If the expansion is "very modest" how would it have a "substantial" economic benefit to this city? The modifiers you've used do not equate. I think that actual numbers would put the lie to that sort of weasel language.
It's only weasel language to those who don't understand the physics of how airplanes work or what any engineer would define as "substantial". I doubt you'll find any engineer who thinks this runway expansion is some grand challenge. I'd say the tunnel was a much bigger deal and probably had a much higher environmental impact (with regards to construction).
And yes, it's not a contradiction. The extra thousand feet is at best 25% extension (not quite in reality because a lot will be going to the required over-run areas), but that extensions would allow Porter to operate flights across the continent. I expect there will be a noticeable decline in trans-continental fares making it much cheaper for tourists and businesspeople from Vancouver and Calgary to visit Toronto. That benefit will be disproportionate to any impact that the runway will have (which in reality will be negligible).
Schadenfreude.
But this is not what I'm trying to discuss, I don't even want to go there; doesn't worth it. My concern is ethics, I can live near an airport but I cannot live with corruption around me.
Oh please. You aren't concerned about ethics. If you were, you'd be here armed with facts and not insinuations and conjecture. You're a NIMBY crying crocodile tears about ethics. It's no different than Community AIR taking up for the strikers at Porter. I'm sure they are so concerned for them that they'd rather see their work conditions improve by ensuring they don't work again!
Why aren't other runway options being considered such as only extending the runway to the west or building a new airport elsewhere on The Island by doing a landswap with the city? I support a bigger airport and more service but limiting it to TPA lands seems too limiting, confrontational and simple-minded. We need a mature, calm planning discussion with more options than ones presented.
Every other runway would have a much higher impact on the city, since it would involve approaches and departures over the downtown core. Unacceptable.
And there isn't really room anywhere else on the Island for a swap. And again, that's aside from the reality that relocation would probably lead to a higher impact on the city too.
If the runway is extended, won't the marine exclusion zone have to be extended also?
I don't get why this myth won't die. Porter has said it won't need to be extended. The TPA has said it won't need to be extended. And sheer logic will tell you it won't need to be extended. The general goal of the MEZ is to ensure that boats (particularly those with masts) don't interfere with air traffic and vice versa. Even with this extension, aircraft are lifting off substantially behind the runway edge (because of the safety area....pilots can't incorporate this length into take-off calculations). This means that aircraft will be fairly high crossing the MEZ boundary (I would guess 100-200ft....well beyond the 50 ft. minimum required by law). There is no worry of a collision between an aircraft and a mast. And just to be really safe, the airport is usually informed when there are tall ships in the harbour. And they are usually advised to maintain clearance from the MEZ.
Those crowing about the MEZ being extended are largely boaters who have gotten so used to violating the MEZ over the last couple of years that the TPA actually enforcing the MEZ strikes them as an extension! It's nothing of the sort.
