[kEiThZ]

Say goodbye to the seaplanes

I like how LCY did it (London City Airport) - grade the aircraft by noise level, assign movement factors to each including specific limits at start and end of day. The London City Airport Consultative Committee should have been TPA's guide once Miller left and an administration more likely to engage from the City side was in place.

This is exactly how I'd want YTZ to handle it. I'd also like LCY's steep approaches as well.

 

[Cinnamon]

According to a letter from Mr. Deluce to Mr. Ford, runway extension includes 150m safety zone:

"Approval for a 168 metre extension into the water at each end of the main runway 08/26. The runway extension would not require any change to the existing marine exclusion zone in place today. The 168 metre extension will also be inclusive of and accommodate any potential future requirement to implement a 150 metre enhanced Runway End Safety Area at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The RESA initiative is currently being evaluated by Transport Canada for Canadian airports, and would require a modification to the current runway once it is implemented."

Full letter: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-57704.pdf

 

[Peepers]

Putting misconceptions about noise to rest!

http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/home/noise_comparison.pdf

The above study puts to rest the misconception that :

All jets are noisier than all turboprops which are noisier than all piston aircraft

WRONG!

The most popular training aircraft – a Piper PA28, is twice as noisy as the quietest business jet (Cessna Citation Encore) on take-off - US FAA certificated noise data

Other revealing FACTS:

The single engine piston powered Cessna 207 is 20% LOUDER than the BOEING 737-700!

The most common regional airliner (de Havilland Dash 8-Q400) with 75 passengers on take-off….….makes exactly the
same noise level (61 dBA*) as the most common light piston GA aircraft (Cessna 172)

Over 60 different jet models are quieter on take-off than the noisiest piston aircraft

The noise level data quoted in this report was obtained from the FAA:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 36-3H Base.pdf

As you can see from this table of weighted sound levels there are many jets quieter than the Q-400 Turboprop's (PropJets) that currently land on the Island. For example the Challenger 601 Business Jet is quieter.

We don't need to spend $100,000's studying the Porter proposal. The noise data is at our fingertips !

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You must have missed the Globe article I have posted.

AoD

 

[Peepers]

You must have missed the Globe article I have posted.

AoD

The Globe & Mail article does not contradict what I posted above. The Globe article talks about how people perceive noise differently without making reference to any hard facts. I don't know what the point of the Globe article is because they don't seem to be arguing that people will perceive the CSeries to be louder than prop-aircraft - perhaps that is the impression the writer is trying to leave.

What I have posted is irrefutable hard data provided by the FAA. Note that the FAA numbers are "weighted" i.e. they represent the Effective Perceived Noise Level in decibels (EPNdB) for aircraft noise type certificated under 14 CFR part 36.

Since the Globe article was all about perception of noise I don't know why the writer neglected to cite this FAA data.

More from the Oxford Airport study:

World’s Best Selling Piston Aircraft

Today’s best selling family of piston aircraft – the ultra modern Cirrus aircraft, are NOISIER than almost EVERY modern business or regional jet and turboprop in existence at 73.6 to 72.1 dBA* on take-off.

*Effective Perceived Noise Level – US FAA weighted
14 CFR Part 36 noise standards

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If you want to talk about "facts", the fact of the matter is that if you are going to use loaded terms like "quiet", you'd better be ready to acknowledge that there is a difference (i.e. fact) between measured noise output, estimates based on some algorithm and human perception of loudness, the latter is something that you can only tease out in vivo instead of quoting a bunch of figures - hence the need test out of the plane in a variety of conditions one site to determine what the real impact is. It may favour the proponent, but I'd rather not make that judgement until those tests are made.

AoD

 

[Peepers]

If you want to talk about "facts", the fact of the matter is that if you are going to use loaded terms like "quiet", you'd better be ready to acknowledge that there is a difference (i.e. fact) between measured noise output, estimates based on some algorithm and human perception of loudness, the latter is something that you can only tease out in vivo instead of quoting a bunch of figures - hence the need test out of the plane in a variety of conditions one site to determine what the real impact is. It may favour the proponent, but I'd rather not make that judgement until those tests are made.

AoD

Again the noise data figures I presented are Effective Perceived Noise Level in decibels (EPNdB) for aircraft noise type certificated under 14 CFR part 36.

When the CSeries is tested in flight it will be noise type certified under 14 CFR part 36. This is the standard!

Putting aside how quiet the CSeries will actually be in service - what we can say is that today there are many "jet" aircraft that are much quieter than piston and turbo powered props and therefore it is completely ridiculous to have a prohibition on "jets". For example the Cessna Citation business jet is far quieter than many piston aircraft and yet it is forbidden to fly in and out of the Island because it is a "jet" (exception's made for MEDEVAC flights). How does this make any sense?

Another thing to consider is the fact that many of the piston powered aircraft that are free to take-off and land at the airport are training aircraft which means that they make constant touch-and-goes to the airport and spend a lot of time circling at low altitude over the Islands. Transport category aircraft by contrast get in and get out quickly and therefore are less noticeable .

It seems to me that those opposed to allowing jets to land on the Island don't like facts to get in the way of their arguments.

 

[Cinnamon]

Peepers, technically I agree with you and I invite you to harbourfront to listen how "whisper quiet" those landings, take-offs and engine run ups. This is reality, not another study or PR crab.

Would you live in one of the residences at Bathurst - Queens Quay? Probably not; because it is noisy. This is why they are cheaper than comparable residences in downtown. As drinking diet coke will not make you thinner "whisper jets" will not make the airport less noisy; and it is a fact, it is noisy. It is in its nature.

What is totally moronic is trying to develop an airport, a very condense residential zone and a public space in the same damn area. Those things simply don't match. If City of Toronto wants to develop an airport at the waterfront, which is fine, then they just need to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars on projects like Queens Quay revitalization and don’t let developers to build condos within spitting distance to the airport. This is retarded.

Airports are noisy. Full stop.

 

[Peepers]

Would you live in one of the residences on Bathurst - Queens Quay? Probably not; because it is noisy. This is why they are cheaper than comparable residences in downtown. As drinking diet coke will not make you thinner "whisper jets" will not make the airport less noisy; and it is a fact, it is noisy. It is in its nature.

Yes I would love to live in that area. Most of these buildings are co-op's so it is next to impossible to get into them. There is no shortage of people who would be willing to live in these co-ops. If the current residents don't like the noise they should move somewhere else.

What is totally moronic is trying to develop an airport, a very condense residential zone and a public space in the same damn area. Those things simply don't match. If City of Toronto wants to develop an airport at the waterfront, which is fine, then they just need to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars on projects like Queens Quay revitalization and don’t let developers to build condos within spitting distance to the airport. This is retarded.
Airports are noisy. Full stop.

As I noted in earlier posts (complete with photographic evidence!) the airport was there FIRST!

The residential community around Bathurst and Queens Quay did not exist in the early 1980's when the Island Airport was already home to a busy Airline - City Express which flew the noisy four-engine Dash-7. After City Express folded - Air Ontario started up service which was followed by Air Canada Jazz and then Porter.

For decades the Toronto Island's have been home to a thriving airport providing scheduled service. During this time 1,000's of new Condo's and co-op apartments units were built alongside the airport and alongside the lakefront. I suspect that most lakeside residents don't have a problem with the airport. Those who do should never have moved to the waterfront in the first place!

 

[Cinnamon]

Peepers, I think problem is increased number of flights. I live close to Bay & Yonge but even here sometimes I get sick of hearing constant engine run-ups or reverse throttles (or whatever it is called). It is mostly disturbing early in the mornings and late evenings. This was not like that couple of years before. I can feel that even air quality is different now.

What I was trying to say in my previous post was, Porter's and TPA's vision is not matching with Waterfront Toronto's (http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca) vision. There is a conflict. It is not a "who came first" question, it is "what is next". Let's agree on something, airports don't mix well with residential neighborhoods and let's make a decision after that: who is going to stay, airport or residents? City planners should make this decision.

I decided to live in this area because I liked the vision of Waterfront Toronto and thought that city airport was restricted with tripartite agreement. I also wrongfully thought that environment and people were TPA's first priorities. They keep increasing the number of slots and bending every possible rule in the tripartite agreement to the benefit of one private company.

