Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
Project Essentials / dataBase detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread
Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport Pedestrian Tunnel
Bathurst Street Terminal, Toronto
Developer: Toronto Port Authority
Page 147 of 251 FirstFirst ... 4797137145146147148149157197247 ... LastLast
Results 2,191 to 2,205 of 3762

Thread: Porter Airlines and Billy Bishop (Island) Airport (Porter/Toronto Port Authority)

  1. #2191
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automation Gallery View Post
    I believe i heard a while back that Philly, Pittsburg and Cleveland are very much in their radar
    Does anyone think that there is a chance for flights into the Cleveland waterfront airport (the one that is next to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Browns stadium)?

    There is an article in the Star yesterday about the traffic/cab issues on the airport approach. http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...to-school?bn=1

    When a business gets more customers and impacts the surrounding community, how much of the responsibility to make community changes falls on the business and how much on the city? If the road needs reconfiguring 500 feet away from TPA property to provide better/safer access for the school, is that up to the city to deal with?

    Why haven't we seen any discussion about public transit access the airport? How many places in Toronto get 2 million (non-personal-car) visits per year without having transit within 500 feet? What if they were to bring the streetcars down Bathurst to the airport, so that people could take the streetcar up to the Bloor subway, rather than take a cab? There is a streetcar stop 500 feet away, but that's not a very attractive option in the winter with luggage.

    Is the Waterfront planning putting any thought into how the airport connects to the rest of the waterfront? You would think that the opportunity to steer thousands of foreign visitors (who are arriving by ferry/tunnel on foot) into local businesses would be something that would be worth pursuing.

    EDIT: It looks like London is a potential Porter destination "in due course": http://www.ctvlondon.ca/2012/04/port...ndon-on-radar/
    Back in the 90s, Air Ontario used to fly from London to YTZ. It was a very short flight. I think the plane continued on to Montreal.
    Last edited by sjc; 2012-Apr-19 at 11:55.


  2. #2192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sjc View Post
    Does anyone think that there is a chance for flights into the Cleveland waterfront airport (the one that is next to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Browns stadium)?
    Certainly not while the island doesn't have customs pre-clearance. I don't see Porter operating its own airport in a market like Cleveland.

    Why haven't we seen any discussion about public transit access the airport? How many places in Toronto get 2 million (non-personal-car) visits per year without having transit within 500 feet? What if they were to bring the streetcars down Bathurst to the airport, so that people could take the streetcar up to the Bloor subway, rather than take a cab? There is a streetcar stop 500 feet away, but that's not a very attractive option in the winter with luggage.
    Adam Vaughan would never allow that kind of transportation improvement to the airport.

  3. Default

    Why haven't we seen any discussion about public transit access the airport? How many places in Toronto get 2 million (non-personal-car) visits per year without having transit within 500 feet? What if they were to bring the streetcars down Bathurst to the airport, so that people could take the streetcar up to the Bloor subway, rather than take a cab? There is a streetcar stop 500 feet away, but that's not a very attractive option in the winter with luggage.
    Quote Originally Posted by unimaginative2 View Post
    Adam Vaughan would never allow that kind of transportation improvement to the airport.
    Ahhh politics...

    I was wondering with new service to Washington would Porter consider a slightly out of market move and start a route between Ottawa and Washington. Seems that there would be a lucrative market there, particularly given the fact that a number of politicians/civic employees use Porter between Toronto and Ottawa.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voxpopulicosmicum View Post
    Obviously Deluce (or any businessperson in his position) would want to change the conditions that limit his potential to expand. What's people's sense of the feasibility of such a change? As I was reading through the environmental assessment for the pedestrian tunnel/perimeter road, I was wondering whether there's any back-door to runway expansion.

    ...

    The only thing that jumped out at me from the EA was the description of what the airport would do with the rock extracted to dig the pedestrian tunnel: "Excavated materials on the airport side
    would be placed on a barge or truck for off-site use/disposal or placed on the perimeter road alignment to build up the new road’s sub-base. It is possible that some of the excavated
    material could be stockpiled at the airport side for future use in the construction of the perimeter road
    .
    "

    It strikes me as strange to describe how the materials could be "used as sub base for the perimeter road" or "stockpiled for future use in the construction of the permimeter road". If "stockpiled", it would appear possible for the materials to be used for future runway expansion, although one would assume that any such expansion would require affirmative legislative/regulatory action by the city and province, and a pretty extensive EA.

    But yeah, I'll admit that I'm looking at this with a bit of a conspiratorial eye.
    Conspiratorial eye, FTW:

    Waterfront residents question plan to dump debris off island airport

  5. Default

    23 000 cubic metres of material hardly seems like enough material to form a runway extension though...

    Per the star article noted above the water is 10 metres deep, assuming a 50 metre width swath required for the runway width and associated instruments. That means that the alleged runway extension would only be about 46 metres or so (less). If that were applied to runway 8/26 it would only expand the runway from 1216 m to 1262 m, is that long enough to remove some of the weight restrictions on porter's aircraft? I doubt it..

  6. Default

    Well, there is a very easy way around this one - surely, the end of the runway isn't the only proximate location for dumping the spoils. Pick another nearby spot that wouldn't have any chance to serve that purpose as the solution. Now if one is reluctant to do so, then it is clear the underlying intent might not be as stated.

    AoD

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodbridge_Heights View Post
    23 000 cubic metres of material hardly seems like enough material to form a runway extension though...

    Per the star article noted above the water is 10 metres deep, assuming a 50 metre width swath required for the runway width and associated instruments. That means that the alleged runway extension would only be about 46 metres or so (less). If that were applied to runway 8/26 it would only expand the runway from 1216 m to 1262 m, is that long enough to remove some of the weight restrictions on porter's aircraft? I doubt it..
    Every little bit helps, but since the maximum take off weight runway length for the Q400s is published as being 4600', it would be logical to strive for that length in any extension. (Presently 3988'). As well, you'd have to extend the taxiway to the end as well to negate the need for back-tracking. So, there would need to be quite a wide footprint of land constructed. Can't see dumping into the harbour as providing anything more than a convenient way to get rid of the stuff. Again, though, I'd be surprised if any runway extension plans include construction into the harbour as opposed to westbound into the lake. Extending 08/26 into the harbour means you also have to extend the exclusion zone at the end. You start to really chew into the available space in the harbour. And, the obstructions caused by the Hearn stacks and any future development in the docklands become even more significant the closer the end of the runway gets to them. In fact, I 'm really surprised that the airport is not taking advantage of dumping the fill at the west end, where any expansion would most likely occur.

  8. Default

    The sneaky incrementalism is, I think, the issue. Every time Porter does something, they say "we're doing X, but we're not going to do Y". The a few months later, they do Y, and say "we're doing Y, but we're not going to do Z". It's a smart way to proceed (i.e. it gives them a better chance of doing "Z" than they would have had if they had declared their intention to do "Z" from then outset), but it's not difficult to see why it leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, including people (e.g. the City) whose cooperation they need.

  9. Default

    Well, get them to sign legally binding documents.

    AoD

  10. Default

    The City appears to be on to the game now, based on the City's recent (ongoing?) refusal to issue certain permits for certain tunnel construction work until the conditions of previous permits are satisfied.

    But aside from that, there's nothing legally wrong with "phasing" the EA process in a way that is, on the whole, dishonest. It's just that when a quasi-government body (e.g. the TPA) does so on behalf of a private party (e.g. Porter), I would argue that's a bad thing.

  11. Default

    I say go ahead and dupe these NIMBY residents to get the runway extended. Just to piss them off.

  12. #2202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coruscanti Cognoscente View Post
    I say go ahead and dupe these NIMBY residents to get the runway extended. Just to piss them off.
    Agree with you. They would prefer no developments around what they live and will bitch about everything. They want their dead quiet village right in downtown.

    If you want your neighbourhood to be quiet after 10 pm, here is an easy way, move to the suburb. And if you want to be close to downtown too, move to Rosedale.

    The truth is, if a project helps the vast majority but mildly inconveniences 50 people, these 50 people will just have to suck it up.

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by can332 View Post
    Every little bit helps, but since the maximum take off weight runway length for the Q400s is published as being 4600', it would be logical to strive for that length in any extension. (Presently 3988'). As well, you'd have to extend the taxiway to the end as well to negate the need for back-tracking. So, there would need to be quite a wide footprint of land constructed. Can't see dumping into the harbour as providing anything more than a convenient way to get rid of the stuff. Again, though, I'd be surprised if any runway extension plans include construction into the harbour as opposed to westbound into the lake. Extending 08/26 into the harbour means you also have to extend the exclusion zone at the end. You start to really chew into the available space in the harbour. And, the obstructions caused by the Hearn stacks and any future development in the docklands become even more significant the closer the end of the runway gets to them. In fact, I 'm really surprised that the airport is not taking advantage of dumping the fill at the west end, where any expansion would most likely occur.
    4600' is still a LOONG way from 4148' (3998' + 150' infill), plus the issue you also raised about extending the runway west out into the lake vs east into the harbour.

  14. Default

    The point of incrementally adding fill is to avoid/defer the question of jets. Hiding from regulatory scrutiny is pretty disgusting behavior for a public-sector body to engage in, no matter what one may think of waterfront residents.

  15. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by figaro View Post
    Agree with you. They would prefer no developments around what they live and will bitch about everything. They want their dead quiet village right in downtown.

    If you want your neighbourhood to be quiet after 10 pm, here is an easy way, move to the suburb. And if you want to be close to downtown too, move to Rosedale.

    The truth is, if a project helps the vast majority but mildly inconveniences 50 people, these 50 people will just have to suck it up.
    Straw-man much?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •