As long as the noise level is within the range where "loud" is entirely subjective - which it is, unless someone can go down there and record high decibel noise - the whole issue of choosing to live or not live on the waterfront is entirely personal.
 
One stat that they did have that tells us why we are fighting over this issue, is that the income levels of residents around the toronto islands airport is almost double that of people surronding pearson.

i've not seen to the data, but my guess would be that the distribution of income levels would be bimodal. it is a mixed neighborhood. while the overall average is high, anybody who has walked the area knows that some are not well off at all.

and i suppose this just adds to the aggravation. unlike a noisy streetcar which many poorer people benefit from (and thus tolerate), they do not benefit whatsoever from a noisy airport.
 
the whole issue of choosing to live or not live on the waterfront is entirely personal.

i agree that people can choose to live there or not. i also think that the airport has a right to be there if it wishes (legally speaking).

however, it does not need to exercise this right. in the greater interest of toronto (however way we define this; see earlier post), the airport can choose not to be there.

things change. something which may once have been the preferred choice may no longer be.
 
i agree that people can choose to live there or not.

That's not the point, though. The first question asked was will the airport generate too much noise for luvbrka to continue living here. Only luvbrka can answer that since "too much noise" is entirely subjective.
 
check out the graph - again, it could be skewed

i understand. what i'm saying is that because of the more diverse mixture of people in the neighbourhood by the island airport, the overall average is being skewed by a few very rich people (for example, the guys that own the $1,000,000-plus penthouses, 401 queens quay, in king's landing, etc.).

however, the majority of the people -- and the people most affected -- are less well-off (for example, the people in bathurst quay). on paper the area looks richer than it is. it only takes a quick scroll around the area to see why.
 
That's not the point, though. The first question asked was will the airport generate too much noise for luvbrka to continue living here. Only luvbrka can answer that since "too much noise" is entirely subjective.

i agree, but there is a bigger issue here. what is the best course of action for toronto and how do we decide it? a particular resident's subjective assessment of what is "loud" is one factor amongst many others.
 
http://www.air-fair.org/

I don't know if this was posted here before, but there are audio comparisons to a jet, turboprop, and streetcar. I am not assuming though that they kept all parameters the same (as their is no way to tell, and that they are biased towards pro-city centre airport).

One stat that they did have that tells us why we are fighting over this issue, is that the income levels of residents around the toronto islands airport is almost double that of people surronding pearson.

Now were talking income levels. Give me a break! In my building, which would be fairly representative of the waterfront, the average condo is worth about $340,000. I can't recall now what the average house/condo is worth, but that figure I believe would be below average for Toronto. And in my building, 5 of the 12 units are worth in the $200s. AND, a large portion of the residents in my building rent their units.

Hmmm....I would bet that the average person who flies on Porter (ie. business people flying to Montreal, Ottawa, in the future, NYC) have homes/condos that are worth on average more than $340,000! And then let's examine the biggest beneficiaries of Porter- Delucci and the private equity investors. These fellows would have incomes and net worths that would be many multiples of those living in these condos.
 
Thank-you to everyone who took the time to respond to my original query, even Chuck!

At the end of the day, I think that there should be a vote on the issue. And if we did a vote on this board, it appears as if the airport would win.

Myself, I will wait it out and see how bad it gets (for me, that is.) If it gets too loud, I'll sell and move somewhere else. It would be very,very hard on me because I love the harbourfront, but in the end I do have to accept the will of the people.

I do think Porter will be successful because of the talent of the businesspeople and the high quality investors involved. They have a low cost operation, incredible service, intelligent marketing and a passionate boss.

Many posts here did help me understand and deal with this issue. And for that, I give a big THANK-YOU! This is a great board and the quality of the people on it make it so.

This will be my last post regarding this issue.
 
Now were talking income levels. Give me a break! In my building, which would be fairly representative of the waterfront, the average condo is worth about $340,000. I can't recall now what the average house/condo is worth, but that figure I believe would be below average for Toronto. And in my building, 5 of the 12 units are worth in the $200s. AND, a large portion of the residents in my building rent their units.

