UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
That's bleeding heart thinking there, Northern Light-san. We're giving those patients a free pass while staggering development...we can't have that! It'll make things worse for progress in this city... /s
Toronto Toronto Coach Terminal Redevelopment | ?m | 41s | Kilmer + Tricon | Studio Gang + a—A
- Thread starter greenleaf
- Start date
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Why?
Agreed. Safe flight paths for medical transport is not something I'm not losing sleep over.
rbt
Senior Member
We could charge a land-improvement tax to everyone in the corridor and use those funds to build a 250m tall hospital helicopter platform giving nearly everyone within the corridor the ability to build a supertall. I very much doubt if land owners would take that offer. Most will find their 150m+ limit perfectly usable.
Last edited:
TwinHuey
Active Member
My background in EMS helicopter operations included providing initial site inspections for hospital heliports. However, that typically involved standing on the roof of an existing building (Sunnybrook and St Mikes) and eyeballing the available approach/departure routes.
To help me visualize a heliport located on top of the HSC tower, I reached out to @steveve who has taken the time to produce one of his amazing infographics.
Looking North, the HSC tower is in yellow.
This needs to be studied by a comprehensive obstacle limitation survey, but I really can't see any reason why the heliport can not be relocated to the new tower.
Keep in mind that a heliport on the new tower would require altering the headings of the existing approach/departure corridor cones to a more northerly start point.
However, being positioned on the western edge of the new tower could open up additional approach/departure options (to the north over Queens Park, to the southwest, to the southeast).
I'll toss it back to other UT members about whether or not increasing the height of the zoning limitations is a good thing but keep in mind that altering the angle of the existing cones may overlay properties not currently impacted. Plus the new location could open up the potential of additional approach/departure corridors with the associated zoning restrictions.
I should clarify that the expansion of the approach/departure corridors for HSC and St Mikes is not to mitigate a risk to flight safety. There is nothing unsafe about current operations.
As I've indicated in other threads, limited approach/departure to H1 hospital heliports is a risk to patient outcomes.
There may be times that a narrow approach/departure corridor prevents an EMS helicopter from landing due to wind direction.
Landing at an alternate location and completing the transfer by land ambulance takes time that some patients can not afford.
Thank you @steveve !
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...yeah, I think all the pink ones are proposals and don't currently exist.
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
Honestly curious if landing the helicopter in high winds would be harder if it was on top of the HSC. If so, that seems like a good enough reason not to move it.
I also wouldn't be surprised if moving it ended up being more disruptive to more proposals than the current changes are. Right now it's going to impact a handful of buildings on the periphery of the old flight path. If those paths fundamentally change due to a new location, it could end up accidentally having even more of an impact despite the increased height of the helipad.
I also wouldn't be surprised if moving it ended up being more disruptive to more proposals than the current changes are. Right now it's going to impact a handful of buildings on the periphery of the old flight path. If those paths fundamentally change due to a new location, it could end up accidentally having even more of an impact despite the increased height of the helipad.
TwinHuey
Active Member
Good question about the high winds. Glad to see you're curious.
Wind is beneficial. Helicopter performance improves when taking off directly into the wind vs zero wind.
Reminded me of a graphic from an old flight training manual. Happy face with moderate to strong winds (ignore the gauges, they're for piston engines).
"I also wouldn't be surprised if moving it ended up being more disruptive to more proposals than the current changes are." Good point.
The only way to tell is to have another obstacle limitation survey produced for a heliport located on the tower.
It may be worth the time and effort.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
....we readers should be able to give double /upvotes for that anthropomorphized copter diagram! <3
Mihairokov
Active Member
Partial shot of site today (September 24)
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Casino busses?
AlbertC
Superstar
Haven't been by here in a while
thaivic
Active Member
Wow the city can't keep their own house clean of graffiti. Need to change the laws and actually enforce them.
APTA-2048
Senior Member
I have a feeling it’s more of a problem that they don’t care. This building was pretty much tag free while it was operating. I think it’s getting demolished, so the City doesn’t care.
Northern Light
Superstar
The graffiti by-law does not have an exception for buildings that are vacant, so far as I can recall.
If the City wants it torn down, then great, let them get to it! Until then, they need to keep it up.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I don't think taxpayers would want their money spent to keep something clean of tags only it for it to be all back there in a month or so. You know, better things to spend on and all that...
