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

[Cinnamon]

Similarly, I wish that those opposed to the airport (either as is or expanded) would do so by discussing facts without assuming that everyone with a different opinion was a "porter fanboy". This is far to serious an issue to tumble down to name calling.

I am trying. I actually enjoy intelligent arguments and sharing information.

However it is beyond my comprehension how much "hate" is out there for people living in downtown. It seems there are some people here in this forum actually enjoy the fact that our kids are exposed to more air and noise pollution. For them we are latte sipping elites and deserve to be punished.

I don't accept the argument "hey, my neighborhood is noisy too", so what did you do about that? Nothing. What is your action plan? Support and enjoy destruction of other neighborhoods.

Also it is also very sad to see there are many people out there blinded by their greediness or selfishness too. For me "right to live in a healthy environment" is a basic human right. I would not support any action in any part of the city that would jeopardize that basic right of the residents, just because it is more convenient for me or I have financial interest.

I am very open to any intelligent argument supported by facts explaining to me why I should agree living in a over polluted area and let City spend my tax dollars to finance a private business.

 

[TOareaFan]

I don't accept the argument "hey, my neighborhood is noisy too",

It was not an argument ...it was an observation about the graphic you posted and was, in fact, in response to someone else saying that the two graphics looked believable.

so what did you do about that? Nothing. What is your action plan?

Well, since you ask, I actually did nothing. Everyone has their own attitudes about things like this. Mine is that we selected this house for a variety of reasons, one of which (but not the only) was that it kept us the municipality that we grew up in but outside of the airport noise areas. As the noise increases, that factor has changed and we are discussing whether or not it is still the right place for us (considering all other factors). The fact that there was no airport noise to speak of when we bought, to us, is irrelevant at this point in time....growing up in Brampton we were both well aware of the airport, well aware that it was growing and accepted that our relative quietness may not last forever as the region and its air traffic grew.

this is not to say this is the attitude/approach that everyone should take....personal decisions and all that....but we are far more likely to move than try to change things at the airport.

Support and enjoy destruction of other neighborhoods.

I find that insulting and in no way reflective of any of the comments that I have made or posted here.

Also it is also very sad to see there are many people out there blinded by their greediness or selfishness too. For me "right to live in a healthy environment" is a basic human right. I would not support any action in any part of the city that would jeopardize that basic right of the residents, just because it is more convenient for me or I have financial interest.

I agree that we all have the right to live, if we choose, in a quiet and, as you describe it, "healthy" environment. Where you and I likely disagree is that the right does not extend that all areas need to be, or can be, as pristinely quiet/healthy.....otherwise there are whole lot of modern "conveniences" that we are going to have to learn to live without (cars, planes, etc.)

I am very open to any intelligent argument supported by facts explaining to me why I should agree living in a over polluted area and let City spend my tax dollars to finance a private business.

If we are going to talk about facts....perhaps you can point to the City tax dollars that are financing this private business....or were you talking about Bixi?

 

[Cinnamon]

It was not an argument ...it was an observation about the graphic you posted and was, in fact, in response to someone else saying that the two graphics looked believable.

I find that insulting and in no way reflective of any of the comments that I have made or posted here.

I was not targeting you.

 

[TOareaFan]

I was not targeting you.

Well, I am sorry...but when you reply directly to me (or any poster) with the words "so what did you do about that? Nothing. What is your action plan? Support and enjoy destruction of other neighborhoods." You are, in fact, targeting that poster.

 

[Cinnamon]

I agree that we all have the right to live, if we choose, in a quiet and, as you describe it, "healthy" environment. Where you and I likely disagree is that the right does not extend that all areas need to be, or can be, as pristinely quiet/healthy.....otherwise there are whole lot of modern "conveniences" that we are going to have to learn to live without (cars, planes, etc.)

I am not a tree-hugger or nudist. We need cars (i don't have), we need airports (I use a lot), we need power plants, we need mines, we need oil. Standards set by governments are "minimum" levels to maintain a healthy nation. We cannot demand a mountain fresh air, but there is a "minimum" level we should maintain and this is what we should be demanding.

 

[Cinnamon]

Well, I am sorry...but when you reply directly to me (or any poster) with the words "so what did you do about that? Nothing. What is your action plan? Support and enjoy destruction of other neighborhoods." You are, in fact, targeting that poster.

