Analysis of Impacts from Porter Plans

7/28/2019 Analysis of Impacts from Porter Plans

1/56

A View of Porter Airlines'Proposed Airport Expansion

at

Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport

Rev.

A03


2/56

Runway Scenarios


3/56

rtw

er

Curen

estn

sioexcl

unar

ea

n east

rn

Curre

te

sioexcl

u narea

Cen

r nay1

215.5m

t s

urrt u

w

ere

The Current Reality

A 1215.5 metre main runway and two 309 metre

Marine Exclusion Zones (MEZs).


4/56

Porter Airlines has presented two illustrations of its airportexpansion plan to the public.

1


5/56

These illustrations do not show the necessary expansion of taxiways.

2


6/56

The Globe and Mail's original infographic did not showthe extent of the filling required.


7/56

It was subsequently revised to show required apronsbut still not the necessary taxiways.


8/56

rtw

er

Curen

estn

sioexcl

unar

ea

n east

rn

Curre t

e

sioexcl

u narea

168

merest

816

m reset

The needed taxiways would entail considerably more filling.

More like this.


9/56


10/56

rtw

er

Curen

estn

sioexcl

unar

ea

n east

rn

Curre t

e

sioexcl

u narea

168

merest

816

m reset

501me

rest

501me

rest

Future Transport Canada Requirement

150 metre Runway Exit Safety Areas (RESAs) at the ends of such runways.


11/56

NOTE: Porter expansion + Transport Canada RESAs together fitinside the current MEZs. So Porter states:

" The amount of lake that all of Toronto enjoys today

will remain the same." Porterplans.com

But the logic of MEZs remains,

and if the landmass moves outward, so must the MEZs.


12/56

168

merest

816

m reset

501me

rest

501me

rest

+168re

mets

+168

merest

F uew

er

ut rest

n

sioexcl

unar

ea

ut reea

stern

F u sioexcl

unar

ea

Most Conservative Interpretation

The MEZs move out by the extent of the runway addition.


13/56

168

merest

816

m reset

501me

rest

501me

rest

+150r

metes

+150re

mets

Futurew

sere tn

e csion

aea

x lu r

(large s

cenaio

rr )

utureea

stern

Fexcl

sionaea

u r

(large s

cenario

)

r

More Logical Interpretation

The MEZs move out by the total degree of the expansion.


14/56

No safely navigable Western Gap

Considerable encroachment

into the inner harbour

Consequences of Either Scenario:


15/56

n east

rn

Curre t

e

sioexclu narea

1m t50ere

R SAE

150met

re

RESA

2x168m

et es

r

plusPor

t rexpa

son

e n i

2 6 m

rerens

x1 8 Pot

extion

+curen

wr

trunay

150+m r

eset

Another Scenario: Westward Expansion

Since development of the Eastern portlands

would be hampered by jet overflights, expansion goes to the west only.


16/56

Navigation through the Western Gapwould be blocked.

NOTE: none of these scenarios enlarge MEZs for jets.

Consequences of the

Westward Expansion Scenario:


17/56

These scenarios posit:

1) that Transport Canada applies 150 meter RESAs to BBTCA

2) that the shorter 90 metre RESAs already at BBTCA canbe credited to the total RESA requirement

Short RESAs already exist


18/56

Expansion is sometimes depicted this way:


19/56

The Transportation Safety Board/ICAO wants 300 metre RESAs

at each runway end .for Code 4 runways

n east

rn

Curre t

e

sioexclu nare

a

15 m t0 e

re

R SAE

150met

re

RESA

2x168m

orerxen

sion

P t et

+curren

tw

runay

m150

etre

RAES

150met

re

RESA

Futurew

sere tn

e csion

aea

x lu r

(Transp

ratio

otn

SafetyBoard

c nar

)

s e

io

The NoJetsTo image is an unlikely scenario: TSB RESAs


20/56

Whether at its current 1215.5 metrelength, or at its proposed 1551.5 length,

the BBTCA runway is shorter

than the 1800 metre Code 4 length.

But: BBTCA is not(and won't be) a Code 4 Runway


21/56

The needed

to accommodate this ambition would

be catastrophic to the waterfront.

LANDMASS EXPANSION


22/56

Airplanes


23/56

A lot of the discussion of the CS-100

jets is abstract.

They , so theirnoise parameters are estimates.

But we can know very well what they willlook like and how large they will be.

Let's of theToronto waterfront.

haven't flown yet

put them in the context


24/56

Visualizing Things

Halfway across Toronto Harbour is about 1.2 km from

the usual touchdown point at BBTCA.


25/56

Ontario Place is also about 1.2 km from

the usual touchdown point at BBTCA.


26/56

That same distance from the Pearson runway touchdown point

is in the parking lot of an industrial unit.

Visualizing Things


27/56

Just around the corner from Hooters!

(1130 meters from the runway).

Visualizing Things


28/56

Here's a WestJet Boeing 737-600 at that distance.

(Photo with 45mm lens (not telephoto), not cropped).

I went there to get a sense of things.


29/56

Impressive technology,up close.


30/56


31/56

Jets of the sort Porter wants typically approach at abouta 3 degree angle of descent.

And that's assuming no runway expansioninto the harbour.

That meansthe jets will be

about above the water.

at or atmid-harbour Ontario Place

64 metres

At the end of the marine exclusion zoneyou are far closer to the BBTCA runway

than Pearson Airport allows people to approach,so I was not able to get a photo that close.

