CapitalSeven
Senior Member
Wouldn't a gondola be a lot cheaper and easier than trying to push behemoths up and down a steep bridge over cold open water (what could go wrong?)?
Wouldn't a gondola be a lot cheaper and easier than trying to push behemoths up and down a steep bridge over cold open water (what could go wrong?)?
https://www.facebook.com/events/485825274047236/There is a public meeting about the runway extension on 17 July...
![]()
Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association (BQNA) | Facebook
www.facebook.com
(RESA = Runway End Safety Area)The construction of RESA will not lengthen the active runway... The boundaries and size of the existing Marine Exclusion Zone will also remain unchanged.
There was a card in my mailbox. My immediate reaction was that it seemed a little weird, creepy, and suspicious that they're trying to get people to join some sort of campaign to tell them how great they are, without any mention of why, or what it is they're trying to accomplish.Negotiations must be starting on airport gate as the media campaign has begun!
![]()
It's My Airport
www.itsmyairport.ca
Forget the gondola. Monorail to the Island!Wouldn't a gondola be a lot cheaper and easier than trying to push behemoths up and down a steep bridge over cold open water (what could go wrong?)?
Probably! But why settle for cheaper?? Imagine a seamless streetcar ride from Union, Exhibition or Bathurst, crossing over the western gap, gazing over the harbour and arriving at an incredible destination on the island, magically transported from the city??Wouldn't a gondola be a lot cheaper and easier than trying to push behemoths up and down a steep bridge over cold open water (what could go wrong?)?
There is a public meeting about the runway extension on 17 July.
![]()
Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association (BQNA) | Facebook
www.facebook.com
As previously mentioned, using existing land for RESAs would shorten the operational length of the main runway, reduce the maximum allowable take-off weight (with less fuel) of the Q400 turboprop planes used by Porter and Air Canada Express/Jazz, and presumably stop them from being able to reach some of their present destinations.... "must have RESA constructed by July 12, 2027 ... construction will require the opening of the Tripartite Agreement (governance agreement for the airport) to allow for RESA, specifically a landmass extension to provide space for the RESA (currently precluded in the agreement) and a term extension to allow for financing of this significant capital project. The term of the current Tripartite Agreement comes to an end in 2033, but we require this agreement to be opened much sooner in order to allow compliance with RESA according to the timeline required by Transport Canada,” ...
This seems to indicate that the intention is to keep the present operational length of the main runway, by saying that they want to add the Runway End Safety Areas as "landmass extension", which requires the opening of the Tripartite Agreement.
https://openjaw.com/newsroom/other-...quired-development-of-toronto-island-airport/
As previously mentioned, using existing land for RESAs would shorten the operational length of the main runway, reduce the maximum allowable take-off weight of the Q400 turboprop planes used by Porter and Air Canada Express/Jazz, and presumably eliminate some of their present detinations.
The three potential designs PortsToronto is considering would require extending the airport’s land mass at both ends of the runway by between 52 and 82 metres. The extensions would be up to 270 metres wide, but wouldn’t affect the existing “marine exclusion zones” that boaters and other water users are prohibited from entering.
The project could take between two and three-and-a-half years to complete, and could also include new noise walls, roadways and reconfigured taxiways. The agency plans to present its preferred option and an environmental assessment of the plan at a public meeting in the fall.