Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Slow Clap...
As previously stated any runway extension would logically go west into the lake and not east into the harbour. Yet the fill will be going into the east.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
Slow Clap...
As previously stated any runway extension would logically go west into the lake and not east into the harbour. Yet the fill will be going into the east.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
I'm sorry, you're right. The possibility of adding jets is certainly not the sole possible reason to extend the runway. And it's also true that there is no conclusive evidence that they're trying to extend the runway at all, although current explanations for the TPA's latest change of plans are not cogent.
But I stand by my assertion that current and prior TPA conduct would suggest (i) a potential desire to extend the runway, (ii) a need to take their statements of "intentions" with a grain of salt and (iii) a consistent desire to avoid regulatory scrutiny regarding expansion. But yes, "adding jets" is speculation. I should have said "increasing the potential list of destinations by enabling departures by fully-fuelled Q400s and/or jets" -- which, I should add, I might support if it were proposed and pursued in a transparent and regulated manner.
I would have thought so, too, but:
(1) I don't actually know whether adding fill to the inner harbour would constitute an incremental step toward extending the runway; basic math would say that any added land to either end would constitute such a step, but I agree that (from a layman's view) it looks like extending west is the more viable option.
(2) No one knows what the TPA's "next change of plans" will bring; perhaps they will have much more fill than they had anticipated (don't forget that, in addition to the 200+ metre pedestrian portion of the tunnel, the "pedestrian tunnel project" also involves digging a further kilometre-or-so for the City's water/sewer main project). Perhaps they will have the "new" EA consider whether to dump the fill not just at the east end, but at several possible locations (typically EAs are structured this way), including at the west end of the runway.
For the record, I, personally, have no horse in this race. I am strictly interested from a governance perspective. I have previously said that I see the business efficacy in the TPA's conduct, but I happen to think such conduct is inappropriate from a government agency. I have also said that I am ambivalent about the ultimate fate of any expansion efforts. I have used the airport in the past and am likely to do so in the future.
I mention the foregoing because there seem to be a lot of people in this thread who are defensive about the TPA's conduct. It is curious to see people who seem to have such a strong desire to cast the TPA's intentions in a favourable light. I struggle to see what in the TPA's recent history would inspire such confidence, and would appreciate some assistance in this regard.
Last edited:
k10ery
Senior Member
I don't think anybody has commented on the stories about the ESR for this project and the objections. Reading the ESR, it appears that:
- the proponent for this project is the Toronto Port Authority
- the agency that must approve the EA is ... the Toronto Port Authority
Meanwhile, Harper tells us that the federal EA process is too onerous, with too many agencies involved!
So, let's say the City DOES want to object to TPA dumping 100,000 tonnes of rock into the Inner Harbour. Incredibly, it looks like there is nothing we can do about it anyway.
The City's objections are here.
- the proponent for this project is the Toronto Port Authority
- the agency that must approve the EA is ... the Toronto Port Authority
Meanwhile, Harper tells us that the federal EA process is too onerous, with too many agencies involved!
So, let's say the City DOES want to object to TPA dumping 100,000 tonnes of rock into the Inner Harbour. Incredibly, it looks like there is nothing we can do about it anyway.
The City's objections are here.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I think Harper's reasons for gutting Environment Canada and the EA process are the same as the reasons for getting rid of the long census. Both provide public input and facts, neither of which allow messages to be controlled. If they want to spend or not spend money a certain way or approve or disapprove a business opportunity the main obstacle to doing that are facts and public opinion that are against that decision.
Eug
Senior Member
I wonder if extending the runway would help props too. That runway just seems short. (I am not a pilot.)
BTW, I hope they get some (quiet) jets eventually.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
Please note that, in light of other posters' critique, I have previously amended my original assertion, as follows:
Original Assertion:
Revision:
Further up in the thread there are posts that suggest extending the runway would be necessary for a Q400 to take off fully-fuelled, and that it is this factor that effectively prevents Porter from flying direct to Florida (and other destinations of a similar range). There is also suggestion that there exist jets that, relative to the Q400, are (1) quieter, (2) have a shorter runway requirement and (3) have a greater range. I'm not sure if these characteristics are found in a single type of jet.
In any event, it could very well be the case that the jet vs. turboprop issue is a false dichotomy, and that both waterfront residents AND BBTCA passengers and airlines would be better off with certain jet technology, but are instead forced by circumstances to live with Q400s. Unfortunately, these are not debates that are had in public. Instead we are left with a polarized mess in which both sides makes maximalist demands, and the "public bodies" charged with governance either (1) abdicate (i.e. the feds and the province) or (2) take sides (the TPA and the City).
Peepers
Banned
It is absolutely true that the jet vs. turboprop debate is a false dichotomy based on complete ignorance on the part of the nimby's.
If you compare, for example, the Bombardier Q400 to the Bombardier BRJ "Jet" the only difference between their propulsion systems is that in the Q400 a turbine ("jet") drives a propeller (via a reduction gear-box) whereas in the RJ "Jet" a turbine ("jet") drives a high-bypass fan.
The high-bypass fan engine is relatively very quiet because the air from the fan provides a shroud around the hot exhaust gas thereby reducing "jet" noise greatly. As a result Turbo-fan engines are quieter than Turbo-prop engines especially on landing because when a turbo-prop engine reverses the pitch of its propellers the noise is very loud. In the case of Billy Bishop airport this can be heard all over the Islands and beyond because Prop-Jets are louder than Fan-Jets.
Furthermore, a lengthening of the runway would lead to lower noise levels on landing because full reverse thrust would not be needed in certain circumstances and Airlines avoid the use of full reverse thrust whenever possible to limit maintenance costs.
Last edited:
k10ery
Senior Member
You're missing the point.
Jets though quiet have greater range, which means more destinations, more flights, and more noise. So of course the NIMBYs oppose (quiet) jets.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
^ Just to be clear, you're saying that the real issue isn't "noise", but rather "expansion".
k10ery
Senior Member
Yeah. That was clearer.
sjc
Active Member
New Porter lounge in Newark
Porter has opened a new lounge at the Newark Airport, near their gate.
http://www.jaunted.com/story/2012/8...ts+Fancy+Free+Lounge+Access+to+Newark+Airport
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1028489/porter-airlines-opens-newark-airport-passenger-lounge
Porter has opened a new lounge at the Newark Airport, near their gate.
http://www.jaunted.com/story/2012/8...ts+Fancy+Free+Lounge+Access+to+Newark+Airport
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1028489/porter-airlines-opens-newark-airport-passenger-lounge
LNahid2000
Senior Member
^This lounge has been open for over a month now! I was quite impressed with it when I flew out of Newark last month.
TOareaFan
Superstar
You must have happened on it during the "soft" opening. They only notified VIP Porter members about the opening this week.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I too flew out of it in late July, with brian burke on my flight of all people. there was some final construction touches going on at the time, but it was open to the public.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Not to knickpick, but the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW100 engines on the Q400 are jet engines. They just used the jet turbine to turn a prop instead of creating exhaust thrust. Beyond that, both turboprops and turbofans are jet engines with compressors, turbines and combustion chambers. If you think the Q400 is quiet, just sit by the engine when the propellor thrust reversers come on.
Modern regional jets are becoming as quiet or more so than turboprop aircraft. If this is the reason for keeping them off the Island then it's soon to be challenged anew.