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

[kEiThZ]

Because the end goal isn't about noise, its about trying to force a company (Porter) to not be able to expand and grow, something that is necessary for a company to stay afloat in a competitive market. The end goal of the NIMBYs is the hope that they can close Toronto Island airport.

Just like the mandate of MADD is total prohibition, but they take things one battle at a time.

And that's what makes them ridiculous. Most people have stopped taking MADD seriously because they've gone from opposing things like drunk driving to even small increases in speed limits (which evidence indicates would make the roads safer).

People are going to (and do) take anti-airport activists less seriously when they go off on tangents too.

I'm happy to have the airport there, but I don't want to see it become a behemoth with constant landings and takeoffs, requiring lake infill for a longer runway, requiring jet blast defectors, requiring more parking space, requiring more traffic capacity in the neighbourhood

I have a feeling people really don't get how modern engines work. The CSeries wouldn't have been anything more than a slight runway extension.

In any event, my point wasn't even about the Cseries. I would prefer to see an objective noise standard because engine technology is improving. In theory, we could see 80-seater jets with quieter geared turbofans. It's absurd that existing rules would prohibit such an aircraft.

Rules shouldn't be promulgated in some roundabout fashion. Target exactly what you want. Don't want too many flights? Limit the number of flights. Don't want too many passengers? Cap the number of pax. Don't want higher noise levels. Impose a noise cap. That's a proper regulatory framework.

The 81 hectare waterfront airport is not the place for a massive air transportation hub:

Pure hysterics to suggest that bumping up the aircraft size from 80 seats to 110 seats would turn Billy Bishop into "a massive air transportation hub". No such thing would happen. They would simply have boosted capacity on some routes. And launched maybe 5-10 new daily flights to faroff locations. There's really not much of a business case for operating a hub at Billy Bishop. Porter really only facilitates transfers to Toronto and Montreal from elsewhere.

 

[ttk77]

And that's what makes them ridiculous. Most people have stopped taking MADD seriously because they've gone from opposing things like drunk driving to even small increases in speed limits (which evidence indicates would make the roads safer).

People are going to (and do) take anti-airport activists less seriously when they go off on tangents too.

> I'm happy to have the airport there, but I don't want to see it become a behemoth with constant landings and takeoffs, requiring lake infill for a longer runway, requiring jet blast defectors, requiring more parking space, requiring more traffic capacity in the neighbourhood

I have a feeling people really don't get how modern engines work. The CSeries wouldn't have been anything more than a slight runway extension.

In any event, my point wasn't even about the series. I would prefer to see an objective noise standard because engine technology is improving. In theory, we could see 80-seater jets with quieter geared turbofans. It's absurd that existing rules would prohibit such an aircraft.

Rules shouldn't be promulgated in some roundabout fashion. Target exactly what you want. Don't want too many flights? Limit the number of flights. Don't want too many passengers? Cap the number of pax. Don't want higher noise levels. Impose a noise cap. That's a proper regulatory framework.



Pure hysterics to suggest that bumping up the aircraft size from 80 seats to 110 seats would turn Billy Bishop into "a massive air transportation hub". No such thing would happen. They would simply have boosted capacity on some routes. And launched maybe 5-10 new daily flights to faroff locations. There's really not much of a business case for operating a hub at Billy Bishop. Porter really only facilitates transfers to Toronto and Montreal from elsewhere.

It has nothing to do with bumping up the size of the plane. They'd have been pushing for more take-off and landing slots and longer operating hours. That's what would turn it into a "massive air transportation hub", and is exactly what we don't need in an area we're trying to maintain for mixed use. Also, the requested runway extension was 200m which is more than a "slight" extension, and the additional exclusion zone would have made it much more difficult for boats to navigate through the area. I'm all for bringing jets to the airport, so long as they can do it without extending the runway or negatively impacting the existing recreational uses of the area.

