4 ms·

Do you have a link to the study? My understanding from the material I saw at the time was that the C-Series jets were quieter than the Q-400s, and the 'real' ob

Do you have a link to the study? My understanding from the material I saw at the time was that the C-Series jets were quieter than the Q-400s, and the 'real' objection was having any airport on the island at all.

paulgb 4y ago
IIRC some lake users (especially sailors and paddlers) had “real” objections to it on the basis that it would create less usable lake easily accessible from downtown. Granted, it's a much smaller group than would benefit from the airport. (I count myself in that group, but I was mildly pro-expansion on the basis of having less reasons to go to Pearson.)
- tekknik 4y ago
  So we just have hearsay? Having worked around jets, and having been into performance cars, this sounds ridiculous. A jet engine clocks in at around 160dB. A typical performance exhaust system is less, 100-120dB. Someone should produce this report as it sounds fake.
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    Pg. 16: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porter-cs100-aircraft-noise-assessment.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porte... It was a study of impact on the nearest-by populated area (queens quay), so motor vehicles are a lot closer than the aircraft: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porter-cs100-aircraft-noise-assessment.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porte... Nobody cares about noise at the airport itself.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      What a silly idea for a study. Of course sounds closer are going to be louder. Where I live there’s an airport near an island with very expensive houses. They certainly care much more about the very loud jet engine than they do about a guy with a cut off exhaust and a v8
Scoundreller 4y ago
Here you go, pg 16 for the noise study: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porter-cs100-aircraft-noise-assessment.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porte... The Cseries was to be up to 1db louder than q400s, but people may find jet noise less annoying than a warbling turboprop. This study predated the actual flight tests as I understand it.
- ShroudedNight 4y ago
  Thanks. I see they didn't have specifics for the various scenarios at that point, but found them here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/20962/en https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/20962/en It looks like they were ~3db off the mark for lateral, but were quieter than the Q400 on approach.
dade_ 4y ago
The island folks are always against the airport’s existence, but their opinions really shouldn’t count for anything. They are have the best deal on real estate in the country. I was ok with the jets until I realized it would require lengthening the airstrip inside the harbour. This would further block water access as the restricted area would also be extended even further into the harbour affecting the ferry routes and other uses including recreation. I am ok with the airport, but I will always be opposed to infilling the harbour. Besides loud cars, the streetcars can make god awful screeching with their trucks going around rail corners. ORNGE air ambulances are bloody noisy too, but I’ll never complain about them.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  > I was ok with the jets until I realized it would require lengthening the airstrip inside the harbour Only sorta. They would have been able to keep the existing lengths of the no-boating buoys by building out the runway, but also adding emergency runway arrest systems. IE: longer runway but compressed overrun safety area. Yes, less water, but you can’t use it anyway. The runway would have to be widened a bit and the buoys would have to be too, but that’s less of an impact on marine navigation.

paulgb 4y ago

IIRC some lake users (especially sailors and paddlers) had “real” objections to it on the basis that it would create less usable lake easily accessible from downtown. Granted, it's a much smaller group than would benefit from the airport. (I count myself in that group, but I was mildly pro-expansion on the basis of having less reasons to go to Pearson.)

tekknik 4y ago
So we just have hearsay? Having worked around jets, and having been into performance cars, this sounds ridiculous. A jet engine clocks in at around 160dB. A typical performance exhaust system is less, 100-120dB. Someone should produce this report as it sounds fake.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Pg. 16: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porter-cs100-aircraft-noise-assessment.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porte... It was a study of impact on the nearest-by populated area (queens quay), so motor vehicles are a lot closer than the aircraft: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porter-cs100-aircraft-noise-assessment.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porte... Nobody cares about noise at the airport itself.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    What a silly idea for a study. Of course sounds closer are going to be louder. Where I live there’s an airport near an island with very expensive houses. They certainly care much more about the very loud jet engine than they do about a guy with a cut off exhaust and a v8

Scoundreller 4y ago

Here you go, pg 16 for the noise study: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porter-cs100-aircraft-noise-assessment.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9936-porte... The Cseries was to be up to 1db louder than q400s, but people may find jet noise less annoying than a warbling turboprop. This study predated the actual flight tests as I understand it.

ShroudedNight 4y ago
Thanks. I see they didn't have specifics for the various scenarios at that point, but found them here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/20962/en https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/20962/en It looks like they were ~3db off the mark for lateral, but were quieter than the Q400 on approach.

dade_ 4y ago

The island folks are always against the airport’s existence, but their opinions really shouldn’t count for anything. They are have the best deal on real estate in the country. I was ok with the jets until I realized it would require lengthening the airstrip inside the harbour. This would further block water access as the restricted area would also be extended even further into the harbour affecting the ferry routes and other uses including recreation. I am ok with the airport, but I will always be opposed to infilling the harbour. Besides loud cars, the streetcars can make god awful screeching with their trucks going around rail corners. ORNGE air ambulances are bloody noisy too, but I’ll never complain about them.

Scoundreller 4y ago
> I was ok with the jets until I realized it would require lengthening the airstrip inside the harbour Only sorta. They would have been able to keep the existing lengths of the no-boating buoys by building out the runway, but also adding emergency runway arrest systems. IE: longer runway but compressed overrun safety area. Yes, less water, but you can’t use it anyway. The runway would have to be widened a bit and the buoys would have to be too, but that’s less of an impact on marine navigation.