Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

[nfitz]

"Oversized"?

They are much larger than helicopters used in most jurisdictions. How often do they need to carry 4 stretchers?

Which is why at one point they were planning on selling them all, and buying helicopters that were cheaper and more fuel efficient to operate. Until they resale marine helicopter market crashed.

 

[lenaitch]

They are much larger than helicopters used in most jurisdictions. How often do they need to carry 4 stretchers?

Which is why at one point they were planning on selling them all, and buying helicopters that were cheaper and more fuel efficient to operate. Until they resale marine helicopter market crashed.

It would interesting to see a source for that. While there was a lot of controversy over the initial purchase of the AW aircraft, and whether the cabin configuration is ideal for the paramedics, smaller aircraft commonly used in other jurisdictions for air ambulances, like the MBB BK117, don't have the range and speed that ORNGE needs.

Not too many jurisdictions have to deal with the coverage area that ORNGE does. In jurisdictions like the US, most air ambulances are private, for-profit companies and there are a lot more of them. As for the number of patients, well, isn't that what emergency services do? Anticipate reasonable worst case scenarios. Fire trucks don't often use all the stuff they carry either.

 

[SubHuman]

Doug Ford wants jets at Billy Bishop. Here’s what is at stake for Toronto’s waterfront — and why some say there’s a ‘missing ingredient’

The waterfront's value is immeasurable to this city. That means the stakes of an airport expansion and of adding jets to the mix are sky high.

www.thestar.com

https://archive.is/yIPuG

Right now, the airport is operating at less than capacity, using about 150 of the 246 available weekday slots for commercial departure and arrival flights ... In 2019, the airport served 2.8 million people a year, now it’s about two million.

Only about 61% of the available slots are presently being used, so where does the notion come from that there is some large unfilled demand for more flights and passenger traffic for YTZ?
(As mentioned previously in this thread, Air Canada has only the larger A220-300 version which requires a longer runway, not the smaller 100 version shown in the article, which has Delta as its only North American operator. I suppose it's possible that Air Canada could change some remaining orders for the A220 to the smaller 100, but I think it's unlikely they would do that just for the purpose of using it at YTZ.)
https://archive.is/s5ezw

Jets, like Porter’s current fleet of Embraer E-2 jets and Air Canada’s A220s — that Gradek believes Ford was referring to — are “not any noisier” than the current planes that fly out of Billy Bishop, but also “not any quieter.”

I can't find it now, but I recall seeing posts from a guy who took a sound meter to Downsview in 2015 (when a CS100, now Airbus A220-100, had a demonstration landing and take off there) and it showed them to be almost the same, and that seemed to be the same as others found.
https://skiesmag.com/news/cseriesmakesfirstvisittotoronto/

... illustrated that the noise from the C Series is in the same magnitude as, if not quieter, than the turboprop Q400.

 

[innsertnamehere]

https://archive.is/yIPuG

Only about 61% of the available slots are presently being used, so where does the notion come from that there is some large unfilled demand for more flights and passenger traffic for YTZ?

perhaps because the airport operations are limited to flights within ~2,000km? Many of the busiest routes out of Toronto are off-limits for YTZ - Vancouver, Calgary, Florida, the Caribbean, California.. YTZ is basically limited flying to Montreal, Ottawa, and the US Northeast.

Plus US travel is dropping.. and that's like 1/2 of YTZ traffic.

Also - turboprop flights are notably slower and less comfortable than modern regional jets. All in all it makes it a lot less appealing of a package for customers.

 

[generalcanada]

https://archive.is/yIPuG

Only about 61% of the available slots are presently being used, so where does the notion come from that there is some large unfilled demand for more flights and passenger traffic for YTZ?

Which might make this not much difference. what if they were at 100% capacity? flights every 5 minutes? change that to like 25% jets and i dont think you see many complaints

 

[Northern Light]

perhaps because the airport operations are limited to flights within ~2,000km? Many of the busiest routes out of Toronto are off-limits for YTZ - Vancouver, Calgary, Florida, the Caribbean, California.. YTZ is basically limited flying to Montreal, Ottawa, and the US Northeast.

Plus US travel is dropping.. and that's like 1/2 of YTZ traffic.

