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

nfitz said:
That's an absolutely absurd argument. The emissions of aircract in flight are nothing to do with this process. It only demonstrates that those bring up these arguments are only interested in stopping the use of the airport, rather than the noise issues they claim
Click to expand...

I'm little bit lost here. Do you really think an aircraft doesn't release any exhaust emissions while sitting on the ground and running its engines at full speed for 15 minutes for whatever testing they are doing, or during taxi, take-off, landing?

nfitz said:
What about the ferry emissions. Have you seen that thing belch smoke? Why not put in a bridge instead.
Click to expand...

We didn't asked for ferry either.

nfitz said:
What about the commitments the city broke about the bridge. The bridge is covered in the agreement ... but that doesn't really work into your Nimby narrative, does it?
Click to expand...

That's a good one. May be you should ask TPA why they signed a binding contract with a contractor to built a bridge just days before the mayoral election. They were completely aware that bridge proposal was in jeopardy as the strongest candidate of the election, David Miller, was totally against the plan and was clear that he would cancel it if elected. What you normally expect from a responsible government agency is to wait and see the outcome of the election and respect to the decisions of the elected representatives. But no, they went ahead and signed the contract ignoring the choice of the Torontonians and their elected representatives and costed tax payers of Canada $35m in damages.
 
nfitz said:
OUR information?

Yeah, I thought as much ... your not a person, but a front for some Nimby group.

East coast?
Click to expand...

That was a purely technical discussion which I agreed that Porter's numbers are correct. What are you talking about?
 
nfitz said:
That's an absolutely absurd argument. The emissions of aircract in flight are nothing to do with this process. It only demonstrates that those bring up these arguments are only interested in stopping the use of the airport, rather than the noise issues they claim

What about the ferry emissions. Have you seen that thing belch smoke? Why not put in a bridge instead.

What about the commitments the city broke about the bridge. The bridge is covered in the agreement ... but that doesn't really work into your Nimby narrative, does it?
Click to expand...

What a lot of mindless non sequiturs and ad hominem insults. Because the OP is not actively campaigning to replace the ferry with a bridge, then s/he can't make legitimate points about the impact on air quality? How absolutely ludicrous.

nfitz, this is trolling. You can do better!
 
k10ery said:
nfitz, this is trolling. You can do better!
Click to expand...
Of course I can do better ... but with these absurd and idiotic Nimby attacks why should I? Any difficult question I ask gets ignored. It's clear we are being played by a Nimby organisation and not a person, from the pronoun usage. What individual would talk in the third person?

Besides, most of the discussion simply is about the three-party agreement. It's only an agreement, which the City has failed to honour as much an anyone else, by not permitting the bridge that the agreement envisions.
 
^ This whole argument is starting to get ridiculous. You're both sticking to your talking points and not listening to what each other is saying. It's you though with words like "absurd" and "idiotic", who is adding an element of hostility to the discussion.
 
Cinnamon said:
1. Porter claims new jets are comparably quiet (I would say comparably noisy), but I haven't heard any claim regarding their exhaust emissions. I expect a jet engine would produce 30% more exhaust gases than a similar turboprop.

2. Noise levels should be same as claimed by Porter and we should expect 30% increase in exhaust emissions. So no trade-off for residents there.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that a jet powered aircraft creates more exhaust pollution than a turbo-prop powered aircraft? Where is your source confirming this? Or are you just assuming this. Where did you come up with the 30% increase in exhaust pollution over a turbo prop aircraft? Again a number you simply grabbed out of the air, or do you have a source.

See I could as easily say that a jet powered aircraft creates 30% less pollution and the entire basis of the Tripartite agreement falls apart. Doesn't it?
 
^Seriously, Nfitz. You're usually much more engaging than this. Are you still mad that Cinnamon mistook you for a Fordite? I'm only mentioning any of this because you have earned my respect in the past.

Cinnamon -- I know it's tough getting to know the ropes 'round here, but branding someone a Fordite is the UT equivalent of Godwin's law, in that it tends to bring reasoned discussion to an abrupt end. Nfitz happens to agree with Rob Ford about the airport, but I'm pretty sure the commonality doesn't go much further. While your tone and argument have generally been gracious in the face of unwarranted hostility (Nfitz is only the most recent example), the "single-issue poster" tends to be highly scrutinized for good reason and needs to tread carefully.
 
I've said this before, but it's way to early to call anyone a NIMBY on this. Porter and the airport are important assets to this city and the proposal deserves to be studied and considered. That said, given the agreement in place and the fact that for a number decades we've been trying to turn this area into a liveable neighbourhood, tourist attraction, recreational destination and all around great place to hang out and have a good time, residents and those who use the area for recreational purposes have every right to be concerned about the proposal and it's potential to derail Waterfront Toronto's vision for the area until it can be shown that there will be minimal negative impact.

Porter and the TPA don't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to honesty, and every one of their claims needs to be verified before I would be comfortable letting this go ahead. Once it's been established that there will be negligible negative impact to WT's vision for the area and people still oppose the expansion plans, then go ahead and scream NIMBY all you want. For the time being though there are two perfectly legitimate plans/visions for the area and before supporting one over the other we need to see if they can both work at the same time.
 
Cinnamon said:
May be you should ask TPA why they signed a binding contract with a contractor to built a bridge just days before the mayoral election. They were completely aware that bridge proposal was in jeopardy as the strongest candidate of the election, David Miller, was totally against the plan and was clear that he would cancel it if elected.
Click to expand...
The problem with using elections as referenda of course is that while David Miller was, indisputably, against the bridge, he only gained 43.26% of the vote. The two next candidates, Hall and Tory, were both for the bridge and their combined vote was 47.24%. John Nunziata considered it a "done deal" to be "moved on from" according to John Barber's article of Sept 18/2003, and he got 5.2%. I'm not so pigheaded that I would then claim that 52.44% is a majority of a bridge since clearly people were voting for various people for various reasons (and for JN because they needed their head examined), I would say that perhaps the best approach would have been to hold a referendum on the bridge and give the people a direct say rather than relying on a clearly fractured electoral landscape.
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
^Seriously, Nfitz. You're usually much more engaging than this.
Click to expand...
I know ... performance is sub-standard. I can't hide it any longer. The vodka wasn't doing it anymore. I have a crack problem.

voxpopulicosmicum said:
Are you still mad that Cinnamon mistook you for a Fordite?
Click to expand...
No, I was being a prick about it long before that. That was amusing actually ... the automatic assumption that simply that if one agrees with Ford, that one supports Ford. Just because we have ... uh had ... the same dealer ...
 
^It's been an interesting week for you: you've been labelled a Ford supporter and a homosexual and you've come out as an alcoholic and crack-addict. I dare say you have a future in municipal politics. Keep lickin' those rocks!
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
^It's been an interesting week for you: you've been labelled a Ford supporter and a homosexual and you've come out as an alcoholic and crack-addict. I dare say you have a future in municipal politics. Keep lickin' those rocks!
Click to expand...

I would vote for nfitz.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top