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

[RC8]

Porter wants to fly more planes, bigger planes, which use more fuel more often, and fly closer to the land, over essentially a bird sanctuary and next to some of Canada's densest residential and commercial districts, and expect most passengers - more passengers - to get there by car.

The increase in cancer risk alone makes this proposal completely inappropriate. The status quo is a reasonable compromise, says anyone who has studied the impacts of the expansion in detail.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Porter wants to fly more planes

no they don't. they are not proposing to increase the daily limit for ALL airlines (including Air Canada) of 202 daily movements. (take offs and landings)

Porter wants to fly bigger planes

Well, ya. this isn't an inherently bad thing though. as others have stated, it can create efficiencies. Instead of 16 daily flights to Montreal or whatever it is now, it may be 10.

which use more fuel more often

as Keithz mentioned, its the same amount of fuel per passenger.

fly closer to the land

What? no. Porter hasn't determined the flightpaths yet, but they will likely be an improvement over the current ones. The jets can have steeper landing and take off angles, meaning the planes get out of the way much faster.

bird sanctuary

Its no different than it is now, and is done in an attempt to reduce noise. The height the planes are at when above the park are higher than any birds would be anyway.

densest residential and commercial districts

.. and? the lakeshore area closest to the airport despite the highrises isn't really that dense, there is too much park space and other things that restrict buildable space. the core of the city is a couple km away, much further away than the major airport employment zone south of Pearson. I guess we should be screaming bloody murder about pearson too, considering a couple hundred thousand people work within 2km of it as well.

and expect most passengers - more passengers - to get there by car.

nope, only 20% drive, and the proposal includes increased frequency of the Union station shuttle as well as an underground streetcar loop.

The increase in cancer risk alone makes this proposal completely inappropriate. The status quo is a reasonable compromise, says anyone who has studied the impacts of the expansion in detail.

half the negatives you listed aren't even changing in the proposal.. (increased flights, flightpath, etc.)

 

[RC8]

You are using 'oilsands'TM logic. Efficiency per passenger doesn't matter when you are significantly increasing the amount of passengers and increasing (or at best maintaining) the number of flights. The number of flights will not be reduced, and preliminary studies indicate flightpaths will be more intrusive.

Also, I said 'by car', not 'driving'.

The area is currently exposed to stupidly high amounts of pollution, and this will only make matters worse.

 

[picard102]

increasing (or at best maintaining) the number of flights.

How will the increase the number of flights when they are limited to a certain number per day already? Don't accuse people of using oil sands logic if you can't be bothered to use any logic.

 

[RC8]

Right now airlines are limited to 202 slots per day, but they do not use them all because of technical limitations. Part of Porter's strategic plan linked to the expansion and the addition of jets was to increase efficiency and put up to 10% more planes in the air.

Porter officials bragged about that back when jets were first announced, though they seem to have gone quiet. Maybe they realised it was infeasible, or they figured it was bad PR to talk about an increased number of flights.

In any case, inform yourself.

 

[picard102]

For someone advising others to inform themselves, you certainly are lacking any actual answers, but just full of speculation.

 

[RC8]

If you were properly informed you would know it's not speculation. There's a reason why reports addressing impacts assume a higher share of slots will be used. The reports afford Porter a lot of space, so this is telling... but of course, you haven't read the reports.

There are actually configurations where having Porter switch over to modern more efficient airplanes and substantially reducing the number of flights (by 1/3 or so) might actually lead to decreased levels of air pollution in the vicinity. Unfortunately this is not at all what is proposed.

There's a reason why the TRCA, Toronto Board of Health, Waterfront Toronto, and all other bodies made up of educated people who have actually studied the subject have come out against it.

 

[Dan416]

I'm sure any board of health would recommend closing a local airport and building one further away (e.g. Pickering); it doesn't make it a good idea.

Shifting flights to further away airports does nothing to help the environment or health.

 

[picard102]

There's a reason why the TRCA, Toronto Board of Health, Waterfront Toronto, and all other bodies made up of educated people who have actually studied the subject have come out against it.

Certainly couldn't be that they have a bias against the airport.
Wonder what the Board of Health would say about Pearson if it was within the city. Certainly by the board of health's standards for BB, Pearson should be closed immediately. Not to mention any highway within one kilometer of the city, or industrial processing and manufacturing.

 

[RC8]

Shifting flights to further away airports does nothing to help the environment or health.

In this case it obviously does.

Wonder what the Board of Health would say about Pearson if it was within the city.

That is is rightly surrounded by a gigantic buffer zone of low-density warehouses?

Seriously, people.

 

[picard102]

In this case it obviously does.

So the pollution generated by an airport stays within what radius of an airport?
Or is it just that you don't want it in your backyard, but are fine with it being someone elses.

That is is rightly surrounded by a gigantic buffer zone of low-density warehouses?

I'm sure the residential neighbourhoods within one to two kilometers, and the flight paths over the rest of North York and Mississauga are protected by that "gigantic" buffer.

Seriously now.

 

[RC8]

Yes, keep telling yourself it's the same. Burn some public health literature while you are at it. That'll show those 'experts'.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The closest residential area to Pearson is 800 meters from the end of a runway. The immediate flightpath from that runway gets within 100 meters, and the planes at that point would be no more than 100ft off the ground.

The second largest employment area in the city is across the 401 from Pearson, less than 1km away.

 

[picard102]

Yes, keep telling yourself it's the same. Burn some public health literature while you are at it. That'll show those 'experts'.

I assume no one works in the areas your photo shows? Which is also conveniently angled to hide nearby neighborhoods.
But hey, if you can't see it, then it doesn't matter right? As long as it's not in your backyard.

Here's a photos of Billy Bishop, hardly a building in sight. Some Yachts and some industrial silos.

 

[TOareaFan]

I must say, in my +/- 20 landings at YTZ the plane has never flown over the mainland at all. Do they ever fly over the mainland or always come in over water? I know that the approach to Pearson typically comes in pretty low over a variety of residential and commercial lands.