Toronto Island Airport Expansiom Plans?
Thread Starter
Toronto Island Airport Expansiom Plans?
Good Evening All:
Once again there seems to be another snag at YTZ or did the "gravy boat" spill....
From the Globe and Mail:
Call to delay island airport decision splits Toronto city councillors
KALEIGH ROGERS
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Nov. 28 2013, 10:28 PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Nov. 28 2013, 11:10 PM EST
Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly says council shouldn’t hesitate to move forward with expanding the Toronto Island airport, despite a staff report that recommends delaying the decision until 2015.
He said if council doesn’t act now, it risks postponing the expansion for at least a decade, pending the results of next year’s municipal election.
“It depends on the makeup of the next administration,” he said. “It may be the very same people that opposed the island airport in the first place. If that’s the case, then I think the city will have lost a marvellous opportunity to grow an asset.”
Porter Airlines has been pushing the city to expand the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport by lengthening the runway and allowing jets to land there. It needs the support of council to move forward, but council’s executive committee, which will meet next Thursday, has received a staff report that recommends holding off on a decision until May, 2015.
“Despite the breadth of consultant studies, there remain outstanding questions,” the report says, pointing to questions about road traffic and a lack of certification from Transport Canada for the jets that Porter says would conform to the airport’s noise restrictions.
Six months ago, city council handed staff the task of determining whether it would be possible to renegotiate the tripartite agreement to allow for the expansion. The deal among the city, the federal government and the Toronto Port Authority dictates the function of the airport. Staff brought in outside consultants to study the impacts on health, the environment, the economy and city infrastructure but were ultimately left with even more questions.
“We have not had enough analysis and enough attention to the issues that have been raised and how they might be mitigated,” John Livey, deputy city manager, said. “If you strip it all away, really the question remains: how big is this airport going to be?”
Mr. Livey said one of the biggest missing pieces of information is a long-term, over-arching plan for the airport from the Port Authority, as well as how to address problems that already exist, like heavy traffic and the effect on a nearby school.
However, the Toronto Port Authority has put out a statement saying it needs council to get behind the proposal before spending more time and money on studies.
“Council needs to decide if the proposal merits approval, before it spends any further TPA funds on all of the necessary elements that would be required regarding the implementation of the concept,” said TPA chairman Mark McQueen in the release.
“What you do is you put all that in your consent. Go ahead as long as you can meet these conditions. So why spend a year or two debating over the data when you can put that into the deal?”
Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, another executive committee member, said he is a big supporter of Porter, but council needs to make sure they’re doing their due diligence before rushing ahead.
“We need to proceed cautiously. Some of the issues are not small,” he said. “Notwithstanding the electoral calendar, council has to focus on doing the right thing.”
Porter’s chief executive officer Robert Deluce said the report hasn’t shaken the company’s optimism that council will keep pushing forward with the proposal. He said there is enough information on the proposal and on the Bombardier planes for council to make a decision.
“Certain councillors didn’t even want to study the issue in the first place, so there’s no amount of additional time or information that will ever satisfy them.”
But the issue is bigger than Porter, Mr. Livey said. Other airlines, including Air Canada and WestJet, have expressed an interest in the airport’s expansion.
“Opening up the tripartite agreement allows other things to happen,” he said.
That’s what has some councillors and Torontonians so concerned.
“We don’t even know what the future scale of that airport is going to be one day,” said Tim Ehlich, a representative for No Jets TO, a citizen group opposed to the expansion.
“Obviously we need to step on the brakes.”
Once again there seems to be another snag at YTZ or did the "gravy boat" spill....
From the Globe and Mail:
Call to delay island airport decision splits Toronto city councillors
KALEIGH ROGERS
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Nov. 28 2013, 10:28 PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Nov. 28 2013, 11:10 PM EST
Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly says council shouldn’t hesitate to move forward with expanding the Toronto Island airport, despite a staff report that recommends delaying the decision until 2015.
He said if council doesn’t act now, it risks postponing the expansion for at least a decade, pending the results of next year’s municipal election.
“It depends on the makeup of the next administration,” he said. “It may be the very same people that opposed the island airport in the first place. If that’s the case, then I think the city will have lost a marvellous opportunity to grow an asset.”
Porter Airlines has been pushing the city to expand the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport by lengthening the runway and allowing jets to land there. It needs the support of council to move forward, but council’s executive committee, which will meet next Thursday, has received a staff report that recommends holding off on a decision until May, 2015.
“Despite the breadth of consultant studies, there remain outstanding questions,” the report says, pointing to questions about road traffic and a lack of certification from Transport Canada for the jets that Porter says would conform to the airport’s noise restrictions.
Six months ago, city council handed staff the task of determining whether it would be possible to renegotiate the tripartite agreement to allow for the expansion. The deal among the city, the federal government and the Toronto Port Authority dictates the function of the airport. Staff brought in outside consultants to study the impacts on health, the environment, the economy and city infrastructure but were ultimately left with even more questions.
