Oh oh....maybe the Liberals are serious about no expansion

[inchman]

If the federal government has decided, for whatever reasons it deems valid (political, normally), that they will not agree to the expansion, continuing with any process with regard to expansion seems moot and a waste of time and money. If the process was intended to be decided by a fourth-party process without input from the parties, then it would seem that there would be little reason to have tripartite participation.

Lots of decisions in democracies are decided by government edict, sometimes (and sometimes often) without what would seem to be rational cause. In most cases, panels in the position of decision making are quasi-veto panels rather than those that might force a process through. This is most common and familiar in environmental reviews. A review panel might approve the concept but normally doesn't drive the process forward. As you say, MD2, this process has been invoked by city council. Even city council is not bound by the recommendation of this panel... it seems odd that you think that the federal government might be.

[vikingwarrior]

Seems like a fair (and reasonably expected) analysis on the current state of affairs over at the Island.

Was this whole jets push by Porter just for corporate survival?

ANALYSIS: Porter Airlines Future is Uncertain Without Toronto City Runway Extension

http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/11/18/analysis-porter-airlines-future-is-uncertain-without-toronto-city-runway-extension/

[Maverick]

I believe the extension requested was just enough to allow the "C" series to operate unrestricted but no other modern jets.

I say make it 9000' feet or the minimum length that will accommodate a B736 or A319.

[DEFCON]

Create a rule that limits jet aircraft to those that are Stage 5 compliant.

Btw, seaplanes are the true noise makers at the Island; the C Series would never come close to those noise levels.

[Briler]

To do otherwise would be tantamount to stifling a democratic consultative process which started over two years ago. It would only be prudent for the federal government to allow the process to unfold at the city level first as it should.

Porter’s bid for jets at the Island Airport was always a long shot.

Remember the arrogance Porter’s Robert Deluce demonstrated in kicking off his jets pitch with his April 23, 2013 letter to (then) Mayor Rob Ford:

“To ensure the parties have sufficient time to finalize the amendment to the Tripartite Agreement, we require the City of Toronto’s approval in July 2013.”

Require??!!

Where was the commitment to fact-based decision-making then? He thought Rob could deliver.

With an impressive and strengthening campaign, NoJetsTO ensured that artificial deadline was missed, and many others since.

Porter’s campaign even blindsided its good friends at the Port Authority (now rebranded as Ports Toronto) on that jets proposal. They quickly came onside with Porter, once they recovered from the “surprise”.

That proposal, of course, should have been tossed way back then, as utterly incompatible with everything else that’s been done to develop our waterfront as the best place to spend time.

Instead, Ford and his allies on Council couldn’t help gushing all over Deluce.

Now, two and a half years later, after a party has promised not to re-open the prohibition on jets, and, elected on that promise, honours it, Porter whines about fact-based decision-making.

Al that's happened is Deluce's friends no longer have the power he was counting on to ram this through.

[MD2]

Brian,

As I said in my previous post, it has always been fact-based. If it was approved then it would have been conditional on the performance of the C series aircraft, and when it is approved now, it would be based on the facts and actual data on the performance of the C series aircraft. And the fact is that the noise of the C series aircraft is the same as the Q400 (if not less) that already operates out of that airport.

This is why Porter plans do not envision open access to any jet aircraft, rather only to the ones that fall under the current noise level. It wants to remove the arbitrary ban on all jets on the stigma of the past to which you and few others seem to be a victim. That stigma is no longer valid because new technology, which happens to be produced in our own country, has made it possible. Is this clearer now?

This is also why other jets such as B737, A319 do not meet this requirement therefore are not included in the proposal. At the same time, the B737 and A319 that are old technology and noisier, also require more runway, whereas the brand new Canadian built C series aircraft only needs a very modest 400 meters increase to the runway to make its operation possible.

But wait it gets even better! As the 400 meters requirement is very modest it falls within the existing boundaries of the marine exclusion zone (MEZ), therefore there is not going to be any material change in the MEZ and no noticeable difference in operations as noise will remain the same. This is why the expansion really minimizes its environmental footprint, however has many benefits for the city.

It creates hundreds of jobs directly in the GTA. It creates more jobs indirectly in Quebec and Toronto for Bombardier. It strengthens Bombardier's position during the critical launch phase of its product when it is not only confronted by lower demand due to low oil prices which diminishes its fuel savings advantage, but is also confronted with heavy sales attack from Boeing and Airbus to prevent it from gaining a foothold in this market. It also creates competition in the industry and lowers airfare for the consumers. It truly is a win-win situation if judged fairly. This is evident in opinion polls.