I choose to live here with certain conditions. If they change the tripartite agreements now, then I will have a problem with that. Do you think TPA will initiate a noise action plan as London Airport did? Are they going to pay for more insulation? Are they going to pay my expenses if I want to move? Are they going to move public school which is only couple of hundred feet away from the runway? I don't think so.

 

[picard102]

I can feel that even air quality is different now.

Except that air quality have been steadily improving across the GTA.

Let's agree on something, airports don't mix well with residential neighborhoods

Except it's obvious some people don't agree. Many airports are in residential areas, including Pearson. Should we only allow airports in the middle of open fields? Maybe only floating airports in the middle of the lake? How far are you going to go to uphold the belief that airports shouldn't be near people? Or is it only airports shouldn't be near you?

Are they going to move public school which is only couple of hundred feet away from the runway? I don't think so.

They have talked about it.

 

[drum118]

Peepers, technically I agree with you and I invite you to harbourfront to listen how "whisper quiet" those landings, take-offs and engine run ups. This is reality, not another study or PR crab.

Would you live in one of the residences at Bathurst - Queens Quay? Probably not; because it is noisy. This is why they are cheaper than comparable residences in downtown. As drinking diet coke will not make you thinner "whisper jets" will not make the airport less noisy; and it is a fact, it is noisy. It is in its nature.

What is totally moronic is trying to develop an airport, a very condense residential zone and a public space in the same damn area. Those things simply don't match. If City of Toronto wants to develop an airport at the waterfront, which is fine, then they just need to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars on projects like Queens Quay revitalization and don’t let developers to build condos within spitting distance to the airport. This is retarded.

Airports are noisy. Full stop.

Sorry if you or anyone bitch, bitch about the planes there, its time for you/them to move. Move somewhere else where the planes will not affect you/them as its your fault for ""NoT"" understanding what was there first before you bought there. The airport was there long before condos show up and they have first rights to the area.

You either accept what there and stop the bitching. People who move here now want this to be collage land and that not going to happen.

The Public Domain Land should be 1,000' from the water edge before any development take place.

Once all the condos get built, you will not see the waterfront from Queens Quay because of these condos. Industry was there first and therefore have the rights to be there period.

 

[Cinnamon]

The airport was there long before condos show up and they have first rights to the area.

Industry was there first and therefore have the rights to be there period.

Probably they didn't tell you but land rush is over, you may stop chewing tobacco and leave your shotgun down, this is 21st century and there is a new concept called urban planning. It is a very weird concept talks about people, environment, sustainability, that kind of crab. It is not me saying that, it is Governments of Canada and Ontario and the City of Toronto, read yourself: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/about_us

 

[Cinnamon]

Except that air quality have been steadily improving across the GTA.

I haven't seen a report but I would believe that. There was a significant shift from coal to nuclear in last 10 years. But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the area around the city airport. May be we can convince TPA or city to install permanent air quality and noise monitors in the area and have some factual information to look at.

Except it's obvious some people don't agree. Many airports are in residential areas, including Pearson. Should we only allow airports in the middle of open fields? Maybe only floating airports in the middle of the lake? How far are you going to go to uphold the belief that airports shouldn't be near people?

Yes, this is the new concept. It is called airport cities, or "aerotropolis". Pickering airport project could be good candidate for that with its massive size of 7,530 hectares, which you can probably fit whole downtown Toronto and there will be still space left. But hey, we just moved from steam trains to diesel ones, probably can catch other countries, lets say in 100 years?

Or is it only airports shouldn't be near you?

I would't buy a home near to an international airport. Some people may enjoy. City airport was't a big problem for me until they start bending the tripartite agreement.

They have talked about it.

And?

 

[ttk77]

It's all fine and good to say that the airport was here first so all the residents and visitors to the area should just shut up, but there is also a tripartite agreement in place putting limitations on the airport until 2033. For this reason I think it's unfair to call NIMBYism on objections to changes that would violate the agreement, whether those objections relate to landing jets at the airport or the creation of a bridge/tunnel fixed link. The agreement was signed in 1983, so the vast majority of people in the area moved in while the agreement was in force. I personally have no objection to landing jets that don't violate the noise portion of the agreement, but I also think that people are well within their rights to complain. Yes, people moved in knowing there was an airport there, but they also moved in having been told by three levels of government that there would be specific limitations placed on the airport until at least 2033.