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

[Cinnamon]

And you doubt Transport Canada is going to update standards to meet international guidelines?

Not me but both TPA and Porter knew that it was coming. TPA wrote a letter to Rob Ford on February 13th, 2013 and asked him to "consider amending the Tripartite Agreement to provide changes to the airport's footprint and/or property boundaries if required by federal aviation regulations and applicable law".

You can see the full letter here: http://www.torontoport.com/getattac...8c970eaccec/Letter-to-Mayor-Rob-Ford-(1).aspx

Porter also wrote a letter to Rob Ford on April 22nd, 2013 and claimed that "The 168 metre extension (that Porter is requesting) will also be inclusive of and accommodate any potential future requirement to implement a 150 metre enhanced Runway End Safety Area at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport"

You can see the full letter here: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-57704.pdf

And you have proof they were working with Porter planning to extend the runway then?

Nobody can prove that. When lakefill project started in 2012 it caused many eyebrows to raise, however TPA strongly claimed that it was only required to prohibit entry of marine vessels into marine exclusion zone and absolutely had nothing to do with runway extension. They repeated their claim on April 10th, 2013 and said "There is no plan to extend the runway at BBTCA".

Well, what about your letter to Rob Ford dated February 13th, 2013 in which you have asked for permission for possible runway extension? That doesn't add up.

May I suggest following two articles regarding TPA which I believe will give you a different point of view, and probably understand why we don't trust TPA:

http://communityair.org/Background/35_Million/35_Million.html

http://communityair.org/Background/Airport_Expansion/Airport_Expansion.html

 

[Cinnamon]

The TSB made a recommendation for RESAs to be mandatory back in 2005. Transport Canada referred the recommendation to CARAC, but only for Code 4 runways. YTZ barely even has a Code 3 runway.

Isn't it "recommended" that all runways greater than 1,200m (3,937 ft) in length would require a RESA? (TP312 4th edition)

Also Transportation Safety Board of Canada says:

"In Canada, our regulatory standards for runways lag behind international standards and best practices in other countries. That's disappointing. Transport Canada (TC) currently requires only a 60m buffer strip at the end of runways 800m or longer, though it recommends an additional 90m RESA for runways 1200m or longer. This 60m required plus 90m recommended would only match the minimum 150m standard set out by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). But ICAO also recommends an additional 240m RESA at the end of a 60m strip—again, bringing us back to the magic number of 300."

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/articles/aviation/2013/skiesmag-20130423.asp

*Even if the regulation passed, even if the regulation were later extended to Code 3 runways, even if we waited the 20+ years before that would happen, EVEN THEN ... it is very easy to imagine that YTZ's existing runway would be exempted from the regulation as it is only 3 m longer than the maximum length of a Code 2 runway. The TSB's original recommendation even contemplates that existing Code 4 runways would be exempted if geographic circumstances do not permit extension. As red herrings go, this is a real whopper, Captain.

I don't think so, TP312 5th edition will probably be executed by next year and introduce a 3 to 5 year implementation period for new mandatory RESA requirements.

I cannot see any reason why they should exclude City Airport as its longest runway is more than 1200m and an overrun can be a huge disaster.

 

[Cinnamon]

I wish TPA had published all information regarding RESA requirements transparently and accurately so we would't need to argue. Apparently none of us know what it is all about.

 

[Cinnamon]

^Only if:
1. they are actually quieter and less polluting;
2. they actually replace (instead of supplement) noisier and more-polluting aircraft; and
3. the governance changes that allow their introduction do not result in other increases or serve as an incremental step to future increases.

If the foregoing are true, let's have TPA and Porter commit to that. I haven't seen them do so. Have I missed it?

1. Porter claims new jets are comparably quiet (I would say comparably noisy), but I haven't heard any claim regarding their exhaust emissions. I expect a jet engine would produce 30% more exhaust gases than a similar turboprop.

2. Noise levels should be same as claimed by Porter and we should expect 30% increase in exhaust emissions. So no trade-off for residents there.

3. History repeats itself. If they don't even respect to a signed agreement backed by three levels of government, it would be naive to believe they will stick to their commitments.

 

[k10ery]

Actually, you're right - I made a mistake.

The TSB recommended that RESAs be made mandatory for Code 4 runways only - i.e. not YTZ.

But the proposed regulation that Transport Canada has sent to CARAC is for Code 3 and 4 runways - i.e. runways greater than 1200m in length.

Since YTZ's runway is 1216 m it would be subject to this regulation - IF it is ever implemented, and UNLESS there was a derogation for those 16 m, or the runway were shortened.

I wish TPA had published all information regarding RESA requirements transparently and accurately so we would't need to argue. Apparently none of us know what it is all about.

The details are here: http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/npa-apm/n_d.aspx?lang=eng&nid=2806&goto_panel=1&curr_status=2

 

[Cinnamon]

Isn't it ironic how Ford brothers reacted against Humbertown redevelopment plan?