[MD2]

As has been said, the proposal is for maintaining the current noise limitations which is why it does not include the B737 or A319 as they are older technology, noisier and also require more runway, non of which are possible at Toronto City airport. The C series aircraft is not only very quiet, but also has great field performance requiring a very modest 400 meter extension to accommodate its operations. The B737 or A319 have been around for decades, but no such proposal was extended because it would have not made sense. It is only with the development of the Canadian-built C series that this proposal became possible. It truly is a revolutionary aircraft, perfect for urban operations and ahead of its time. What better place to showcase it to the world than Toronto downtown airport, and at the same time benefit consumers by lower airfares and better service.

[Briler]

Six points, Michael:

First, Porter has never attempted to make a case that jets expansion at the Island Airport is in the public interest. Asking governments to approve it without establishing how the public interest is best served by that expansion ignores the fundamental role that governments play – protecting the public interest.

Consideration of alternatives to air travel, such as improved passenger rail service, which is far more environmentally friendly, are absent entirely.

Certainly the scope of inquiry, as a matter of public interest, should include possible harm to other public assets and activities.

Island Airport expansion threatens:

• WaterfrontToronto’s redevelopment plans. These involve multi-billion dollar investments.

Will an expanded Island Airport threaten these plans by discouraging that investment?

• The viability of the Union Pearson Express. It has been built at a cost of at least $456 million by the provincial government.

This is a public investment made by the people of Ontario.

Will the expansion of the Island Airport threaten the economic viability of the UP Express?

• Recreational facilities in the Island Park, Ontario Place and boating in Toronto Harbour and Lake Ontario.

Increasing number of people are settling in the downtown core of the city. They will need recreational facilities.

All of these matters are in the public interest and require assessment.

Porter, and Ports Toronto's studies are silent on any public interest or policy considerations.

Second, the studies to date include no consideration of the environmental challenge of climate change, which is immediate and dire, and, by all informed analysis, will require significant reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases in the very near future.

The aviation industry, as a significant and currently growing contributor to those emissions, will be obliged to do its share.

Tim Johnson, Director of the UK’s Aviation Environment Federation, put this succinctly in a letter in the Independent recently, in relation to the proposed fourth runway at Heathrow:

“With a new runway potentially locking the UK into an emissions path entirely at odds with our long-term climate commitments, politicians will very soon need to face up to the CO2 consequences of sanctioning airport growth.”

Porter, and Ports Toronto's studies ignore that imperative, which is equally applicable to the jets proposal.

Third, and one would think this would be a pre-condition, no estimates of costs of expansion have been put forward by Porter or Ports Toronto, nor any indication of who would pay for them, seek to indicate that neither of them would.

Oliver Wyman, in a recent report states, that only for the Airport side (ignoring the infrastructure requirements on the City side) "This is not a $ 100 MM project, but closer to $1 BN project once everything is done."

Neither Porter nor Ports Toronto intend to provide the money, Airport Improvement Fees cannot go higher, and they are dedicated to paying for the $85,000,000 tunnel. Governments have many far more urgent priorities for scarce tax dollars then assisting Porter's expansion.

Fourth, the studies citing economic benefits are limited and deeply flawed, as described in this economist’s devastating critique.

According to a recent study, airport economic benefits are often overstated, and can be ascribed to aspects of an airport’s location, such as nearby industry and transport links, which often serve as job creators, rather than the airport itself.

No proper economic analysis of the damaging impact that the Island airport has had, and will have, on property values along the waterfront, and therefore on property tax revenues to the City, has been done.

There is ample evidence of that damaging impact elsewhere:

In two paired moderately priced neighborhoods north of Los Angeles International Airport, the study found "an average 18.6 percent higher property value in the quiet neighborhood, or 1.33 percent per dB of additional quiet." - see http://airportnoiselaw.org/propval.html

Fifth, the 2012 Island Airport Master Plan, prepared by Ports Toronto's own consultants, sets out a host of unsolvable barriers to expansion.

These are excerpts from that Master Plan [my emphasis]:

• “The provision of public parking is significantly undersized given the level of passenger activity. Industry planning guidelines suggest a provision of approximately 1,000 – 3,000 parking stalls per 1 million enplaned passengers.”

“With approximately 1.5 million passengers, the unrestrained demand for parking at BBTCA would be approximately 750 – 2,000 parking stalls.”

• “The terminal was designed to support a planning peak hour passenger (PPHP) capacity of 336 in either the domestic or transborder sector.”

“…Given that the existing terminal is designed to accommodate a peak hour demand of approximately 336 passengers, it is likely that areas of the terminal building already exceed demand during peak periods.”

