picard102
Senior Member
If this was the actual concern, and not some nimby nonsense, then please direct me to the organization trying to get the Gardiner, a heavy source of pollutants and noise, shut down.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
If this was the actual concern, and not some nimby nonsense, then please direct me to the organization trying to get the Gardiner, a heavy source of pollutants and noise, shut down.
Cinnamon
Active Member
Another interesting fact from London city airport is they are actually using "real" noise exposure values to determine the impact instead of doing some mathematical hocus pocus as TPA:
Noise and Track Keeping (NTK)
The noise levels produced by aircraft arriving and departing from LCA are currently monitored by a four-point noise monitoring system. Two noise monitors are located at each end of the runway in the form of a “gateway pairâ€...
And here comes the more interesting part:
- LCA’s sound insulation scheme offers sound insulation for eligible properties within the 57 dB LAeq,16h noise contour.
- LCA’s sound insulation scheme offers enhanced sound insulation to properties within 66 dB LAeq,16h noise contour and 10 yearly inspections to previously treated properties.
- In the event that any properties fall within the 69 dB LAeq,16h eligibility noise contour in the future, LCA will make an offer to purchase the property at the open market value within 6 months of the owner/occupier making an application for the Airport to do so.
As per FAA, Leq is:
Leq (equivalent sound level). This is the average noise level during a designated period (normally less than 24 hours). For example, Leq8 is used to determine the level of total noise during an 8-hour school day. It is helpful in determining if aircraft noise would or would not disturb classroom instruction, and, consequently, a need to include noise level reduction measures as project mitigation.
That means, if I live close the LCA, and exposed to an average 57dB noise within 16 hours while airport is operating, I would be eligible for a free insulation.
Noise and Track Keeping (NTK)
The noise levels produced by aircraft arriving and departing from LCA are currently monitored by a four-point noise monitoring system. Two noise monitors are located at each end of the runway in the form of a “gateway pairâ€...
And here comes the more interesting part:
- LCA’s sound insulation scheme offers sound insulation for eligible properties within the 57 dB LAeq,16h noise contour.
- LCA’s sound insulation scheme offers enhanced sound insulation to properties within 66 dB LAeq,16h noise contour and 10 yearly inspections to previously treated properties.
- In the event that any properties fall within the 69 dB LAeq,16h eligibility noise contour in the future, LCA will make an offer to purchase the property at the open market value within 6 months of the owner/occupier making an application for the Airport to do so.
As per FAA, Leq is:
Leq (equivalent sound level). This is the average noise level during a designated period (normally less than 24 hours). For example, Leq8 is used to determine the level of total noise during an 8-hour school day. It is helpful in determining if aircraft noise would or would not disturb classroom instruction, and, consequently, a need to include noise level reduction measures as project mitigation.
That means, if I live close the LCA, and exposed to an average 57dB noise within 16 hours while airport is operating, I would be eligible for a free insulation.
Peepers
Banned
I can't top picard102's excellent rebuttal to your comments but I will add the following:
Re: London City airport. Yes it is 8 Miles from the historic center of London but the financial center is a different matter altogether! Did you watch the video? On final approach the jet passes directly over the skyscrapers of Canary in fact it looks to be about 300 feet from the top of Canada Square (2nd tallest building in London).
As for UPX being a "game changer" don't get your hopes up too much! Metrolinx have yet to tell us how much a trip will cost only to say that it will be a "premium" service. I expect it will come with a "premium" price which I predict will be from $30-$40 each way. Add to that the price of a cab ride to Union Station which even for those of us who live downtown is $10 and up you are better off just calling an airport Limo and for about the same money enjoy door to door convenience. Whether you take a UPX train or an airport Limo travelling to Pearson can easily add over a $100 round-trip to your travel costs versus from flying from Billy Bishop. To hear people talk about how great the UPX will be you would think that it is being offered for free!
Cinnamon
Active Member
In my opinion, shutting down Gardiner is not feasible at this moment as we do not have any other meaningful alternative, so it would be totally silly to ask City of Toronto to shut it down.
