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

[kEiThZ]

But does the 168 m extension that Porter want, include the 150 m that will have to be done anyway, or will it actually be 318 m (at each end)?

If what we are looking at, at a minimum to maintain the status quo, is a 150 metre extension. And to operate the jets we only need 18 metres more ... than this is really making a mountain out of a mole hill. And really badly handled by Porter, which should have presented it differently.

As per my understanding and all the pictures shown, they are asking for 168m at each end. Wouldn't 318m at either end put them outside the MEZ (or close enough to require an expansion of the MEZ)? So I firmly believe it's 168m at each end.

And looking at performance figures of the aircraft, they actually do only need 18m more to make flying them from the Island viable.

And it's not that Porter badly handled it. It's just the reality that asking for a runway extension would inevitably end up as a political issue. But now you understand why those of us who understand the issue better just don't think the impact will be substantial.

The only real impact that I think warrants study is traffic in the area. Theoretically, with flights limited to 200 per day and using Q400s capable of carrying 80 passengers, that's 14 000 passengers per day. Given that most passengers at YTZ are origin-destination, not transiting passengers, this means 14 000 pairs of feet transiting the neighbourhood potentially. Switch the 200 flights to CS100s with 110 pax and you have 22 000 passengers per day. Even assuming that Porter's transit percentage comes up, you maybe looking at 20 000 people going down that tunnel per day. Roughly that works out to about 1400 passengers per hour. Of course that theoretical maximum is a very long way off. But we should be sure that the neighbourhood can handle it.

I think the tunnel can handle the pedestrian traffic. I don't know if the drop-off area is adequate. Looking at Google Maps, I think it could given that most passengers will probably be arriving by Porter shuttle or walking in from the streetcar. But it is a legitimate community concern. I do think the TPA should be contributing to a redesign and beautification of the drop-off area.

 

[kEiThZ]

Friday April 12, 2013; The Globe and Mail: "Under the city by-law governing lobbying, an individual who fails to register their activities can face a substantial fine."

Find a prosecutor who will take the case. Good luck proving that merely telling the mayor about the plan constitutes full out lobbying. There's plenty of councillors who are opposed. And they dislike Ford. Why aren't they ringing up the lawyers?

 

[Cinnamon]

Coke has clearly been communicating with the Mayor's office regarding their recent expansion and move downtown (judging by the mayor's appearance at their opening). Should they have registered as lobbyists? Did they?

Are they asking for something? Free parking, no property taxes for 10 years, ban of Pepsi in downtown? If not, it is not lobbying; they can even sleep together, I don't mind.

According to City of Toronto: "Lobbying consists of activities that can influence the opinions or actions of a public office holder. Under the definition of "lobby" in the Lobbying By-law, lobbying is communicating with a public office holder on a range of subjects including decisions on by-laws, policies and programs, grants, purchasing, and applications for services, permits, licenses or other permission."

And:

"Lobbyists must register (both themselves and the subject matter they intend to discuss) with the Office of the Lobbyist Registrar before communicating with a public office holder. After the communication has occurred, they must update their lobbying activities."

 

[kEiThZ]

Please excuse my ignorance, and re-read the statement:

"Deluce says Transport Canada is in the midst of an initiative aimed at creating runway safety areas at all airports — an international push to add unpaved safety areas in case an airline overshoots the runway. Pearson has already installed such zones; Billy Bishop’s turn is coming, so as much as 150 metres of lake will have to be filled in to create the zone. His request represents only a further 18 metres of fill."

My understanding is, additional 150m UNPAVED safety zone is not installed at Billy Bishop airport yet, and once installed it will be an extension to existing PAVED run-off. Please correct me.

Correct. Question is, are those 150m additional unpaved run-offs have been included in Porter's 168m calculation or not. What is your opinion?

Yes, they have. And my experience having flown military jets and an undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering tells me that Porter doesn't need more than the 4100ft operational that is planned to operate out of YTZ.


And if you are correct, then Porter has seriously erred in not asking for an extension to the Maritime Exclusion Zone that would be required to incorporate 150m+168m at each end of the runway. They haven't asked for that. So it's quite logical to assume that they want 168m at each end, of which 150m will go to the runoff area and 18m to the runway extension. In essence, they are moving the existing runoff area into the water and converting the current runoff area to runway. You won't have aircraft rotating out into the lake. I suspect Transport Canada would have some reservations about that.

Again, go look at Satellite View on Google Maps. The existing Chevron area is the runoff area. Imagine that converted to runway and a new 150m chevron area at each end built out into the water.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

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.

You want to close this airport and open up a new one somewhere else? Somewhere else within the city of Toronto given Porter's model of serving the city's core? That's a complete non starter, a still birth if there ever were one. Are you familiar with the Pickering airport plans???

"Oh no, no, please close this garbage dump beside my home, but build a new one beside my neighbour"

 

[kEiThZ]

Are they asking for something?

Similarly, do you have any actual evidence that Porter asked the mayor for anything? Other than telling him about the plan, which in and of itself would not necessarily violate lobbying rules. And in any event, it's not even an issue any more not that the registry has been updated and Porter's plan is out in the open. It's not like anybody on Council will be lacking info come voting time.

And again, the mayor is not relevant at all. Nor is Porter technically speaking. It will be the TPA applying for the expansion. And 23 members of council have to vote for it. The Mayor is just one vote of the 23. Porter could have given suitcases of money to the mayor and still lose the vote. Indeed, I'd say having the mayor on your side these days might actually work against you. They did the right thing by giving the mayor a heads-up about an upcoming expansion (we can't be sure if they actually discussed runway extension or "no jets" rule). Not telling other councillors? I have no issues with that. There's never been any kind of obligation (not even implied) to inform councillors. Though, from Stintz comments it does seem that Deluce personally called at least a few councillors to tell them to expect a major expansion.

This whole episode also bring up one huge problem with the lobbyist registry. Put anything in there and the whole world knows your business plans. I can see why Porter would not want to register anything in there until the official announcement was out, lest Air Canada and Westjet gain a competitive edge. They need to come up with a way to register lobbying while keeping commercial confidence.

 

[dunkalunk]

You knew it was coming. WestJet and Air Canada want to fly their jets from the airport too.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ng_jets_may_open_door_to_other_airlines.html]

404'd, try removing that square bracket at the end.

 

[kEiThZ]

You want to close this airport and open up a new one somewhere else? Somewhere else within the city of Toronto given Porter's model of serving the city's core? That's a complete non starter, a still birth if there ever were one. Are you familiar with the Pickering airport plans???

"Oh no, no, please close this garbage dump beside my home, but build a new one beside my neighbour"

Or the more direct. "Please close the airport and run dozens of diesel trains a day a few metres from the houses and schools of Weston residents. I want this because I care about the environment....my environment. My neighbours? Their problem. Not mine."

How many people here would have been willing to foot substantial taxes to ensure that the UPE was electrified from day one? Or that the cost of access was exactly the same as TTC access to Billy Bishop?

And I still haven't seen a single response to anybody telling me why its fair that people in Mississauga, Malton, Rexdale and even North York should be subjected to even more traffic. If the argument is that they always have, I'd like to know why this doesn't apply to the Island at this point. The NIMBY fight over YTZ strikes me as particularly crass economic class warfare. Poor and (mostly) darker people in the burbs should have to put up with unlimited air traffic. But any imposition on my downtown lifestyle (despite living in the noisiest part of Toronto) is utterly illegitimate.

