Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

[Thaboss]

The other parties would need leaders able to win an election

This issue will perculate in the background for over two years.

The libs will have a leader by then and that leader is predict will be an mpp so yes this can become a hot botton issue worth campaigning against for both the libs and ndp.

Its such an easy W for their target constituents.


I also suspect ford will want to campaign against Trump one last time before the man leaves office. I have no evidence of this of course just speculation.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Ford has 3+ years of mandate left. If this is going to be designated a special economic zone and has enough capital backing, it can absolutely get to construction before the next provincial election.

 

[SubHuman]

2000 metres? That seems longer than we were discussing here a few years ago.
Can you provide a reference? Or is this just coming from a Nimby fake news site?

As mentioned earlier in this and other threads, Porter's scheme from 12-14 years ago involved them potentially using a plane they eventually did not buy, the Bombardier CS100 (since renamed to Airbus A220-100) and a runway just barely long enough for it, and almost certainly by intention not long enough for the larger 300 version Air Canada was buying and now use.
Delta is the only North American operator of the smaller 100 version. I doubt any airline would buy a bunch of them for the sole purpose of using them at YTZ.

The Airbus A220-300 has a listed required minimum runway length of 6200 feet (1.89 km) for MTOW (Maximum Take Off Weight, meaning with a full fuel load needed for longer flights). But this is for SL (sea level -- Toronto is slightly higher) and ISA -- International Standard Atmosphere, which means 15°C, dry conditions, and no wind or turbulence. Real life use involves differing conditions which often require a runway a little longer, or taking off without a full fuel load.
Even the slightly smaller and currently used (by Air Canada Express/Jazz) older (development of planned newer E2 model has stopped) Embraer E175 lists 5656 feet (1.72 km).

I can't see how a runway of only 1.5 km would be of much use for any Canada-based airline wanting to use its jets.
The mentions by Doug Ford and others seem to involve YTZ being a 'second' airport for Toronto, similar to Chicago Midway with its 6500 ft runways, and allowing for most of the smaller-sized single-aisle narrow-body jet airliners.

E195-E2s operate at London City airport with a runway length of 1,500m. I suspect they'll keep it closer to that length similar to what was proposed a decade ago.

Similarly, as pointed out by kEiThZ in the other YTZ thread,
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...nnel-m-s-ports-toronto-arup.3063/post-1844726
the Embraer E195-E2 (the model of jet Porter did eventually buy) presumably uses LCY (London City) only with a reduced fuel load restricting range, which I assume would be a hindrance for the supposedly wanted longer flights for it from YTZ.
(btw -- Swiss, launch customer of CS100, has stopped using it anywhere, including LCY)

I am a supporter of the airport expansion, but not if the runway makes that much of an incursion into the harbour. I am not sure it needs to be that long, and if it does, why not extend it more westward toward Ontario Place where it will have less impact on downtown residents and harbour front.

That's just where I thought it might fit. It's a "measure distance" line I put on the map. The runway with taxiway would need to be wider, which looks like it would get too close to the southern end of the part of Ontario Place that's there if the runway was extended more to the west, and looks like it wouldn't leave a wide enough gap in the water.

 

[innsertnamehere]

As I said - we have no idea until we see actual details. The last serious proposal for the airport was 1,500m runways. It's just histrionics until we see something more concrete. Sure, they could go propose 3km runways, or 2km.. but past efforts focused on much smaller expansion. There is no point freaking out a mega-aiport being dropped on the waterfront if that isn't even what's proposed.

The last expansion effort was really relatively modest. I haven't seen anything to suggest they are planning to go much beyond that.

 

[Ward8]

As I said - we have no idea until we see actual details. The last serious proposal for the airport was 1,500m runways. It's just histrionics until we see something more concrete. Sure, they could go propose 3km runways, or 2km.. but past efforts focused on much smaller expansion. There is no point freaking out a mega-aiport being dropped on the waterfront if that isn't even what's proposed.

Even at 1500m, you're looking at probably 1700m assuming the same runway end space as today. That's only a 500m difference from what was pictured. I'm genuinely not trying to be glib here, but how is a difference of 500 meters histrionics on one end, and a modest expansion on the other when it's so close to being the same thing?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Even at 1500m, you're looking at probably 1700m assuming the same runway end space as today. That's only a 500m difference from what was pictured. I'm genuinely not trying to be glib here, but how is a difference of 500 meters histrionics on one end, and a modest expansion on the other when it's so close to being the same thing?

This was the 2013 proposal - it had two 168m extensions on either end, with no changes to the marine exclusion zone. There is a big difference from 168m and 500m, yet alone 1000m! Especially considering that YTZ is already going to be doing a small expansion to extend the runway end safety area which has already been approved - the 2013 proposal was more like 100m of additional fill over existing operations.

It's very, very different from the stuff people are claiming here..