However, there are organizations and individuals with some interesting ideas pertaining to the reduction of noise and air pollutants sourced by Gardiner. Some of them are silly, some of them are very futuristic, some of them are very expensive. There are threads here in UT regarding Gardiner, you can check those.
On the other hand (again, in my opinion) Gardiner is not the problem, it is a symptom. Nobody commutes 2 hr/day on Gardiner just because they enjoy it; actually I am sure they hate it. However they have to do it to reach work, to reach school, or home. This is where we are standing now, there is no good public transportation system, there is no sustainable urban planning, but we have 2-3 cars per family living in suburbs.
Cinnamon
Active Member
Health Impacts Associated with Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport Expansion
November 25, 2013
Report from the Medical Officer of Health
Recommendations
The Medical Officer of Health recommends that:
1. The Board of Health recommend that City Council plan for the most health-supporting use of the airport lands upon expiry of the current Tripartite Agreement, consistent with the vision for the Central Waterfront in the City's Official Plan.
2. The Board of Health recommend to City Council that while the Tripartite Agreement remains in effect, any change to operations and associated transportation infrastructure should ensure that existing health impacts are reduced.
3. The Board of Health recommend that City Council endorse the mitigation measures applicable to current airport operations, as set out in the report from the Deputy City Manager, Cluster B, for consideration by Executive Committee on December 5, 2013.
Summary
The Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA) is located on the Toronto Islands, close to residential areas, parks, and Toronto’s downtown. A Tripartite Agreement signed by City Council, the Federal Government, and the Toronto Port Authority governs the airport's operations until its expiry in 2033 and currently prohibits jet aircraft or expansion of the airport’s runways. In Spring 2013, Porter airlines requested that the Tripartite Agreement be amended to permit jets at the BBTCA.
The public and especially some in the communities near the BBTCA have expressed concern that the airport’s current operations may be harmful to health and that the proposed expansion could worsen the situation.
A rapid Health Impact Assessment commissioned by Toronto Public Health at the request of the Board of Health concluded that this evolving area is home to some vulnerable populations and that many sources currently contribute to health risks in the area. The airport, even in its current form, contributes to existing air quality and noise-related health concerns. Traffic conditions, which increase the risk of injuries or fatalities and hamper access to recreational, health, and community services in the area are expected to worsen with expansion. Current and expanded operations at the BBTCA may also have negative impacts on health risk from air pollution, climate change, water quality, feelings of safety in the community, and enjoyment of parks and cultural and social events along the Waterfront.
The findings suggest that the long-term presence of the airport on the City's Central Waterfront has a more important impact on health than the proposed incremental changes to the airport's operations. The current vision in the City's Official Plan for the Central Waterfront as a densely populated, vibrant area that celebrates and provides connections to the lakefront aligns with the characteristics of a Healthy City. Optimal protection and enhancement of the health of Central Waterfront residents and the city as a whole calls for a reduction of current and future airport impacts.
Norm Kelly
“I don’t care. It could be planes propelled by rubber bands, as long as it’s quiet.â€
November 25, 2013
Report from the Medical Officer of Health
Recommendations
The Medical Officer of Health recommends that:
1. The Board of Health recommend that City Council plan for the most health-supporting use of the airport lands upon expiry of the current Tripartite Agreement, consistent with the vision for the Central Waterfront in the City's Official Plan.
2. The Board of Health recommend to City Council that while the Tripartite Agreement remains in effect, any change to operations and associated transportation infrastructure should ensure that existing health impacts are reduced.
3. The Board of Health recommend that City Council endorse the mitigation measures applicable to current airport operations, as set out in the report from the Deputy City Manager, Cluster B, for consideration by Executive Committee on December 5, 2013.
Summary
The Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA) is located on the Toronto Islands, close to residential areas, parks, and Toronto’s downtown. A Tripartite Agreement signed by City Council, the Federal Government, and the Toronto Port Authority governs the airport's operations until its expiry in 2033 and currently prohibits jet aircraft or expansion of the airport’s runways. In Spring 2013, Porter airlines requested that the Tripartite Agreement be amended to permit jets at the BBTCA.
