I took videos at the June 25, 2018, second public meeting on the Ports Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport Master Plan (2018) http://www.billybishopairportmasterplan2018.com/updates/
This is my transcript of those videos.
[bolding added for emphasis]
1. Presentation on Runway End Safety Areas (RESA)
‘Runway End Safety Areas Boondoggle’ (MVI_0183): https://vimeo.com/277019952
– Mike Karsseboom – from Ports Toronto – talked a bit
– Josh Horst talked next. He’s w WSP’s aviation group, based in Kitchener, Ont. – he and Greg Ballentine lead Master Plan initiative for PortsToronto
– [4:49] – 150-metre length recommended
– [5:40 – Transport Canada [‘TC’] in 2010 and 2010 recommended RESAs through NSAs – specifically TP 312 – to apply to 218 airports – [6:15] – TC in May 2016 issued NPA 2016-007 revised requirements
– where are RESAs required? [7:00] – NPA 2016-007 IDd TC’s considering four options for selection criteria in IDing which airports wd require RESAs – #passengers as trigger – >200,000 passengers – 36 airports; if trigger is >1 million then approx 16 airports wd require RESA
– MK – [7:52] – TC NPA – four methodologies for complying w RESA – adding more length beyond end of runway, adding EMAS (crushable concrete product), reducing runway length and using that extra length as RESA, and if have extra length making sure end of runway can handle potential runway overshoot
– [8:49] – Ports Toronto [‘PT’] and WSP explored many options to comply [w regulation]. [9:06] – Billy Bishop Airport [‘BBA’] – reducing runway length – by approx 143 ft. [9:13] – Operational considerations wd reduce the runway length by approx 143 ft. The Q400 commercial operations at BB are already limited by our limited runway length during certain operations. This wd reduce the operating ability of those aircraft even further. And preliminary aircraft performance analysies indicates that the reduction in runway length resulting from this option will have significant impact to airline operations and making their operations economically unviable. In summary, this would make this an unacceptable option.
– [9:54] – the next option we looked at is EMAS, and we had a number of concerns related to EMAS when the study was done… we believe this is an unacceptable option
– [11:17] – one of the feedbacks we did receive was an alternate approach, and that was moving thresholds. So that was actually moving the threshold a little bit closer to the water to provide the space at the other end. We have found that this will have some significant impact to the size of the marine exclusion zone, both on the east and west side. Approx 30-metre expansion of those marine exclusion zones. Wd also require aggressive maintenance… etc. So again in our thinking the only viable option is a landmass expansion to comply w the proposed regulation [12:32]
– only required on runway 0826. [12:59] Only runways that have scheduled passenger services are required for RESA
– a landmass will be required at either end of the runway. … [13:17] This will also mean that it will be a little larger than the 43 metres [required] to comply w the RESA, because we will be looking at breakwater protection to again prevent the splashover on those areas to prevent ice buildup.
– [14:02] Things we are looking at from an airport operation perspective: we must be able to safely remove snow from the area, have the potential to put a road for south field access, and the ability to move our instrument-landing system – our localizer antennas on the end – this will allow us to make a more efficient taxi-way system on the north end, which will reduce taxiing noise of aircraft, ground noise of aircraft. From a community perspective, the thing we’d look at is impact on noise output, environmental perspected [sic] impact on GHG output and waterflow and fish habitats. And from a constructability perspective, how long’s it going to take to build and what’s the cost?
– [15:00] – Next steps. We’re waiting for Transport Canada to issue the Notice to Proposed Amendment [?], a Z1, which will start the public and stakeholder consultation process for the regulation. We expect to see that, based on TC’s comments to us, at the end of this year or very early next year. But pls keep in mind that the timing has changed a number of times and there may be delays. [15:27] Once it hits the Z1 there’s a minimum 30 days. Likely TC will allow a longer comment period, but the minimum requirement is 30 days before it’s issued in Gazette 2. Once it hits Gazette 2, that means the regulation is in force. We anticipate the regulation will say there’s a 3-year implementation period, but we have been talking to TC and we made it clear that we will require a longer period of time for implementation due to Tripartite Agreement considerations, our robust consultation process around this issue, environmental impact assessment and detailed designs.
2. Q&A on presentation on Runway End Safety Areas (RESA)
“It’s kind of wasting our time” (MVI_0184): https://vimeo.com/277018292
– Q – George Prudonto [spelling?] – is RESA a runway extension?
