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

innsertnamehere said:
Pearson:

ZhUq6bG.jpg
Click to expand...

Isn't it the case that, of the area around Pearson within the red lines, there are only two relatively small pieces of residential (i.e. Old Malton and the 401/427 "armpit") and the rest is industrial/commercial?
 
kEiThZ said:
It's amazing how people in these parts will challenge rail NIMBYs (like opponents of the rail corridor through Weston), but then turn around and complain about YTZ.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's precisely the same thing. Except Weston is poor whereas people on the Waterfront have more money, so people (sadly) listen to the people with money.
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
Isn't it the case that, of the area around Pearson within the red lines, there are only two relatively small pieces of residential (i.e. Old Malton and the 401/427 "armpit") and the rest is industrial/commercial?
Click to expand...

big chunk of the area around Billy Bishop is "commercial" as well. The entire CBD has almost no residential in it.

I also wasn't saying that BB and Pearson have similar residential populations around them, but rather that they have similar amounts of people in general. Lots and Lots and Lots of people work within 2km of Pearson, and that is what I was trying to highlight.

I challenge the NIMBYs in Weston and the Waterfront!

And the anti UPX crowd has the wealthy Junction area backing it as well.
 
Last edited:
At the Portland meeting on Feb 13, 75% of over 200 people were not in favour of expanding the runway.

The UPX have all type of people from all class and wealth opposing this line,

If one looks at the flight path for Pearson these days and compare it to what exist 10-20 years ago, you will see some shorter paths today than before. I live under one of those shorter paths that didn't exist 10 years ago.

The same thing can happen at BB and one reason people oppose the expansion.

I don't buy the opposition to the airport being where it is, but on the fence for the expansion. If the expansion was all west, go ahead and build it. At the same time, the proposed jet is as large that should operate out of BB down the road.

All the whiners can move off the waterfront since they chose to live there in the first place knowing the airport was there and could see more planes down the road.
 
picard102 said:
Your image shows a sliver of moderate density near BB. The rest is blue.
Click to expand...

Actually his image shows the highest population density within a 6 km radius of BB. The corresponding density within a 6km radius of Pearson is far lower.
 
pman said:
Actually his image shows the highest population density within a 6 km radius of BB. The corresponding density within a 6km radius of Pearson is far lower.
Click to expand...

don't you have to consider flight paths too? in all my flights into and out of BB, we have approached and left over the lake......as I asked earlier, is this a fluke or do all/most of the flights do that? What does population within any distance matter if the planes never fly over/near that population?
 
TOareaFan said:
don't you have to consider flight paths too? in all my flights into and out of BB, we have approached and left over the lake......as I asked earlier, is this a fluke or do all/most of the flights do that? What does population within any distance matter if the planes never fly over/near that population?
Click to expand...

You are correct. Planes at BB fly over the lake, to/from the Portlands. Planes from Pearson fly over residential neighbourhoods, including many of those shaded red and orange on that map.

Here is a map of Pearson's flight paths from a story Torontoist did a while back:

20111810TorontoistRunways0506Right06Left.jpg


http://torontoist.com/2011/10/tracking-traffic-over-toronto/

Compare that to BB's:

gr_porter_map.jpg


http://www.communityair.org
 

Attachments

  • gr_porter_map.jpg
    gr_porter_map.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 1,849
Last edited:
drum118 said:
At the Portland meeting on Feb 13, 75% of over 200 people were not in favour of expanding the runway.

The UPX have all type of people from all class and wealth opposing this line,

If one looks at the flight path for Pearson these days and compare it to what exist 10-20 years ago, you will see some shorter paths today than before. I live under one of those shorter paths that didn't exist 10 years ago.

The same thing can happen at BB and one reason people oppose the expansion.

I don't buy the opposition to the airport being where it is, but on the fence for the expansion. If the expansion was all west, go ahead and build it. At the same time, the proposed jet is as large that should operate out of BB down the road.

