[kEiThZ]

PL:

I am completely conjecturing here - maybe Deluce knew the jet won't meet the requirement even with the original proposed runway extension? Or maybe fitting into it exacts too much of a performance penalty? If there is one word that I would use to characterize him, it's untrustworthy.

AoD

Rumours are the jet is better than spec. So I really, really doubt that Deluce needs the extra 32m on each end. However, short-field takeoffs (where you apply power with brakes on) are harder on the aircraft and noisier. So there is a benefit to both the city and the aircraft operator to allow a slight extension which will allow for rolling takeoffs.

 

[kEiThZ]

I just thought it was verrrrry interesting timing ... who knows (again, conjecture) ... perhaps he's throwing a bone so that when the additional extension gets turned down he can say "I tried to reduce the noise but it wasn't approved". He doesn't do anything without a reason.

This. And it'll be an easy case to make, with data to prove it.

Personally, as much as I support the extension, I have no issues with knocking off the Island if we can build Pickering, bolster Hamilton and built proper public transport to all those facilities. $20 Union-Pearson rides won't do much to remove the case for YTZ and Porter. Coming from say Scarborough or North York, it's both cheaper and faster to get to YTZ by car or public transit, than Pearson, even with UPL.

 

[diminutive]

That said, I think jets coming in are a bad idea, because once expanded - as freeways have shown us - you have difficulty doing without them. If Porter folds - or the port authority wants to open the airport up to others, including international flights to the states, do we really think all the new jets will be less audible than a normal quietly speaking voice? That the size and regularity of them will not carry it's own meaning? That is - in our most basic responses to conditions - the augmentation of size, frequency and visual presence of the jets low over the islands and harbour will not make them more pleasurable nor seem more desirable. In fact, they may do the opposite - they may be basically alarming.

Presumably if Porter is allowed to operate the C-series, the new regulations would be written in such a way as to allow only aircraft capable of operating with specific noise profiles. If an A318 landed at the airport and was just as quiet, why would anyone care? And if we'd have difficulty living without jets after the've been introduced, that just means they ought to be introduced. You could say the same for any modern convenience; why not have jets or dishwashers or cars?

Some people think planes are nifty and neat and want more, the way some people want supertall buildings. Others have different responses and different approaches.
First off, aesthetically, the airport is as banal as any airport, flat and nearly a visual zero. Unless one's a flight enthusiast, there's not going to be much to take note of. Not unlike glass box enthusiasts.

This is kinda unfair. You don't have to be a 'flight enthusiast' to appreciate having an airport anymore than one would have to be a train enthusiast to appreciate the Union Station renovation. Using a disparaging comparison to 'supertall fans' who apparently simply drool over glass boxes is not fair. You may not like airports or supertalls, but this is all highly subjective. I'd hardly count myself a flight enthusiast, but even I've spent time appreciating the flights on approach to YTZ from various vantage points. To quote Louis C.K. there's something which many people could easily find interesting about 'experiencing the miracle of human flight.'

Others may not find planes neat and that's fine. Different strokes for different folks. Thankfully, when we're talking about major pieces of public infrastructure, there is an expectation that the debate centre on measurable and observable outcomes, not simply personal preference.

Aesthetically, I would like to see the islands as an attractively highly civilized landscaped environment, and one that is enthusiastically suffused with nature - much like Corktown Common. It would reintegrate nature with the city front, and partake of nature more fully than the city across the channel and harbour can. The islands are where we can go to look back upon ourselves. It gives the city a front, and a journey across water - something always wonderfully symbolic. In terms of looks, a green necklace across the front of the city seems natural, complete and right. Even if it is not as environmentally simple as being 'green', it would be 'complete'. It could also be a hell of an attraction though - more interesting and perhaps even more profitable in soft terms than the airport could ever be. A compliment to Ontario Place. The tunnel is good for being invisible and it need not be the demise of the ferries. Especially if another channel is cut and the the current island airport lawn is made into it's own island entity.