– A – MK – No. Runway will remain exactly the same length it is today.
– Q – GP – why not keep existing runway length to implement RESA?
– A – MK – As I said in my presentation, … if we reduce the runway length, this wd severely impact the operatinal ability of the Q400 and the commercial viability of the airline’s operations.
– [0:57] – Q – GP – “And what is wrong with that?” [laughter and clapping from attendees; wry look and shrug from MK]
– A – MK: 1:04 – “According to the TA, the PA must operate the airport in a financially judicial [sic] manner, and the commercial operations is the basis of us being able to pay for airport operations.”
– Q – GP – “So it wd be a general aviation airport.”
– A – MK – General aviation activity does not support the full cost of operating an airport.
– Q – GP – what studies have you done to confirm that?
– A – MK – I’ll have to get back to you on that, and provide you that information
– Q – GP – Because it seems to me that you cd v comfortably put in RESA, reduce the length of the runway if that’s what it means, and if it means that .. cd you not modify the Q400 to fly in that reduced runway?
– A – MK – [Pauses] Not to maintain the commercial viability of the operation
– Q – GP – Well it means perhaps a smaller load on the Q400, but I understand the Q400 is a STOL [short takeoff and landing] aircraft, at least it’s been described as that, so why can it not fly in that reduce runway?
– A – MK [swallows nervously while listening to GP’s question][pauses] That’s really a, um, question for the manufacturer. Every aircraft once it’s manufactured goes through a flight-test program, and the manufacturer puts out the requirements for the aircraft.
– Q – GP – Okay. Because you’re designing a master plan here, and it seems to me that you’re not offering a number of alternatives to accommodate RESA w the existing land mass that Billy Bishop is currently on. And I wd hope that yr proposal wd include an option that does not require building out the runways, or, building out the RESA into what is currently the marine exclusion zone. [3:22]
– MK doesn’t answer
– Q – woman sitting beside GP: [3:45] “Sort of going in the opposite direction to George, we know that Mr. Deluce wd really love to have jets in the airport. Have you looked at the impact if the Tripartite Agreement [‘TA’] were amended and jets were now permitted, wd these extensions of the safety runways be adequate for jets or wd it be for the jet that I think is being proposed. Do you know if that wd be adequate to accommodate those jets or wd it require additional runway lanes?
– A – MK – We have not looked at that. This master plan strictly looks at the activity within the current TA. So we’ve only looked at it from a Q400 perspective, jets have not been considered at all.
– Q – Brian Iler – [4:42]: Mr. Deluce, when he opted to start his airline in the island airport, knew what he was getting. He knew that he wd have to comply w existing constraints, one of those constraints was the airport cannot be extended into the water. If new regulations come along that says the runway has to be shortened because he can’t extend into the water, he has to live with that. That’s the deal he made. And I don’t understand why the Port Authority is saying, ‘Poor Mr. Deluce, you’re going to lose some money [because] you can’t fly as many heavy planes as you want,’ instead of coming back to us and saying, ‘Here are the real consequences of doing that, let’s have a look at their study, let’s see how Porter is impacted, and maybe it’s not worth it.’ We do know that he flies 60% full most of the time. His load factors are much well low below industry standard. He cd fly fewer planes and lighter planes and use that shorter runway. So I don’t think you’re taking the concerns around the constraint that the TA has that says you can’t extend, and not taking that constraint and working within that, instead of saying, ‘Oh poor Mr. Deluce. We have to extend because Mr. Deluce needs the money.’ I don’t buy it. [6:25]
– A – MK – I think we need to be clear this is abt commercial viability of the airport, not specifically related to Porter, and it’s about complying w regulation. We need to comply to the regulation, and we also need to maintain viability of the airport from a financial perspective. And it is not directly related to Mr. Deluce or Porter Airlines.
– [7:03] – Q – Bill Freeman – My name is Bill Freeman. I’m a little shocked at this, I’ve got to tell you. What y’re saying is that the federal gov’t is requiring the airport to extend the runways 150 metres on either end of the runways…. That’s a major, major change in the airport. This is coming from the fed gov’t so presumably they are in favour of it, presumably Ports Toronto is in favour of it. Has anybody talked to the city about this? This is surely a significant change in the configuration of the airport, and the city will certainly have something to say, I wd think. Is that going to happen?
– Brian Iler – they have to sign off
– Bill F- They have to sign off, and if they don’t sign off then there’ll be no extension
– A – [8:15] – MK – So first of all, I just want to be clear, it’s not 150 metres into the water, it is an extension that’ll get us to 150 metres, which currently we have approx 107, so we’re talking about 43 metres extension for RESA, and then breakwater protection beyond that. So it is not full 150 metres into the water. Number two, is it’s not a runway extension, it is an extension of a safety area,
– Q – BF – Excuse me, that’s semantics. They’re going to be filling the bay, filling the water – that’s an extension. I read the thing, it said 150 metres, now y’re saying it’s not 150 metres. How many metres is it?
– A – MK – I’m saying that we require by regulation to have 150 metres beyond the end of the existing runway. We have 107 metres already there, [BF – 107 is already there], … so we wd look at approx 43 metres plus breakwater protection to go into..
– Q -BF – Okay so 43 metres at either end
– A -MK – [swallowing] That’s correct.
– Q – BF – I think if y’re trying to sell yr proposal here, you shd change yr, you know, make that clear in yr slide, because I can read, and that’s what I read. … This airport is only one of the uses of the water, and Lake Ontario, and the bay, and recreation is another extremely important one. The islands have been a centre of recreation for much longer than the airport. So has there been any consideration for what boaters call keep-away buoys? I presume it’s a regulation that the buoys have to be put out even further. Has that been considered?
– A – MK. Yes. There’s no change to where the buoys are today.
– Q – BF – There’s no change.
– A – MK – No change.
– [10:32] Q – BF – To be clear. We’re talking about extending the runways, or extending the safety [zones], by filling up the lake 43 metres at either end
– A – MK. That’s correct
– A – moderator. It’s 43 metres plus a little bit for the … breakwater. You don’t know what that is yet
– A – MK. No, because that will be captured in detailed design
– Q – BI – But you want to put a road around the end. Is that true as well?
– A – MK – that wd be part of the consideration, yes
– Q – BI – That adds more
– A – MK – That wd add a little bit more but that wd be part of the consultation process
– Q – BI – So we’re not here to talk about both runway and safety area then. Is the consultation going to happen when you know what they’re going to build? [looks incredulous] You don’t know what they’re going to build.
– A – [camera stays on Brian] MK – we don’t know because we don’t know the regulation yet. So as soon as we start detailed design we will get back together w a consultation process to have these discussions specifically around the design
– Q – BI – [pauses] Okay. It’s kind of wasting our time then, aren’t we?
End of video
3. Q&A on presentation on Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) (continued)
“Make an aircraft that fits the runway” (MVI_0185) – https://vimeo.com/277018138
– Q – [name hard to understand] I live in the area. Asked whether Q400 is mentioned in the TA
– You shd make an aircraft that fits the runway, not the other way around
4. Q&A on presentation on Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) (continued)
“What about the community?” (MVI_0186 https://vimeo.com/277016640
– Q – Brian Iler – You talk about the Q400 having runway requirements that are specified by the manufacturer. Well, if you look at the requirements for the Q400 on Bombardier’s website, the requirements are much longer than the island airport runway. And then, when we raised that, they came up with a ‘500 nautical mile’ Q400 that cd fit here. And the issue was, it’s going to fly, take off w less fuel perhaps, and fewer passengers perhaps, to be able to take off on a shorter runway. So it’s not the manufacturer that requires this length of runway, it seems to be adaptable, depending on the weight of the aircraft and the number of passengers in the aircraft, so that you can adapt to a shorter runway quite nicely. Are you looking at that? [0:56]
– A – MK – That’s part of the financial aspect of it. There is a tipping point where you have so few passengers on board or so little fuel that you can’t get to where you’re going, or that it becomes financially untenable for the airline to run that flight.
– Q – BI [off-mic] – Have you done that study and cd we see it?
– Q – Moderator – Has the study been done on the Q400 viability range?
– A – MK – it’s smthg we’ll have to look into. I’m not 100% sure of that
– Q – BI – [off-mic] It sounds like you’ve made the decision without doing the study.
– Q – Moderator – The question is, have you made the decision without the study? [camera stays on MK, who looks a bit like he feels betrayed by the moderator]
– A – MK – we’re still looking at that. If the study hasn’t been done we’ll look at it, but we have been told by the airlines that there is a tipping point, and the shortened runway wd be that tipping point. [1:44]
– Q – BI [off-mic] Do you always take what the airline says as gospel, or do you look at it independently? [camera stays on MK]
– A – MK [pauses, looks uncomfortable] So we do take the info from the airlines, we also do a double-check of it.