All the whiners can move off the waterfront since they chose to live there in the first place knowing the airport was there and could see more planes down the road.
Click to expand...

Testing on the Pratt and Whitney Geared Turbofan has it coming in at spec or even lower. This plane will be as quiet as Q400. And the flight paths just won't change for BB. They can't because of a whole host of airspace issues I won't go into. Pearson went through some airspace management issues that forced it to change a bunch of approach paths to increase capacity. But many of those changes have also resulted in tighter restrictions over the rest of the GTA's airspace.

The expansion has to be West and East to stay inside the current maritime boundaries. And this is it for BB. There is simply no more room to expand after this. Nor will there be any bigger aircraft that both meet noise requirements and can carry more passengers economically from a shorter runway. In sum, this is about as big as Porter and BB can get. Their future growth will come from substituting their Q400s with CS100s to increase passenger capacity by 50% for each swap.
 
kEiThZ said:
The expansion has to be West and East to stay inside the current maritime boundaries. And this is it for BB. There is simply no more room to expand after this. Nor will there be any bigger aircraft that both meet noise requirements and can carry more passengers economically from a shorter runway. In sum, this is about as big as Porter and BB can get. Their future growth will come from substituting their Q400s with CS100s to increase passenger capacity by 50% for each swap.
Click to expand...

All great arguments for relocating the facility south,
 
drum118 said:
If one looks at the flight path for Pearson these days and compare it to what exist 10-20 years ago, you will see some shorter paths today than before. I live under one of those shorter paths that didn't exist 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

As a pilot, I'm curious about your statement that Pearson has "shorter paths today than before". A quick look at the Toronto terminal area aeronautical charts that I've saved over the years shows no changes in Pearson's control zone or waypoints. Large aircraft require stabilized (straight) approach paths several nautical miles from the runway thresholds, and the area restrictions are designed to accomodate this. Minimum altitudes are prescribed up to 26 nautical miles from the field, which includes areas as far as Pickering to the east, Newmarket to the north and Hamilton to the west. Base turns (where the aircraft turns to "final") are done at approximately 15nm. From the east, turns are done over the DVP. From the west, over Burlington. Special exceptions are made for diplomatic or military aircraft, or for emergencies. I'd like to know where these shorter paths are. Pearson has the tightest controlled airspace in Canada. Minor changes are made only after years of analysis.

If anything, the only change that I've observed is the tightening of restrictions in the island's control zone to ensure that the tower has firm control over any aircraft flying through its area. As an airport gets busier, I have never seen an approach path shortened, only lengthened as approach controllers need more and more time to sort out the congestion.
 
can332 said:
As a pilot, I'm curious about your statement that Pearson has "shorter paths today than before". A quick look at the Toronto terminal area aeronautical charts that I've saved over the years shows no changes in Pearson's control zone or waypoints. Large aircraft require stabilized (straight) approach paths several nautical miles from the runway thresholds, and the area restrictions are designed to accomodate this. Minimum altitudes are prescribed up to 26 nautical miles from the field, which includes areas as far as Pickering to the east, Newmarket to the north and Hamilton to the west. Base turns (where the aircraft turns to "final") are done at approximately 15nm. From the east, turns are done over the DVP. From the west, over Burlington. Special exceptions are made for diplomatic or military aircraft, or for emergencies. I'd like to know where these shorter paths are. Pearson has the tightest controlled airspace in Canada. Minor changes are made only after years of analysis.

If anything, the only change that I've observed is the tightening of restrictions in the island's control zone to ensure that the tower has firm control over any aircraft flying through its area. As an airport gets busier, I have never seen an approach path shortened, only lengthened as approach controllers need more and more time to sort out the congestion.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is as much the approach as it is the departure paths. I know I've seen smaller aircraft such as Air Canada's Dash-x's make a turn very quickly after depature, some making their turn to the north right around the 427 and other while still above GTAA airpsace/runways. I would imagine the reason for this is to get these slower moving aircraft out of the way so that larger/faster aircraft behind them can take off quicker.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top