This is just... vague. Is there a shortage of existing island or urban green space? Does the current YTZ set up or potential expansion threaten any of the existing greenspace?

In terms of planning, I just think it's badly situated. The traffic situation down there alone is horrible already, and possibly irremediable. Cars, cars, cars. A friend of mine and I tried to drive through two weeks ago and it was bumper-to-bumper gridlock. Now there's a school and community center at that corner. Does only the airport's expansion have the right of way here?

This is at least partially the result of us plugging our ears and pretending like nothing's going on at YTZ. It's an international airport located right downtown. It ought not be that hard to serve it with transit, yet the City's never really attempted to make it easier for people to get there.

 

[Peepers]

Seeing Porter and the TPA work in tandem to push jets and a major runway expansion really bothers me. The TPA is supposed to be a public agency, working in the public interest. Instead, it's looking too much like it's in Deluce's pocket.

I don't see how the interests of Porter are opposed to the interest of the public. I think they are very much aligned!

The TPA is not subsidized with tax dollars but is self-financing. As such they need to be able to at least break-even on the operation of Billy Bishop.

Before Porter came along the airport was losing money. Back then it was run by the Toronto Harbour Commission an agency that received government funding. When the TPA was formed in 1999 subsidies were cut-off and the TPA had to run the airport as a money making venture. They are following that mandate by expanding the airport and improving infrastructure. In the process they have created 5700 direct and indirect jobs in Toronto and are pumping $2 Billion into the local economy each year!

 

[Peepers]

Additional information in the Star regarding the new proposal.

Other benefits would be that the runway would serve as a natural breakwater at the Western Gap, making it easier for boaters to navigate through, and possibly reducing sediment buildup there, he added.

So not only will the longer runways reduce noise it will make navigation easier for boaters! What's not to like about this proposal?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Peepers:

Perhaps he should ask what the boaters would prefer?

AoD

 

[Peepers]

Peepers:

Perhaps he should ask what the boaters would prefer?

AoD

I don't know why boaters would object to a proposal that makes navigation easier but if asked I am sure they would object. They want the airport shut down and will object to anything that makes the airport more viable. The city must decide what is best for ALL residents of Toronto - not just what a small group of elitist yacht club members want.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Interesting, you just made a play about how the extension is of benefit to boaters, and then swiped them for being "elitists" (as if they never mattered in the first place, the initial observation notwithstanding). I wonder what socioeconomic category does does flying Porter in general represents.

AoD

 

[Peepers]

Interesting, you just made a play about how the extension is of benefit to boaters, and then swiped them for being "elitists" (as if they never mattered in the first place, the initial observation notwithstanding). I wonder what socioeconomic category does does flying Porter in general represents.

AoD

Yes I will be honest. I don't think their concerns should weigh very much in this decision and since the proposed extension will actually improve navigation I think they should just be thankful and shut-up.

As for what socioeconomic group does Porter serves it serves EVERY group - the entire spectrum - although to the extent Porter has brought lower airfare and lower ground transportation costs from downtown - Porter is of particular importance to those in the lower income bracket.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes I will be honest. I don't think their concerns should weigh very much in this decision and since the proposed extension will actually improve navigation I think they should just be thankful and shut-up.

Honesty is when one make that claim right off - not when one postures themselves as being concerned about the well-being of a group that he secretly considers at best as irrelevant.

Porter is of particular importance to those in the lower income bracket.

*Really*? Those of the lower income bracket tend not to fly, especially to some of the locations in question.

AoD

 

[Peepers]

Honesty is when one make that claim right off - not when one postures themselves as being concerned about the well-being of a group that he secretly considers at best as irrelevant.

I don't know what in my post showed "concern" for this group - in fact I was pretty dismissive of them by calling them elitist.

*Really*? Those of the lower income bracket tend not to fly, especially to some of the locations in question.

