doady
Senior Member
At this point I'm just waiting for Doug Ford to revive the Spadina and Scarborough Expressways.
|
|
|
- Thread starter hw621
- Start date
RapidTransit
Active Member
I know your being sarcastic, but Im surprised he hasn't revisted uploading the subway. I doubt he would get any resistance, with the exception of the Union. But after seeing both LRT lines running, and how they own both lines, they could have a similar set up for subway. Plus all the redevelopment of all the stations.
Ward8
Active Member
I don't know anything about planes, but 10 meters kind of seems like a lot. That's roughly the height of my house.
In any case, I think the noise argument against the airport is weak. Big cities have noise. I think the first good reason against it, is that it's a stunningly egregious waste of prime space. And the second is the flight path development limitations. A boutique airport is not high on the list of things that would be appropriate for this site. It's potential impact on badly needed housing elsewhere makes it even worse.
Northern Light
Superstar
What building heights are proposed for the southern parts of the Toronto Port Lands?
This suggests that flight paths would restrict heights to 15-20 storeys.
This is the existing approved Villiers Precinct Plan:
To have a sense of the impacts on height, you would need to refer to this report in which Ports effectively got a settlement of 309 Cherry (original address) reopened to push several heights down.
I would look for impacts to a minimum of buildings, those currently shown as heights of 35, 37 and 37. To be clear I don't know that, but I do infer as much. I will refrain from suggesting the extent of the reductions at this point, if people use the information I've provided, and the reports I will link to in my next post below......you should be able to get a fair idea.
It may (or may not) be feasible to re-mass the buildings to address the issue, but pushing them north, and changing alignments would have further knock-on effects to separation distances and shadows.
This proposal (309) would read as 3 blocks in from the west. (pinned in the image below)
Northern Light
Superstar
Over on the Waterfront for All site, they have posted the complete EA for Jets, commissioned by the Port Authority in 2017.
Their front page is here:
The Direct Links to the EA are here, in 4 chunks:
Part 1: (page 1 to page 64)
Part 2: (page 65 to page 86)
Part 3: (page 87 to page 97)
Part 4: (page 98 to page 109)
From page 72:
Note that the above was written prior to the 2024 Villiers plan which boosted heights substantially.
Their front page is here:
The Direct Links to the EA are here, in 4 chunks:
Part 1: (page 1 to page 64)
Part 2: (page 65 to page 86)
Part 3: (page 87 to page 97)
Part 4: (page 98 to page 109)
From page 72:
Note that the above was written prior to the 2024 Villiers plan which boosted heights substantially.
rdaner
Senior Member
Thanks! All of this points to the dire need for a large-scale plan for this area!
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I'm against expanding the airport and bringing in jets... but in the above reasons 1 to 3 makes sense, 4 and 5 are starting to stretch reason. Fuel trucks will continue to go to the airport, fuel trucks will continue to go to the Esso at Lakeshore and Bathurst. Planes will still overfly the city... even with planes going to Pearson the overflights in midtown are constant. Pretending that when planes don't fly over people will suddenly be living in a meadow free of pollutants is crazy.
dowlingm
Senior Member
I think anyone who has heard the “dying whale” sound of a geared turbofan overhead might doubt that the new gen jets are necessarily quieter.
Re the ferry, I could see the proponents of this offering a tunnel under the current 06/24 through the airport lands, connecting to the existing foot tunnel to remove the necessity for it and the City’s expense to operate it. I also wonder if there is a faction within DoFo’s party which is quietly enjoying the potential for a west extension changing waterflow resulting in erosion of the beach on Hanlan’s, if not outright elimination of it.
I wonder where the NoJets folks are concentrating their campaign. Were I in their shoes, I’d be looking at Mimico and leafleting the conservative neighbourhoods with a noise map, especially if the extension was weighted to the west which the province might attempt to sell as a “compromise” to limit development impact to the east
The other thing I wonder is how far south at minimum you would have to push a new runway, and orient it something like 09/27, so that the currently in development Portlands area could come out of the Obstacle Limitation Surface (not to mention the Hearn chimney stack) and it would be somewhat easier for Ontario Place boaters to manoeuvre around the revised MEZ. That would obliterate the beach rather than impact it, but again, some people would likely quietly celebrate that.
Re the ferry, I could see the proponents of this offering a tunnel under the current 06/24 through the airport lands, connecting to the existing foot tunnel to remove the necessity for it and the City’s expense to operate it. I also wonder if there is a faction within DoFo’s party which is quietly enjoying the potential for a west extension changing waterflow resulting in erosion of the beach on Hanlan’s, if not outright elimination of it.
I wonder where the NoJets folks are concentrating their campaign. Were I in their shoes, I’d be looking at Mimico and leafleting the conservative neighbourhoods with a noise map, especially if the extension was weighted to the west which the province might attempt to sell as a “compromise” to limit development impact to the east
The other thing I wonder is how far south at minimum you would have to push a new runway, and orient it something like 09/27, so that the currently in development Portlands area could come out of the Obstacle Limitation Surface (not to mention the Hearn chimney stack) and it would be somewhat easier for Ontario Place boaters to manoeuvre around the revised MEZ. That would obliterate the beach rather than impact it, but again, some people would likely quietly celebrate that.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Star has an article out on the EA from 2017 that I linked above.
www.thestar.com
From the above:
**
These are the current flight paths (without Jets).
Based on posts I've made above ,we can reasonably surmise that Jets here will see the AZR extend to the north side of Commissioner Street* This is subject to detail analysis that requires a complete runway extension design and the intended aircraft permitted.
Doug Ford wants jets at Billy Bishop. Here’s what is at stake for Toronto’s waterfront — and why some say there’s a ‘missing ingredient’
The waterfront's value is immeasurable to this city. That means the stakes of an airport expansion and of adding jets to the mix are sky high.
www.thestar.com
From the above:
**
These are the current flight paths (without Jets).
Based on posts I've made above ,we can reasonably surmise that Jets here will see the AZR extend to the north side of Commissioner Street* This is subject to detail analysis that requires a complete runway extension design and the intended aircraft permitted.
nfitz
Superstar
All this talk of turboprops and jets ... what makes the most "noise" going over my house multiple times of days are ORNGE's over-sized air ambulance - though I'm not sure if the pulsating that makes the house vibrate a bit, is the noise or air pressure waves.
dowlingm
Senior Member
when I lived near East General the noise which made me look up in irritation was seaplanes, given their slow climb rate and propensity to follow the DVP. At least the Q400s stayed over the lake and had a decent climb rate. Maybe it's time those folks heard "why are you still flying when the Northlander is coming back" the way people flying commercial are lectured about UPX and Alto.
PL1
Senior Member
Ambulances (ground or air) and fire engines don't bother me. I used to live under the flight path for St Mike's (on Jarvis s of Dundas). Yes, they were frequent, but I'm ok with that. Can we agree that modded motorcycles and cars are the true evil?
nfitz
Superstar
robmausser
Senior Member
The noise argument falls flat on many fronts.
1, like you said, downtowns are noisy. They shouldnt be unreasonably noisy, but there is a greater expecation of noise.
2, the newest jets are on par for noise with the turboprops.
3, noise walls and other things can be added to the runway to help mitigate noise. Its even already being suggested for BB.
lenaitch
Senior Member
"Oversized"?