The public and especially some in the communities near the BBTCA have expressed concern that the airport’s current operations may be harmful to health and that the proposed expansion could worsen the situation.
A rapid Health Impact Assessment commissioned by Toronto Public Health at the request of the Board of Health concluded that this evolving area is home to some vulnerable populations and that many sources currently contribute to health risks in the area. The airport, even in its current form, contributes to existing air quality and noise-related health concerns. Traffic conditions, which increase the risk of injuries or fatalities and hamper access to recreational, health, and community services in the area are expected to worsen with expansion. Current and expanded operations at the BBTCA may also have negative impacts on health risk from air pollution, climate change, water quality, feelings of safety in the community, and enjoyment of parks and cultural and social events along the Waterfront.
The findings suggest that the long-term presence of the airport on the City's Central Waterfront has a more important impact on health than the proposed incremental changes to the airport's operations. The current vision in the City's Official Plan for the Central Waterfront as a densely populated, vibrant area that celebrates and provides connections to the lakefront aligns with the characteristics of a Healthy City. Optimal protection and enhancement of the health of Central Waterfront residents and the city as a whole calls for a reduction of current and future airport impacts.
Norm Kelly
“I don’t care. It could be planes propelled by rubber bands, as long as it’s quiet.â€
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Residential? What is this, Markham c. 1998?
Does Malton not have residences in it? By your logic even Pearson is an abomination. Not to mention Downsview and Buttonville.
This "residential area" argument doesn't fly, no pun intended (or was it?).
An argument can be made about filling in the harbour, but not because it's in a "residential area".
Peepers
Banned
This is yet another example of Dr David McKeown sticking his nose into something that is none of his business. Rob and Doug were right when they called him an embarrassment and suggested he be fired (after seeing the above I will be emailing the executive committee asking that they fire McKeown - it's ridiculous that he is getting paid $300,000 a year to play politics).
Here are the facts. The negative health impacts that can be attributed to Billy Bishop airport (however minimal) are not going to disappear by closing down the airport. These health impacts will just be shifted further west within Toronto's city limits as more aircraft take-off and land at Pearson (and they will not necessarily be the new environmentally friendly CSeries either).
From a purely clean-air perspective the operation of Billy Bishop actually reduces air pollution within Toronto by cutting down significantly on the number of automobile trips from downtown to Pearson. Two million passengers flew in and out of Billy Bishop airport last year. How many automobile trips to Pearson did this eliminate? A million? The reduction in automobile pollutants must be enormous and you don't need to be a medical doctor getting paid $300,000 a year to figure this out!
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
What I find interesting is that filling the harbour can actually improve marine life, as while they extended te runway they could build the sea walls and lake floor to be more plant and fish friendly.
Cinnamon
Active Member
Every airport has its own limitations and own NEF contours. Best approach is try to limit or ban residential development within or above NEF 30 contour.
Peepers
Banned
I received the following email from Robert Deluce:
If like me (and a majority of Toronto residents) you support the introduction of WhisperJets to Billy Bishop Airport make sure that you email members of the executive committee well before next Thursday's meeting to let them know that you are on board with Porters plans!
If like me (and a majority of Toronto residents) you support the introduction of WhisperJets to Billy Bishop Airport make sure that you email members of the executive committee well before next Thursday's meeting to let them know that you are on board with Porters plans!
Cinnamon
Active Member
I heard similar arguments but never be able to find a technical or environmental document supporting it. I would be very interested to read one if exists.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I heard it from one of the consultations, the planners had a little presentation board there showing it, as well as someone there to explain it and answer questions.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
I plan to email members and let them know I am NOT onboard with Porter's plans!
chriskayTO
Active Member
There's still the outstanding issue of fuel storage and Porter's proposal to rip up the foot of Bathurst to create a tunnel and a massive parking lot. I'm not sure why people aren't focussing on this more.
rbt
Senior Member
It's the same as military funding advancing general science knowledge.
While true, it's one of the most inefficient ways to go about doing it. If we had the goal of improving the harbour we could do it much easier without the runway extension. It is a nice side-effect that the new dock wall will be modern and forced to consider this; a rebuild in place would do just as well or better.
Last edited: