Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

[kEiThZ]

my personal opinion... i don't think their complaints are less reasonable nor would i consider their interests as holding the economic interest of the region "hostage". the airport should be allowed to freely expand up to what are existing limits.

By that argument, nothing Porter is asking is unreasonable. All physical changes are inside the airport boundary. And the aircraft they want to operate will not necessitate any changes to noise management policies today.

if the long-term goal of the government, however, is to radically expand beyond existing limits, which is fine imo, this should be communicated and plans should be put in place to accommodate the residents (compensation, relocation, etc.).

They do generally do that. That's usually part and parcel of the EA process, expropriation, etc.

i think more thought than now should be given to other forms of transportation that would alleviate some of the air traffic; for example, high-speed rail could alleviate some of the short-hauls to make room for long-hauls. i think if air traffic is projected to go absolutely through the roof, plans for another international airport should be given serious thought or go all out and do the hong kong thing (kai tak to chek lap kok).

People in Toronto complain about spending an extra billion or two to turn an LRT into a subway. As big as a supporter of High Speed Rail that I am, I don't think it will never happen in Canada. Especially not when the price tag will be $30 billion, most or all of it paid for by the taxpayer. Canadians are too cheap and short-sighted to actually front for real world-class infrastructure. It's time we accepted that reality and worked within it.

A Chek Lap Kok style airport will never happen. If we can't pay for HSR, this is an even bigger pipedream since taxpayers everywhere else will not feel like footing the bill for the "Toronto airport". Even though as North America's 3rd largest city, Canada's largest city, home to Canada's national airline and major hub for our other national airline, we could probably do well with a bigger airport than Pearson. And even though all those pro-urban experts like Richard Florida are out saying that airports are vital to supporting the "creative class". I don't believe we'll see the Pickering airport either. We might see an airport in Pickering about the size of the Island, but it'll be to consolidate General Aviation in the region. I think we'll max out at Pearson and start suffering the economic consequences of not having enough aviation capacity in a decade or two. The Island, will provide some relief by moving short-haul flights from Pearson to the core. But that relief is eaten up by widebodies arriving at Pearson that require more than one slot.

i think your suggestions for billy bishop were good.

If you start at a point of reflexive rejection or reflexive acceptance, you'll never be better than a NIMBY. I don't actually think we're making best use of the Island as is right now. The changes I am suggesting would benefit everybody. But to understand them people have to be willing to listen, understand the points being put forward and have a reasonable discussion. If you argument starts with, "there should be no airport there at all" or "we should be able to land 777s there" or "if we put in a thousand foot extension then we'll get a runway half the length of downtown landing 777s", we aren't going to be able to have an intelligent discussion.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think that's the best way to go. They need to be very specific on the type of plane and specs allowed and the number of flights etc.

Actually that's not the way to go. It's another version of "no jets". You want to control noise, regulate noise exposure.

 

[kEiThZ]

Keithz:

3/4/5) Personally I would have preferred an extension of the current boundary at the inner harbour to the point where it intersects 15/33, then have the boundary extended along 15/33 northward as far as possible to try and include as much of the area behind Hanlan beach.

AoD

It could be possible. One would have to look at the placement of the VOR (sombrero like navaid at the centre of the airport) and what the space requirements are for a parking ramp and maintenance hangars. But I envision that one could transfer enough land to make it possible to walk from Hanlan's point beach to the Hanlan's point ferry dock in a straight line (across what is the airport today).

Ironically, it's the activists insistence that the airport restrict commercial aviation which allows General aviation to survive there which in turn allows all that land to be taken up. Porter needs one runway. That's it. Get rid of GA and we will increase utility of that airport, actually reduce noise exposure and free up land all at the same time.

 

[EnviroTO]

Now explain to me why it's in any way, shape or form, fair to say that downtowners (who already live near sources of noise louder than the airport), should have their exposure limited to aircraft noise, while many, many more people in the burbs (who live in quieter areas where aircraft noise is more noticeable) should be exposed even more. All with the net effect on air fares going even higher (if traffic were entirely centralized at Pearson) yielding us lower economic competitiveness, more air pollution (as people tend to drive to Pearson instead of using transit), and even less employment for the region and the city in particular.

I don't follow this "logic". Downtowners who hadn't historically had to deal with as much airport traffic shouldn't complain because they already have other noises (i.e. if you hear a streetcar every 3 minutes) then it is no big deal for that new sources of noises are added (every 1 minute) for the sake of marginal transportation benefit (YTZ cannot handle a significant portion of the Toronto air traffic)? People at Pearson who moved into an area which has had airport noise for more than a generation, historically DC8s and 707s, have every right to complain about the only airport capable of handling Toronto's air traffic because if they got rid of that noise they would enjoy no noise? Is that your "logic"? Traffic centralized at YYZ is a whole $5 more than YTZ and is has the space for real competition with most key North American routes having more than one airline serving the route. YYZ employs far more people than YTZ at on average higher wages.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't follow this "logic".

Sure. Some people struggle with real logic and need to add "" when they can't debate it maturely.

Is that your "logic"?

Guess you can't debate "respectfully".

Downtowners who hadn't historically had to deal with as much airport traffic shouldn't complain because they already have other noises (i.e. if you hear a streetcar every 3 minutes) then it is no big deal for that new sources of noises are added (every 1 minute) for the sake of marginal transportation benefit (YTZ cannot handle a significant portion of the Toronto air traffic)?

1.9 million passengers is hardly marginal by any measure. And YTZ could easily handle double that with its current setup.

And yes complaints about the air traffic are vastly overblown. There is actual sensor data from the various noise studies that show aircraft noise impact is marginal considering all the other sounds you hear downtown. By far the noisiest thing along the waterfront is the Gardiner. Not the airport. A few choice motorcycle revs on the Gardiner will do far more to annoy you than a Q400 departing.

People at Pearson who moved into an area which has had airport noise for more than a generation, historically DC8s and 707s,

And there was a time when there were far noisier aircraft at the Island too. So does that justify allowing noisier aircraft at the Island or more traffic? Or does your rationale only apply selectively?

Heck, the place was once an airbase flying noisy training aircraft. I guess you'd be okay with the RCAF locating a unit of C-130s there?

have every right to complain about the only airport capable of handling Toronto's air traffic because if they got rid of that noise they would enjoy no noise?

No. They would enjoy a lot less noise. The impact to their quality of life from Pearson is far higher by any actual technical measure than those who are complaining downtown where aircraft noise is a marginal addition at best to the noise of city life in a highly urbanized area.

Traffic centralized at YYZ is a whole $5 more than YTZ and is has the space for real competition with most key North American routes having more than one airline serving the route. YYZ employs far more people than YTZ at on average higher wages.

No. If traffic was centralized at YYZ, the biggest players with most network effects would win. Porter would be out of business. Air fares would go back to where they were before (which according to stats has seen a 30% decline, average air fare going down from $350 to $250, in the last decade....in no small part to more competition). Our tourism sector would suffer with the higher air fares. Businesses would now have to include $100 to every single business trip planned to get to/from YYZ. And we'd have a few thousand more people who'd be unemployed.

All for what? So that there's less of a slight din when you drink your morning cappucino?

 

[mettle]

People in Toronto complain about spending an extra billion or two to turn an LRT into a subway. As big as a supporter of High Speed Rail that I am, I don't think it will never happen in Canada. Especially not when the price tag will be $30 billion, most or all of it paid for by the taxpayer. Canadians are too cheap and short-sighted to actually front for real world-class infrastructure. It's time we accepted that reality and worked within it.

maybe relocation is the way going forward. it seems like the cheapest way out. some of the buildings in the bathurst quay area aren't looking so great these days anyway. you often hear of stories in china of the oppression and exploitation of citizens in the name of (extreme) progress. i refuse to believe canada is similar. we must be able to think of some way to accommodate.

If you start at a point of reflexive rejection or reflexive acceptance, you'll never be better than a NIMBY.

kneejerk and demonization was what i saw on both sides when this conservation first started even just a few pages back. i don't think the world consists only of nimby's and porterites. however, i don't think a porterite will ever listen to a nimby and vice versa. it's up to those with more nuanced opinions to talk to their own camps, imo.

 

[mettle]

There is actual sensor data from the various noise studies that show aircraft noise impact is marginal considering all the other sounds you hear downtown. By far the noisiest thing along the waterfront is the Gardiner.

noise and annoying-ness are different. the brain tunes out white noise, even loud white noise. a drippy faucet, though quiet, is quite un-ignorable. anyway, i doubt nef will ever take that in account.

 

[dowlingm]

I don't follow this "logic". Downtowners who hadn't historically had to deal with as much airport traffic shouldn't complain because they already have other noises (i.e. if you hear a streetcar every 3 minutes) then it is no big deal for that new sources of noises are added (every 1 minute) for the sake of marginal transportation benefit (YTZ cannot handle a significant portion of the Toronto air traffic)?

Clearly the Gardiner and other road transport noise is the principal source of noise downtown. Let's not bring the streetcars into it as a strawman.

Traffic centralized at YYZ is a whole $5 more than YTZ

Would you mind expanding on where that figure arises from?

YYZ employs far more people than YTZ at on average higher wages.

I doubt many people pick their airports based on how many people work there.

If money is an issue, and your argumentation seems to be aimed at YTZ in the status quo as opposed to post-expansion, would it be fair to point out that YYZ has Toronto as its principal catchment not to mention a big chunk of its noise contour but the economic benefit of the per-passenger PILT goes to Hazel MacCallion (okay, 99.47% of it)? If all 1.9m passengers who used the Island last year went to Pearson (and there were no net losses due to carriers tightening margins) that would be ~$1.8m per annum in net extra PILT of which the City of Toronto would see the princely sum of ~$10,180, a situation the Feds seem to have little interest in changing especially if it affected the massive rents that they get from Pearson themselves. In reality a good chunk of them coming from other areas of the city would be slamming the already overloaded 401/409/427 interchanges, and those passengers for whom UPX wasn't a suitable option (no matter what David Miller might tell Matt Galloway) would be supporting Mississauga airport cabs, at least on the way into Toronto, and staying in Mississauga hotels to be close for early morning flights. Some others would add load to the inadequate 58, 192 and 300A.

Someone with "Enviro" in their username might also reflect that YTZ, which utilises mostly lands already paved for 75 years, pushes the GTAA's business case for Pickering Airport and its supporting roads etc. (currently farmland) a bit further away from approval than it might otherwise be - we could argue about how much, but it ain't zero. Much of YYZ's growth about the current ~30m pax p.a. will come from the 905 and 519 so whatever can be shaved off by drawing 416ers to YTZ the better so that hopefully a government which actually believes in intercity rail might emerge to take another chunk off - look at the fact that AC flies from Pearson to London and Kingston several times a day which in many other places in the world would be handled by rail connections even as slow as VIA's 100mph maximum.

A decent chunk of YTZ's user base could be converted from taxis and other private vehicles to transit via GO Exhibition, GO Union, TTC Bathurst, TTC Union and a looping bus through the Richmond/Adelaide area if the local councillor wouldn't be worried about being called names by Community AIR by requesting additional bus routes and a direct streetcar link to the junction at Queens Quay and Bathurst.

 

[dowlingm]

maybe relocation is the way going forward. it seems like the cheapest way out. some of the buildings in the bathurst quay area aren't looking so great these days anyway. you often hear of stories in china of the oppression and exploitation of citizens in the name of (extreme) progress. i refuse to believe canada is similar. we must be able to think of some way to accommodate.

I think you're being sarcastic but is this a road we need go down? The huge progress of construction in the area between Strachan and Yonge south of Queen says to me that if YTZ has had an effect on people's willingness to live downtown, it isn't to the point of utterly dissuading them and noticeably depressing property values. The nearest resident to the airport is what, a couple of hundred meters away? yet cars on the Gardiner are passing people's windows from a LOT closer than that these days.

That said, Porter are playing a dangerous game by wanting to take YTZ up another level at a time when the populace is already incited by the possible disruptive effects of "Rob Ford and Kathleen Wynne's Casino WonderLand of Unicorns and Happiness".

 

[mettle]

I think you're being sarcastic but is this a road we need go down?

i know i sound extreme, but i am being somewhat serious. if the airport stays within its current limits, i think the neighborhood is fine. however, if air traffic is destined to increase and billy bishop is going to significantly expand beyond its current limits, something should be done. i can't see the situation being sustainable in the long run. there are homes really close to the airport - much, much closer than anything near pearson afaik. (noise dissipates very quickly with distance afaik.) there is an elementary school that can only be accessed by crossing the main street into the airport. so, take out the townhouses. build a hotel with foam walls and extra thick windows. while we're at it, improve the connection with the martin goodman trail.

i think gardiner noise is different than airport/airplane noise. yes, condos are next to the highway, but condos are self-contained entities where people play, workout and entertain inside. the new ones are small and occupied by younger folk who go out often. the residences of bathurst quay are low rises. occupied, afaik, by families. instead of party rooms, they have outdoor courtyards for people to (supposedly) mingle. i guess what i'm saying is that their exposure to noise is different.

