generalcanada
Senior Member
Sure but were talking about the same federal government that thinks privatizing airports is a good idea. sooooo
|
|
|
- Thread starter hw621
- Start date
oakwoodsfinest
New Member
further to my last post, also lol https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2026.MM41.19
"Investigating the Increased Risk of Heart Disease, Lung Cancer, and Tumours from Bringing Jets to Toronto’s Waterfront Communities - by Councillor Josh Matlow, seconded by Councillor Chris Moise"
"Investigating the Increased Risk of Heart Disease, Lung Cancer, and Tumours from Bringing Jets to Toronto’s Waterfront Communities - by Councillor Josh Matlow, seconded by Councillor Chris Moise"
picard102
Senior Member
Looking forward to their motions to investigate what the health effects of rehabilitating the Gardiner Expressway are as well.
lenaitch
Senior Member
To be clear, the federal government is just the landlord of National Airport System properties. Non-profit authorities or municipalities operate them. I assume the government is eyeing up the estimated $16Bn in value.
I wonder what they intend to discover, what they intend to use as a baseline and how they intent to factor out all the other airborne pollutants. A turboprop engine is basically a jet engine mounted backwards and connected to the propeller via a torque converter. The operate under the same principle and burn the same fuel.
Last edited:
ShonTron
Moderator
Wow. Just wow.
urbanclient
Senior Member
I'm just struggling to see what the big hubbub is for the expansion. We know Billy Bishop cannot/will not be expanded to handle large single-aisles or widebodies. I can't think of another city the size of Toronto (or bigger) building or expanding an airport so close to downtown, just to hopefully get 10 million passenger traffic per year. All on small, single-aisle jets.
Is this critically needed? Compared to say, more local rail transit, Alto, Pearson expansion, 400 series highway expansion.
I am worried about how traffic will be at Lakeshore and Bathurst. Setting aside the more frequent noise and West Portland height restrictions, which I am told are outweighed by the benefits. How will car traffic be mitigated? Are the 509 & 511 up to the task?
I can't help but think that Billy Bishop is being expanded because it already exists, therefore it's easy, with less attention to things like road traffic. If it did not exist, then more resources and attention would be going to Pearson.
Is this critically needed? Compared to say, more local rail transit, Alto, Pearson expansion, 400 series highway expansion.
I am worried about how traffic will be at Lakeshore and Bathurst. Setting aside the more frequent noise and West Portland height restrictions, which I am told are outweighed by the benefits. How will car traffic be mitigated? Are the 509 & 511 up to the task?
I can't help but think that Billy Bishop is being expanded because it already exists, therefore it's easy, with less attention to things like road traffic. If it did not exist, then more resources and attention would be going to Pearson.
rdaner
Senior Member
I still think that Ontario wants control of the airport lands to control who/how it is redeveloped for non-airport uses. Time will tell.
Sqazi
New Member
With the GTAA planned capacity increase of 11 mm passengers per year already underway, I can't imagine enough demand materializing at Billy Bishop to make this a viable expansion financially.
nfitz
Superstar
I don't think they'd even need any terminal expansion for some time. It's running at less than 2 million passengers these days, but it was approaching 3 million before Covid, and wasn't at capacity. What's the current capacity - 4 million? If demand really does get to 4 million, then add to the terminal.
Isn't it pretty much just the runway - which they already have to extend to meet the newer Transport Canada standards? Seems reasonable enough to double the runway expansion to protect for jets, even if they don't use it until jets are quieter than turboprop, instead of about the same noise level.
That's probably the biggest real issue. Though there's a nearby streetcar stop for the Harbourfront line. Even the Bathurst line, while further, is only about 350 metres away - which by some standards is very close for a streetcar stop!
I've not seen anything real about changes in height-restrictions. I've just seen Nimby theories, that was initially prefaced on the runway going further east than originallly planned. Given I thought the long-approved plan was adding 150 metres at each end for safety, and the figures we've seen add about half that at the east ... I'm puzzled why that issue is being raised.
Yes. But if Pearson didn't exist now, then they wouldn't be building a new airport there ... it would more likely be in North Pickering with a fast airport train.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I assume a Ferris wheel?
SubHuman
Active Member
FWIW, the view of YTZ from BMO Field/Toronto Stadium
Ward8
Active Member
It has crossed my tinfoil crusted head that this is an elaborate pump and dump. With BB fledgling, it makes some amount of sense to make maximalist expansion plans with sky high projections to increase the value of a future sale of the lands.
Anecdotally, I can remember several times where we were held on the plane for 20ish minutes because the terminal couldn't accept both domestic and international travellers at the same time. That was years ago, but I can't imagine it's well set up for a major international capacity bump.
You keep saying this, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting there could be conflicts between the airport and the planned building heights based on previous expansion studies. Even the port authority walked back the CEOs comments saying they can't guarantee those developments won't be affected. It's fair to say it's an unknown, but it certainly isn't "Nimby theories" it's a perfectly reasonable concern.
rdaner
Senior Member
And a new, extremely lucrative price of real estate that could host a casino with all the leisure activities that falls outside municipal bylaws.
But to be serious, I see the use of a small issue to extract maximum benefits nearby as plausible with the huge emphasis on real estate with the Tories and deals.
afransen
Senior Member
This is pretty long, so thanks google for the gemini summaries. There is a good visual explainer for the impacts for surrounding uses starting at 53:00 or so.
urbanclient
Senior Member
I've linked this document before, it's worth a read. Talking about CS100s (A220-100s).
From the last time expansion was pitched and rejected by the Feds.
"A 2014 report warned that an expanded flight path would limit buildings on the western edge of the Port Lands to a maximum of roughly 15 storeys. The towers currently planned for that precinct range from 19 to 46 storeys."
Liberals stand by vow to block jets at Billy Bishop
November 2015: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/island-airport-liberal-1.3300989------------------------
If the airport gets expanded, I'm fairly sure they'll have to lower the heights and cut the number of buildings. It's one thing to comply with potential federal regulations, it's another to have jets flying right above your building while technically complying.
Nobody wants a mini Kai Tak in Toronto. Not the pilots, not the ATCs, nor the airlines, the real estate developers, or the Feds.
Last edited: