nightstreak
Senior Member
The aircraft that requires paving over the lake, taking over a city park for car parking, and limiting residential development of 350 acres of land is the more disruptive.
|
|
|
Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?
- Thread starter hw621
- Start date
The aircraft that requires paving over the lake, taking over a city park for car parking, and limiting residential development of 350 acres of land is the more disruptive.
generalcanada
Senior Member
While not strictly a DBa measurement. this really helps put it into context.
Of course everyone knows how loud the planes are now, if the noise doesnt change then maybe there is something to this
nfitz
Superstar
It's not just noise. The air pressure waves are more annoying near my house than the noise. Though less of an issue with jets than turboprops and particularly helicopters.
picard102
Senior Member
I'm not clutching pearls over "paving over the lake" when the entire waterfront was paving over the lake.
T3G
Senior Member
Well, if memory serves, the era has moved on from paving over the lake, so we should behave accordingly. And I say this as someone who doesn't promote leaving the past behind without good reason. If someone tried to steamroll the waterfront today to launch it back into the industrial age of 80 years ago, should we say yes, since the waterfront came about in that form in the first place? Or should we instead say, hey, the function of said waterfront is a different beast now and let's not let past planning decisions provide a moral justification for terrible planning decisions today?
If the province had no involvement in this and this initiative was entirely at the behest of the city, it would still be the sort of spectacular own goal only a city with little to no civic pride would be capable of achieving. But in the form it's taken? Where Ford, Trump style, comes up with some random harebrained scheme and decides to force it on everyone around with no due process, no consultation, and no care for the consequences? Why on earth are you defending this?
How can we possibly expect anything remotely resembling civic pride on the part of the city's denizens when its most essential assets and heritage are forever up for negotiation in order to make a quick buck?
TRONto
Active Member
From the article it seems like they were mentioned at the same press conference but not tied together. Likely some journalists were asking about the islands at the same time.
I still wonder where that Convention Centre would go. I think over the train tracks would be the best thing to do (assuming it would provide enough space).
picard102
Senior Member
Because the airport should allow jets, and is a net asset for the city. All the parkland that's become the subject of this would have been safe right now if the city had agreed to play ball long ago.
Hopefully now Chow can still negotiate support for keeping the island parkland in city hands.
Transit
New Member
The province never has to ask the city to do anything, regardless of the political party in government at Queen's Park or the mayor and council at Toronto City Hall. It has always been a political courtesy, not a constitutional requirement.
If Doug Ford actually only wants specific slivers of land from each of the PINs identified in Bill 110, that is something that he could have chosen to explicitly state in his proposed legislation.
No need to victim blame the City of Toronto, Doug Ford knows exactly what he is doing. He wants all of the land, and he is confident that, unlike under Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister Mark Carney has whipped his Toronto Liberal MPs to support him.
nfitz
Superstar
txlseries4
Active Member
Runway at Billy Bishop could need up to 900 metres of new landmass for jets, agency says
Toronto Port Authority CEO says plan would see most of the new runway jut westward, instead of east into harbour
www.theglobeandmail.com
"Plans to expand the runway at Billy Bishop Airport on the Toronto Islands to accommodate jets could involve adding up to 900 metres of extended land into Lake Ontario, much more than proposed when the idea was last quashed a decade ago"
"The proposed additional runway length itself is 600 metres, far more than the 442 metres floated with jet-expansion plans a decade ago. The increase would come on top of the new 150-metre buffer zones that are already set to be added to each end of the runway by next summer, for a total of about 900 metres."
"But Mr. Steenstra said he expects that most of the added landmass for the longer runway area – up to 750 metres of it – would jut out into Lake Ontario from the western end. That would see the runway parallel the shoreline of Ontario Place, where Mr. Ford’s government has plans for a spa and waterpark, science centre and expanded concert venue."
"The changes outlined by Mr. Steenstra on Monday would stretch the current 1,218-metre runway to more than 1,800 metres. That’s still short compared with the Toronto area’s massive Pearson International Airport and other full-size airports.