AoD

You would be surprised. There are lots of low income people living downtown who use Porter to connect with relatives in the cities currently served by Porter. Not only has Porter brought lower fares to these people - the savings in ground transportation costs ($3 subway vs. $60 airport limo) is significant to these people also. The lower the costs the more accessible air travel becomes to low income people.

 

[Peepers]

New survey released yesterday by the TPA shows overwhelming support for Billy Bishop Airport!

700 residents were surveyed including 300 living south of Queen Street.

Highlights:

- 60 per cent of residents in favor of Jets ! (remember this poll was heavily weighted with input from residents living south of Queen!)
- Nearly nine in ten (87 per cent) Torontonians ‘agree’ that the airport is a valuable asset for the city of Toronto
- The overall experience of passengers travelling through the airport has been positive (96 per cent)
- One in three (32 per cent) Torontonians have used Billy Bishop Airport
- Nine in ten (90 per cent) Torontonians ‘agree’ that ‘the Toronto Port Authority provides important economic benefits to the City of Toronto’

Detailed data:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=12995

 

[Peepers]

I received the following email from Robert Deluce which provides a detailed explanation for the new proposal. Note that Porter will happily accept either the 168 Metre or 200 Metre option but that the later offers advantages for all stakeholders.

Also notice the below graphics showing the 168M vs 200M proposal. The differences between the two proposals are so negligible (I can't see any difference).

======================================================================================

To Porter Plans supporters:

Porter has sent the City of Toronto a letter validating our initial runway design in support of the plan to operate Bombardier CS100 aircraft from Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA). A second design was also submitted.

Specifically, the proposed extension of 168 metres into the water at each end of the main runway meets the city’s request to not result in “an extension of the Marine Exclusion Zone as currently configured, that would materially encroach upon the western channel shipping channel.”

Over the past several months, Porter has worked closely with stakeholders and our airport consultant, LPS Avia Consulting. The runway extension requires only an immaterial lateral movement of certain buoys that does not affect boating access along the Western Channel.

Porter is also proposing a second runway design option for the city to consider. This includes an additional 32 metres into the water on each end of the main runway, for a total of 200 metres, and provides a number of additional benefits compared to the 168 metre option, including:
Favourable positioning of the existing Marine Exclusion Zone buoys, continuing to ensure no effect to the boating community by not materially encroaching upon the Western Channel.
Additional take-off runway distance allows for improved noise abatement procedures, including using less power on take-off.
A slightly longer runway should enhance the Western Channel’s safety and navigability for vessels by providing a breakwater for wave protection and reducing sediment build-up in the area.
Both runway options will work for the CS100. We will be happy if the city selects either one, so that we can begin offering flights to new destinations across North America.

You can see the latest runway designs at www.porterplans.com/Info/Airport

Sincerely,

Robert Deluce
President and CEO
Porter Airlines Inc.


168 Metre proposal

200 Metre proposal

 

[EnviroTO]

Additional information in the Star regarding the new proposal.

"Other benefits would be that the runway would serve as a natural breakwater at the Western Gap, making it easier for boaters to navigate through, and possibly reducing sediment buildup there, he added."

So not only will the longer runways reduce noise it will make navigation easier for boaters! What's not to like about this proposal?

That quote sounds like absolute nonsense. A natural breakwater after exiting the gap adds value? The point of exiting the gap or boat mooring area is to get into the lake, not to have another obstacle to getting into the lake. It is like stating that closing the gap will be of benefit because boaters will then take a more scenic route past the skyline and past Leslie spit. He doesn't even know that sediment buildup will be reduced,,, he says "possibly" suggesting no study has been done to conclusively find out if prevalent currents would reduce sediment buildup.

Looking at the diagrams provided by Porter can someone explain to me why a shorter runway requires greater exclusion than a longer runway? What is the point of the exclusion zone?

 

[picard102]

Looking at the diagrams provided by Porter can someone explain to me why a shorter runway requires greater exclusion than a longer runway? What is the point of the exclusion zone?

It's to keep boats out of the area around the runway. I'd imagine the difference is due to the different landing vectors, or something.