nfitz
Superstar
I think this is probably premised on that there'd be a tunnel connection to the island from Eiereann Quay. The scenario seems unlikely to me.
|
|
|
- Thread starter hw621
- Start date
just east of the creek
Senior Member
Question, and I do apologize in advance as my aviation career consists of a balloon flight and sitting in whatever pressurized tube is flying to the destination I am seeking.
As I understand it BB has two runways - 08 -26 and 06 - 24. 08-26 is the longer and wider runway currently used by Porter etc for Q400's etc. And 08-26 is the runway to be lengthened. And the current plan shows the expansion westwards ending about where Ontario place resides, creating a narrow boating channel between the proposed expansion and Ontario Place.
OK, so the question is, why not 06-24? Lengthen it, widen it, create more separation between the expansion and the western (Ontario Place) shoreline? I am sure this would be helpful with noise abatement as well. Shift operations of whatever - Q400's, A220's, the odd military flight (for those seeking a really higher noise level) - to 06-24.
I am sure there are good reasons why this idea is not in circulation, but are reasons based on flying requirements or something else?
(And as i noted earlier, if you are creating a 'node' airport, which it sounds like might be part of the plan, then the money is better spent at Pearson with upgrades to the Terminals, to transit etc)
As I understand it BB has two runways - 08 -26 and 06 - 24. 08-26 is the longer and wider runway currently used by Porter etc for Q400's etc. And 08-26 is the runway to be lengthened. And the current plan shows the expansion westwards ending about where Ontario place resides, creating a narrow boating channel between the proposed expansion and Ontario Place.
OK, so the question is, why not 06-24? Lengthen it, widen it, create more separation between the expansion and the western (Ontario Place) shoreline? I am sure this would be helpful with noise abatement as well. Shift operations of whatever - Q400's, A220's, the odd military flight (for those seeking a really higher noise level) - to 06-24.
I am sure there are good reasons why this idea is not in circulation, but are reasons based on flying requirements or something else?
(And as i noted earlier, if you are creating a 'node' airport, which it sounds like might be part of the plan, then the money is better spent at Pearson with upgrades to the Terminals, to transit etc)
innsertnamehere
Superstar
It very well may be 06-24. We actually don't know the plans other than some snippet quotes from execs.
The one problem with 06-24 is that the other side of the runway basically points straight at downtown. It would basically force all flights to come in and out of one side of the runway.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
The capacity determination was made with the island airport operating. If the island were to close the 1-2 million people who use it would most certainly shift to Pearson placing pressure on it. You can't have it both ways.
All three of NY's airports (JFK, LGA, EWR) sit on waterfront property of some sort and, in the case of JFK and LGA have residential/recreational uses quite close to them. Jamaica bay wildlife preserve, and Rockaway for example. We need to be able to accommodate all uses.
Predominant winds. Winds typically come from the W-NW, NW. Runways are aligned to attempt to point into the wind most of the time. That's why Pearson's main runways are aligned to 06-24 and 05-23. I'm guessing that down by the lake the winds probably shift towards a more NW source than W. Also it doesn't look like the airport owns the land at the end of runway 6-24, there appears to be part of hanlans beach there. Imagine the blow ups if the airport asked or attempted to acquire those lands for expansion.
And of course the approach to landing at runway 24 point almost directly at the downtown/waterfront buildings.
Last edited:
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
***SNIP***
Merged multiple consecutive posts
Merged multiple consecutive posts
Last edited:
Sqazi
New Member
No one is talking about the Island airport closing though. The current expansion under discussion is to increase traffic 5x, not to prevent its closure.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I remember flying into the old Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong in the 1990s and the pilots would thread themselves between the buildings.
Here's the view from King and Strachan at the end of 06-24. Lol.
On a more realistic note, most airports need runways in two directions for when the wind shifts.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
***SNIP***
Merging multiple consecutive posts.
Merging multiple consecutive posts.
Last edited:
Ward8
Active Member
LGA is the closest to Manhattan and it's tucked away next to Rikers Island. The runway isn't in central park which would be the more apt comparison.
Mihairokov
Senior Member
There were lots of reasons why Kai Tak closed, some of which being that jets were noisy, polluting, and they hindered development in Kowloon due to enforced height restrictions.
Anyway, the development is reversed. Hong Kong grew around Kai Tak necessitating its closure and creation of a new airport, whereas we're trying to build out Billy Bishop into a city that is already there (mostly). Seems silly.
Anyway, the development is reversed. Hong Kong grew around Kai Tak necessitating its closure and creation of a new airport, whereas we're trying to build out Billy Bishop into a city that is already there (mostly). Seems silly.
narduch
Senior Member
Carney would never.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I always thought that London City was the closest analog to YTZ.
London City Airport - Wikipedia
cereal
New Member
Does anyone have a rendering of the western extension that includes the Marine Exclusion Zone that would flank the runway north and south? I imagine a full western extension + MEZ buoys would completely prevent marine navigation through the western gap.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I highly doubt that Ports would accept such an outcome - they control the harbour at the end of the day as well remember and have an interest in keeping that open for their other operations.
There are no actual plans available still, just little snippets of quotes from execs. I personally wouldn't be surprised if the runway is planned to be shifted slightly south to minimize impacts on the western gap and on Ontario place, but that's just speculation.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Would never what?