But it’s significantly longer than the 1,508-metre runway at London City Centre airport in the British capital. That airport accommodates the same kind of smaller, single-aisle jets that Mr. Streenstra says Billy Bishop hopes to welcome, such as the Embraer E195 E-2, which Porter flies out of Pearson, and the Airbus A220. Large jet aircraft are not on the table, he said."
nfitz
Superstar
I think the key paragraphs are:Runway at Billy Bishop could need up to 900 metres of new landmass for jets, agency says
Toronto Port Authority CEO says plan would see most of the new runway jut westward, instead of east into harbour
"Plans to expand the runway at Billy Bishop Airport on the Toronto Islands to accommodate jets could involve adding up to 900 metres of extended land into Lake Ontario, much more than proposed when the idea was last quashed a decade ago"
"The proposed additional runway length itself is 600 metres, far more than the 442 metres floated with jet-expansion plans a decade ago. The increase would come on top of the new 150-metre buffer zones that are already set to be added to each end of the runway by next summer, for a total of about 900 metres."
"But Mr. Steenstra said he expects that most of the added landmass for the longer runway area – up to 750 metres of it – would jut out into Lake Ontario from the western end. That would see the runway parallel the shoreline of Ontario Place, where Mr. Ford’s government has plans for a spa and waterpark, science centre and expanded concert venue."
"The changes outlined by Mr. Steenstra on Monday would stretch the current 1,218-metre runway to more than 1,800 metres. That’s still short compared with the Toronto area’s massive Pearson International Airport and other full-size airports.
But it’s significantly longer than the 1,508-metre runway at London City Centre airport in the British capital. That airport accommodates the same kind of smaller, single-aisle jets that Mr. Streenstra says Billy Bishop hopes to welcome, such as the Embraer E195 E-2, which Porter flies out of Pearson, and the Airbus A220. Large jet aircraft are not on the table, he said."
This runway configuration could mean that only the already planned 150-metre safety area would need to be added to the runway’s eastern tip. Mr. Steenstra said this would leave boaters in the city’s inner harbour to the east with a comparable marine exclusion zone to the one they have to navigate now.
The changes would also not require any new flight-path restrictions that could scupper high-rise housing plans in the city’s Port Lands farther east, he said, as some at city hall have feared.
So no changes to the harbour operations (beyond some minor new restrictions approved years ago to maintain current operations) and no new flight path restrictions on the Portlands.
It appears the no jets NIMBYs have been completely gaslighting us. I'm not really impressed with these groups who use lies and worst-case scenarios to stop something they don't like.
EBT
Active Member
For reference:Runway at Billy Bishop could need up to 900 metres of new landmass for jets, agency says
Toronto Port Authority CEO says plan would see most of the new runway jut westward, instead of east into harbour
"Plans to expand the runway at Billy Bishop Airport on the Toronto Islands to accommodate jets could involve adding up to 900 metres of extended land into Lake Ontario, much more than proposed when the idea was last quashed a decade ago"
"The proposed additional runway length itself is 600 metres, far more than the 442 metres floated with jet-expansion plans a decade ago. The increase would come on top of the new 150-metre buffer zones that are already set to be added to each end of the runway by next summer, for a total of about 900 metres."
"But Mr. Steenstra said he expects that most of the added landmass for the longer runway area – up to 750 metres of it – would jut out into Lake Ontario from the western end. That would see the runway parallel the shoreline of Ontario Place, where Mr. Ford’s government has plans for a spa and waterpark, science centre and expanded concert venue."
"The changes outlined by Mr. Steenstra on Monday would stretch the current 1,218-metre runway to more than 1,800 metres. That’s still short compared with the Toronto area’s massive Pearson International Airport and other full-size airports.
But it’s significantly longer than the 1,508-metre runway at London City Centre airport in the British capital. That airport accommodates the same kind of smaller, single-aisle jets that Mr. Streenstra says Billy Bishop hopes to welcome, such as the Embraer E195 E-2, which Porter flies out of Pearson, and the Airbus A220. Large jet aircraft are not on the table, he said."
The minimum runway length for an Airbus A220-300 at Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) is approximately 1,890 to 1,950 metres under standard conditions
The Airbus A220-100 requires a minimum runway takeoff distance of approximately 1,500 meters at maximum takeoff weight (MTOW)
The minimum takeoff field length for an Embraer E195-E2 at Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) under standard conditions is approximately 1,775 to 1,805 meters
Based on the above 1800 metres is indeed the minimum runway length required after extension.