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

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Realistically, it's balanced field length that determines the aircraft's payload in a runway limited situation. In this case, I think they'll be close to the LCY limit of 1500nm. And that would allow them this:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?DU=mi&MS...fw,+atl,+stl,+mia,+hav,+yyt,+NAS&R=1500nm@ytz

Very interesting. Florida, Bahamas, Cuba, Cancun and maybe Jamaica and Dominican if you stretch it a couple of miles.

All this talk I hear on the news this morning about airports other than YTZ is a brilliant smokescreen. Instead of people fearing jets at YTZ, they are told to fear a lack of jets at YTZ.

 

[kEiThZ]

^Sorry dowlingm, but I'm with Peepers on this in terms of its political implications, especially for Chow mayoral campaign. I think Miller was successful on the island airport bridge issue because he was showing principled leadership, not necessarily because a majority of Torontonians wanted YTZ shut down. Things have changed in the past 10 years -- Porter is here and generally well liked, people are afraid to do anything that could be cast as "bad for business" and the pedestrian tunnel will open in a year or two. I would imagine that Porter won't even need to buy city council votes to get the tripartite agreement amended to allow jets. Expanding the runway might be a little more contentious. It would surprise me if a runway expansion were exempt from environmental assessment, even under the new neutered federal enviro assessment act.

People keep thinking Miller won because of the airport bridge. I think he won because he represented change and a "clean sweep", and the bridge of emblematic of the back-door politicking that happened at City Hall. Nobody outside the immediate vicinity of the airport gives a fig about noise concerns.

I agree that this is a wedge issue, but I think plays more to the strengths of the right wing parties, not Chow. I would like to be wrong about that, but clearly I would be expecting too much of the electorate to get angry enough about the Toronto Port Authority's deviousness for their allied politicians to pay a price at the polls.

Or they could be like me. I may not like the deviousness of some politicians. But I also dislike the constant caving to NIMBYs which has a real impact on the economic interests of this city and my services directly. YTZ is the one airport I can reach by transit reasonably. The airport express train won't do anything for me except marginally shorten my travel time to Pearson for a drastic increase in the cost of access to that airport. So I go from 2 hrs to get there to 1.5 hrs and it'll cost an extra $20, when I can reach YTZ from virtually anywhere in the 416 in 1.5 hours.

What is it with people in this town that they think they can build a world class city without actual infrastructure? They recognize transit as important. But somehow they think Toronto will be world class without airports that bring in business people and tourists. For all the comparisons to London or Paris or New York, people forget how vital aviation is to making those cities world-class.

The one wild card is the provinicial government. Obviously Hudak would go along, and would probably like to build a superhighway through the annex to get there. But how does it play out if the Liberals stick around? I doubt they would be outright obstructionist, but they might insist on a full EA, the results of which might not be favourable for Porter/the TPA.

Where's the scope for provincial involvement? It's a federal agency, federal area of interest and the tripartite agreement does not involve the province. I fail to see where they'd get involved.

Though I'd like to see a full EA, I don't think it will be that cumbersome or a show-stopper for any runway extension. Despite Vaughan's dramatic warnings, adding a few hundred or even a thousand feet is not likely to dramatically impact the environment. If anything it might actually improve the situation by moving the start point on the take-off run and the rotation point. YTZ could also be redeveloped to get rid of 15/33 and use that area for hangars and run-up areas. The noise would then be obstructed by the terminal and reflected out over the lake.

Personally, I'll be watching to see if the provincial Liberals oppose this. The jobs being created and sustained by Porter are important. If it isn't for facilities like Downsview and YTZ, we'd all be selling condos to each other or serving Starbucks. If they start killing jobs to appease the NIMBYs, that'll be the last straw for me after voting for this government several times.

 

[junior43]

I think the YTZ talk will be settled by next election. My prediction is, the next election will be on the Gardiner. The report about the eastern half comes out this summer, and I'm assuming they'll recommend tearing it down. Of course, Ford will be against it, and Chow will support it.

The election will become basically a referendum on what to do with the Gardiner. Ford - keep it, Chow - tear it down. Other candidates may appear, but it'll be their position on the Gardiner that will sway a lot of voters.

All of that's also assuming Ford doesn't step in another big issue/problem/scandal that may actually get him booted/banned. Big assumption, I know, but he's lasted this long......

 

[kEiThZ]

Very interesting. All this talk I hear on the news this morning about airports other than YTZ is a brilliant smokescreen. Instead of people fearing jets at YTZ, they are told to fear a lack of jets at YTZ.

Of course, I could be wrong and they maybe planning to open another hub. But I can't understand how they'll survive fighting Air Canada or Westjet at their own hubs.