Hmmm....I would bet that the average person who flies on Porter (ie. business people flying to Montreal, Ottawa, in the future, NYC) have homes/condos that are worth on average more than $340,000! And then let's examine the biggest beneficiaries of Porter- Delucci and the private equity investors. These fellows would have incomes and net worths that would be many multiples of those living in these condos.

On a per sq footage cost, the price of the waterfront condos definately isn't below average in Toronto. Its all about how you look at it. How big exactly are the units under 200K, I bet they are approx 500 sq foot, your not going to have a family living in there, its more either a single or a couple.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove with your second point. Business travellers (who from my experience range from entry levellers, to yes, the big brass) pay on the company's dime. And so what if the people who backed Porter's is rich. You think that any new non-publicly owned airline company doesn't require financial backers who are rich?
 
At the end of the day, I think that there should be a vote on the issue. And if we did a vote on this board, it appears as if the airport would win.
.

I don't think their should be a vote. If Toronto had no airport, NIMBYs all around the GTA would keep on voting it down, leaving Toronto with no airport at all. What is need is conclusive analysis once and for all regarding all complaints and benefits. Noise levels should be examined as part of the overall conclusion, and its impact on the direct residents that it will impact, as well as impact on those who visit the section of the waterfront that it impacts. In addition, like other airports like LGA, there should be strict maximums set for take-offs and landings per hour, that cannot be breached, to get rid of any uncertainty.
 
I said my last post would be the last, but I wanted to post one more. I went down to HtO this afternoon (which is awesome by the way) and witnessed a Porter plane landing and taxiing. I was VERY relieved as the noise was not that bad at all. I was with a colleague and he even said that he could envision being at the park and not noticing the plane at all. Now, as I said before, there were times before where the noise was quite loud, but perhaps it was because of the wind direction.

I also spoke with a long-time resident of my building and he said that he has spoken to numerous other residents and the overwhelming majority of them are not bothered at all by the airport or Porter. Some even say they view it is as a positive because of the convenience factor of having an airport so close.
 
TORONTO (Dow Jones)--Upstart Porter Airlines turned a profit in May, only seven months after beginning operations, Chief Executive Robert Deluce said Friday.

"June, we know, will be better," Deluce said on the sidelines of the Canadian Airline Investment conference, adding the airline is "tracking" in line with expectations.

Porter Airlines operates 76-seat turboprops between Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa out of the Toronto Island airport. It began daily flights in late October after ousting Jazz Air, owned by Jazz Air Income Fund (JAZ.UN.T), from its 16-year base at the airport.

Deluce said the commuter airline carried more passengers last month than Jazz did in its final year of flying out of Toronto Island Airport. Jazz suspended operations there in March 2006.

He also said load factors are "well north" of 30%. Although he declined to be more specific, he said the Bombardier Q400 turboprops can be profitable with load factors as low as 30% under certain conditions.

Deluce said he expects to receive a licence for transborder flights within the next few weeks, and plans to begin service to New York by the end of the year.

In a research report this week, Versant Partners said Porter could become more of a competitive threat to Air Canada (AC.B.T) and WestJet Airlines Ltd. (WJA.T) if it continues to grow and begins flying to key U.S. destinations.

Analyst Cameron Doerksen noted that Porter now has a "material" amount of the total seat capacity on the Eastern Triangle that contains the country's key business centers.

He estimated Porter offers 12% of total available seats between Toronto and Montreal, and 19% of capacity between Toronto and Ottawa.

In contrast, Air Canada has 70% of total available seats (operated by Jazz) on the Toronto-Montreal route and 60% on Toronto-Ottawa. WestJet has 18% of capacity on Toronto-Montreal, and 22% on Toronto-Ottawa.

"Our conclusion is that, given its large percentage share of seats in the Eastern Triangle, neither Air Canada nor WestJet can afford to ignore Porter," Doerksen said. He said the competitive pressure is pushing down prices in the Eastern Triangle.

However, he also noted the Eastern Triangle represents only about 8.6% of Air Canada's domestic departures, and 6.9% of WestJet's domestic departures.
 
And Barber's column on the subject:

The Globe and Mail, Saturday, June 9, 2007 - M2
Tick, tick, tick: Time's running out for Porter Airlines


Al1 is sunny, breezy and quiet on the central waterfront once again this summer, with no sign of the scary air raids that once caused such alarm. Remember the David Miller campaign posters
that showed a veritable Luftwaffe of sinister airplane silhouettes blackening our peaceable skies? What a joke.

Equally comical, in light of the unshadowed sun of summer, 2007, are the old claims made by aviation entrepreneur Robert Deluce, founder of sputtering Porter Airlines. His grand vision of quintupling traffic at the obsolete island airport was loopy enough to make the Miller propaganda seem credible - for all of the 30 seconds it mattered.

These days, the airport's ordinary little planes are noisier than Porter's big turboprops, which really are quiet when they're taking off empty.

Among the activists who once expected a fight to the finish, the only action on the waterfront today is an unofficial Porter death watch. There's even a little pool floating around. Aviation analyst Robert Kokonis of AirTrav Inc. has bet his two bits on Porter disappearing some time in the "deep, dark months of October and November," when none but the most captive travelers would ever want to go to Ottawa.

Fellow industry analyst Ben Cherniavsky of Raymond James in Vancouver didn't give a date, but described Porter's current trajectory as "doomful" in his note on the subject. Every successive appearance Mr. Deluce makes on Bay Street, with good news ever more ambiguous and hard facts more elusive only raises the level of chatter on the death watch.

It's a fine old tradition in Canadian aviation, according to Mr. Kokonis. "As soon as you say, 'I think things are looking very dire, we might have to close down in the next two months,' what happens to your advance booking curve?" he asks, then explains. "it evaporates overnight."

Jetsgo founder Michel Leblanc at least published "supposedly accurate" information on passenger numbers up to the point he went bust, according to Mr. Kokonis. "In the case of Porter, a lot of us have to rely on Bob Deluce's comments at various forums."

With all sorts of interested and merely curious parties counting empty shuttle buses and trading anecdotes about empty seats, the closest thing to actual evidence of the airline's fate emerges from the latest financial statements of the Toronto Port Authority.

They report that the TPA collected $140,000 in airport-improvement fees from Porter passengers, at $15 a head, between the airline's startup last fall and year's end – theoretically meaning that 9,300 people flew Porter during its heavily promoted launch.

Comparing that number to the published flight schedule over the same time, Porter watcher Bob Kotyk calculated that each flight carried an average of 18 people - precisely one quarter of the airplane’s capacity. One thing is clear: The passengers Mr. Deluce aimed to serve - Bay Street executives attracted to the convenience of a nearby airport - have failed to appear on his planes, just as they failed to appear for Jazz, Air Canada, City Express and all the other airlines who have previously attempted to trade on the alleged convenience of the island airport.
 
I love planes and personally do not have an issue with Porter. I live in Waterparkcity and spend a lot of time wandering near the airport. That said I do understand why some people have concerns.

I think people have issue with the airport itself and its impact on the waterfront. We just use the "noise" factor because its the easiest one to identify with. If we were walking along and constantly smelled jet fuel, etc. then that would be the hot topic.

Contrary to the port authority and Porter I don't think we will ever see a large fleet of commuter aircraft on the island because of the following.

1: Air Canada: They easily make up for the inconvienence of the trip to Pearson through better connections, reward miles, fares, etc. Porter can compete until Air Canada decides to lower fares to Montreal. I would be more concerned about the long term expansion of the island if Air Canada returned.

2: Airport location: Because of the location of the Island Airport it is limited in its operations because of wind direction, fog, etc. No airline out of the Island will ever have the reliability of a Pearson based airline. Porter has already on occasion had to land at Pearson due to bad weather at the island.

I am torn because, as a small airline option to Montreal or Ottawa I hope Porter succeeds. However, I also would love the entire Island to become parkland. I think we should enjoy what we have currently which is a pretty decent compromise.

But I do think it was "Buyer Beware" when moving anywhere near an airport because you should know that the possibility of expansion is always there.
 

Back
Top