CURRENT


32/56

35.0m32.81m

35.1m

28.4m

Lets look at Q400 and CS100 physical dimensions.

The planes are shown to scale.


33/56

11.5m

8.3m

35.0m

32.81m



34/56

11.5m

8.3m

35.1m

28.4m


This ones kinda chunky.


35/56

TWICE AS MUCH!

Thats because it weighs

Q400: 29,574 kg CS100: 58,513 kg

That infos in the spec sheets too.


36/56

Regardless of noise profile,

SIZE ALONE

makes the CS-100 totally inappropriate in the

context of the Toronto waterfront.

regardless of pollution,

regardless of a jet ban already in place,


37/56

Jets and Bird Strikes


38/56

"The engines of most large jet aircraft in serviceare certified to achieve a safe shutdown after

ingesting a bird of in weight.

This certification does not support an enginethat ingests

or a "

4 lbs.

multiple birdssingle large bird.

Transport Canada

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/aerodromeairnav-standards-wildlifecontrol-birdhazards-930.htm


39/56

Ring-Billed Gulls

no problem there

0.6 lbs

(0.3 to 0.7 kg)

to 1.5


40/56

Double-BreastedCormorants

2.6(1.2 to 2.5 kg)

to 5.5 lbs


41/56

Canada Geese

6.6 to(3 to 9 kg)

19.8 lbs


42/56

January 15, 2009

Canada Geese meet US Airways 1549


43/56

Mute Swans

F: 19.8 lbs(9 kg)

M: 25.4 lbs(11.5 kg)


44/56

"

In 1974 there were 5nesting pairs of Ring-billed Gulls in the NationalCapital Region, whereas now there are over 6000

nesting pairs. Populations of migrating Canada Geese

have doubled in the last 25 years, andfrom the B.C.Lower Mainland Region or from southern Ontario.

Resident"

Ring-billed Gull populations in the Lower GreatLakes region have increased approximately 12% per

year since the mid 1970s.

many largerace Canada Geese no longer migrate

Canada Goose populations in the Torontoarea are doubling every five years.

Transport Canada

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/aerodromeairnav-standards-wildlifecontrol-summaries-3808.htm


45/56

shorebirds the most common (gulls)

Ducks, geese, and swans the most significant

Boeing 737-700 (very similar to Porter's proposed CS-100)the second-most commonly struck aircraft

Bombardier CRJ100 / CRJ200 the most common

Specific bird strike information

Breakdowns by bird and aircraft type

Transport Canada

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/aerodromeairnav-standards-wildlifecontrol-summaries-3808.htm


46/56

Shorebirds at a waterfront airport

represent a significant and serious danger

to jet aircraft operation.


47/56

Other Entrantsto the

BBTCA


48/56

Bombardier CS100Robert Deluce thinks this one is fine.

Boeing 737Robert Deluce doesnt want these at BBTCA.

Airbus A320Robert Deluce doesnt want these at BBTCA.

Robert Deluce claimsthe CS-100 is fine forBBTCA because itwill be quieter than

the Boeing 737sWestJet flies, orthan the AirbusA320s used by AirCanada.


49/56


50/56

" , saidby the time Porters planes are delivered in 2016,

his carriers regional offering, Encore,will be up and running with a fleetof Q400s and .

He said his operations staff have alreadydone calculations, and he

with a reduced capacity of

106 passengers if the runway is indeedextended to 5,100 feet asPorters plan proposes."

Gregg Saretsky, WestJet chief executive

WestJet would like access too

believes WestJetcould even land its 737s

on the Island

Financial Posthttp://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/11/feds-willing-to-consider-review-of-porter-airlines-plan-for-downtown-toronto-airport-overhaul/


51/56

" ,said he is not afraid of the added

competition. But he said Billy Bishop

is not the private playground forany one carrier and he

."

Calin Rovinescu, Air Canadas chief executive

would like to see greateraccess granted to other players

Financial Posthttp://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/11/feds-willing-to-consider-review-of-porter-airlines-plan-for-downtown-toronto-airport-overhaul/


52/56

If those jets and carriers were permitted at BBTCA,it would be hard to logically exclude smaller business jets.


53/56

Logically enough,

Porter Airlines would like to maintain

its at BBTCA.privileged position

That does not mean that

would not have strong claims

to the use

of this publicly owned and operated facility.

OTHER

ENTRANTS


54/56

Other Considerations


55/56

Negative community impacts on the Toronto Waterfront

Negative environmental impacts

Improved rail transit to Pearson under construction

Waterfront Toronto's investment and positive payoff to date

City-side traffic congestion and parking

Losses of property values for waterfront residents

Challenges to General Aviation (ie: non-commercial)access to the BBTCA

among many others.


56/56

Porter Airlines has found an aircraft that is slightlythan the Q400s it currently flies from BBTCA.

But . . . the CS100 is very likely considerably than

other similar commercial jets.

Consequently, this aircraft represents a wonderfulopportunity for Toronto

an opportunity to make life for Toronto residentsliving in the region of Pearson Airport . . .

. . . NOTto make things for residents and usersof Toronto's waterfront!

LOUDER

WORSE

QUIETER

BETTER

The Bottom Line . . .

Analysis of Impacts from Porter Plans

Documents

Transcript of Analysis of Impacts from Porter Plans