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

Peepers:
I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history of the airport.

Regularly scheduled commercial service began in 1984 with CityExpress Airlines using four engine "Dash 7's" (much noisier than today's Q-400's).

David Miller was elected in 2003, i.e. when Miller came to office the Island Airport had been in continued commercial service with regularly scheduled carriers for almost 20 years (of course the airport itself had been in existence decades before that. During WW2 the Norwegian Air Force used the airport as a training base which is why the park nearby is called "Little Norway").

In 1984 when regularly scheduled commercial service began there were no co-op's or condo's in the area of Bathhurst Quay instead it was one big open public park. Ironically the residents of what was once a public park want the airport to be turned into a park for their enjoyment.

I don't see any merit in turning the airport into a public park that can be "rejoined" with the rest of the Island. I think if that were to happen we would see the demise of the Island Ferries as the tunnel would become the sole access point to the Islands. Without the ferries the Islands would lose a big part of their magical quality and just become another city park.
Click to expand...

Woodbridge_Heights:
Show me where an airport can be built brand new in Toronto without having massive protests. Pickering has shown that a new airport will face protests an order of magnitude greater than what we are seeing against the Island airport.

Why can't we use an existing asset? It's not like Porter/Island airport isn't making an (alleged) profit.
Click to expand...

Well, Peepers, you raise good points. I really shouldn't post when I'm so grouchy, I do look like quite a cow.
I knew the airport had been achieving some regularity since the 80's, but if I remember correctly, by the time Miller was coming around, the whole thing felt like it was dying on the vine. I don't think it was turning much of a profit - hence the Port Authority cranking things things up. You're right about there not being much around Bathurst Quay in 1984, but it's not like the area had been off the development radar. Trudeau announced the area from York to Bathurst south of Queen's Quay as residential development ready around 1972, and got Harbourfront Centre rolling. Arguably the city and the Port Authority have always been at loggerheads, each building irregularly against each other - sometimes for, sometimes against. Ontario Place went in before regular service (courtesy of government funding), and not expecting any. HarbourCity was proposed in the late 1960's (wiping the aiport off the map and relocating it on what is now the Leslie Spit), and but it was only a couple years later that plans started popping up for serious development of Queen's Quay as a residential spot and tourist attraction.

I approved of Miller's stand against a bridge, and it was the biggest first sourball of his career when he waffled and said that he didn't rule out a tunnel. Again, it wasn't just the bridge that was an issue - it was the ever-returning issue of airport expansion that had been going on irregularly for decades. Also more than that - a lot of people were looking for airport shrinkage. Nothing was happening on the vast Pickering lands, and a small airport there didn't seem out of line. Buttonville had opened in the decades since - and why not there? Hamilton, too.
It doesn't have to be the exact replica of the island airport of course, but rather a moving of it's services to already capable areas, or to areas not as sensitive.

Porter wasn't exactly an ideal tenant from the get-go, with a barely concealed expansionist agenda. Normal for businesses, but not so great for rare port-parkland areas. First they wouldn't rule out a larger ferry, then of course came the surprise razing and enlarging of the terminal, and the new ferry, and now the tunnel and now the jets, etc. 'The Toronto Port Authority confirmed on September 12, 2008, that Porter Airlines was fined for breaking noise curfews in its operations at the Island Airport' (wikipedia) which hasn't been endearing.

So - of course this thing has a tangled history, and no one's hands are exactly clean. But in the spirit of making deals and agreements, the prospect of a deal being struck that would see the airport's capacity moved elsewhere and the harbour made entire, was not impossible. It certainly seemed possible at the onset of the Miller years.

On a side note, as others have said, we don't know about Porter's profits. Are they really doing well?

PanOntario:
I wonder where you live... You must live right across from the airport to be making such comments.
Click to expand...
Nope. Near College and Yonge.
 
CanadianNational said:
On a side note, as others have said, we don't know about Porter's profits. Are they really doing well?
Click to expand...
As a private company, we'll never know for certain, but you can bet the equity partners are a demanding lot.

If the city really wants to be rid of Porter, they should ensure the ticket cost of the Union-Pearson train is as low as possible (through subsidy if needed, shared with Air Canada?). Also, consider pre-boarding for USA-bound flights at Union and even seamless luggage transfer from the train to the plane. Lastly, make that train ride nice, like Porter's excellent lounge, with free coffee and snacks, free Wi-Fi, comfy leatherette chairs, etc. If I fly Porter, for $3 I can grab the streetcar at the bottom of Sumach, take the subway to Union, and grab the free Porter shuttle bus to the ferry terminal. That's the Union-Pearson train's competition.

BTW, the Q400s flying over my yard in Cabbagetown are hardly noticeable, while that damn Ornge chopper and the low level, high rev'ing cottage-bound float planes cause much more racket. IMO, float planes should be required to climb over the lake to a higher altitude, and Ornge could operate quieter aircraft, like the quiet (relatively speaking) McDonnell Douglas MD Explorers operated by London Air Ambulance in the UK, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD_Helicopters_MD_Explorer
 
Last edited:
CanadianNational said:
Peepers:


Woodbridge_Heights:


Well, Peepers, you raise good points. I really shouldn't post when I'm so grouchy, I do look like quite a cow.
I knew the airport had been achieving some regularity since the 80's, but if I remember correctly, by the time Miller was coming around, the whole thing felt like it was dying on the vine. I don't think it was turning much of a profit - hence the Port Authority cranking things things up.
Click to expand...

The airport was struggling to make money but it was not dying on the vine in fact the administration of Mayor Hall approved construction of a fixed link so the airports future was quite bright before Miller came along and killed the bridge. Millers actions cost the taxpayers tens of millions to settle ensuing lawsuits but no doubt delighted the wealthy members of the National Yacht club who were concerned that the construction of a bridge would interfere with the enjoyment of their pleasure-craft.


You're right about there not being much around Bathurst Quay in 1984, but it's not like the area had been off the development radar. Trudeau announced the area from York to Bathurst south of Queen's Quay as residential development ready around 1972, and got Harbourfront Centre rolling.
Click to expand...

Yes plans for residential development were on the drawing boards thirty years ago but as the passage of time has proven - the continued existence of a commercial airport has not hindered development of condo's along the waterfront in fact there is scarcely any land left to develop new condo's and the ones that have been built are among the most desirable (and expensive) in the city.

HarbourCity was proposed in the late 1960's (wiping the aiport off the map and relocating it on what is now the Leslie Spit), and but it was only a couple years later that plans started popping up for serious development of Queen's Quay as a residential spot and tourist attraction.
Click to expand...

Luckily for us plans to develop HarbourCity were scraped because had it gone ahead the Toronto islands would today be connected to the mainland with a fixed link and the enchanting ferry rides would be no more. The airport has actually acted as a firewall against the type of development that we don't want to see on the Islands!


On a side note, as others have said, we don't know about Porter's profits. Are they really doing well?
Click to expand...

As a private company we cannot know how healthy it's financials are but lets hope that they are well in the black because Porter provide important competition against Air Canada and WestJet. Without Porter airfares to the cities Porter serves would go up. This is in no ones interest!


PanOntario:

Nope. Near College and Yonge.
Click to expand...

I am surprised at your opposition because at Yonge & College you cannot see or hear aircraft flying in and out of the Island. Airfares being equal would't you rather jump on the subway for $3 and a short journey to the Island Airport OR would you rather shell out an extra $60 on a limo ride each way to Pearson?
 
k10ery said:
Those sneaky, sneaky bastards now want even longer runway extensions:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...sion-in-move-to-reduce-noise/article14100462/

No way this gets approved, I would think. Why would they even propose it?
Click to expand...

They are proposing it as an option only because the longer runway will allow for even quieter operations for not only the proposed CSeries but the existing Q400. The longer a runway the less the need for reverse thrust and thrust reverse is the nosiest part of airport operations. Also on takeoff operations will be quieter as a result of the different noise profile between standing takeoff (used on short runways) and rolling takeoffs.

According to the article the longer runway will not have an effect on boating so I see no reason why this proposal shouldn't be approved. Unfortunately the Luddites at city hall will use this news to bash Porter over the head.
 
Last edited:
Why do they keep stating that these extensions will not have an impact on boating. Something seems fishy on that. Are they saying that the runway extension itself proposed by Porter will not impact boating pretending that any future moving of the marine exclusion zone buoys is somehow not related to the runway extension itself? What was the current marine exclusion zone based on?

P.S. You can be a member of the National Yacht Club impacted by an airport bridge for fees of $830/yr plus dinghy ownership which only costs a few grand more. The exclusivity of NYC is right up there with those who afford flying on Porter 3 or 4 times per year.
 
Line each side of the main runway with trees from one end to the other, that would help reduce noise.
 
I am surprised at your opposition because at Yonge & College you cannot see or hear aircraft flying in and out of the Island. Airfares being equal would't you rather jump on the subway for $3 and a short journey to the Island Airport OR would you rather shell out an extra $60 on a limo ride each way to Pearson?
Click to expand...

I'll pay to get to Pearson. I'm for planes, airports, the latest and best, convenience and comfort - but I will not fly Porter, or, to be more precise, I will not use the island airport in support of what the islands and harbour could be.
I'm glad the fixed link to Pearson is up and running - now that's progress...or will be fully, when it's electrified.
People who are against the airport - in order to see the Harbour's potential fulfilled - are all over the city, not just south of the Gardiner. It's also certainly not just the yacht club. There are people everywhere who would like to see a more beautifully designed, public and enlarged Toronto Island Park. The islands and their amenities have become almost too small as the city population has boomed.

