1) 19 flights per hour equates to a flight every 3 minutes. If retaining the current number of slots per day is viable commercially, it should stay.
Flight training today has no limit. I can guarantee you that you are exposed to far, far more than 19 flights an hour today. Today the limit for commercial operations only is 13 flights per hour (or thereabouts). No other traffic is restricted. I'd argue for getting rid of all other traffic at YTZ in exchange for a small boost in the number of commercial slots.
2) How much additional lakefilling beyond the 150 at each end will be required for EMAS?
To be clear, EMAS is absolutely not required. This is a personal interest because I have a strong interest in aviation safety. I believe you can install EMAS in as little as 100 feet on each side of the runway. Obviously this idea is only supportable if the extended runway safety area doesn't end up outside the airport's boundaries. There are existing runway safety areas. You can see them on Google Maps. Today aircraft can actually taxi on them and use them to start their departure. I'd say use the same RSA for an EMAS. You increase safety and restrict runway length to the actual runway since nobody is ever allowed to drive, walk or taxi an aircraft on to the EMAS. It's built and left alone. In essence, it's also puts aircraft further away from airport boundary since nothing can be operated on it.
More about this stuff here.
http://www.esco.zodiacaerospace.com/commercial-systems/faq.php
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13754
3/4/5) How much of the space on the south side will be utilized? The amount of surplus transferred must be meaningful.
Hard to say exactly. But looking at the airport layout. I would say that roughly speaking most of the land south of runway 06/24 could be transferred. I would call that fairly substantial. The navaid in the middle of the airfield is the challenge to determine the ramp layout on the south side and how much exactly will be transferred. But at a minimum, I'd imagine that the entire southern tip of the triangle (bottom third of 15/33).
6) With the additional goal of further decreasing the noise levels as technology becomes available.
Now you're understanding what I'm getting at. London City is one of the airports that will tremendously benefit from the CSeries. They use a quota count system. If an operator wants to fly in noisier aircraft, they can, but they will end up using more than one slot for that flight. So noise management now becomes a part of the business plan of the operator. Operators are incentivized to fly the quietest aircraft possible. Airlines flying into LCY will be ecstatic to get the CSeries.
I wouldn't advocate for a quota count. This would allow what Westjet wants for example (to be able fly in their noisier 737-600). I would want hard decibel limits. Force the operators to operate the quietest aircraft. And as technology improves, demand higher and higher standards.
7) No harm in monitoring - it's compliance, we besides it gives on the ground knowledge of the actual noise profile instead of modelling and forecasts.
They actually do noise monitoring already. And like I said, ATC at the Island will restrict aircraft based on requirements. The problem today is that they restrict aircraft based on the "no jet" rule not on any actual noise standard. In any event, I would fully support additional monitoring if anybody wants it.
8) Comprehensively review the local transportation needs required to support the increased number of passengers - any improvements deemed necessary should at least be partially borne by the direct beneficiary of this new agreement.
The TPA is making out quite well with 1.9 million passengers last year paying the $20 AIF. I'd get them to fund the entire program. Get them to pay for all necessary improvements on the land side. Not just part of the cost.