• “The area of the combined services building allocated for airport maintenance is comprised of four equipment bays and support areas. This facility is not sufficient to accommodate the full needs of the Airport.

• Given the tight physical constraints of the Airport, particularly in the vicinity of the terminal building, there is no opportunity to provide a centralized de-icing facility.”

• “With the rapid increase in air carrier activity over the past two years and the allocation of all of the 202 slots available for scheduled air carriers, it is very likely that BBTCA has reached its theoretical capacity of 140,703 movements.”

“Even with modest (1-2%) growth in the other general aviation sectors, the TPA may have to implement measures next year to manage aviation activities.”

• “At a length of approximately 60m, the drop-off/pick-up curb at the ferry terminus is significantly undersized as compared to airports with comparable passenger activity.”

“ As comparison, the following is a list of similar Canadian Airports, including the number of annual passengers and the length of their terminal curb-side:

Kelowna Airport: 1.3 million annual passengers, curb length of 122m,

Saskatoon Airport: 1.3 million annual passengers, curb length of 150m, and

Victoria Airport: 1.4 million annual passengers, curb length of 200m.”

• “The current capacity of the two taxi queuing lanes is approximately thirty-four vehicles, which during peak periods is at over-capacity.”

“As a result, taxis often stand on the northbound curb lane of Eireann Quay, which presents a significant congestion and safety concern. …As a result, the TPA is left with an overall taxi system that has far more demand than capacity, and is without any realistic short-term and cost effective mitigating solutions.”

Sixth, adequate emergency access to the Island Airport has never been addressed since a 1993 study that Lisa Raitt, then CEO of the Toronto Port Authority, was referring to

in a press release on October 16, 2003:

“The fixed link is a public safety issue. The need for a bridge to get emergency equipment to the airport quickly was identified by an intergovernmental committee almost 10 years ago." said Ms. Raitt. "In the event of an emergency, it could take up to two hours to get the appropriate equipment over to the island and that's not acceptable."

Why, in light of that report, did Porter’s operations even commence in 2006 at the Airport, after newly‑elected Toronto mayor David Miller honoured an election promise in 2003 by cancelling the planned bridge?

Minister Raitt, was CEO of the Port Authority throughout the 2003‑6 period when the decision was made to ignore this report and proceed with airport expansion with Porter and without a bridge. A FOI inquiry produced no evidence that emergency access was considered at all in deciding to let Porter commence operations.

There's lots more fact-based material. The case has not been made, and it was Porter's to make. That's why the Liberals (and the NDP) pledged to stop jets expansion,and why the Liberals are now honoring that pledge.

[MD2]

Brian,

Nice essay, if it was referred to me, please don't presume that you know my name. However, very briefly I say that City airport expansion is part and parcel of waterfront revitalization unless of course you only count condos and land developers. As romantic as it sounds, taking the train to L.A or Caribbean is just not practical most times, not to mention that all means of transportation have their environmental footprint. For instance flying on a Q400 one would actually use less fuel than driving an SUV, but scientific facts are not sensational and fantastic enough!

It's interesting that you think City airport expansion (perhaps its very existence) is bad because it may reduce the use of the train to Pearson! In other words you are saying that Toronto City airport is so convenient that people may not be inclined to ride the train (that was just built by the way) to go to Pearson airport, wait for hours so they can fly from there! Wow this is such a gem!

[Briler]

The current standard for RESA requires a minimum of 150 meters at each end. The only way around it now is to install an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) which must be proven to stop the "critical" aircraft exiting the runway at a speed of 70 kts without damaging the aircraft. The EMAS to stop a fully loaded C Series would probably need to be 75 to 100 meters long and would cost signficantly more than a straight run-off area of 150 meters.

The fact is that RESAs can be accommodated by:

1) shortening the existing runway [not an option from the PortersToronto point of view]

2) building an EMAS [always called too expensive, but never costed]

3) redesigning the taxiways to use the existing landmass more effectively. [This option should not require any more landmass extension, though it might require lake filling to obtain more width so that the taxiways could reach to the end of the RESAs.]

The feasibility of option 3 above is asserted by the fact that the same design method is proposed by WSP for the expanded runways proposed in the Porter Proposal. Option 3 just puts this taxiway design on the existing landmass.

Like jets, any extension of the runway for a longer RESA would require an amendment to the Tripartite Agreement. I doubt that either the City or the Trudeau government would have much stomach for that.

[Lakelad]

.

[Briler]

A careful analysis of the RESA issues, by Ron Jenkins, of the Toronto Boaters Alliance, one of the many groups active in opposing Porter's Jets:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B86yxyGd4xMWMlZWMVhybm40WW8/view

The report concludes:

Lake Filling to Implement RESAs should be discarded as an option on the grounds of costs of lake filling and Tripartite Agreement non-compliance.