Personally, I am not approaching the argument from the 'noise' perspective, or the 'fumes' or 'wildlife' perspectives that usually trotted out when people want to complain about the airport. I haven't found it too loud (at present), and although I think less pollution is better, it's a bit disingenuous to argue for it when the prevailing winds over the city generally blow Gardiner exhaust from the northwest to the southeast toward the lake. Nor am I opposed to the sight of the odd airplane flying hither and yon over the island area. Pontoons seem to be fun for that. As for wildlife, that's a bit laughable as the islands are the most heavily trod bits of city short of a sidewalk.

That said, I think jets coming in are a bad idea, because once expanded - as freeways have shown us - you have difficulty doing without them. If Porter folds - or the port authority wants to open the airport up to others, including international flights to the states, do we really think all the new jets will be less audible than a normal quietly speaking voice? That the size and regularity of them will not carry it's own meaning? That is - in our most basic responses to conditions - the augmentation of size, frequency and visual presence of the jets low over the islands and harbour will not make them more pleasurable nor seem more desirable. In fact, they may do the opposite - they may be basically alarming.

I'm approaching it from an aesthetic perspective, (to me) a planning perspective, and, admittedly one of an emotional response to one's surroundings. I suppose we're all supposed to be arguing hard facts here, but a lot of this is emotional. Some people think planes are nifty and neat and want more, the way some people want supertall buildings. Others have different responses and different approaches.
First off, aesthetically, the airport is as banal as any airport, flat and nearly a visual zero. Unless one's a flight enthusiast, there's not going to be much to take note of. Not unlike glass box enthusiasts. Aesthetically, I would like to see the islands as an attractively highly civilized landscaped environment, and one that is enthusiastically suffused with nature - much like Corktown Common. It would reintegrate nature with the city front, and partake of nature more fully than the city across the channel and harbour can. The islands are where we can go to look back upon ourselves. It gives the city a front, and a journey across water - something always wonderfully symbolic. In terms of looks, a green necklace across the front of the city seems natural, complete and right. Even if it is not as environmentally simple as being 'green', it would be 'complete'. It could also be a hell of an attraction though - more interesting and perhaps even more profitable in soft terms than the airport could ever be. A compliment to Ontario Place. The tunnel is good for being invisible and it need not be the demise of the ferries. Especially if another channel is cut and the the current island airport lawn is made into it's own island entity.

In terms of planning, I just think it's badly situated. The traffic situation down there alone is horrible already, and possibly irremediable. Cars, cars, cars. A friend of mine and I tried to drive through two weeks ago and it was bumper-to-bumper gridlock. Now there's a school and community center at that corner. Does only the airport's expansion have the right of way here?

As an emotional response to one's surroundings, that ties back to aesthetics for me. It's an intangible that people don't like to bring up because it's seen as soft, 'not factual' and not great for winning arguments. But Toronto is a gridiron-planned city, often lacking in planned delight, leisure, enjoyment, rest, languour and a sense of romance. Toronto is starved for curves, liquidity, gorgeousness, and rest. The islands and harbour are the sensual leftovers of a waterfront that the protestant banking monotheists of the city filled in, squared off, and belted off with industry, disconnecting it from the city. Hostile to nature, pleasure and - at the risk of sounding a bit far out - the feminine - they laid the foundation for an orderly place of commerce without easy delight. Imagine an airport being proposed for Stanley Park in Vancouver.
Hasn't the harbour seen enough industry? It's already a full third smaller than when Toronto was founded. I think Toronto needs reflection and respite more than it needs more busyness. I think an expanded island airport is trying to become too much of an OK thing, in what has become absolutely the wrong place.

Luckily for us plans to develop HarbourCity were scraped because had it gone ahead the Toronto islands would today be connected to the mainland with a fixed link and the enchanting ferry rides would be no more. The airport has actually acted as a firewall against the type of development that we don't want to see on the Islands!
Click to expand...

Good point - about the fixed link. Whether it would have nixed the all ferries or not is not certain. It did show that moving the airport wasn't a big deal. As for the airport being a firewall, well, yes and no. The airport is the kind of development we don't want to see on the islands. Has it prevented the expansion of condos and such? Hypothetical. But given past reactions to the few plans that have shown those sorts of developments, they've been met with the same dismay and resistance that the airport expansion is - or the exhibition place hotel.

The condos by the lake are desireable for a great many marketable number of reasons (though I smell lotsa hype regarding all those bland new towers). Lake view! Lake view! Though I can see the lake from my place up at Yonge-College-y, and it ain't that exciting. Whatever the reasons that the new buildings are so desireable, it's not positively because of the island airport, though it may be in spite of it.
 
Last edited:
CanadianNational said:
Imagine an airport being proposed for Stanley Park in Vancouver.
Click to expand...

Actually, I can. There is a water aerodrome very close to Stanley Park in Vancouver Harbour. Imagine if it was proposed to build a small runway, just a small runway, so that conventional aircraft can take off and land there to serve Vancouver Island and the near BC interior (never mind that these flights are currently served from YVR's south terminal). There's already an airport there, and that new conventional aircraft would be quieter than seaplanes! Don't worry about Stanley Park or the residential areas nearby! And rest assured we won't push for any later expansion!

(I know that would probably never happen, but you did mention Stanley Park!)

Seeing Porter and the TPA work in tandem to push jets and a major runway expansion really bothers me. The TPA is supposed to be a public agency, working in the public interest. Instead, it's looking too much like it's in Deluce's pocket.
 
ST:

I found that it is interesting for Deluce to obfusticate the issue - how long has the Q400s been operating at the airport? If noise reduction is the rationale, the sudden concern over such is certainly interesting timing.

It would be more informing to compare the noise envelope of the "whisperjet" based on the original proposal for the runway extension vs. this new version.

As to TPA, well, considering the appointment process, no surprises there.

AoD
 
One of the neighbourhood groups (Harbourfront Community Association) is bringing noise level information forward at today's meetings (see below). They've posted this publicly, and I'm wondering if this recent announcement is in some way Deluce's response. I too thought the timing was interesting. Noise has always been a topic of discussion at any meetings related to the airport, so this sudden recent concern is indeed interesting.

As an area resident, I personally think the noise issue is less of a concern than it is often made out to be. Traffic noise often overshadows airport noise. It's really only engine maintenance that is horrible noise. And as someone mentioned upthread, the float planes and helicopters are noisier than the Q400s.
Airport Noise Management Proposals -
1. No engine maintenance run-ups before 8 am, or after 8 pm, except for emergency purposes, as engine run-ups are the worst noise problem.
2. No island airport commercial flights after 10 pm, as late night noise is the most disturbing noise, when the neighbourhood is wanting to go to bed.
3. Cancel city permits for overnight construction at the Island Airport, as loud overnight construction noise disturbs the sleep of neighbourhood residents.
4. The City should consider stopping the use of Adjusted DBA Decibel measurements, and use Complete DBC Decibels for monitoring airport noise. DBA decibels do not measure bass noise and airport noise is mostly bass noise.

Harbourfront Community Noise Standards
It has been determined that any noise above 70 DBA = 80 DBC Decibels, is a disturbing noise When noise reaches 85 DBC Decibels, it is a serious noise problem, especially when sustained.

Noise Comparisons With Both DBA & DBC Decibel Measurements
guiet nights 40 dba decibels = 45 dbc decibels
quiet room indoors 45 dba = 52 dbc
quiet balcony outdoors 50 dba = 60 dbc
passing cars on a busy street 60 dba = 70 dbc
loud television, vacuum cleaner 65 dba = 75 dbc
loud stereo, power lawnmower 70 dba = 80 dbc
louder bass sounds, garbage trucks 75 dba = 88 dbc
loud motorcycles 80 dba = 95 dbc
live concert sound systems 85 dba = 100 dbc
fire engines, sirens 90 dba = 110 dbc
lightning 100 dba = 120 dbc


distant airport noise, airplane flying overhead 65 dba = 75 dbc
airplane takeoff, more bass noise, 70 dba = 82 dbc
airplane taxiing 73 dba = 85 dbc
airplane landing (braking) 75 dba = 88 dbc
engine maintenance run-up 78 dba = 90 dbc

Noise Measurement Note: Adjusted DBA Decibel readings are 15 - 20% lower than Complete DBC Decibel readings, for the same sound, as DBA adjusted decibels do not measure bass noise.

It's also important to note that airplane noise readings are taken from a larger distance than other noise comparisons. Measured up close, ie. on the runway, airplane noise readings are much higher.

Based on the Community Noise Standards, we recommend these Airport Noise Management Proposals, and hope City Council will adopt these Community Noise Standards for the Harbourfront.
Click to expand...
 
PL:

I am completely conjecturing here - maybe Deluce knew the jet won't meet the requirement even with the original proposed runway extension? Or maybe fitting into it exacts too much of a performance penalty? If there is one word that I would use to characterize him, it's untrustworthy.

AoD
 
I just thought it was verrrrry interesting timing ... who knows (again, conjecture) ... perhaps he's throwing a bone so that when the additional extension gets turned down he can say "I tried to reduce the noise but it wasn't approved". He doesn't do anything without a reason.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top