I'm part of the LGBT community (G specifically) and I wouldn't oppose easier access to Hanlan's. The annoying ferry is part of why I don't like going. I think it would be great if there was a cycling option for example
 
Neil said:
Surely we're not delaying an issue of safety to cater to a particular airframe or airline?
Click to expand...

They most certainly are, LOL

Shortening the runway to meet RESA requirements would eliminate use by Dash-8 aircraft which would shut down the commercial carrier that flies a large number of flights from said airport.

1727549254646.png


From: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-249034.pdf
 
Shortening the current runway seems like a very bad idea if the airport is staying for the next 50 years.

Wouldn’t that effectively shut down the airport for any commercial operations? Leaving the airport to be suitable only for general aviation purposes? (aka rich folks with private aircraft)
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
Shortening the current runway seems like a very bad idea if the airport is staying for the next 50 years.

Wouldn’t that effectively shut down the airport for any commercial operations? Leaving the airport to be suitable only for general aviation purposes? (aka rich folks with private aircraft)
Click to expand...

I just answered that in the post right above yours.
 
Is it not possible to do RESA 1, the minimum change, and still have the sound barriers? I feel like the sound barriers would be of most benefit to a lot of people who complain about this airport.

While on one hand I understand those people who are anti-airport will appreciate not doing the larger encroachment into the port, but at the same time will lose out on having sound barriers at the takeoff areas, where most of the noise is created.

If I was Ports Toronto, I would do sound barriers no matter the plan; the less people you piss off the greater chance of the airport staying open.
 
Last edited:
milkycontent said:
From my read of the report, it seems like staff are recommending going along with the minimum RESA requirements but rejecting PortsToronto’s ask to extend the agreement from 2033 to 2073 until a broader airport master plan can be updated, along with robust public consultation.
Click to expand...
This makes sense to me. I can't see the point of extending the agreement without a robust design competition so the public can make an informed decision on what to do with the public land. People need to see the potential of the island and what could be done in terms of bridges, canals, housing, cultural institutions, sports facilities and general access to the park. The potential economic impact could be staggering. People should have a sense of the opportunity cost before adding a lifetime to the agreement.
 
Ward8 said:
This makes sense to me. I can't see the point of extending the agreement without a robust design competition so the public can make an informed decision on what to do with the public land. People need to see the potential of the island and what could be done in terms of bridges, canals, housing, cultural institutions, sports facilities and general access to the park. The potential economic impact could be staggering. People should have a sense of the opportunity cost before adding a lifetime to the agreement.
Click to expand...
Is it city land, or federal?
 
The events in the U.S. this weekend should give pause in considering what can and should be constructed on lands that storms have caused fundamental change to, and therefore the cost to flood proof same to be included in the base infrastructure specification before anything is constructed and occupied.

Pulling up the runways, remediating the lands and making it a park could done less expensively if the parklands were designed to absorb flooding, but then you don’t get to spare yellow belt longer by pushing people onto the islands.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top