As for fearing the lack of jets, I don't think people truly understand how revolutionary the engines on the CSeries are. The noise footprint is 1/4 of a conventional turbofan aircraft. Fuel consumption is only slightly higher (~12% more I believe) than that of the Q400 today. It's got a huge wing, giving it better field performance than the Q400. It really is a gamechanger for urban airports like YTZ.

Heck, there's one UK customer that plans to fly the CS100 in full business class configuration from London-City to JFK non-stop. Porter or somebody else could actually do the same if they wanted. I'd imagine our Bay Street would love to be able to go from the office to Canary Wharf in 9 hrs total travel time vs. 12-13 hrs today via YYZ and LHR.

 

[bleu]

I'm not talking about outcomes (i.e. whether to allow jets), I'm talking about process. The TPA should be forthright about its plans rather than pretending to do one thing and actually doing another, so as to shield itself and Porter from public scrutiny.

But the TPA knows that if it was forthright there would be public outcry, so it hides its activities. That's all I'm talking about.

you are always confusing "the public" and "a handful of nimbys".
expansion of Porter serves public interest. If it is at the cost of 300 hundred nearby residents, they just have to suck it up.
Maybe Porter is playing some games, but that's smart, since nimbys will have an ourcry the second the smell anything new.

 

[bleu]

I think the YTZ talk will be settled by next election. My prediction is, the next election will be on the Gardiner. The report about the eastern half comes out this summer, and I'm assuming they'll recommend tearing it down. Of course, Ford will be against it, and Chow will support it.

The election will become basically a referendum on what to do with the Gardiner. Ford - keep it, Chow - tear it down. Other candidates may appear, but it'll be their position on the Gardiner that will sway a lot of voters.

All of that's also assuming Ford doesn't step in another big issue/problem/scandal that may actually get him booted/banned. Big assumption, I know, but he's lasted this long......

I will vote for whoever proposes to tear the whole damn thing down from Strachan to DVP.
I really don't see the importance of this section. Why does it have to be there?

For cars/trucks from the east to downtown, they can take the Richmond Exit of DVP. From the west, Strachan. Both are very close to the core.
What about those who have to travel through downtown to get somewhere else? Why the hell should we allow them to do that in the first place?

What's the problem here?

 

[PinkLucy]

To be fair, there are more than 300 people who live in close proximity to the airport. Being one of the thousands who do, it's not the planes that are as much of a problem as the traffic. When it comes to noise, the smaller planes and helicopters are far more bothersome than the Porter or AC flights. But there are definitely traffic issues -- the Lake Shore/Bathurst intersection is becoming more and more of an issue (a study is planned for next month), and the taxis that hang around at QQ/Bathurst are a PITA, although they have been working on improving that. I use the airport often -- it's awesome to be able to walk over in 5 minutes, and I'd love to catch a flight to a sunny destination without doing the Pearson thing. I just don't know how much more capacity the airport can handle, however, simply in terms of getting people there, particularly at peak hours.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Of course, I could be wrong and they maybe planning to open another hub. But I can't understand how they'll survive fighting Air Canada or Westjet at their own hubs.

As for fearing the lack of jets, I don't think people truly understand how revolutionary the engines on the CSeries are. The noise footprint is 1/4 of a conventional turbofan aircraft. Fuel consumption is only slightly higher (~12% more I believe) than that of the Q400 today. It's got a huge wing, giving it better field performance than the Q400. It really is a gamechanger for urban airports like YTZ.

^Yup, agreed. YTZ is the only place that would make sense for Porter's fleet of CS100s. I'm impressed by their tactical decision to threaten the loss of something that doesn't exist, rather than argue directly for why it should exist. It's brilliant.

you are always confusing "the public" and "a handful of nimbys".
expansion of Porter serves public interest. If it is at the cost of 300 hundred nearby residents, they just have to suck it up.
Maybe Porter is playing some games, but that's smart, since nimbys will have an ourcry the second the smell anything new.

No, I'm not confusing the public with NIMBYs. You're confusing "process" with "outcome". The TPA have been completely dishonest about extending the runway and bringing jets to YTZ. It's the dishonesty I have a problem with.

The TPA is a public body. If it does not behave in a transparent manner, that is its fault and failing, and its leadership ought to be replaced with people who will pursue the public good (whatever they perceive that to be) in a transparent way. The fact that NIMBYs make life difficult for the TPA is not an excuse for the TPA to discard its obligations of transparency. Public entities that avoid transparency are anathema to democracy. They undermine public confidence in the rule of law.

 

[junior43]

I will vote for whoever proposes to tear the whole damn thing down from Strachan to DVP.
I really don't see the importance of this section. Why does it have to be there?