I would have more respect for opposition to YTZ if they were in any way, shape or form, also concerned about the impact of noise and air pollution from the traffic at Pearson or the trains that Weston will be subject to shortly. Anything less is classic NIMBYism. But we know you'll never see a downtowner campaign for strict noise regulations at Pearson or a fully electrified UPE. They don't actually want to pay the high airfares or taxes or train charges that go with such a stance. They just want the air traffic out of their sight. And they want others to foot the bill.

 

[Cinnamon]

Yes, they have. And my experience having flown military jets and an undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering tells me that Porter doesn't need more than the 4100ft operational that is planned to operate out of YTZ.

Thanks. And with my experience having ridden tanks and an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, can you help me understand:

1 - 08/26 runway lenght of the Billy Bishop Airport is given as 3,988 ft. I assume this is the length between the solid lines after/before chevron areas on both ends, is this correct?

2 - In the factsheet of CS100 takeoff field lenght is given as 4,950 ft. Again, I assume this is the length between the solid lines after/before chevron areas on both ends, is this correct?

And if you are correct, then Porter has seriously erred in not asking for an extension to the Maritime Exclusion Zone that would be required to incorporate 150m+168m at each end of the runway. They haven't asked for that. So it's quite logical to assume that they want 168m at each end, of which 150m will go to the runoff area and 18m to the runway extension.

Yes, as they already knew this additional 150m requirement is coming, they should have included in their public statement and inform the public accurately.

 

[PinkLucy]

I think the tunnel can handle the pedestrian traffic. I don't know if the drop-off area is adequate. Looking at Google Maps, I think it could given that most passengers will probably be arriving by Porter shuttle or walking in from the streetcar. But it is a legitimate community concern. I do think the TPA should be contributing to a redesign and beautification of the drop-off area.

It's a major concern, as I've mentioned before. Some customers come via streetcar but very few -- probably because of lifting luggage on and off. With longer flights, that's going to be more of an issue. The shuttle is well used but having lived in the area for over 5 years and seen the increase in traffic, I can tell you that the majority of people are dropped off, park in the area or arrive via taxi. At peak times, traffic, especially near the taxi queuing area, is craziness. Add in traffic during an event at the Ex, Rogers Centre and/or ACC, and it's even worse.

There is a planned traffic study for the Lake Shore/Bathurst intersection happening next month. Hopefully they can figure something out.

From a purely selfish perspective, I walk when I fly Porter so I don't have to deal with that traffic mess, but it definitely needs to be addressed.

 

[Cinnamon]

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.

Don't you also find it ironic accusing me being a NIMBY, non-ethical person, and crying crocodile tears while giving me a lecture about insinuations and conjecture in the same sentence?

 

[themarc]

Even Porters most fervent boosters on this board won't argue the fact that the TPA appears to be corrupt.

The problem stems from the fact that the TPA as a crown corporation needs to bring in revenues and the only revenue stream it has (effectively) is the airport monies paid to it by Porter.

 

[kEiThZ]

Thanks. And with my experience having ridden tanks and an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering..

Ridding around in tanks is not relevant to the discussion at hand... Knowledge of aircraft operations and aeronautics is.

1 - 08/26 runway length of the Billy Bishop Airport is given as 3,988 ft. I assume this is the length between the solid lines after/before chevron areas on both ends, is this correct?

Correct. The actual runway is >4500ft in length. But nobody is allowed to taxi on the chevron area or use that distance as part of their takeoff run/landing run calculations. That area is strictly reserved for emergencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway#Sections_of_a_runway

2 - In the factsheet of CS100 takeoff field lenght is given as 4,950 ft. Again, I assume this is the length between the solid lines after/before chevron areas on both ends, is this correct?

That is the takeoff run at Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW). Porter doesn't need to fill up to MTOW to reach LA or Vancouver or Havanna. A 4100 ft runway would suit them just fine for those purposes. Heck, Bombardier has one customer who will be launching a New York-London service using the CS100 in all business class from London City's 4000 ft runway (the 4948ft wikipedia listing does not account for operational restrictions at LCY).