– Q – BI [off-mic] What info do you have from the airline that gives you the conclusion that you cannot shorten the runway to accomplish the goals that you need to accomplish? [camera stays on MK]
– A – MK – We’ll have to get back to you on that, because I don’t have that available right now.
– Q – BI [off-mic] Why are we here? [camera stays on MK]
– Q – [2:29] Diane Jameson [looks gobsmacked] I’m just um, I shdn’t be shocked [laughs]. If there’s a roundabout way to accomplish extending the runway, y’re doing it. [pauses] So what’s yr criteria to looking at other means? Is it just based on what you hear from Toronto Port[s Authority] and the airlines themselves? What about the community? What about what we want? What abt you know yr safety for buildings, yr schools? [pauses] Is there any community involved in yr decision-making process? [voice rising – she’s clearly upset]
– A – MK – As I stated that we will be coming to the community w consultation.
– Q – DJ – When?
– A – MK – As soon as the regulation comes out. [3:22]
– Q – DJ – with what?
– A – MK – I don’t understand yr question
– Q – DJ – What are you going to come to us with? Are you going to meet w us? Are you going to ask us what our problems are w your proposal? Are you going to ask us for our input into the alternatives? What is yr criteria for making this decision w the community?
– A – MK – We will be coming back to you very much as this Master Plan process, and having open discussions w you on getting yr thoughts on the way we comply [3:56]
– Q – DJ – It’s a discussion, but yet I need to know – y’ve got a criteria that y’re going w w … TC. Where are we involved in this process? Am I a bore repeating myself? [laughs]
– Q – moderator – where is the community involved in the consultations, and as far as the final decision – are they part of the decision or are they going to be able to influence the decision is the question?
– A – MK – Well as we have done w this Master Planning process, we’ll listen to their concerns and we’ll try to address their concerns the best we can while we still have to meet the requirements of the regulation
– Q – DJ – I wd really like to know the timeline of this. I’d also like an agenda of your proposal to meet w the community, on all aspects of it. [4:49]
– A – MK – So the timeline will be driven by the regulation. … the regulation being driven by TC. So the regulation is being designed by TC and the Notice of Proposed Amendment is anticipated to go to Gazette 1, which is the process to start public and stakeholder consultation from a TC perspective, and that’s expected late this year early next year, and then it can be as little as 30 days but we expect it to be quite a bit longer than TC has its consultation period. Once the consultation period is complete for TC, they may publish the amendment to the regulation as they originally proposed or they make some changes to it, and then publish it in Gazette 2. Once it’s published in Gazette 2 then the regulation’s in force.
– Q – DJ – Okay, so this is all new to me. I’m a little slow. I’m not used to the jargon. So are you saying that when you come back after the first process we’ll have 30 days?
– A – MK – that is not our process. Our consultation with Ports Toronto, w BBA, and what we’re going to do for RESA will start once the regulation is in force, which is the publication by TC in Gazette 2.
– Q – DJ – So we’re really not involved at all. [camera stays on MK]
– A – MK: At this point it’s a TC process.
– Q – DJ – So TC does not care about the community at hand and the rest of us. Nothing abt the area is being taken into consideration. [6:36]
– A – MK – TC expects that the specific airports, once the regulation in force the proper consultation w the implementation of the regulation at individual airports. [6:47]
– Q – BI – [6:54] Well, y’re saying that y’re going to come back and consult. But I saw up here [points to screen at front where slides were shown] that you listed four alternatives, one was the extension which you favour, one was the engineered materials [EMAS] and the third was shortening the runway. You decided this. And now I don’t understand how you can make a decision without coming to the community and saying, ‘Here’s the alternatives and what’s best here?’ You have decided y’re not going to shorten the runway on the basis of what an airline has told you. Now what gives, what kind of consultation is that? [7:38]
– A – MK – [doesn’t answer – puts hands up in air as a shrug, and a wry smile]
– Q – Bill Freeman – I hate to say this, but you know, it’s like the decisions are being made here as if this airport is out in a farmer’s field in the middle of nowhere. But this is an airport that is in the largest centre, largest city, of Canada. It’s adjacent, it’s 2-3 km from the financial core of the city. There are thousands of ppl that are adjacent to it. There is a whole process of regenerating the waterfront that’s going to bring 100,000 ppl, new ppl, to this area. I mean it’s just incompatible! [is obviously upset] And it’s inconceivable to most of us that this airport wd continue to exist despite all of these [contracts][contrasts?]! It’s inconceivable to me that rational ppl wd say that this is a good idea. It is inconceivable. I’ve opposed this airport for a long time, and I have seen not one shred of evidence that this is a good idea. .. I feel sorry for you guys, coming to try and sell us on an idea of expanding the runway. I mean it is, I really, my heart goes out to you. That’s all I’m going to say.