Doesn't matter why it has to be there. There's a lot of commuters in the 416 who use one or both of those roads. Removing that link (DVP-Gardiner) will add to their commute times. So they'll be voting for keeping it - which could mean Ford.

For cars/trucks from the east to downtown, they can take the Richmond Exit of DVP. From the west, Strachan. Both are very close to the core.
What about those who have to travel through downtown to get somewhere else? Why the hell should we allow them to do that in the first place?

Your dictatorial humour aside (I didn't know everyone had to get the city's approval to pass through Toronto). If we remove that section, it only means more traffic on all the surrounding surface routes, increasing everyones commute times (drivers and TTC vehicles)

I know it's two different levels of governemnt, but the Province is looking for ways to improve commute times (Metrolinx, Move 2020) Yet the city would be adding to those commute times. I'm all for removing that stretch eventually but until there's better transit offered, this will only make congestion even worse. I'd guesstimate, in another 15 or 20 years it would make sense to take it down, but until then, it's a necessary evil...

Apologies for posting this here in the first place. Not enough coffee this morning and I thought I was in the Gardiner thread or Ford thread. I'll stop here on this topic.

 

[kEiThZ]

you are always confusing "the public" and "a handful of nimbys".
expansion of Porter serves public interest. If it is at the cost of 300 hundred nearby residents, they just have to suck it up.
Maybe Porter is playing some games, but that's smart, since nimbys will have an ourcry the second the smell anything new.

This. Why is it that only the interests of the South of Bloor crowd are the only one that matter? Why is it that my ability to access an airport is not considered? Why is that Rexdale residents have to put with hourly flights from Westjet and Air Canada to Montreal and Ottawa but it's a huge deal when downtowners have to confront the same?

But there are definitely traffic issues -- the Lake Shore/Bathurst intersection is becoming more and more of an issue (a study is planned for next month), and the taxis that hang around at QQ/Bathurst are a PITA...

If only they could build some kind of structure to convey that traffic to the Island instead of making them inconvenience local residents...oh wait...

No, I'm not confusing the public with NIMBYs. You're confusing "process" with "outcome". The TPA have been completely dishonest about extending the runway and bringing jets to YTZ. It's the dishonesty I have a problem with.

The TPA may have been dishonest on a few things in the past. But I would hardly count dumping a bit of a fill as some kind of grave dishonesty. It's not like they are attempting to add inches to the runway everyday and suddenly we'll all wake up one day to see an A380 on final to YTZ. They will not be able to extend the runway without an EA. So the whole dishonesty accussation on this front is rather odd. They will have to go through a full public consultation before extending the runway. The idea that they are being dishonest about their desire is bizarre. Why launch the EA and public consultations before they have a tenant who has the means and necessity for an extended runway?

Ditto for the jet rule. Their desire to bring the to the Island is irrelevant. Until now there has been no jet that would have been as quiet, capable of operating from YTZ, or even commercially viable from YTZ. So what's the point of bringing it up? Now that there is such an aircraft, we will have that debate. I fail to see how they are being dishonest here.

As of now, Porter is apparently calling for a 180m extension at either end by 2016. I guess they'll be going all out and will be offering flights to Vancouver.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

^I hope your fuzzy standards about the acceptability of dishonesty would also be appicable to public bodies that try to implement policies you disagree with. If so, are you saying the rule of law should be discarded when NIMBYs start to yell, or when the policy suits your taste?

I, personally, am concerned about the corrosive effect of such behaviour, for the reasons stated previously.

 

[PinkLucy]

If only they could build some kind of structure to convey that traffic to the Island instead of making them inconvenience local residents...oh wait...

The traffic isn't just an inconvenience to local residents, it's a growing concern for anyone travelling in the area, including those going to the airport. My point wasn't about inconvenience (and I seldom if ever drive so I'm not inconvenienced), it was that it is an issue for airport customers getting to and from the airport and something that needs to be considered in any expansion plans.

And a bridge wouldn't be an easy solution. It's the roads all around that are getting clogged up and dangerous (Lake Shore/Bathurst is becoming an even bigger nightmare than it always was). You would still have to get to the bridge. Unless it was a cool off-ramp/bridge from the Gardiner of course

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Where's the scope for provincial involvement? It's a federal agency, federal area of interest and the tripartite agreement does not involve the province. I fail to see where they'd get involved.

You sure about that?

 

[Voltz]

Porter seems to have made things official, they are going to ask for a runway extension and a overturn of the jet ban.

https://www.porterplans.com/

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Actually the province owns most of the land the airport sits on, and the lease reverts in 2033.

Got to love how all the promises of no jets, no runway expansions by Deluce himself turns out eh?

AoD