You are right, that was not my intention, sorry for misunderstanding.

 

[TOareaFan]

I am not a tree-hugger or nudist. We need cars (i don't have), we need airports (I use a lot), we need power plants, we need mines, we need oil. Standards set by governments are "minimum" levels to maintain a healthy nation. We cannot demand a mountain fresh air, but there is a "minimum" level we should maintain and this is what we should be demanding.

Like I said, I believe we agree to a point on this....I just think there will be variances between areas and that at the end there needs to be personal level of choice and responsibility (again, not trying to impose my way of thinking on anyone just explaining how I look at it)...there is no guarantee in any neighbourhood that things won't/can't change and sometimes that change may, in fact, mean that the 'hood we chose may not be the one we choose to stay in.

Ironically, it does not seem you and I are much different....we both chose to live near airports but based on a set of circumstances that existed at a point in time.....where we differ, i guess, is how we would both, personally, deal with those changing circumstances.

 

[dowlingm]

I think that if you lived around Kipling/Finch that the noise would be a whole lot worse. There unfortunately seems to be a double standard with rich downtown residents and the island airport vs. poor Rexdale residents and Pearson. My impression is that the noise standing right on Queen's Quay is significantly less severe than in Rexdale even though the latter is further from the airport.

While I don't agree with all the characterisations above, I am distinctly concerned about addressing YTZ as a pollution source in isolation with both local emitters (Gardiner, Union Station Rail Corridor) and Pearson. Unlike what Chris Hume tried to make us believe in the Star a few days back, there are absolutely still some people on the No side of this who would like to parlay the larger #NoJetsTO movement into total closure. That's the nature of politics - if I thought as the CommunityAir folks did I might try it on too. As someone who sees the value to the city as a whole of the facility as it is now, I hope Deluce withdraws this hot mess before election season starts and commits to not bringing it back.

 

[Cinnamon]

Like I said, I believe we agree to a point on this....I just think there will be variances between areas and that at the end there needs to be personal level of choice and responsibility (again, not trying to impose my way of thinking on anyone just explaining how I look at it)...there is no guarantee in any neighbourhood that things won't/can't change and sometimes that change may, in fact, mean that the 'hood we chose may not be the one we choose to stay in.

Ironically, it does not seem you and I are much different....we both chose to live near airports but based on a set of circumstances that existed at a point in time.....where we differ, i guess, is how we would both, personally, deal with those changing circumstances.

Actually a better comparison would be Gardiner. It was there when I moved in, I knew that it would be noisy and dirty, and it is getting worse every year. Problem is, there are not too many things I can do about it. I can complain to the City, and they will tell me "we are working on it". It is true that they are working on it, but I don't think there will be a viable solution in short term. If things get really bad, probably I would do exactly what you said, just move.

On the other hand, City Airport is a different issue. I am against "expansion" of the airport. Waterfront is already polluted enough with Gardiner, local traffic, industry, trains and existing operations at the airport. City is pretty much aware that Waterfront is one of the most polluted zones in GTA and pollution levels are way higher than what is recommended by World Health Organization and Ministry of Health. Adding more pollution to this equation without any plan to mitigate related risks will be a crime.

Waterfront Revitalization Project is trying to address that problem. It’s dedicating 25% of the revitalized area to waterfront parks and public spaces, and planting about 34,000 trees. By creating a more livable space in downtown, they would like to attract people to come and live here, thus reduce the need for commuting.

Please have a look at this page, which explains their vision:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/our_waterfront_vision

"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."

 

[Cinnamon]

Critics of Porter’s plan for jets at Toronto island airport are way off course

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...d-airport-are-way-off-course/article15777188/

"In any case, Bombardier has guaranteed Porter that the plane will meet the limits. Consultants also conclude that the new jets – part of a quieter, cleaner new generation of aviation technology – will meet air-pollution standards."

This is the main argument of Porter. It is not true.

Bombardier C series uses PW1000C engine, which is a very successful geared turbofan engine (jet). As claimed by Porter, it is cleaner and quieter - BUT (here is the catch) than comparable other turbofan engines (jets). It is not cleaner and quieter than Q400.

All emissions of CS100 is actually higher than Q400.