– Q – [man in previous video whose name I didn’t understand] I don’t believe you have decided on ready to extend the runway. I mean the island. Have you?
– A – MK [9:39] From what we’ve done it’s the best choice
– Q [same man] But that’s not yr decision yet because you have to consult w the community. That’s the most important factor, right, before you make the decision. [camera stays on MK]
– A – MK – That is correct, and because we don’t know exactly what the regulation is going to say. From what we know, that is the best choice.
– Q – [Another man, can’t be seen because he’s behind the moderator] If you cd please not reject the option of shortening the runways. The materials, the concrete junk, whatever that is, forget about that one. But the other, shortening the runways, is viable. And it’s really a business decision by Porter. That’s really what’s driving this whole thing. We need another option. Thank you.
End of video
5. Presentation on Overview of Development Concepts – Greg Ballentine, WSP
Development concepts for Billy Bishop Airport – Part 1 (MVI_0187) – https://vimeo.com/277014411
6. Presentation on Overview of Development Concepts (continued) – Greg Ballentine, WSP
Development concepts for Billy Bishop Airport – Part 2 (MVI_0188) – https://vimeo.com/277014146
7. Q&A re Overview of Development Concepts
“Double number of private aircraft” (MVI_0189) – https://vimeo.com/277011515
Q – Bill Freeman – for me the big change is this, what do you call it, general aviation [‘GA’]. … There are 3 different options, but essentially it wd be taking the alternative runway, wd that become the runway for GA?
– A – GB – This one runway wd be used, it’s not used for Porter or Air Canada [points to runway that’s south of the main, west-east, runway]. So it’s a GA runway, so they wd be using, they cd use primarily that runway. This runway here is no longer a runway [points to north-south runway], it’s now just a taxiway.
– Q – BF – that’s the north-south runway is what we used to call it. So that runway wd stay still functional
– A – GB – only as a taxi runway.
– Q – BF – So those 2 runways wd be primarily used by GA, because the Q400s it can’t use those.
– A – GB – No
– Q – BF- that’s my understanding. Okay. So it wd be a major expansion of GA at the airport. [1:31] Of course all of these aircraft wd have to be non-jets. So has there been studies abt whether there is demand for GA here in the downtown?
– A – GB – Yes. So there’s about 50 aircraft, small aircraft, that are currently based at the airport. Currently. So in talking to the Toronto Island Pilots’ Association, talking to COPA that represents private pilots, they have all asked for additional tie-down space and the opportunity to have hangars which they can keep the aircraft in. So I guess part of what we’re trying to do is understand to what extent do we cater to GA? So we cd cater to just those 50 aircraft that are currently based at the airport, not allow any more aircraft to be based at the airport, or we cd expand that area to say accommodate 75 aircraft or 100 aircraft. But we need to understand what the impact of doing that is. And if it’s a major detrimental impact, we probably won’t consider it. But
– Q – BF [2:59] – I see. It’s obviously still at the proposal stage.
– A – GB – Very much so
– Q – BF – [3:06] One of the problems w the smaller aircraft is that many of them, depending on the aircraft make, are quite loud, especially on takeoff and landing. So that’s a concern. So, we’ve always heard rumours that Buttonville [airport] is closing, and there’ll be a number of planes that will be looking for a new home, presumably. So what wd you estimate wd be sort of the top number that wd..
– A – GB – I wd think probably 100 aircraft, I wd think it’s…
– Q – BF – 100 aircraft
– A – GB. Yeah.
– Q – BF – and y’re saying there’s already how many?
– A – GB – 50
– Q – BF – 50. So doubling it
– A – GB [nods] So it might be doubling that. And of those, maybe, of those say 50 aircraft, up to 100 aircraft, probably about 75% of them wd want hangars. And the rest wd be just accommodated by tying the aircraft down
– Q – BF – some of them just moor their planes out in the field there… Just one other comment. Has this already been already talked to from the city? Y’ve talked about using the Hanlan’s Point landing, and then having some sort of access – which makes sense, frankly. Wd the city go …?