 

[muller877]

Don't presume to speak on behalf over everyone opposed to expansion at the airport, and certainly not regarding my end goal. I'm happy to have the airport there, but I don't want to see it become a behemoth with constant landings and takeoffs, requiring lake infill for a longer runway, requiring jet blast defectors, requiring more parking space, requiring more traffic capacity in the neighbourhood. The 81 hectare waterfront airport is not the place for a massive air transportation hub: we have an 1,867 hectare spot for that a quick train ride from Union.

42

....because airport infill is bad but the infill that the coop housing is where the people oppose the airport is good?

 

[jje1000]

Also, the requested runway extension was 200m which is more than a "slight" extension, and the additional exclusion zone would have made it much more difficult for boats to navigate through the area. I'm all for bringing jets to the airport, so long as they can do it without extending the runway or negatively impacting the existing recreational uses of the area.

That was the main problem I had, IMO. The exclusion zones would have created a pinchpoint in the Western Channel and cut into the harbour.

 

[interchange42]

....because airport infill is bad but the infill that the coop housing is where the people oppose the airport is good?

Nope. Try another straw man, just for fun.

42

 

[picard102]

The C-Series is welcome at Pearson, where the runways are long enough, the runways, taxiways, terminals, parking and transit infrastructure have the capacity to handle long haul flights, and where the airport is not located in the middle of one of our best tourist attractions.

42

 

[interchange42]

The pro-expansion-of-Billy-Bishop-at-all-costs crowd have no answer to a valid list of concerns about the airport, and so they resort to empty, sometimes contemptuous gestures. Got anything of actual substance to add @picard102?!

42

 

[picard102]

If resorting to hyperbole is "actual substance", then no. I'll leave that to you.

 

[ADRM]

If resorting to hyperbole is "actual substance", then no. I'll leave that to you.

Nice try; @interchange42 offered you an opportunity to substantiate your opinion and you were unable to do so.

You're not looking great here and not convincing anyone with a shred of intellectual capacity of anything.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Nice try; @interchange42 offered you an opportunity to substantiate your opinion and you were unable to do so.

You're not looking great here and not convincing anyone with a shred of intellectual capacity of anything.

Ad Hominem attacks are not exactly prime debate materials either.

 

[ADRM]

Ad Hominem attacks are not exactly prime debate materials either.

My point exactly.

 

[DB9]

Pretty disappointing that London City Airport (where very strict noise regulations exist) approves the C-Series while Toronto Billy Bishop has to wait on the sidelines. Seems that common sense and science trump baseless hysteria on the other side of the pond.

But London City Airport isn't in the heart of the city, like YTZ is. It's like around 10-15km from Westminster & the City and 5km from Canary Wharf. It's the equivalent of Downsview airport.

 

[kEiThZ]

But London City Airport isn't in the heart of the city, like YTZ is. It's like around 10-15km from Westminster & the City and 5km from Canary Wharf. It's the equivalent of Downsview airport.

This is a tad misleading. Look at the density around London City. The context is not similar to Downsview at all.

 

[DB9]

This is a tad misleading. Look at the density around London City. The context is not similar to Downsview at all.

The area in the immediate vicinity of London City Airport is more dense and urban than Downsview, but it's in a part of East London (east of Greenwich & Canary Wharf) that's much less dense than the City or even Downtown Toronto.

I refer to Downsview because it's approximately the same distance from the heart of downtown Toronto, as the City/Westminster is from the Airport in London. I guess a better contextual comparison would be saying the airport being hypothetically located at the east end of the beaches, with the Unilever Lands all built up as the secondary CBD.

But regardless, London City is not in the heart of the city like YTZ is.

 

[allabootmatt]

The "London City has lots of jets so YTZ can too" argument really needs to die. The area around London City is, charitably, an industrial wasteland. It's a mix of massive vacant lots, telecom data centres, working warehouses for DHL and the like, and a little bit of low-rise housing. The nearest place anyone would call "central London" is a good 15-20 minute train ride away; even Canary Wharf, which is plenty remote itself, is well, well beyond walking distance.

There's simply no comparison with YTZ, which abuts the heart of the core downtown waterfront. In a London context, it would be like having an airport next to Blackfriars or Waterloo...which would rightly never be allowed. If there's an argument for expanding YTZ - which is something I am very sceptical of - London City isn't it.