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

[nfitz]

As it stands, I don't want jets on the island airport. I don't care about the noise impact.

The survey indicated that jets are quieter in take off and landing than existing planes that are allowed. Wouldn't you want jets if you care about noise impact?

I am more concerned about the impact to the local wildlife, and I am pretty sure extending the runway will have a significant impact on the harbour.

How is wildlife impacted by quieter take off and landings? For that matter, how would they be impacted by louder take off and landings ... doesn't seem to be much wildlife around there, except squirrels ... and a small populations of bears on the lake just north of the airport.

In what what way does extending the runway have a significant impact on the harbour? Boats won't be stopped from going around. Isn't the amount of lakefill required for this pretty insignificant compared compared to the ongoing lakefilling on the north side of Leslie spit, that you can only see from the lake?

 

[Dan416]

Is it just me or is that survey somewhat/very biased?

 

[nfitz]

Is it just me or is that survey somewhat/very biased?

Very biased - seems to be geared against the expansion. Seems to be ignoring the issues if they don't expand. It asked about other concerns, and I raised all the people currently driving all the way to Mississauga, instead of using a local airport.

 

[CanadianNational]

Ever since The Port Authority bullied and sued it's way against the city back when Miller had started (courtesy, notably, of one Lisa Raitt) and Porter slid into the gap opened up, I vowed I'd never fly that damned airline, and never have.

Boycott Porter Airlines.

It is not right that a single business is capable of influencing, for the worse, such a large, precious and unique area in the city. Toronto's not lacking for landspace. That airport could go anywhere. But no - Porter had to stick it right where no one could miss it, and stick it to the city in the process. Now he's edging on breaking his earlier promises about no jets and no expansion. Great - so the harbour becomes an adjunct to an industrial-scale transport operation.

The harbour could be entirely unified in delight, accessiblity, urbanity and ease. That Porter is about to stymie this, and make it impossible to realize for the foreseeable future, has me dead set against them.

 

[Peepers]

Is it just me or is that survey somewhat/very biased?

I got the feeling that the survey was biased also. I had to re-read some questions two or three times because they were written in such a way that you could be tricked into placing a negative response.

The other thing that I don't like is the choice of location for the town hall meeting.

The town hall meeting and one of the "workshops" is being held at Direct Energy Centre on the CNE grounds which we all know does not have very good TTC links (except when the "EX" is on). The Direct Energy Centre is however just a five minute walk for the residents Bathurst Quay and the adjoining yacht club. This is the epicenter for the resistance against airport expansion (mostly from wealthy members of the Yacht club who don't even live on the waterfront!).

If this was a public meeting to discuss the construction of a condo it would be fine to hold the meeting at a nearby venue. The expansion of Billy Bishop airport effects all Torontonians and they should have picked a location for the town hall that is more accessible by public transit to ALL residents of Toronto.

Thanks to this decision (which shows a real bias on the part of the bureaucrat who made the decision ) we can expect that the town hall meeting will be hijacked by residents of Bathhurst Quay and the Yacht club and that they will have an undue influence on the final decision.

 

[Peepers]

Very biased - seems to be geared against the expansion. Seems to be ignoring the issues if they don't expand. It asked about other concerns, and I raised all the people currently driving all the way to Mississauga, instead of using a local airport.

I did the same thing! When asked if I had other "concerns" I said I was concerned about increased pollution the result of having passengers drive (or take a diesel powered train) all the way out to Mississauga. This is not an insignificant concern when you stop and think Billy Bishop currently serves 2 Million passengers and it could eventually handle 10 Million passengers. The impact on the environment if all these passengers had to trek out to Mississauga cannot be ignored. Funny how the NDP and other lefties who like to push green-this and green-that are against this environmentally sound proposal to expand Billy Bishop and open it to an new energy efficient type of jet (the CSeries uses 20% less fuel than similar sized aircraft!).

 

[picard102]

That airport could go anywhere. But no - Porter had to stick it right where no one could miss it, and stick it to the city in the process.

The airport existed long before Porter. This sort of selective history should be embarrassing for someone who's at all reasonable.

 

[CanadianNational]

True, of course the airport had been there since the '30's or so. But Miller's election showed that people's sympathies were with having airport gone, and it looked like it might finally be on the way out. It had been stale for a while, then eyeing profits, the Port Authority started stirring the pot. A lot of people had started looking forward to the time when that part of the islands might be rejoined to the whole, and the islands could be a complete, entirely accessible entity, and not gigantically truncated and cut off on one side.

But Porter got in there are kept the facility going. Sure, perhaps someone else would have, but it doesn't free them of the burden of being our resident pain-in-the-ass, with their high-handed drives. Hence, my grouchiness. An itching rash on the Port Authority as well, while I'm at it.

 

[rbt]

... open it to an new energy efficient type of jet (the CSeries uses 20% less fuel than similar sized aircraft!).

Is that similar sized aircraft currently in the wild or similar sized aircraft brand new from Boeing and friends?