– A – GB – there’s been some discussion between Ports Toronto and the city abt the potential of using a ferry that wd come into the south side, either at Hanlan’s Point or potentially smthg on airport property [points to these places in the slide that has the map of the island airport]. So they’ve had some discussions, there’s nothing … nothing definitive yet.
– Q [man whose name I can’t decipher] [5:05] You mentioned in one of yr slides that under TA, there’s to be no runway extension. Is that right? And no runway extension to me means y’re not going to be filling the lake to extend the land mass. Right?
– A – GB – well, if .. Did you – were you in the RESA presentation?
– Q – man – Yeah. I’m coming from that talk
– Q – GB – So it’ll…
– Q – man. Because you did mention there was not to be any extension. So that extension definitely in ‘layman’s term’ means no filling of the water to extend the land. Right?
– A – [5:41] GB – so the RESA isn’t considered part of the runway.
– Q – man – Yeah but if you backfill lake that’s extension of the island. y’re not going to be creating land mass. That’s what it means. Nobody knew abt RESA when the TA was made. If they’d known about RESA at that point they wd have definitely included that. In layman’s term I think ‘no extension’ means you’re not filling the lake, you know not extending the island. [6:10]
– Q – moderator – so what is your question?
– A – Okay. So I’m coming from that. So now. Yeah, I’m glad you asked that. … [6:23] If that’s the case, then if RESA comes into effect, then the runway length is going to reduce, right? I mean the effective length of the runway is going to reduce, because you have to add 150 metres to both ends. Now if that’s the case, I’m wondering if you’ve done a study on what kind of aircrafts cd use this airport. Because obviously Q400 will not be able to come w full load or whatever, because now the runway is going to be shorter, so what that means then is the ppl that are coming here, they’ll need to go to Pearson Int’t Airport. Given that, this airport only provides facilities, is for about 2.8 million, whereas Pearson Int’l is for, I don’t know, 50, 60 million, so adding 2 [million] wd be a very small number. So have you done that kind of study to see what kind of effect that will have? That’s all.
– A – GB – Ah, in a v preliminary way. So in terms of the RESA, there’s a number of ways to accomplish the RESA. One is reduce the effective length of the runway, but the other is to add a RESA at the end, which wd engage in some land-mass extension.
– Q – man – That’s a no-no, right? Under the TA [camera stays on GB]
– A – GB – … When TC comes out w the mandate that’s something that’s going to have to be discussed between the city, TC and Ports Toronto as to how to proceed.
– Q – man – but y’re not taking that into yr … consideration [camera stays on GB]
– A – GB – I’m not taking it into my consideration because I don’t know what’s going to be mandated by TC, and I don’t know what the resolution is going to be, and …
– Q – man – That have a major impact on your Master Plan study, you know…
– A – GB – It cd very well be, depending on which direction we go.
– Q – Rosemary Frei – I have a 3-part question. You talked abt doing noise studies. Are you going to make public the parameters for the studies? And the locations of the monitors, the sensors
– A – GB – It’s not so much monitoring. I think we need to think about that, what we want out of the study first of all. So I don’t know – Angela, wd we
– A – [8:56] Angela. We haven’t had that discussion yet w the city.
– Q – RF – sorry haven’t had what discussion?
– A – Angela – I’m Angela Homewood. I’m w Ports Toronto and I’m the project manager env’tal specialist working on this project
– Q – RF – And yr name again?
– A – AH – Angela Homewood
– Q – RF. Thank you
– A – [9:13] AH – So we’ve been having mtgs w the city – so Waterfront Secretariat, Toronto Public Health, and Environment and Energy folks – abt some of the studies that we’re undertaking – and noise and air quality are part of that discussion. So in terms of any studies that we’re going to be doing we’re going to be consulting w the city on. So we haven’t started down that process specifically. We’ve started the stormwater and glycol assessment – starting to write the scope of work for that project – but again we’re just in the preliminary stages of that
– Q – RF – And what about making the parameters public for the studies, the noise studies, and…
– A – AH – So yeah, so that’s smthng that we’re going to have to discuss w the city, because again …
– Q – RF – Is that smthg y’d push for, to make them public?
– A – AH – So..