"This isn’t downtown, this Etobicoke,†said Mr. Ford, who lives in the Humber Valley area, as does his brother Doug. “Personally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Humbertown .… We cannot let these developers come in and bully us.â€

"It’s a little ambitious,†Doug Holyday, Councillor for Ward 3, Etobicoke Centre, said of First Capital’s proposal. “I think the people are right on this one, it would alter the neighbourhood.â€

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nst-humbertown-redevelopment/article11931208/

Hmmmm, who is elitist nimby now?

 

[Cinnamon]

The details are here: http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/npa-apm/n_d.aspx?lang=eng&nid=2806&goto_panel=1&curr_status=2

Thank you, it is more clear now.

To my understanding, as per clause 302.556, 150m RESA zone at each end of the runway will be standard and mandatory; and 300m RESA zone at each end of the runway as mentioned in Transportation Safety Board of Canada's web page will remain as a wish, or may become a "recommendation".

In Porter's letter to Rob Ford they also mentioned that 150m RESA zone was included in their 168m extension request, which leaves them only 18+18=36m actual runway extension. Many still don't believe them, and I'm very skeptical too.

 

[EnviroTO]

Isn't it ironic how Ford brothers reacted against Humbertown redevelopment plan?

What does this have to do with anything in this thread? I didn't realize the airport discussion was really about Ford intelligence.

 

[Cinnamon]

What does this have to do with anything in this thread? I didn't realize the airport discussion was really about Ford intelligence.

You can ignore my message if you find it irrelevant.

I posted that message because I found his and his brother's statements (which I highlighted with bold) very relevant and applicable to our case. I wish they could show the same support and respect to downtown residents too.

Edit: Actually I take it back... If Fords are against it, probably it is a good thing.

 

[k10ery]

In Porter's letter to Rob Ford they also mentioned that 150m RESA zone was included in their 168m extension request, which leaves them only 18+18=36m actual runway extension. Many still don't believe them, and I'm very skeptical too.

I guess the idea is that after the extension was built the declared runway length would be set so that the last 90m inside the runway strip served as an "operational RESA" that satisfied the regulation but was still used for normal operations. This seems possible with the draft regulation. But it also gives the lie to the idea that TC will force the extension to be built. YTZ could just as well reduce its declared runway length now, and satisfy the draft regulation with an operational RESA, without building anything.

 

[Cinnamon]

I guess the idea is that after the extension was built the declared runway length would be set so that the last 90m inside the runway strip served as an "operational RESA" that satisfied the regulation but was still used for normal operations. This seems possible with the draft regulation.

What is the point of having a safety zone if you are going to use it in your daily operations under normal conditions? That doesn't make sense.

I thought 90+60=150m RESA zone would be beyond the runway strip, and so-called "Operational RESA" can only be achieved by actually reducing the declared length of the runway. In other words sacrificing the last 90m of the runway at each end to RESA. I guess this solution can work for some airports if their runways are long enough and they don't feel spending additional money. But in Toronto City Airport's case, usable length of the runway would be only (1216-180) 1,036m, which doesn't work for Porter, or anybody.

But it also gives the lie to the idea that TC will force the extension to be built. YTZ could just as well reduce its declared runway length now, and satisfy the draft regulation with an operational RESA, without building anything.

That's a good point. But I think Toronto City Airport would be requested to comply with new regulations even if they reduce the runway length by 17m and try to stay under 1,200m.

 

[k10ery]

I don't think operators must respect the declared length in deciding where to land. They decide that for themselves. But honestly we are getting beyond the extent of my knowledge.

 

[nfitz]

1. Porter claims new jets are comparably quiet (I would say comparably noisy), but I haven't heard any claim regarding their exhaust emissions. I expect a jet engine would produce 30% more exhaust gases than a similar turboprop.

That's an absolutely absurd argument. The emissions of aircract in flight are nothing to do with this process. It only demonstrates that those bring up these arguments are only interested in stopping the use of the airport, rather than the noise issues they claim

2. Noise levels should be same as claimed by Porter and we should expect 30% increase in exhaust emissions. So no trade-off for residents there.

What about the ferry emissions. Have you seen that thing belch smoke? Why not put in a bridge instead.

3. History repeats itself. If they don't even respect to a signed agreement backed by three levels of government, it would be naive to believe they will stick to their commitments.

What about the commitments the city broke about the bridge. The bridge is covered in the agreement ... but that doesn't really work into your Nimby narrative, does it?

 

[Cinnamon]

Sorry, I will correct myself:

1216 + (168 + 168) - 180 = 1,372m which satisfies the both minimum take-off and landing distances of CS-100 for urban operations:

Take off run at MTOW: 1,219 m (3,999 ft)
Landing field length at MLW: 1,341 m (4,400 ft)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries

However in this case maximum range drops to 2,778 km (1,500 nmi), means they can barely reach Calgary & Edmonton and cannot fly to *west coast cities (Vancouver, Los Angeles and San Francisco). On the other hand, our information is limited to some catalog values, internet search, speculations, etc.; probably they already know how they will add another 1000kms to the range of CS100 without any further extension to the runway. At the end of the day their letter was clear: 168m includes 150m RESA.

 

[nfitz]

On the other hand, our information ...

OUR information?

Yeah, I thought as much ... your not a person, but a front for some Nimby group.

East coast?