The big selling point of the 777 is that it used something like ~30% less fuel than the 747's airlines currently had for that passenger load.

The 787 is about 20% more fuel efficient than the 767 which it is replacing (similar size/range).

Actually, one of the selling points of the 747 in the 70's was that it used about 30% less fuel per passenger than the alternatives provided you could fill all of the seats.

20% over competitors new offerings is a big deal. 20% over aircraft which are an average of 15 years old (30 year lifespan) is just keeping up. If it's mostly the engines and material improvements (rather than a unique design), then CSeries isn't going to be anything special.

 

[Peepers]

True, of course the airport had been there since the '30's or so. But Miller's election showed that people's sympathies were with having airport gone, and it looked like it might finally be on the way out. It had been stale for a while, then eyeing profits, the Port Authority started stirring the pot. A lot of people had started looking forward to the time when that part of the islands might be rejoined to the whole, and the islands could be a complete, entirely accessible entity, and not gigantically truncated and cut off on one side.

But Porter got in there are kept the facility going. Sure, perhaps someone else would have, but it doesn't free them of the burden of being our resident pain-in-the-ass, with their high-handed drives. Hence, my grouchiness. An itching rash on the Port Authority as well, while I'm at it.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history of the airport.

Regularly scheduled commercial service began in 1984 with CityExpress Airlines using four engine "Dash 7's" (much noisier than today's Q-400's).

David Miller was elected in 2003, i.e. when Miller came to office the Island Airport had been in continued commercial service with regularly scheduled carriers for almost 20 years (of course the airport itself had been in existence decades before that. During WW2 the Norwegian Air Force used the airport as a training base which is why the park nearby is called "Little Norway").

In 1984 when regularly scheduled commercial service began there were no co-op's or condo's in the area of Bathhurst Quay instead it was one big open public park. Ironically the residents of what was once a public park want the airport to be turned into a park for their enjoyment.

I don't see any merit in turning the airport into a public park that can be "rejoined" with the rest of the Island. I think if that were to happen we would see the demise of the Island Ferries as the tunnel would become the sole access point to the Islands. Without the ferries the Islands would lose a big part of their magical quality and just become another city park.

 

[Peepers]

Is that similar sized aircraft currently in the wild or similar sized aircraft brand new from Boeing and friends?

.

This 20% less fuel burn per seat is in comparison with the current generation Boeing 737-500 / 737-600 and Airbus A318 / A319 which are similar in size. Of course the CSeries has an advantage over larger variants of these aircraft such at the 737-900 and A320. Boeing and Airbus are coming out with new versions (Boeing MAX and Airbus NEO) that will feature geared turbofan's similar to those used on the CSeries. The new engines will make them more efficient but the CSeries will still enjoy a slight advantage owing to the fact that it is a clean-sheet design incorporating all the latest weight-saving materials.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Ever since The Port Authority bullied and sued it's way against the city back when Miller had started (courtesy, notably, of one Lisa Raitt) and Porter slid into the gap opened up, I vowed I'd never fly that damned airline, and never have.

Boycott Porter Airlines.

It is not right that a single business is capable of influencing, for the worse, such a large, precious and unique area in the city. Toronto's not lacking for landspace. That airport could go anywhere. But no - Porter had to stick it right where no one could miss it, and stick it to the city in the process. Now he's edging on breaking his earlier promises about no jets and no expansion. Great - so the harbour becomes an adjunct to an industrial-scale transport operation.

The harbour could be entirely unified in delight, accessiblity, urbanity and ease. That Porter is about to stymie this, and make it impossible to realize for the foreseeable future, has me dead set against them.

Show me where an airport can be built brand new in Toronto without having massive protests. Pickering has shown that a new airport will face protests an order of magnitude greater than what we are seeing against the Island airport.

Why can't we use an existing asset? It's not like Porter/Island airport isn't making an (alleged) profit.

 

[Panontario]

Ever since The Port Authority bullied and sued it's way against the city back when Miller had started (courtesy, notably, of one Lisa Raitt) and Porter slid into the gap opened up, I vowed I'd never fly that damned airline, and never have.

Boycott Porter Airlines.

It is not right that a single business is capable of influencing, for the worse, such a large, precious and unique area in the city. Toronto's not lacking for landspace. That airport could go anywhere. But no - Porter had to stick it right where no one could miss it, and stick it to the city in the process. Now he's edging on breaking his earlier promises about no jets and no expansion. Great - so the harbour becomes an adjunct to an industrial-scale transport operation.

The harbour could be entirely unified in delight, accessiblity, urbanity and ease. That Porter is about to stymie this, and make it impossible to realize for the foreseeable future, has me dead set against them.

I wonder where you live... You must live right across from the airport to be making such comments.

 

[PinkLucy]

The test flights may not be far off: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...id=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Peepers]

The test flights may not be far off: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...id=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Yes it looks like on or before September 17th. this beautiful bird will take flight for the first time!

Photo credit: Patrick Cardinal / Airliners.net