They had to ask for a much larger extension than the distance they need because they know that even if they wanted the few extra metres that Transport Canada would insist on a much larger expansion of the RESA.

Yes, as they already knew this additional 150m requirement is coming, they should have included in their public statement and inform the public accurately.

The public wouldn't care whether the 150m is a runoff area or operational area. Just look at you. Until a few minutes ago you didn't know the difference either. Has knowing this in any way changed your opinion? As far as the public is concerned there will simply be extension of the runway at either end. How that is used won't impact discussion in the slightest. Would anything really have changed if Porter said, "We want a 36m extension to the runway. Oh and we want to tack on another 300m for the safety area."

If anything, it might actually be in Porter's favour to know that there won't be planes taking of in the middle of the MEZ. In any event, details like these are not meant to be explained during a press conference. That's what the TPA's documents to council (come time for applying for approval) are for. You can guarantee that those documents will include very detailed information on the extension, exact layout of runway markings. Etc.

Don't you also find it ironic accusing me being a NIMBY, non-ethical person, and crying crocodile tears while giving me a lecture about insinuations and conjecture in the same sentence?

I fail to see anything ironic about my position. I am not insinuating or conjecturing anything. It is your own position that condemns you as a NIMBY.

Personally, I have never really opposed any infrastruture development. Including a development that saw more good trains running through my neighbourhood. Why? Because I understand that this is part and parcel of living in the city and that if we keep opposing development this city is finished.

People love to talk about how they want Toronto to be world-class. Well being world-class takes more than just LRTs and subways.

 

[kEiThZ]

The problem stems from the fact that the TPA as a crown corporation needs to bring in revenues and the only revenue stream it has (effectively) is the airport monies paid to it by Porter.

If the city wasn't so hostile, the feds may well have handed over control of the TPA to the City by now. But knowing that the City's only interest is stagnating the infrastructure that is there or bulldozing it for frisbee space, I suspect that this won't happen, even with a Liberal government in place.

To convince the feds to either close the airport or hand it over, the City will need a bulletproof plan in place for the waterfront. And it has to be one that the city's politicians can commit to for more than one term, and one that doesn't impact federal jurisdiction (like the waterways). Do all that and there's a chance the Feds may even entertain the idea of closing the airport.

Otherwise the feds have no real interest in lowering aviation sector competition in the largest aviation market in the country, with substantive economic ripple effects, for no other reason than to create more space for frisbees and dogs. People may not like it. But that's reality. The Feds have to worry about more than condo owners' noise complaints.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

The problem stems from the fact that the TPA as a crown corporation needs to bring in revenues and the only revenue stream it has (effectively) is the airport monies paid to it by Porter.

Agreed, but unlike a private corporation, the TPA has no mandate for growth, but rather its only permitted function is to operate the port through a list of specifically enumerated activities and in a manner that safeguards the public interest. If that turns out to mean "facilitating the growth of passenger traffic at the Island Airport", so be it. But Porter's desire to grow its business does not override the TPA's legal obligations to be (and to be seen to be) fair, transparent and acting in furtherance of the public interest. These obligations are contravened when the TPA says one thing and does the opposite.

Let's be clear about the two distinct issues here:

1. Is it (or is it not) good public policy to amend the Tripartite Agreement, extend the runway, allow jets and expand commercial operations at the Island Airport?

2. Is the TPA acting in a manner that gives the public reasonable confidence that TPA policy is in the public interest?

I think the answer to number 2 is a clear "no", and every time I ask the question to a "jet booster" I am ignored. If #2 is "no", how can we have any confidence in the TPA's (and others') resounding, unqualified, hyperbolic "absolutely yes" answer to #1? And why is one labelled a "conspiracy theorist" for suggesting that the TPA has not been transparent? What definition of "transparent" are some people working with?

Those of us who do not mastubate to Aviation Weekly and Esprit de Corps can still have legitimate concerns about the TPA and public policy.