– Q – RF – I was a journalist for many years in medicine, and I know it’s really important for ppl to see the parameters of studies to be able to judge the quality of them. So that’s an important…
– A – AH – So the scope of work will probably be part of the Request for Proposal that will get posted on MERX, so it will be a public document, so…
– Q – RF – No, but. Okay. Will that…
– A – AH – [10:20] So that’s outlines what … the intent of the study wd be [10:24], wd be to look at
– Q – RF – That’s different than the actual parameters of the study…
– A – AH – Right. So that wd be the part once we engage a consultant to see what work can be done, and that’s why I said we have to consult w the city on that. Because again we’re relying on some subject-matter experts from the city that also help us w that.
– Q – RF – So you can’t or won’t say whether the parameters of the study wd be made public.
– A – AH – That’s not really my decision to make…. It’s part of the process. Hal actually asked that same question about the transportation work that we’re doing, and we wd identify that in the report in terms of what the assumptions and the ground rules and stuff like that were. So we wd definitely identify it, I just don’t know where we wd [do that] in the process.
– Q – moderator – I just remind you we are writing this all down, as well, to make sure we are capturing comments, but certainly have that question, that comment, written down, so thank you.
– Q – RF – … [11:20] You said in your remarks [turns camera to GB] that if it’s beyond, the noise and pollution is beyond a certain threshold then it wdn’t proceed. So are you going to quantify that threshold so it’s public, and so we can see how you determined whether that threshold was… – yeah, to quantify it and make it public. It’s one thing to say it, and then…
– A – GB – What threshold are you talking about?
– Q – RF – Well you had said that if y’re going to be studying impacts, and if they’re unacceptable then…
– A – GB – Well it’s, what I sort of said was that we’ll be looking at noise mitigation measures, and whether or not they’re effective or not. So if we put in, suggest a noise barrier, but the noise expert says that it’s not going to have any significant impact on reducing or mitigating noise, then we’d have to consider whether it’s of value or not.
– Q – RF – I’m not sure – I cd replay the tape, but I thought you were talking about studying the impacts, and if they’re just too high, too strong
– A – GB [shakes his head]
– Q – RF – You didn’t say that?
– A – GB – Well it’s studying the, the noise study we’d undertake is looking at sort of the quality of noise that’s being generated, and then trying to discern whether there’s an effective means to mitigate that noise.
– Q – RF – No I thought you said if it’s beyond a certain threshold then that’s not…
– A – GB – [shakes head] No
– Q – RF – You wdn’t say that. You wdn’t commit to saying ‘If it’s too much then it just clearly not…’
– A – GB [shakes head]
– Q – RF – No there’s no such thing for you guys.
– A – GB – Well it’s not necessarily that we’re increasing the noise, it’s just evaluating the current noise at the airport.
– Q – RF – And what about .. so then using those data to extrapolate to what the future noise wd be w the increased…
– A – GB – [13:10] I don’t think the study that we’re looking at you wd be able to extrapolate noise…
– Q – RF – Wdn’t that be important – if y’re increasing GA, for example, wdn’t you want to know what the increase is in noise?
– A – GB – Well, that’s something that we’d have to look at
– Q – RF – … It’s not necessarily a part of what y’ll be looking at
– A – GB – We haven’t defined the noise study yet, so I’m not sure exactly what all the parameters are going to be. [13:34]
– Q – RF – It’s strange though. Y’d think that a study y’d want to see, look at what the increase will be, not just baseline
– A – GB – Well if we came up w activity scenarios that looked at an increase in aircraft movements, then we wd want to understand what the potential increase in noise might be as a result of that
– Q – RF – And if y’re doubling the number of airplanes, the GA..
– A – GB – We’re not going to double, well
– Q – RF – You said that
– A – GB – ‘cuz we double the number of airplanes doesn’t mean we’re going to double necessarily the activity. I mean a lot of the GA doesn’t fly every day or four times a day, or whatever; some ppl that operate those airplanes.. [14:13]
– Q – RF – Well when you do modelling of, like a lot of scientific studies, maximum and minimum – I mean, say they do fly every day, things are possible, wd you not include that?
– A – GB – Yeah, we can do what we call NEF exposure modeling, and understand what increases in activity might generate in terms of NEF models..
– Q – RF – So y’re going to do that, or you’re… ?
– A – GB – Yeah, we’ll be doing that. As part of the activities scenarios we’ll be preparing NEF exposure models
– Q – RF – … And the question Bill asked was about the, you said that the maximum number of GA aircraft wd be 100. Is that, you guys are…
– A – GB – That’s … not definitive, it’s just when we were talking to stakeholders, we asked them what sort of…
– Q – RF – He [Bill] asked you what the maximum is likely to be and you said 100, that sounded pretty definitive. Now y’re saying it may or may not be, it might be more…
– A – GB – May or may not be.