CS100 claims it achieves 56% to the margin of CAEP6 in NOx emission, which is an excellent value, but still cannot beat a turboprop engine. Same story with other emissions.

Also note that, those emission values are given as grams of pollutant per KN thrust (g/KN). Just looking at the weight of the planes (29,000 kgs vs 58,000 kgs) you can clearly see that CS100 would produce more emission than Q400.

Technical note: I used weight to compare, as Q400 has power producing engines (not thrust) and CS100 has thrust producing engines (not power). It is not simple to convert one into other. As per catalog values, NOx emisson of Q400 is 21.2 g/KN and CS100 is approximately 28 g/KN. Weight is the key factor for power/thrust you would need to take-off, so it is not unrealistic to make a simple estimate that CS100 would produce more emission than Q400.

 

[Cinnamon]

"To fly you to our new destinations, we’re planning to add the brand new, Canadian-made Bombardier CS100 to our fleet."

Another misleading PR crap from Porter. This is why now people are discussing "Canadian Innovation" in aviation history.

Engines on CS100 are produced in USA - developed by an American company - with help of Germans of course

Engines on Q400 are produced in Canada - developed by same American company, not sure about German involvement.

 

[Solid Snake]

"In any case, Bombardier has guaranteed Porter that the plane will meet the limits. Consultants also conclude that the new jets – part of a quieter, cleaner new generation of aviation technology – will meet air-pollution standards."

This is the main argument of Porter. It is not true.

Bombardier C series uses PW1000C engine, which is a very successful geared turbofan engine (jet). As claimed by Porter, it is cleaner and quieter - BUT (here is the catch) than comparable other turbofan engines (jets). It is not cleaner and quieter than Q400.

All emissions of CS100 is actually higher than Q400.

CS100 claims it achieves 56% to the margin of CAEP6 in NOx emission, which is an excellent value, but still cannot beat a turboprop engine. Same story with other emissions.

Also note that, those emission values are given as grams of pollutant per KN thrust (g/KN). Just looking at the weight of the planes (29,000 kgs vs 58,000 kgs) you can clearly see that CS100 would produce more emission than Q400.

Technical note: I used weight to compare, as Q400 has power producing engines (not thrust) and CS100 has thrust producing engines (not power). It is not simple to convert one into other. As per catalog values, NOx emisson of Q400 is 21.2 g/KN and CS100 is approximately 28 g/KN. Weight is the key factor for power/thrust you would need to take-off, so it is not unrealistic to make a simple estimate that CS100 would produce more emission than Q400.

View attachment 20616

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...d-airport-are-way-off-course/article15777188/

Critics of Porter’s plan for jets at Toronto island airport are way off course

A report from City of Toronto staff concedes that the Bombardier CS100 jets that Porter wants to fly would “likely” meet existing noise limits, even if we won’t know for sure till the plane is certified by next May. An attached consultants report says the plane is “expected to be certified with noise levels similar” to the turboprops Porter flies at present and that the new planes should “operate at or below” current noise limits.

As for the runway, Porter wants to lengthen it by up to 200 metres on each end to let the jets land and take off. Opponents say this would mean “paving the lake,” as Adam Vaughan, Porter’s fiercest city-council critic, once put it. But the consultants who reported on the issue found that the longer runway would “maintain the existing depth” of the current Marine Exclusion Zone, a buoyed-off area to keep boats away from planes. In other words, boats would still have just as much room in the harbour, though the buoyed zone might have to be widened slightly for the rebuilt runway.

The number of flights that can travel in and out of the island is limited by the fact that it has only one runway. The number of slots for arriving and departing planes is expected to remain the same.

The number of passengers could go up regardless because the jets are bigger and carry more passengers than the turboprops. Consultants estimate it could lead to an “incremental increase” in the airport’s capacity, to 4.3 million passengers a year from 3.8 million at present. In a high-growth scenario, that could grow to 4.8 million. But if the worry is that the airport will just keep growing and growing with no end in sight, why not negotiate with Porter to put a cap on the number of annual passengers?