 

[kEiThZ]

In reality a good chunk of them coming from other areas of the city would be slamming the already overloaded 401/409/427 interchanges, and those passengers for whom UPX wasn't a suitable option (no matter what David Miller might tell Matt Galloway) would be supporting Mississauga airport cabs, at least on the way into Toronto, and staying in Mississauga hotels to be close for early morning flights. Some others would add load to the inadequate 58, 192 and 300A.

Alternatively, if we assume that the Island Airport was killed off all those passengers were conveyed by UPE to Pearson, I wonder how Weston residents would feel about doubling the number of UPE trains running through their 'hood. After all, UPE is projecting for 5000 riders a day. And 1.9 million flyers at YTZ works out to over 5200 riders per day. And given the growth at Porter we'll talking 3 million pax by the time UPE even comes into service.

I would love hear a condofront resident explain to a Weston resident why they should up with twice as many trains with far more noise and much more emissions closer to their residence than any waterfron resident will be to YTZ.

 

[kEiThZ]

noise and annoying-ness are different. the brain tunes out white noise, even loud white noise. a drippy faucet, though quiet, is quite un-ignorable. anyway, i doubt nef will ever take that in account.

Exactly my point. When you live in quiet suburb you are far more likely to notice an airplane passing overhead (particularly since there are more big boys at Pearson), than noticing a departing Q400 when you live near the Gardiner.

 

[kEiThZ]

i know i sound extreme, but i am being somewhat serious. if the airport stays within its current limits, i think the neighborhood is fine. however, if air traffic is destined to increase and billy bishop is going to significantly expand beyond its current limits, something should be done.

There is a limit to what can be built at Billy Bishop. Everybody knows that. Including Porter. So no, there won't be a significant increase in traffic. Porter simply wants to make the most of the airport that is there now. It's not even in Porter's interest to have a significantly expanded airport. A much larger operation would allow Air Canada and Westjet to break in and start competing with them. As long as there are strict limits on slots and noise, Porter is actually protected from competition.

For example, Westjet is arguing that they could fly in their 737-600 which is the same size as a CS100 (I think they are just scaremongering to sink negotiations but....). It's noisier though. You can bet that Porter will support noise restrictions that restrict noise levels to about the same as the CS100 and Q400. It is specifically why they aren't asking any changes to the noise management policy and regs. It benefits them to keep Westjet out. And they won't support a longer runway than what they are asking for. Why? Because then Air Canada will be pushing in to fly in its Airbus fleet.

The Porter request is very specific for a reason. They don't want to enable their competitors. But it does benefit the community that Porter will be able to expand without creating significant noise impacts. From them, or their competitors.

 

[Peepers]

The Toronto Star has come out with a poll:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._poll_shows_47_of_torontonians_want_jets.html

47% in favour of Jets (up 10% since last September!)
37% opposed to Jets

72% in favour of Island Airport (up 10% since last September!)
20% opposed to an Island Airport

Support highest among downtown residents! As someone who lives downtown this does not surprise me. Porter is my first choice to avoid the inconvenience and stress of Pearson.

So it looks like a bunch of downtown Councillors and a mayoral hopeful (Chow) have come down on the wrong side of the issue.

 

[Hank]

The Toronto Star has come out with a poll:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._poll_shows_47_of_torontonians_want_jets.html

47% in favour of Jets (up 10% since last September!)
37% opposed to Jets

72% in favour of Island Airport (up 10% since last September!)
20% opposed to an Island Airport

Support highest among downtown residents! As someone who lives downtown this does not surprise me. Porter is my first choice to avoid the inconvenience and stress of Pearson.

So it looks like a bunch of downtown Councillors and a mayoral hopeful (Chow) have come down on the wrong side of the issue.

I thought the last paragraph of that article was interesting:

"The poll also found that just over half of Torontonians prefer to use the island airport over Pearson for short trips — in particular, those who live downtown, Progressive Conservative supporters, high-income earners, those who walk or bike, and those who voted for George Smitherman and Joe Pantalone."

Not often that you see Progressive Conservative supporters aligned in interest with bikers and Joe Pantalone voters...I guess the island airport really does bring (almost) everyone together.