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

it is possible to do it without the extension, but it won't feasibly happen without it. it can be mandated as part of the agreement and porter can pay for it with the expansion, but otherwise it would need to come from taxpayers and that would be a really, really low priority right now.

a huge parking lot at the foot of Bathurst? thats the first I've heard of that. My understanding is that Porter is going to keep only taxi spots on mainland, and parking would remain on the island as it is now.. and of course the tunnel is far from a proposal at this point.
 
If like me (and a majority of Toronto residents) you support the introduction of WhisperJets to Billy Bishop Airport make sure that you email members of the executive committee well before next Thursday's meeting to let them know that you are on board with Porters plans!

I already have, but they may not take me too seriously because, all Ford-like, I was all Vancouver! Vancouver!Vancouver! Nassau!
:p
 
a huge parking lot at the foot of Bathurst? thats the first I've heard of that. My understanding is that Porter is going to keep only taxi spots on mainland, and parking would remain on the island as it is now.. and of course the tunnel is far from a proposal at this point.
It was one of the staff suggestions at a recent meeting
 
The executive committee will be meeting on December 5th. to consider the Porter proposal (and the ridiculous report by city staff recommending postponement of a decision until after the next election).

I have put together the following email template that you can use to send your comments and concerns to the executive committee. If you follow this prescribed format your email will actually get added to the Agenda!

Group email address: (simply copy and paste into your email program)

Subject line (simply copy and paste)
My comments for 2013.EX36.7 on December 5, 2013 Executive Committee


In the body of the email

To the City Clerk:

Please add my comments to the agenda for the December 5, 2013 Executive Committee meeting on item 2013.EX36.7, Request to Amend the Tripartite Agreement for Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport

I understand that my comments and the personal information in this email will form part of the public record and that my name will be listed as a correspondent on agendas and minutes of City Council or its committees. Also, I understand that agendas and minutes are posted online and my name may be indexed by search engines like Google.

Comments:

What I have asked is for the executive committee to approve amending the wording of the tripartite agreement to allow for turbofan powered aircraft (not "jets") and that the CSeries be conditionally approved pending demonstration that the noise levels are similar to those of the Q400. Naturally I also ask that they approve lengthening the runway.

According to the report issued by staff last week the city manager has already spent over a Million dollar's on useless studies only to come back asking for 16 more months of studies! In the private sector any manager who came back to his bosses with a report asking for 16 more month of studies would be fired and this is what should happen to the deputy manager (John Livey) in my opinion.

There is no need for further studies. Porter have said that if the aircraft do not meet the noise guarantee's they will not take delivery of them - they are assuming the risk. No need for the city to spend millions more evaluating aircraft noise - just carefully choose the wording making acceptance conditional on Transport Canada certifying the noise levels. This official confirmation will come long before March 2015!
 
Last edited:
Saw this today

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bombardier-ditches-mirabel-for-winter-plane-testing-1.2448000 said:
Bombardier (TSX:BBD.B) said it has conducted more than 200 hours of ground and flight testing on the CSeries. The CS100 test plane has travelled at altitudes of up to 25,000 feet during test flights that have lasted up to four hours long.

"The results so far are very good, the comparisons are really good," he said.

Dewar said it has handed over noise data to Porter Airlines to help it win political support from Toronto City Council.

"All the results are actually a little bit better than predicted, so we're very satisfied with the progress."
 
Saw this today

This is good news but not surprising. Bombardier is known for under-promising and over-delivering. The original noise prediction put the cumulative noise figures for the CSeries at slightly quieter then the Q400 so it looks like they have a comfortable margin.

In light of this new and promising information I don't know how city staffers can maintain the position that they "don't have enough information" on noise and that council needs to postpone any decision until March 2015. Are they going to suggest that we "cannot trust" Bombardier? This is a company that we literally trust our lives to every time we fly on one of their airliners.
 
This is good news but not surprising. Bombardier is known for under-promising and over-delivering. The original noise prediction put the cumulative noise figures for the CSeries at slightly quieter then the Q400 so it looks like they have a comfortable margin.

