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

[Dan416]

Porter's or Bombardier's success or failure cannot be tied to BB Airport. I am sure Porter can be as successful at Pearson too.

Porter's business model is based on operating out of YTZ.

If Toronto City Council would be so blind as to harm Bombardier and Porter, they would only be shooting themselves in the foot. Win for those two companies are wins for Toronto as a city, and Canada's economy as a whole.

I for one do not want to see Bombardier become another Nortel or BlackBerry. We have so few companies left, it would be nice to keep ONE that (sorta) competes with Boeing and Airbus and is actually known globally. I really believe Bombardier is a global brand. I see Bombardier streetcars in Poland, Bombardier subways in Toronto, Bombardier jets run by Delta in the US, etc.

 

[Cinnamon]

From the staff report:

Toronto Public Health (TPH) retained Golder Associates Ltd. to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA), which examined the potential health implications of the BBTCA’s current operations as well as potential expansion to include jets. Highlights of the findings are described below, and will also be addressed independently in a report from the Medical Officer of Health to the Board of Health meeting on December 9, 2013.

The HIA found that the central waterfront population is already exposed to elevated health risks from air pollution, noise, and traffic that originate from many sources, including the airport:

Current levels of air pollutants exceed health benchmarks and contribute to the overall existing burden of respiratory, cardiovascular, and cancer-related illness in Toronto. The BBTCA including related traffic contributes 10-15% of air pollution for people closest to the airport, with the balance originating from non-airport traffic, small industrial and commercial sources, home furnaces, and air pollution from other parts of Ontario and United States.

In the absence of BBTCA, noise levels would already exceed health guidelines which have been established to prevent annoyance, sleep disturbance and impaired children's learning performance in most locations considered, mainly as a result of traffic in the area. The HIA suggests that BBTCA noise increases some adverse effects by up to 12% in some locations.

Current traffic conditions around the airport increase the risk of injuries especially for vulnerable pedestrians including children. Traffic congestion hampers access to recreational, health, and community services in the area, which provide a health benefit to people who use them.

The airport is an important contributor to these risks, based on the HIA of current operations compared with a baseline of no airport.

The HIA also indicates that the airport is currently affecting health by diminishing the quality of local parks, community character, and cultural events. As well, the airport contributes to climate change and introduces risks of aircraft accidents and spills or explosions from fuels and other chemicals in a densely populated area.

It is well established that some groups of people are more vulnerable to health risks than others, including groups with lower incomes, children and seniors, and those with underlying medical conditions such as pre-existing respiratory illness. An examination of the TPH Ward Health Profiles for this diverse and evolving area showed that, compared to the Toronto average, their residents are more likely to be living on low income. They may also include a higher proportion of children who are vulnerable in terms of readiness to learn, higher injury rates especially among children, and higher rates of lung and heart disease. The airport may contribute to the existing health burden among vulnerable people living in these areas.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-64318.pdf

 

[innsertnamehere]

TPA is a federal agency and operating a federal airport on Canadian soil. Once they record an income from their operations, it belongs to the Federal Government, thus all Canadians. They cannot claim ownership of that money and spend to promote business of a private company. I expect them to pay their taxes first, and return the excess amount of profit (if any) to the federal budget.

or you know, as a crown corporation they can invest it into the airport and return even larger profits to the government and therefore Canadians. wooing Porter means more fees paid to the airport and therefore more income for the TPA.

No it is not. Only tunnel project costs 80+ million dollars and TPA is planning to charge $20 per passenger to cover the cost of it. It is still not clear who will pay for the cost of the airport expansion (definitely not Porter), which may cost 10 times more than the tunnel itself.

A passenger is not a taxpayer, it is a customer. people who do not use the tunnel will not pay for it, that simple. I struggle to believe that some lake fill will cost $800 million, I'm thinking $150-$200 tops. And of course, paid for through user fees as the TPA and Porter are proposing.

Once tripartite agreement is amended we (tax payers) will be liable to pay all expansion costs to ensure Porter continues its operations thanks to "confidential" agreement signed between TPA and Porter.

airport fees. airport fees. airport fees. taxpayers do not pay. taxpayers do not pay. taxpayers do not pay.

even if we did, it is generally considered a good thing for the public to pay for airport expansions is it not? it has been occurring for nearly a century now.

Again, once a passenger pays a $20 fee to a Federal Agency, it belongs to Canadian Government and all Canadians. Therefore I expect it to be utilized to improve services at the main airport which serves ALL, instead of tunneling that money to an airport which serves mostly to ONE private company.

you seriously think that a $20 fee is levied across canada to pay for the tunnel? the fee is at the island airport only, meaning only people who use the tunnel pay for it.

I am not even going into billions being poured into development of the Waterfront and Union-Pearson rail connection.

why can't both be successful? Pearson is going to be hitting maximum capacity in 15 years anyway, thus the need for Pickering. even with the Jets, pearson will still be handling 15x the traffic that Billy Bishop does. (60 million vs. 4 million)

our waterfront seems to be doing just fine today, with condos popping up along it, RBC moving its headquarters to it, condos selling out in mere weeks.

It is way too many than what it was allowed for. TPA gradually increased allowed movements from 70s to 202 through playing with NEF calculations without executing any real impact assessment. Entire waterfront neighborhood which supposed to be "noise sensitive" area is now turning into a noisy, dirty airport neighborhood.

yes they increased movements because of increased demand. of course there were only 70 daily flights 10 years ago, there were no commercial operators then.

Agree. Do you have a solution for that which will not cost billions of dollars?

move? part of living downtown.

It does. This is their mandate:

"Major facilities such as airports, transportation/rail infrastructure, corridors and yards, waste management facilities and industries and sensitive land uses such as residencies and educational and health facilities will be appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent adverse effects from noise, vibration, odour and other contaminants, and to promote safety. To assist in identifying impacts and mitigative measures, the proponent may be required to prepare studies in accordance with guidelines established for this purpose. The proponent will be responsible for implementing any required mitigative measures".

thats the whole point of this study, to determine if the airport is within these guidelines. it also has a grandfather clause attached to it. you can't rezone land and kick out existing users as they have property rights. the land remains zoned as an airport until it is no longer an active site. the property owners (in this case the federal government) have the right to continue their operations as they received approval for the operations at one point in the past. because of this grandfather clause, it is up to the new land users (condo owners) to assess the pros and cons of living beside an airport. You do not move beside an airport and demand it be closed. As I said, it is the same with Redpaths and Lafarge, the city had to completely rework the portlands plan to accommodate Lafarge operations.

 

[Cinnamon]

Porter's business model is based on operating out of YTZ.

Downtown location provides an advantage, no doubt. However with Union-Pearson express it won't be as significant. Also with proposed expansion probably it would take more time to reach BB Airport from Bay Street that Person too.

People like Porter because they don't have to wait long lines,they get free drinks and nuts, and planes are not crowded (actually generally empty). They mostly serve business passengers who love the fact there are no screaming kids around. It won't be same when you load that tiny airport with 4m passengers per annum flying Disneyland and Caribbean.

It is not unusual for such boutique airlines to have their own dedicated terminals in major airports to provide same or better level of services. Porter can do that too. Cost of such terminal would be definitely less than $80m tunnel project alone. (But, hey, in that case they cannot use TPA's budget right? they have to pay themselves, not acceptable I guess)

If Toronto City Council would be so blind as to harm Bombardier and Porter, they would only be shooting themselves in the foot. Win for those two companies are wins for Toronto as a city, and Canada's economy as a whole.

I for one do not want to see Bombardier become another Nortel or BlackBerry. We have so few companies left, it would be nice to keep ONE that (sorta) competes with Boeing and Airbus and is actually known globally. I really believe Bombardier is a global brand. I see Bombardier streetcars in Poland, Bombardier subways in Toronto, Bombardier jets run by Delta in the US, etc.

As an engineer, I really like Bombardier and what they offer. I think we are doing more harm to them than good by establishing a link between their success and BB Airport.

 

[Cinnamon]

It is up to the new land users (condo owners) to assess the pros and cons of living beside an airport. You do not move beside an airport and demand it be closed. As I said, it is the same with Redpaths and Lafarge, the city had to completely rework the portlands plan to accommodate Lafarge operations.

This is a very common and very wrong argument.

I moved into area after carefully reviewing the tripartite agreement and NEF contours published by TPA. According to both, my unit remains in the "noise sensitive" zone, even further than the quietest NEF 25 contour. Therefore, technically I should not even notice if there is an airport there.

I demand TPA, Federal Government and City of Toronto to execute the tripartite agreement and protect my rights as a resident and citizen.

Similarly, Porter Airlines established in 2006, knowing that they will be neighboring a noise sensitive residential area and limitations of the tripartite agreement. Now it is Porter Airlines who doesn't want to stick to the agreement, and demand an amended to their benefit.

Please remember, tripartite agreement is there to protect the rights of the residents as well as the airport operations.

 

[Cinnamon]

airport fees. airport fees. airport fees. taxpayers do not pay. taxpayers do not pay. taxpayers do not pay.