“We have not had enough analysis and enough attention to the issues that have been raised and how they might be mitigated,” John Livey, deputy city manager, said. “If you strip it all away, really the question remains: how big is this airport going to be?”
Mr. Livey said one of the biggest missing pieces of information is a long-term, over-arching plan for the airport from the Port Authority, as well as how to address problems that already exist, like heavy traffic and the effect on a nearby school.
However, the Toronto Port Authority has put out a statement saying it needs council to get behind the proposal before spending more time and money on studies.
“Council needs to decide if the proposal merits approval, before it spends any further TPA funds on all of the necessary elements that would be required regarding the implementation of the concept,” said TPA chairman Mark McQueen in the release.
“What you do is you put all that in your consent. Go ahead as long as you can meet these conditions. So why spend a year or two debating over the data when you can put that into the deal?”
Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, another executive committee member, said he is a big supporter of Porter, but council needs to make sure they’re doing their due diligence before rushing ahead.
“We need to proceed cautiously. Some of the issues are not small,” he said. “Notwithstanding the electoral calendar, council has to focus on doing the right thing.”
Porter’s chief executive officer Robert Deluce said the report hasn’t shaken the company’s optimism that council will keep pushing forward with the proposal. He said there is enough information on the proposal and on the Bombardier planes for council to make a decision.
“Certain councillors didn’t even want to study the issue in the first place, so there’s no amount of additional time or information that will ever satisfy them.”
But the issue is bigger than Porter, Mr. Livey said. Other airlines, including Air Canada and WestJet, have expressed an interest in the airport’s expansion.
“Opening up the tripartite agreement allows other things to happen,” he said.
That’s what has some councillors and Torontonians so concerned.
“We don’t even know what the future scale of that airport is going to be one day,” said Tim Ehlich, a representative for No Jets TO, a citizen group opposed to the expansion.
“Obviously we need to step on the brakes.”
Well, lets not forget that there's some studies out there to take down the Gardiner. Now if that study also proposed converting Lakeshore into a bicycle track instead of widening it to eight lanes of paralyzed traffic spewing out emissions, then it would be time to convert YTZ air traffic to bungee launches
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: LOS YUL DNMM
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sooner or later the jets will make it to YTZ and Bob Deluce has Plan A, B and C.
Talking about noise and air pollution. i believe the grid lock traffic downtown, the companies, hotels already do that. Bringing in the jets plan would create lots of jobs for torontonians to send their kids to school and live a better life or do we say that because of the congestion downtown condominiums are gonna stop popping up? Thats a negative; because people will always need a place to live as people will always love to travel. regarding the school nearby there are laws that can be put in place in respect to the noise pollution.Let the plan just be done wisely instead of city hall playing politics and thinking about next election or next votes...CREATE JOBS FOR THE MASSES. I AM ON BOARD
Talking about noise and air pollution. i believe the grid lock traffic downtown, the companies, hotels already do that. Bringing in the jets plan would create lots of jobs for torontonians to send their kids to school and live a better life or do we say that because of the congestion downtown condominiums are gonna stop popping up? Thats a negative; because people will always need a place to live as people will always love to travel. regarding the school nearby there are laws that can be put in place in respect to the noise pollution.Let the plan just be done wisely instead of city hall playing politics and thinking about next election or next votes...CREATE JOBS FOR THE MASSES. I AM ON BOARD
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My argument is not with allowing jets per se, but the expansion of the runway that would be needed to accommodate them.
I also get irritated by businesses that start up shop knowing that they'll have to operate under certain restrictions and then bitch and complain about those restrictions limiting their operations.
There's too much of this "yes we agreed to certain conditions but they are proving to be inconvenient so we're going to ignore them" going on in Toronto at the moment.
I also get irritated by businesses that start up shop knowing that they'll have to operate under certain restrictions and then bitch and complain about those restrictions limiting their operations.
There's too much of this "yes we agreed to certain conditions but they are proving to be inconvenient so we're going to ignore them" going on in Toronto at the moment.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All aboard the Gravy Express - more analysis, re-analysis, more consultation/consultants/lawyers .... the pigs will have their snouts in the trough of this steaming turd of an idea for many years to come ....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple solution, buy one of the surplus "Nimitz" class flat tops, moor it in the lake, use the ferries to move pax, put hooks on the Q400s, build casinos in the hangar deck, everybody will then be able to say "we won the battle of CYTZ" In fact I will phone Rob Ford right now and get him onto it!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clunkdriver wrote:
Good one Clunk and a couple of good replies. A bit impractical as I'm sure you know - Seaway locks 740X78X26.5, Nimitz class at the waterline 1040X134X37.
Simple solution, buy one of the surplus "Nimitz" class flat tops, moor it in the lake,
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn it Idle Thrust, this could be a problem, I gues no chance of a "wide load" exemption on the 401? When we were splashing around in our little "Victoria Class" boat, there was a standing joke that if one diverted to the US Pacific fleet one would have to taxi to the first wire to engage it, the distance from their round dpwn to the first wire was almost our whole deck length, {well, not really but it made a good wardroom "line shoot"}
