may argue this would create jobs and economic activity.
• Note: No full public business case or detailed technical plan was provided to City staff as of this report.

Opponents' View#

• Lack of a detailed proposal: The City has not received specific plans, designs, or a business case. Many decisions (flight procedures, zoning changes, mitigation) are unknown, making it hard to judge trade-offs.
• Housing impacts: Existing and potential new airspace protections could cap heights or complicate approvals in growth areas (about 86,000 proposed units already under current flight procedures, plus about 8,200 more if the runway shifts west). This may affect where and how much new housing can be built.
• Transportation strain: The Bathurst Quay area and key intersections are already constrained. Without major transit and street upgrades, large passenger growth would likely worsen congestion and reduce reliability.
• Water and ecology: Past studies found a runway extension could halve Inner Harbour inflow and double water “residence time,” likely worsening water quality and undermining major clean-up investments.
• Marine navigation and safety: A larger runway and wider exclusion zones would likely add risks and reduce manoeuvring room in the Western Channel, especially for small craft, and could affect ferry, hovercraft, and marina operations.
• Parks and public realm: Little Norway Park and other waterfront parks could see encroachment risks or heavier impacts (noise, views, access), reducing the quiet character of key public spaces.
• Health and liveability: More and larger aircraft in a downtown setting could increase exposure to noise and air pollutants (including ultrafine particles), affecting nearby residents, schools, and park users.
• Governance and accountability: Bill 110 and a possible SEZ could remove or reduce municipal oversight and limit local input, while compensation and regulatory exemptions remain unclear. Indigenous consultation must be meaningful given the Islands’ significance.
• Market and alternatives: Pearson is expanding and federal high-speed rail planning could shift some regional trips from air. Opponents question the need to expand an urban airport with tight ground-side limits.