And look at the positive impact London's city airport brings to their city and it's ridiculously close to residential areas in the renewed Docklands

http://www.londoncityairport.com/abo...ssrelease/1248


-Research also shows the Airport could support as much as £944 million of GDP at Canary Wharf, in the City of London and at ExCel

-£197 million spent by business tourists coming via London City Airport

-£115 million spent by leisure tourists coming via London City Airport

-£71 million from productivity benefits delivered through journey times savings by using London City Airport

-£21 million in Air Passenger Duty

-£100 million through operations and businesses at London City Airport that also support over 2,700 jobs

-£550 million - assuming the Airport supports at least 5% of the estimated £11 billion contributed by Canary Wharf to GDP every year

-£314 million - assuming the Airport supports at least 1% of the estimated £31 billion contributed by the City of London to GDP every year

-£80 million - assuming the Airport supports at least 5% of the estimated £1.6 billion contributed by ExCeL to the economy

If Billy Bishop could proportionally generate that kind of growth, it's irresponsible to ignore it. The efforts should be towards finding a middle ground that benefits both Porter and the City

 

[Cinnamon]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...d-airport-are-way-off-course/article15777188/

Critics of Porter’s plan for jets at Toronto island airport are way off course

1- CS100 is noisier than Q400. Period.

2- "the number of slots for arriving and departing planes is expected to remain the same"

Check study done by TPA: http://www.torontoport.com/TorontoPortAuthority/media/TPASiteAssets/news/Scenario-1-to-15.pdf

They can go up to 440 movements per day within the current NEF calculation. Nobody can stop them. They don't do it now because Porter cannot even utilize its 172 slots.

3- Currently Porter can utilize only half of 3.8m passenger capacity. Going up 4.8m would actually bring 2.5 times more load than what we are experiencing today. Also this figure is based on 202 slots and mix use of Q400/CS100 and not capped.

 

[Cinnamon]

And look at the positive impact London's city airport brings to their city and it's ridiculously close to residential areas in the renewed Docklands

http://www.londoncityairport.com/abo...ssrelease/1248


-Research also shows the Airport could support as much as £944 million of GDP at Canary Wharf, in the City of London and at ExCel

-£197 million spent by business tourists coming via London City Airport

-£115 million spent by leisure tourists coming via London City Airport

-£71 million from productivity benefits delivered through journey times savings by using London City Airport

-£21 million in Air Passenger Duty

-£100 million through operations and businesses at London City Airport that also support over 2,700 jobs

-£550 million - assuming the Airport supports at least 5% of the estimated £11 billion contributed by Canary Wharf to GDP every year

-£314 million - assuming the Airport supports at least 1% of the estimated £31 billion contributed by the City of London to GDP every year

-£80 million - assuming the Airport supports at least 5% of the estimated £1.6 billion contributed by ExCeL to the economy

If Billy Bishop could proportionally generate that kind of growth, it's irresponsible to ignore it. The efforts should be towards finding a middle ground that benefits both Porter and the City

I am glad you give the example of London City Airport.

If TPA agrees to adopt similar noise monitoring and control systems used by LCA, then it would be an interesting negotiation to amend tripartite agreement and allow CS100.

I gave examples many times, here is the full report: http://www.londoncityairport.com/content/pdf/LCY Noise Action Plan 2012.pdf

On the other hand, I don't agree with you for the financial benefits part. Nobody flies in and out Toronto just to fly with Porter and eat free nuts. Any financial benefit Porter claims, is actually stolen business from Pearson. As Mr.Deluce said once, flying from Island Airport is cannibalization of Pearson

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...inant-player-at-island-airport/article569870/

 

[Peepers]

If TPA agrees to adopt similar noise monitoring and control systems used by LCA, then it would be an interesting negotiation to amend tripartite agreement and allow CS100.

What makes you think that TPA and Porter couldn't comply with the type of noise monitoring and controls in place at London City? I bet that Deluce would be only too happy to live with London City's restrictions (under it's master plan London City will eventually accommodate 8 Million passengers! More than double what is allowed for Billy Bishop!)

London City is currently being served by aircraft that are noisier that the CS100 - e.g. the Embraer 190, A319, and BAe 146. Furthermore the flightpaths into London City bring aircraft in much closer proximity to buildings.

Take a look at this amazing video showing an approach to London City airport. The aircraft is just a few hundred feet from the roof tops of London's tallest skyscrapers. Nothing even remotely like this is being proposed for Billy Bishop.
[video=youtube;kDNd1o4B9qc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNd1o4B9qc[/video]