[dowlingm]

The key date is 2033 but what’s to stop Tory, Ford and Polievre signing an extension in 2026, especially given Tory’s aggressive caucus building? Any city land ownership that might facilitate post Tory anti airport activism that wouldn’t easily transfer could be dealt with by a Queens Park bully bill

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Which proponents? I think most people with a lick of common sense understand that a few extra hundred feet of runway isn't going to result in 777s using YTZ.

The push for extra runway is because the addition increases the range of the narrowbodies that use that airport today. That allows for more destinations. It may allow a few more airframe types. But there won't be any large aircraft showing up.

There's a difference between long haul and intercontinental.

The hope is very much to use YTZ mainline narrowbody jets that would open up just about every meaningful Canadian and US destination.

 

[bowen]

Which proponents? I think most people with a lick of common sense understand that a few extra hundred feet of runway isn't going to result in 777s using YTZ.

The push for extra runway is because the addition increases the range of the narrowbodies that use that airport today. That allows for more destinations. It may allow a few more airframe types. But there won't be any large aircraft showing up.



This focus on tech instead of objective noise standards isn't helping your cause at all. Can you actually tell the difference in noise level between a Q400 with turboprop and an A220 with a high bypass turbofan? The "No jets" argument was supposed to be a proxy for larger aircraft. It's now becoming an identifier for luddism and NIMBYism. Under the current logic, the RCAF could base C130s at Billy Bishop because they aren't "jets" as per the current bizarre definitions. I highly doubt anybody would think those are better than an A220.

More broadly, I said earlier, you can't expect the broader public to accept that infrastructure should be underutilized just because a few folks in the vicinity of said infrastructure don't like it. Imagine the same argument for a GO Corridor. The only realistic way to get YTZ closed is to build a real alternative. An alternative that would take share from a majority of the flights (to Ottawa and Montreal).

Not sure what you’ve interpreted as “my cause” but I’ve never had reason to doubt the A220/CS100 would have met the Tripartite Agreement’s noise restrictions. While that’s a useful and important variable, it’s nowhere close to the full picture - which was and is about growth. The implications of YTZ growing to a projected (with jets and an extended runway) 4.5 million+ annual passengers have been well studied, and it’s more complicated than insisting over and over that the A220 isn’t louder than the Q400.

 

[kEiThZ]

There's a difference between long haul and intercontinental.

Mostly semantics. Air Canada sends 777s from Toronto to Vancouver and San Francisco and Los Angeles. Are those intercontinental flights? This is another example, of the "No Jets" line of thinking where colloquial understanding of these terms don't line up with how people inside that industry use them.

Not sure what you’ve interpreted as “my cause” but I’ve never had reason to doubt the A220/CS100 would have met the Tripartite Agreement’s noise restrictions. While that’s a useful and important variable, it’s nowhere close to the full picture - which was and is about growth. The implications of YTZ growing to a projected (with jets and an extended runway) 4.5 million+ annual passengers have been well studied, and it’s more complicated than insisting over and over that the A220 isn’t louder than the Q400.

If the goal is to cap the number of passengers, trying to achieve that by arguing for a ban on "jets" because of noise is a rather bizarre way to get there. That confusion is squarely on the opponents of the airport who keep whining about their dislike of "jets" as opposed to the traffic impacts that you suggest are pre-dominant.

All I'm saying is that if this same amount of energy had been aimed at building the alternative needed, they might have actually succeeded by now. Instead, they've got to resort to moving goalposts from noise to traffic. And the process of doing so makes them look like NIMBY cranks.

 

[Cinnamon]

As per type-certificate, CS100/A220 fails to meet with the Tripartite Agreement’s noise restrictions: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/20962/en

I added CS100/A220's noise levels with PW1524G engines to the below table. They were marked as (TBD) on the original document: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porter-cs100-aircraft-noise-assessment.pdf

Note that, even Q400 exceeds two of the three noise level restrictions set by the Tripartite Agreement. To get around this issue, TPA uses an "average noise level" calculation.Tripartite agreement is silent about such trade-offs and/or average noise level calculations.

 

[kEiThZ]

To get around this issue, TPA uses an "average noise level" calculation.

As is the norm in most places which use cumulative noise exposure limits. See London City as the most famous example.

But are we now back to noise, from traffic as the issue?

 

[bowen]

But are we now back to noise, from traffic as the issue?

The issue is growth. Always was.

I encourage you to read the 2015 study design report (linked below) for the former runway extension and jet proposal at YTZ.

What this consultant team understood (full disclosure - I was part of that team), and which PortsToronto as owner/operator of YTZ supported, is need for a cumulative effects assessment of future growth at YTZ made possible by the proposed runway extension and introduction of prohibited jets. Which yes, means studying noise, both fly-over and ground-based, and a critical review of current NEF control contours. And transportation and congestion impacts in a space constrained, built-out urban environment. Airside and groundside infrastructure upgrades. Potential built form impacts from changes to Obstacle Limitation Surfaces in TP312 v5. Air quality. Public health and safety. Marine navigation impacts from an expanded MEZ. And so on. All of it needed to understand the cumulative effects of growth.

It's important to understand that the existing controls in the 1983 Tripartite Agreement weren't born out of some inherent bias against jets. Rather, they were developed by Transport Canada (after years of study and negotiation) specifically in response to the City's concerns about future potential unchecked growth at YTZ, and the resultant cumulative effects on a waterfront that was beginning to plan a transition away from industrial uses.

https://www.portstoronto.com/TorontoPortAuthority/media/TPASiteAssets/PDFs/10ra_2015-08-25_EA-ToR_60328546.pdf

 

[kEiThZ]

The issue is growth. Always was.