In light of this new and promising information I don't know how city staffers can maintain the position that they "don't have enough information" on noise and that council needs to postpone any decision until March 2015. Are they going to suggest that we "cannot trust" Bombardier? This is a company that we literally trust our lives to every time we fly on one of their airliners.

Even if this is not enough on its own, you would think that it would be enough to move forward on a "conditional basis". That is to say "yes" to these jets subject to the further testing in 2014 coming in as verifying the projected specs or better. To put off even considering it until after the next election just does not seem justified, or prudent. The conditions could include things like an improved ground transportation plan, etc.

As for trusting Bombardier, well if the city of Toronto does not trust one of its largest industrial employers to be honest and frank you have to wonder how they have trusted them with so much of their transportation equipment needs....a lot of that on a sole source basis too. I don't think "trusting Bombardier" is an issue.
 
Even if this is not enough on its own, you would think that it would be enough to move forward on a "conditional basis". That is to say "yes" to these jets subject to the further testing in 2014 coming in as verifying the projected specs or better. To put off even considering it until after the next election just does not seem justified, or prudent. The conditions could include things like an improved ground transportation plan, etc.

As for trusting Bombardier, well if the city of Toronto does not trust one of its largest industrial employers to be honest and frank you have to wonder how they have trusted them with so much of their transportation equipment needs....a lot of that on a sole source basis too. I don't think "trusting Bombardier" is an issue.

Approving Porter's request on a conditional basis is what I suggested in my email to the Executive Committee and this is all that Robert Deluce has asked for. He has said that if Bombardier cannot meet the stringent noise requirements he will not take delivery of the aircraft.

The decisions facing city council are - and always have been - very simple ones.

Do they agree to a slight modification of the tripartite wording that would permit turbofan powered aircraft in addition to turboprop aircraft? You don't need to be an aeronautical engineer or commission expensive consultant studies to know that for all practical purposes there is very little difference between a turbofan and turboprop aircraft engine. They essentially work the same way.

The second question they need to consider is do they approve of the CSeries "Jet"? The only basis that they would have for rejecting this aircraft would be if it was noisier than the existing Q400's. Again the city doesn't need to hire expensive consultants - all they need to do is say to Porter we approve this aircraft on the basis that it is as quiet as Bombardier says it is. The fear-mongers will say that "noise is not the issue". That the real issue is passenger traffic and they will point to the fact that the CSeries holds more passengers. Yes it is true that the CSeries hold more passengers - about 30 more than the Q400 but what is also true is that it has a much longer range. What this means is a CSeries serving the Toronto / Los Angeles route will take-off and land only ONCE a day at Billy Bishop whereas a Q400 serving the Ottawa / Toronto route will take-off at least FOUR TIMES a day! In this example one CSeries airliner will result in 220 passengers a day arriving and departing Billy Bishop whereas one Q400 will load the terminal with 360 passengers.

The final issue is the lengthening of the runway and again there is no need to spend years on exhaustive studies on the impact of this minor infill of the lake. Considering how much of our treasured waterfront is on landfill I cannot see any reasonable objection to putting landfill into the lake. How much further do we extend the Leslie street spit into Lake Ontario using landfill each year? I don't recall anyone expressing concerns about this.

What has happened so far is a complete disgrace. The deputy city manager has - according to the last report - spent over a $Million on consultants (when none were needed) and he now comes back and says that he needs another 16 months to study these three simple issues. The money is not coming from the taxpayers but it will be billed to the TPA who will then pass the costs along to the passengers.
 