– Q – RF – That’s pretty – it sounds waffly. You said it will be, and now you’re saying
– A – GB – No I didn’t say – I don’t know what it’s going to be. There may not be any increase in GA. So don’t put words in my mouth.
– Q – moderator. Any final questions?
– Q – Bill Freeman [12:40] As I understand it, there’s 212 take-offs and landings allowed at the island airport every day. Is that…?
– A – GB – Two thousand and two…
– Q – BF – yeah. Anyway, what we have going on now is of course we’ve got the Porter flights, [15:59] if this plan goes ahead w GA doubling the number of planes that are there, we also have the helicopters taking off and landing, that are doing the tours. I’m really beginning to wonder whether Mr. Deluce and Porter is going to be threatened w. … You know, all these things add up – I wonder whether at some point we’re going to see pretty close to 212 movements a day. Is that a concern?
– A – GB – Some days you do see 212 movements a day, from Porter and Air Canada … on a busy day they probably utilize all their slots. And then on non-busy days, they don’t. Like on weekends, on the Saturday, the airlines don’t use all their slots cuz there isn’t the demand from the public to travel.
– Q – BF – So basically, … is it slots, is that the proper term? So the 212 … Basically [y’re saying] add ‘em up, and it gets to the cap at 212, and that’s it.
– A – GB – That’s it, yeah.
– Q – BF – … I guess my question was to be clear as to – that is a pretty hard cap, and y’re not going to go beyond that. Okay, thank you.
– end of video
8. End of Q&A on Draft Master Plan Development Concepts – Bryan Bower, Project Manager, Waterfront Secretariat, City of Toronto
“Lead spewed from private aircraft” ( MVI_0190) – https://vimeo.com/277014146
– Q – Jim Panou – …newspaper articles saying that he’s [Deluce] still hoping that eventually the jets will be brought in to the airport
– A – BB – I was … made aware the same way I suspect you were, which was the National Post interview, but I don’t think this needs repeating, but I just as assurance there’s no one at the City of Toronto having any, any active discussions w any rep from …Ports Toronto or Porter Airlines around introduction of jets at BB. That proposal from our perspective simply ceased to exist w the directive from transport minister Marc Garneau.
– Q – JP – Just a follow-up to the airspace comment that I made – has the city been reviewing the airspace … how it’s affected by the airport, w the new bldgs that have been arising on the waterfront.
– A – BB – wrt the Port Lands Planning Framework, or more generally
– Q – JP – A number of the tall bldgs right next to the Ports Toronto office, and …
– A – BB – Oh – the encroachment in this approach.
– Q – JP – Yeah
– A – BB – Any time there is an encroachment of a bldg in the missed approach … TC v quickly weighs in on it, because they’re circulated as part of rezoning applications, all rezoning appplications in the affected waterfront area. We don’t have the in-house expertise to do a commentary on compatibility w missed approach, we do rely on TC’s feedback. And they wd not permit – in fact they wd appeal to the OMB any rezoning application that presented a safety conflict w missed approach. So … I guess what I wd say is we are completely reliant on their feedback, and I’m happy to put you in touch w the individuals that we consult w there. But that really is their jurisdiction.
– Q – Brian Iler [2:02] – We heard today for the first time that they’re planning or thinking abt drastically expanding the use of GA by creating new hangars on the south side of the airport, new tie-down areas, and they talk about 50 planes being based there and up to 100 maybe using it w this expansion. Aside from everything else, as I understand it propeller-driven private planes or GA use leaded gas. Is it really smthing we want to inflict upon our waterfront, lead spewed from private aircraft – which is really the 1%. No one can afford to own, or operate a plane unless y’re extremely wealthy. Is that smthg we really want to accommodate in our downtown waterfront?
– A – BB – So the dev’t concepts presented tonight were shared w city staff just a couple of days ahead of tonight’s presentation. So we won’t have a formal position or opinion to share on that yet. But the review of that and reaction to that is absolutely a part of this review process, and we’ll continue to apply the directions given to us by council to look at issues like air quality, public realm, transportation. So it’s a part of the review, but I don’t have anything definitive to share w you tonight Brian. [3:28]
– Q – moderator – if anyone has any last questions?
– Q – Irena Formatek [spelling?] and I live at Queen’s Quay and Bathurst. She asked about children’s play area and basketball area – …
– end of video