I appreciate that. But as I've pointed out the public opposition both jumps around and routinely focuses on noise.

Also, like I've said, if the concern was growth, focusing the discourse on noise is a very poor way to get there. Especially since there are now "jet" aircraft that are on the border of the limits. You're going to have a hard time arguing that 0.2 EPNdB cumulative and 4.4 EPNdB lateral should stop further development.

Finally, professional advice and public or political preference can diverge. Professional advice is not sacrosanct. It's advice. Another example of this is the Scarborough Subway. And this is exactly where this whole saga is heading. The federal government is well within its rights to impose development if it considers it in the national interest. We've done this for pipelines. No reason the same legal reasoning can't be applied to an airport that has proven to suppress airfares for the busiest aviation market in the country (the TOM triangle).

I've always argued that the case for YTZ expansion would be poor if HSR existed. It doesn't. And doesn't seem to even be on the horizon in our lifetime. Ergo, expansion is inevitable. There will be plenty of kicking and screaming and gnashing of teeth I'm sure. But absent an alternative, I don't see how any federal government can allow economic competitiveness of the major corridor of the country to suffer for local preferences. Like I said, downtowners should be asking their MPs why those alternatives weren't built.

 

[LemonCondo]

This wouldn't even be a discussion if we had high speed rail.

Hell will freeze over first.

 

[Cinnamon]

Like I said, downtowners should be asking their MPs why those alternatives weren't built.

Those who killed the HSR development plan were the same ones advocating for the expansion of the YTZ. As a result, Canada remains (i) the only G7 country without high speed rail, (ii) one of the four G20 countries that does not have HSR, and (iii) only G20 country whose government has not committed to HSR development yet.

 

[LemonCondo]

Those who killed the HSR development plan were the same ones advocating for the expansion of the YTZ. As a result, Canada remains (i) the only G7 country without high speed rail, (ii) one of the four G20 countries that does not have HSR, and (iii) only G20 country whose government has not committed to HSR development yet.

Accela doesn't really count as HSR. But California HSR is coming so...

 

[kEiThZ]

Those who killed the HSR development plan were the same ones advocating for the expansion of the YTZ.

Again. Downtown elects a whole lot of Liberal and NDP MPs. They are either in power or have the balance of power. Instead of resorting to conspiratorial nonsense, you should be holding your elected representatives accountable and demanding that they build the alternative.

 

[Northern Light]

Again. Downtown elects a whole lot of Liberal and NDP MPs. They are either in power or have the balance of power. Instead of resorting to conspiratorial nonsense, you should be holding your elected representatives accountable and demanding that they build the alternative.

For Clarity:

The areas with immediate adjacency to the airport are largely confined to a single Federal Riding; Spadina-Fort York.

Broadly, downtown Toronto consists of 3 Federal Ridings:

Spadina-Fort York
Toronto Centre
University Rosedale


Toronto-Danforth, while not really downtown, does abut this area, but does so largely via the currently uninhabited Portlands. (uninhabited meaning no residents, and therefore no federal voters)

Source: https://www.baycloverhill.com/uploads/1/3/5/2/135278941/old-wards_orig.png

 

[Cinnamon]

But are we now back to noise, from traffic as the issue?

Porter + PortsToronto presented CS100 as "whisper jet" back in 2013. As per type certificate, it is not. That was my post about.

You're going to have a hard time arguing that 0.2 EPNdB cumulative and 4.4 EPNdB lateral should stop further development.

Not really. First, the annex which PortsToronto relies on for the noise tradeoffs (averaging) also requires following criteria to be maintained:

a. The sum of the excesses shall not be greater than 3 EPNdB.​

b. Any excess at any single point shall not be greater than 2 EPNdB.​

c. Any excesses shall be offset by corresponding reductions at the other point or points.​

Clearly, CS100/A220 cannot meet with the conditions set under the clauses both "a" and "b".

Second, Tripartite Agreement sets some special conditions about noise, aircraft type and access with a clear intention to limit the expansion of the airport. Challenging each condition in a silo mentality and trying to bend those rules to expand the YTZ is against the nature and purpose of the Tripartite Agreement.

 

[kEiThZ]

Porter + PortsToronto presented CS100 as "whisper jet" back in 2013. As per type certificate, it is not. That was my post about.

Terms like "Whisper Jet" are marketing fluff. Nobody is disputing that. What I am suggesting is that the noise levels are close enough to the agreement to be irrelevant to the public.

Not really. First, the annex which PortsToronto relies on for the noise tradeoffs (averaging) also requires following criteria to be maintained:

a. The sum of the excesses shall not be greater than 3 EPNdB.b. Any excess at any single point shall not be greater than 2 EPNdB.c. Any excesses shall be offset by corresponding reductions at the other point or points.
Clearly, CS100/A220 cannot meet with the conditions set under the clauses both "a" and "b".

You keep harping on about the agreement as if it can't be changed by future governments. This is not a regulatory issue. It's a political one. It's surprising that folks like yourself don't understand this even while a whole pile of politicians are specifically pledging to violate that agreement. The Tripartite Agreement is not some constitutional document that can't be renegotiated or even entirely abrogated by the federal government. And really, beyond this forum the broader public isn't likely to care about the supposed inviolability of it. Those of us who understand this, have suggested the way out is to build the alternative the makes the airport commercially unviable.

Second, Tripartite Agreement sets some special conditions about noise, aircraft type and access with a clear intention to limit the expansion of the airport. Challenging each condition in a silo mentality and trying to bend those rules to expand the YTZ is against the nature and purpose of the Tripartite Agreement.

In my experience, it's airport opponents who are constantly harping about noise instead of discussing the broader issues with expansion. If you think the discussions are being siloed, look in the mirror for how that has happened.