Also - turboprop flights are notably slower and less comfortable than modern regional jets. All in all it makes it a lot less appealing of a package for customers.

For clarity, for others, the case being made above is that Jets can travel further, faster, and therefore more destinations can be offered.

While true, I don't find that sufficient cause to support airport expansion (or even retention). I think, when one considers quality of life, tourism, the environment and more, that the case is there for an alternate use of the airport lands.

But others clearly differ.

***

As apart from so-called NIMBY complaints, one must give real attention to the drawbacks of airport expansion. The impact on heights of nearby development proposals in the Portlands and elsewhere is an obvious one.

But also worth considering is the impact on water taxis, and other recreational marine craft. Toronto has among the most navigable harbours of big cities around the world for personal watercraft and pleasure boats, because we're not a big port city, and the current airport has a relatively modest footprint.

A larger marine exclusion zone, would eliminate some marine use entirely while cause large diversions for others. There is also the impact of traffic. The foot of Bathurst can be very congested as it is; where are you putting all the cars if you double or triple the passenger volume? Not just parking wise, but to/from on area roads?

 

[innsertnamehere]

For clarity, for others, the case being made above is that Jets can travel further, faster, and therefore more destinations can be offered.

Yes. YTZ is basically forced to run under extremely limited operating conditions then people claim there isn't demand because of it. It's frankly a miracle Porter has managed to make YTZ as successful as it is given the operating limitations - many doubted it in the 2000's when they started ramping service at the time.

 

[innsertnamehere]

For clarity, for others, the case being made above is that Jets can travel further, faster, and therefore more destinations can be offered.

While true, I don't find that sufficient cause to support airport expansion (or even retention). I think, when one considers quality of life, tourism, the environment and more, that the case is there for an alternate use of the airport lands.

But others clearly differ.

***

As apart from so-called NIMBY complaints, one must give real attention to the drawbacks of airport expansion. The impact on heights of nearby development proposals in the Portlands and elsewhere is an obvious one.

But also worth considering is the impact on water taxis, and other recreational marine craft. Toronto has among the most navigable harbours of big cities around the world for personal watercraft and pleasure boats, because we're not a big port city, and the current airport has a relatively modest footprint.

A larger marine exclusion zone, would eliminate some marine use entirely while cause large diversions for others. There is also the impact of traffic. The foot of Bathurst can be very congested as it is; where are you putting all the cars if you double or triple the passenger volume? Not just parking wise, but to/from on area roads?

A couple of notes on your questions:

1. I've long questioned the wisdom of shoving 50 storey towers in the Portlands - it's away from transit (even assuming the WELRT ever even happens) - I really don't see an issue with keeping it to heights in the 30 storey range. It's not a rapid transit location and it has pretty crappy roads access.

2. Water taxis are such a ridiculously marginal complaint it's almost comical to me. We are talking about relatively fly-by-night pontoon boat operations run for peak summer tourist weekends. A fun quirk of Toronto for sure and something that's pretty unique - but if the ride to Hanlons on a water taxi takes an extra 2 minutes I don't think anyone is ever going to even notice, yet alone result in significant negative impacts. And besides, the 2013 era proposal had no impacts on the marine exclusion zone (no word if that will still be the case..).

3. The bathurst traffic problem is probably the largest issue, but even then it's really more of a vehicle storage issue than it is actual traffic levels. There isn't exactly a massive flow of vehicles from YTZ today, but the taxi stands and pickup areas have problems with space. Luckily the space issue is fixable - There is a spare parking lot the airport owns on Little Norway Crescent that could be repurposed and perhaps with a major investment like allowing jets you could start looking at structuring some of these activities like putting the taxi stand underground or something. We'd also probably want to look at enhancing the shuttle connection to Union and making connections to the Queens Quay Streetcar clearer with expansion.

4. In terms of parking, YTZ already has very little airport parking, but it can be accommodated on the island itself. You could procure a larger ferry if needed for capacity. I think many are surprised to realize that YTZ even has airport parking at all - most assume it doesn't even have it.

 

[nfitz]

It would interesting to see a source for that. While there was a lot of controversy over the initial purchase of the AW aircraft, and whether the cabin configuration is ideal for the paramedics, smaller aircraft commonly used in other jurisdictions for air ambulances, like the MBB BK117, don't have the range and speed that ORNGE needs.

Ornge has as many, if not more planes than they do helicopters.

I often track where the flights that shake my house are coming from. I've never seen one that didn't originate in southern Ontario. Normally it's transfers from Durham and Peterborough. Perhaps they use planes for further away.

The high cost was discussed a decade ago - https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...icle_fcd2d768-6727-59ec-b46d-d38dbf5aad05.htm

Now they are getting service lapses at times, with supply chain issues for parts. https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/arti...s-serving-toronto-temporarily-out-of-service/

My experience, is that there land transfer system (ambulance) system is their biggest issue. During an incident I was involved with for a Michael Garron to Sick Kids this summer, I heard the ER doctors discussing ORNGE's failure to show up for an emergency run - and I was surprised to hear that they'd never had an emergency transfer work out (I believe they are still required to start with them). Essentially they waited an hour or so (late at night) until the Sick Kids ER was ready to operate and seconded an underequipped ambulance with extra MG staff riding along.

Still, I fully support using Billy Bishop for such services. Aircraft restrictions should be based on noise profiles and urgence, not what technology is used in the propulsion system.

 

[lenaitch]

Ornge has as many, if not more planes than they do helicopters.

I often track where the flights that shake my house are coming from. I've never seen one that didn't originate in southern Ontario. Normally it's transfers from Durham and Peterborough. Perhaps they use planes for further away.

The high cost was discussed a decade ago - https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...icle_fcd2d768-6727-59ec-b46d-d38dbf5aad05.htm

Now they are getting service lapses at times, with supply chain issues for parts. https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/arti...s-serving-toronto-temporarily-out-of-service/

My experience, is that there land transfer system (ambulance) system is their biggest issue. During an incident I was involved with for a Michael Garron to Sick Kids this summer, I heard the ER doctors discussing ORNGE's failure to show up for an emergency run - and I was surprised to hear that they'd never had an emergency transfer work out (I believe they are still required to start with them). Essentially they waited an hour or so (late at night) until the Sick Kids ER was ready to operate and seconded an underequipped ambulance with extra MG staff riding along.

Still, I fully support using Billy Bishop for such services. Aircraft restrictions should be based on noise profiles and urgence, not what technology is used in the propulsion system.

According to their website, Ornge has 12 rotary and eight fixed wing aircraft (in addition to standing contract companies, mostly used in the north and for out-of-province transfers). The fixed wing fleet is based in the north; although I think I recall an announcement that they are added one at the Lake Simcoe Regional Airport. Obviously, only rotary can land at scenes and hospitals.

The scandal around the purchase of Augusta Westland aircraft goes back to a larger shit show under Ornge's first President Chris Mazza. Whether the fleet remains the most suitable is probably a matter of money. I have seen scenes where two aircraft have attended so if they went with something smaller they might need a larger fleet and staff to maintain the same emergency capacity.

I'm not a pilot but have heard that the MBB?Kawasaki BK-117, which is one of the more popular alternatives, suffers from cabin vibration which causes pilot fatigue. There are a lot of factors related to noise but in a helicopter, main rotor size, speed and configuration are big contributors.

I won't belabour it. It's not an area I can discuss with much strength. It just caught my eye when somebody called them "oversized". It's not a term one typically hears in relation to emergency services.

 

[nfitz]

According to their website, Ornge has 12 rotary and eight fixed wing aircraft (in addition to standing contract companies, mostly used in the north and for out-of-province transfers).

That must not have been updated for a while. According to a 2024 news release, they ordered four more turboprops in 2023, and two jets in 2024, to bring the fleet to 14. Perhaps they are still on order.

Also, didn't they sell two of their twelve helicopters back in 2013? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ornge-sells-2-helicopters-for-20-million-1.1400260 I'm not aware of any purchases since then.[/quote]

It just caught my eye when somebody called them "oversized". It's not a term one typically hears in relation to emergency services.

So many word have been attached to Ornge that aren't usually apply to emergency services! Perhaps the kickback$ to Chris Mazza on that particular model were higher.

That reminds me, I should FOIA the information on that botched ambulance run.