The emphasis currently given by PortsToronto to Lake Filling to Implement RESAs suggests that RESA implementation options are either

1) not fully thought out, or

2) are presenting lake filling as a fait accompli to reduce opposition to the full lake filling proposal advanced by Porter Airlines.

[Super 80]

Like jets, any extension of the runway for a longer RESA would require an amendment to the Tripartite Agreement. I doubt that either the City or the Trudeau government would have much stomach for that.

Nope. Just an Order in Council.

[MD2]

Other than half truths and fantastic and sensationalized arguments, like Adam Vaughan's "paving lake Ontario" example, opponents of City airport also widely employ self fulfilling prophecies and fallacious arguments.

For instance they make it impossible to make any progress for airport parking or improved taxi routes, and then they come and argue that the airport should be restricted (i.e. closed) because it doesn't have enough parking space or taxi routes!

Or they make it impossible to have improved access for emergency vehicles, then they say the airport can't be expanded because it doesn't have adequate emergency access!

In this environment, how can any policy maker take such radical and fanciful arguments seriously? If they were to enter the discussions with an open mind and in partnership with other parties, they will have a better voice and be part of the solutions.

[Briler]

MD2 (why do you insist on anonymity - it does not suggest you have the confidence to stand behind your statements?), noise is a chronic issue at the Island Airport.

There is no assurance that even the current Q400 meets the noise requirements.

That's why, at its May 7, 2013 meeting Toronto City Council requested the following work:

Evaluate the extent to which commercial and general aviation operations at BBTCA conform to the current terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement.

Two and a half years later, no such evaluation has been posted to the City’s website.

It will require a legal opinion or preferably, a court application to have a judge decide what the restrictions for the protection of the waterfront communities mean.

A February 2009 PowerPoint presentation by Ports Toronto to a now-defunct community advisory committee meeting admits that even the Q400 (technically the Q402, flown by Porter and Air Canada) offends the Tripartite Agreement’s definition of aircraft generating excessive noise on two of the three limits. Breach of any one prohibits the aircraft.

How can Porter and Ports Toronto say the Q400 “meet the noise restrictions at the airport”?

They cannot – on the facts.

Instead, Ports Toronto claims it can “trade-off” one breach with another’s compliance, borrowing from one parameter that is not breached to address a breach of another.

The “trade-off” concept does exist – but only to enable aircraft to meet the maximum noise levels fixed by the ICAO.

The concept of “trade-off” does not appear in the Tripartite Agreement. This is the relevant excerpt from the Tripartite Agreement:

aircraft generating excessive noise shall ... include [those] which generate a noise level in excess of 84.0 EPNdB on takeoff (flyover), or in excess of 83.5 EPNdB on sideline at takeoff (lateral)to the flight path) or in excess of 92.0 EPNdB on approach

The limits are the limits, and each stands alone.

So if the Q400 isn't onside, how possibly can the CS100? By attempting, again, to use "tradeoffs"?

​We think a judge should decide whether they are available.

[MD2]

Brian Iler, respectfully one's identity is of no concern to you or relevance to the discussion. Focus on the message and not the messenger. Discuss the issues and concerns and people weigh the merit regardless of who brings them. On the discussion of noise which is the main issue first I have a question since you seem to be well versed on the subject. Could you please share with the board what the noise limits are for both Toronto City airport and Toronto Pearson airport?

Then answer the following: Why do you think that the small community choosing to live around City airport right in the middle of downtown Toronto expects to have peace, serenity and green space similar to living in the wilderness while being situated in the middle of Canada's busiest downtown and at the same time expects over 1.5 million living around Pearson airport in the suburbs to be happy not only with the noise they already have but also take whatever little noise City airport may generate?

[boestar]

So just out of curiosity I checked on Pearsons WebTrak to see the differences in noise levels over a particular monitoring Station. (Acacia Ave.) A Boeing 737 passed over the station and generated a noise footprint of 68dB. shortly after a Dash8 Q400 flew over the same station and generated a noise footprint of 68dB.

So in the approach phase of flight passing over the ground station a B737 and a Dash 8 have the same noise footprint. While of course the data sample is WAY too small to draw a specific conclusion, it does cast a shadow that the Dash 8 is ever so much quieter than its jet counterparts.

Unfortunately at this time we cannot monitor a C-Series in the same real world way.

Edited to add that it was a Q400

[Guest]

for those interested in comparative noise levels ...

http://www.nonoise.org/library/household/​

http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm

[Vsplat]

MD2, since you mention the message and respect, etc, may I ask why you have such little respect for people who are currently living the zone of the proposed change?