Josh Matlow tweeted tonight that he is getting more email's on the Porter plans than on any other issue which prompted a question from Andrew Coyne if they are "pro or con"

Andrew Coyne ‏@acoyne 16m
@JoshMatlow @ppreville Pro or con?
Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite More
12:00 AM - 3 Dec 13 · Details

Josh Matlow ‏@JoshMatlow 13m
@acoyne @ppreville I'm receiving many from both sides. But at this point, more from Porter's supporters.
Expand

Without question a majority of Toronto residents (even those living downtown!) are on board with Porter's plans. Hopefully the politicians will heed the will of the people. Unfortunately they often do not. In Edmonton the voters were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping Edmonton's City Airport open. The local council - bowing to the pressure of developers ignored the will of the people. Last week - on a sad day for Edmonton - the City Airport was closed for good.

http://globalnews.ca/news/999859/737-takes-off-from-city-centre-airport-lands-safely-at-new-home/
 
According to Environmental Noise Guideline issued by Ontario Ministry of the Environment indoor aircraft noise limit given for living/dining/den areas of residences, hospitals, schools,
nursing/retirement homes and daycare centers is "NEF 5", which is approximately Leq, 24hr 36-39dBA. As per FAA, this should be applicable as Leq, 8hr for schools for the duration of 8-hour school day.

If you want a conditional approval, then this should be the condition.

Task TPA, as London City Airport did, install permanent static noise monitoring stations and continuously monitor noise exposure. If it exceeds allowed values set by Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Health, then take action to mitigate the risks, as London City Airport did, expropriate any unit which falls under unacceptable limits, pay for sound insulation costs for salvageable units, move the daycare and school, etc.

Further to that, no noise-sensitive development should be permitted within the NEF 30 contour, which is approximately Leq, 24hr 61-64 dBA (Kissing goodbye all condo developments on the waterfront may be a good side effect of this, who knows - but don't forget to kiss goodbye Ontario Place too)

And this is just for noise, similar conditions should be set for air pollution, traffic, etc.

Fair?
 
WT Board Statement:

Waterfront Toronto’s Board of Directors, in its capacity as the agency entrusted by the federal, provincial and city governments and the public to be the steward of waterfront revitalization, held a special meeting today to discuss the issue of the proposed expansion of operations at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA).

The decision regarding the expansion of BBTCA is a generational question, with impacts that can potentially profoundly affect both the significant achievements that have already been made to transform the waterfront into a destination to live, work and play, and the future revitalization prospects for the entire Waterfront.

At today’s meeting, the Board of Directors approved the following position, which is contained in a letter to the City of Toronto Executive Council:

The serious transportation, road congestion and community impact issues created by the airport’s current operations need to be addressed before considering expansion and the potential exacerbation of these issues. For example, the City of Toronto technical studies show that the proposed expansion could more than double peak car volumes at Eireann Quay from 750 per hour to 1,715 per hour.

We are also concerned that the Tri-Partite Agreement inadequately protects the waterfront given that it already allows significant expansion from the current 2.3 million passengers per year to at least 3.8 million per year with currently approved technology. Any re-opening of the Agreement should look carefully at appropriate caps for airport operations as is done in many other airports in city environments.

Given the findings of the City of Toronto’s review, the problematic conditions for transportation and traffic created by the airport’s current operations, Waterfront Toronto believes that expansion has the potential to create significant risks for waterfront revitalization.

There is a clear vision for the waterfront being implemented now that is transforming our waterfront. What is required is a clear vision and decision on the appropriate scale for BBTCA within a thriving waterfront. Specifically, how large can the airport become before a tipping point is reached that overwhelms and threatens the present and future potential of the waterfront?

No decision on expansion should proceed without the information required to make this generational decision.

Waterfront Toronto is successfully leading the planning and implementation of the largest urban regeneration project in North American and one of the largest in the world. The more than $1.26 billion in public funds invested to date have already generated commitments of $2.6 billion in development investments, which will return $1.46 billion in revenues to governments as well as catalyzing an additional $9.6 billion in private sector investment.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/1999/11/statement_on_billy_bishop_expansion

Dec 2 WT Board Presentation:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/bbtca_special_board_meeting_presentation_1.pdf

Board Letter to Exec Committee:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo...e_committee_re_bbtca___december_2__2013_1.pdf

AoD
 
Last edited:

Back
Top