That's all I'm saying. Perhaps they are right.. but all we have to show right now is the 2013 proposal which had runway expansions which were relatively modest. Lets see what is actually in store here.

Also - regarding reduced weight takeoffs, that may not be an issue anyway. E195-E2s have a range of nearly 5,000kms, but Porter operates them mostly within 3,500km - they don't need to push their range either. All that really matters is that they can get YVR flights in and out. Considering E195-E2s have been certified for ranges of up to 4,000km from LCY.. that works.

 

[Ward8]

It's very, very different from the stuff people are claiming here..

It's just not all that different. Picture one is 70-80% the same as picture two. It feels like a very narrow difference between modest and totally out there.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's just not all that different. Picture one is 70-80% the same as picture two. It feels like a very narrow difference between modest and totally out there.

I mean.. different strokes.. to make it more clear, some rough sketches:

Approved End safety area expansion (this should be effectively considered the "existing condition"):

2013 proposal for 1,558m runway:

A 2,000m runway according to @SubHuman:

One of those last two seems minor to me, the other... less so.

 

[Civdis]

If they decide to go with the previous EA designed runway lengths, how fast could this move forward?

 

[Civdis]

I mean.. different strokes.. to make it more clear, some rough sketches:

Approved End safety area expansion (this should be effectively considered the "existing condition"):

View attachment 724186

2013 proposal for 1,558m runway:

View attachment 724187

A 2,000m runway according to @SubHuman:

View attachment 724185

One of those last two seems minor to me, the other... less so.

I support the expansion for jets if the middle scenario is built, but if we have to go to that last one, I'm not so sure. That is a massive incursion into the harbour.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I support the expansion for jets if the middle scenario is built, but if we have to go to that last one, I'm not so sure. That is a massive incursion into the harbour.

I agree with you here - the actual data shows that jets have limited noise profile impacts over existing operations, and the runway expansion itself as proposed in 2013 was minor. If we start talking about a 2,000m runway my opinion would change.

The biggest real issue with expansion to me is access and how to handle traffic to and from the airport on Eiriann Quay, but to me that's a solvable issue as it's mostly about how to store waiting vehicles. You could do a 1-level underground circulatory garage under the street (add a climate-controlled moving sidewalk connection to the 509 while you are at it) and solve it.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Ford has 3+ years of mandate left. If this is going to be designated a special economic zone and has enough capital backing, it can absolutely get to construction before the next provincial election.

If anything. Ford has demonstrated that if there's a project that he get's behind it receives priority treatment and gets built. See Ontario Line.

 

[Ward8]

One of those last two seems minor to me, the other... less so.

I support the expansion for jets if the middle scenario is built, but if we have to go to that last one, I'm not so sure. That is a massive incursion into the harbour.

I guess if you're isolating the length of each extension, it is a big difference. I'm just confused becasue , in totality, the length of those runways, and the impacts of each on the central waterfront, are more or less the same. I don't think any of it makes sense, so it just perplexes me that a couple hundred meters is the difference maker (assuming that the line were drawing is somewhere between option A and B? or is option B the start of where it becomes too much of an intrusion?) Is it just vibes based? Or if the next propsal is 1850m will that be considered modest as well?

If anything. Ford has demonstrated that if there's a project that he get's behind it receives priority treatment and gets built. See Ontario Line.

The Ontario Line is massively popular. The island is historically extremely controvercial. Ford also has a history of reversing himself in the face of such controversy. Like the Greenbelt or the demolition of the Corktown buildings.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I guess if you're isolating the length of each extension, it is a big difference. I'm just confused becasue , in totality, the length of those runways, and the impacts of each on the central waterfront, are more or less the same. I don't think any of it makes sense, so it just perplexes me that a couple hundred meters is the difference maker (assuming that the line were drawing is somewhere between option A and B? or is option B the start of where it becomes too much of an intrusion?) Is it just vibes based? Or if the next propsal is 1850m will that be considered modest as well?

The Ontario Line is massively popular. The island is historically extremely controvercial. Ford also has a history of reversing himself in the face of such controversy. Like the Greenbelt or the demolition of the Corktown buildings.

The Ontario Line was Ford's pet project that came out of his refusal to use the existing DRL plan. Which at the time Ford first took power was well along the way in planning. And it did receive criticism, both from Torontonians who were affected by the construction (see Riverdale and Osgoode), as well as from Ontarians outside the GTA who believed that Ford was focusing on Toronto too much.

Mapping this over to Billy Bishop. If he again gets in his head that this is a pet project for him, I can see him again bulldozing his way through planning and consultation to get what he wants.

 

[Ward8]

If he again gets in his head that this is a pet project for him, I can see him again bulldozing his way through planning and consultation to get what he wants.

I agree this is possible. It probably maps more onto the Ontario place deal. I just think it could go either way depending on the level of pushback.