It seems to me that there is some value in being there first and living up to agreements. This is not a case of a buyer moving into a known departure path, then trying to re-jig the traffic flow. There IS no jet traffic flow.

You clearly wish to minimise the weight given to environmental impact, but the fact is, there IS an impact. If those who have built their lives before this business proposal came along, indeed trusted the covenants in place to prohibit jets, simply wish the deal honoured, why should they be held out as unreasonable?

Personally, I think it odd that someone can come into a situation, fully aware of the agreements in place, decide that their future financial gain is more important than the rights of existing stakeholders, then make an investment that runs contrary to the agreements and try to play politics with the local inhabitants.

Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here.

Vs

[boestar]

in my post above I did not lay a baseline. the monitoring station reflected an SPL in the low to mid 50's as ambient noise level. Remember that SPL is not measured on a liner scale so small changed in the number equate to bigger changes in sound.

[Briler]

MD2, the 1983 noise constraints on the Island Airport are strict - BECAUSE Bathurst Quay, which abuts the Airport, was in the process of being developed for a large residential community, and City Council sought to protect it. To some extent, they did. But the constraints have been ignored or not honoured in their intended way.

This is supposed to be a general aviation airport with "limited commercial STOL service". That's what Council imposed, and it is being ignored.

Same with the noise limits, that don't allow trade-offs.

And curfews? Intended to protect the neighborhood from noise before 6:45 a.m., but treated as only constraining actual takeoffs and landings before that time.

Perhaps the incoming Ports Toronto board will have a closer look at their obligations.

Here's CommunityAIR's letter today, seeking the resignations of the current federal appointees, as a first step to reform:

You may be aware of that former Ports Toronto Board Chair Mark McQueen has resigned as Chair of the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority , citing the change of government in Ottawa:

“But I appreciate they would want their own person for the role and I thought I would help pave the way for them to do that.”

You are in a similar position: your appointment was highly political, with your ties to the Conservative Party clearly being a primary factor.

The Liberal Party has committed itself to reforming Ports Toronto.

You will be aware of the statement of Liberal Party policy by Adam Vaughan last September:

The Liberal Party has also promised to reform the Port Authority (now called Ports Toronto). We are committed to making sure that the Port Authority holds its meeting in public and publishes its agendas and minutes as part of each meeting. The Liberal Party will ensure that the new Port Authority will be comprised of actual waterfront stakeholders with residents, waterfront businesses, port users and recreational and cultural organizations all represented.

May we suggest that, as Mr. McQueen has, you pave the way for this necessary reform by immediately resigning your position on the Ports Toronto board.

We do note that the Ports Toronto Letters Patent establish a maximum six-year term, which, for you, has expired.

While the Canada Marine Act, enacted in June 1998, establishes a maximum nine-year term, the Minister, by issuing Letters Patent for Ports Toronto after that Act came into force, on June 5, 1999, can be presumed to have intended to restrict the maximum term within the Act’s restriction, to six years.

We also note that your appointment was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, in that the consultation process required by Section 14 of the Canada Marine Act with the Class of Port Users you are presumed to represent was not followed for your appointment, to our knowledge.

As this is a matter of urgent public interest, I would appreciate your early response.

[Lakelad]

As this is a matter of urgent public interest, I would appreciate your early response.

If 'no jets' is a done deal, wherein lies the urgency?

[Briler]

There's quite a mess to clean up - the sooner the better.

[Lando Calrissian]

The denial/defiance of a government mandate is part of a tight script, here.

It's sad to watch a spoiled child throw a fit, sure, but likely advocated by a professional PR firm accustomed to dealing with such crises.

[MD2]

I have equal respect for all citizens of the city, whether the large communities around Pearson, or the tiny community near City airport. That is why they all deserve the same level of respect and consideration. A small community that settled next to City airport cannot hold it hostage for eternity. Time goes on and necessities as well as technology evolve and change. Even being generous and keeping the same restriction on noise levels still allows the Canadian built C series aircraft to fit in nicely. This is why it is recognized around the world as a perfect aircraft for urban operations (London City) and it's time for the same in Canada!

As has been said many times, discriminate against the noise which is the main point, and never mind what type of engines generate it. Strictly speaking, the engines on a Q400 are also jet, so what? We are not talking about the DC8 and B727; the C series aircraft is a technological marvel and one of a kind.

Adam Vaughan does not independently make policy for the government although he has been acting pretty much like an independent MP. I don't think it's appropriate to demand someone's resignation just because we disagree with him, but to each their own.