We do, may be not as directly as you mention, but we do.

TPA is funneling $20 per passenger to finance development of an airport which serves almost entirely ONE private company. If those passengers use Pearson Airport, than that money would be used to finance development of Pearson Airport or Union-Pearson Express which both serve everybody. We still have tons of capacity at Pearson Airport and with current ridership estimates probably Union Pearson express would not be able to finance itself and will require subsidization. I don't think we are rich and ready enough for two airports.

 

[Peepers]

A common refrain that you hear from the no-jets crowd is ........ "no other *world class* city in the world would allow jets to land downtown".

Actually there are quite a few world class cities - including some much bigger and more important than Toronto - that have airports downtown (often on water) that are served by Jets!

Will Toronto join the ranks of these world class cities by allowing Jets to serve the Island Airport or will our politicians chicken out and vote once again to keep Toronto second rate?

I put together a collection of video's showing landings and departures from these airports.

Buckle up and enjoy the flights!

Rio de Janiero / Santos Dumont Airport
If you think that landing at Billy Bishop is exciting - check out the breathtaking approach over the soaring skyscrapers and sun-drenched beaches of this - the most glamorous city in the world!
http://youtu.be/D567CdywIlU

Buenos Aires / Jorge Newberry Airport
Just a mere mile from the very heart of the city - jets taking off and landing are all part of the Latin rhythm of this major South American metropolis
http://youtu.be/Qc0EdESHgSc

Stockholm / Bromma Airport
Less than five miles from the heart of this eco-conscious capital of Sweden - Bromma Airport has long been served by Jets. In 2015 - the Avro RJ85 Jet seen in this video will be replaced by the environmentally friendly CSeries "WhisperJet" - operated by Malmö Aviation
http://youtu.be/Oa4tHJ9RkPM

Last but not least.......

London / City Airport
"The Shard" Tower, Tower Bridge, Canary Wharf and The O2 Arena are just a few of the world famous landmarks that you can see out your window as you make a breathtaking rapid descent by Jet into the heart of London's financial district.
http://youtu.be/kDNd1o4B9qc

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Will Toronto join the ranks of these world class cities by allowing Jets to serve the Island Airport or will our politicians chicken out and vote once again to keep Toronto second rate?

Whether a city is world-class or not has nothing to do with whether there is an airport right by the core - it's not a pro/con issue.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The certification process for an aircraft takes about one year from first flight. The city doesn't need to have TC official certification in order to make a determination on the noise characteristics of the aircraft. They can make reliable measurements based on the test aircraft that are now in operation. If need be I am sure that Bombardier would be happy to fly one of the test aircraft to Downsview so that council members can listen with their own ears.

Really? I sure hope you don't work in a position that requires assessment or QC.

As for Norm Kelly's position did he say he wants to "rush" the decision before the next election? I haven't heard that. The plan was always to have a decision this year.

See the following quote - from the Globe and Mail:

But Mr. Kelly expressed doubt Mayor Ford could win his bid for re-election and said he is concerned a left-wing administration could take power and quash the airport expansion entirely if council doesn't act now.

"Right now all the polling that's done doesn't indicate the success of that candidacy. It points in the other direction. In anticipation of that I think we've got to bring this issue to the forefront and decide on it."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ions-stall-amid-noise-debate/article15647386/

I doubt if the staffers at city hall view Norm Kelly (or Rob Ford) as their "boss" (do you?). I think many of them have a left wing bent and they push their own political agenda.

What you think is one thing - what is is another. Don't transpose your own beliefs into a statement of fact regarding what actually is. This ain't X-files.

AoD

 

[PinkLucy]

Whether a city is world-class or not has nothing to do with whether there is an airport right by the core - it's not a pro/con issue.

AoD

Sadly, a lot of people use that argument. Just yesterday I saw someone who claimed that Toronto is provincial as evidenced by those who don't want jets at Billy Bishop.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Sadly, a lot of people use that argument. Just yesterday I saw someone who claimed that Toronto is provincial as evidenced by those who don't want jets at Billy Bishop.

Well, not to mention there is something cringe-worthy about the "world class city" crowd anyways.

There is a case to be made for TIA, and even using jets, but I think the major question that really should be asked is what kind of airport do we envision for the site, and how will it affect waterfront revitalization. Having an extended runway jutting out into what is prime recreation space, along with increased aircraft traffic is something that bears close scrutiny and really shouldn't be made on the fly, just because some private company want it on a timeline of their choosing.

AoD

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Peepers, it appears that you are something of an airplane fanboy, so I'm inclined to think that you are unable to make a rational assessment of the pros and cons of airport expansion from the perspective of those of us who don't appreciate planes buzzing by all day.

Billy Bishop is 3.3KM (2.1 miles) from Bay & King, and much closer to the waterfront condos. London City Airport, the most often used example of a similar airport, is 8 miles from the City of London and located in a primarily industrial area. It is also quite unpopular with local residents.

Bromma Airport appears to have a buffer in the form of forest on the east and industrial lands on the west, and as you say even it is 5 miles from downtown Stockholm.

The other two are located in developing countries that are not particularly known for being particularly pleasant places to live, so I think they are poor comparisons points for us here.

I too think the UPX is going to be a game-changer. That cab ride to Pearson from downtown (and having to assume an hour for the trip for most of the day) is a real drag, and once that's gone Pearson will be much more competitive.

 

[picard102]

Peepers, it appears that you are something of an airplane fanboy, so I'm inclined to think that you are unable to make a rational assessment of the pros and cons of airport expansion from the perspective of those of us who don't appreciate planes buzzing by all day.

DarnDirtyApe, it appears that you are something of a waterfront nimby, so I'm inclined to think that you are unable to make a rational assessment of the pros and cons of airport expansion from the perspective of those of us who didn't chose to live next to an airport.

Pretty fun eh?

 

[Cinnamon]

DarnDirtyApe, it appears that you are something of a waterfront nimby, so I'm inclined to think that you are unable to make a rational assessment of the pros and cons of airport expansion from the perspective of those of us who didn't chose to live next to an airport.

Pretty fun eh?

No it is stupid. It is not nimbysim to demand a healthy living environment, especially if you are living in a area classified as residential.

Last time I checked, Waterfront was a residential and noise sensitive area and City of Toronto has a legal obligation to provide a healthy living environment in residential areas. If some reason it is not possible anymore, such area cannot be classified as residential and people should be relocated.

This is why there is a tripartite agreement and this is why we want it to be executed properly.

 

[Cinnamon]

Peepers, it appears that you are something of an airplane fanboy, so I'm inclined to think that you are unable to make a rational assessment of the pros and cons of airport expansion from the perspective of those of us who don't appreciate planes buzzing by all day.

Billy Bishop is 3.3KM (2.1 miles) from Bay & King, and much closer to the waterfront condos. London City Airport, the most often used example of a similar airport, is 8 miles from the City of London and located in a primarily industrial area. It is also quite unpopular with local residents.

It is also more strictly monitored and controlled. Taken from updated (2009) regulations of London City Airport:

The existing approved operating hours have been maintained under the 2009 planning approval. The Airport is permitted to operate flights between the following hours:

i) 06.30 and 22.30 on weekdays
ii) 06.30 and 13.00 on Saturdays
iii) 12.30 and 22.30 on Sundays
iv) 09.00 and 22.30 on Public or Bank Holidays
v) Full closure on 25th December

There is a 24 hour period of closure from Saturday lunchtime to Sunday lunchtime. The final 30 minutes of operation on every day of the week is solely for flights scheduled earlier which have been unavoidably delayed.

In July 2009 the LBN granted planning permission to increase the total number of permitted aircraft movements to 120,000 per year, including both scheduled and private operations.

Strict limits are also applied to the number of daily aircraft movements.

i) 100 per day on Saturdays, 200 per day on Sundays, but no more than 280 on any consecutive Saturday and Sunday
ii) 592 per weekday, except for Public or Bank Holidays, specifically:
iii) 132 on 1st January
iv) 164 on Good Friday
v) 198 on Easter Monday
vi) 248 on May Day
vii) 230 on late May Bank Holiday
viii) 230 on late August Bank Holiday
ix) 100 on 26th December

There are also limits for aircraft movements which occur during specific operational periods:

x) 400 aircraft movements per calendar year or 150 in any consecutive 3 months between 22.00 and 22.30 hours, or 12.30 and 13.00 hours on a Saturday
xi) 6 aircraft movements between 06.30 and 06.59 hours with no more than 2 in the first fifteen minutes.

The 120,000 aircraft movements per year limit also applies to Noise Factored movements. All aircraft movements have a numerical factor applied (see Table 2.1), which relates to the level of departure noise each aircraft produces, e.g. the loudest aircraft type has a noise factor of 1.26, the quietest, 0.08. Noise Factored movements should also not exceed the permitted number of aircraft movements for that week by more than 25%.

Link to full report: http://www.londoncityairport.com/con...lan 2012.pdf