Transport Canada And The Island Airport’s NEF Contour

Background

In 1983 when the City of Toronto was under pressure to allow commercial air service out of the island airport, a clause was put into the Tripartite Agreement with the aim of controlling the level of noise that the busier airport would produce.  Rather than putting a finite limit on the number of flights landing and taking off, the clause specified a Noise Exposure Forecast contour that had the effect of limiting the total airport activity. 

To determine a Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contour, Transport Canada uses a method of measurement which combines the noise levels of aircraft and the number of noise events to predict an overall average of aircraft noise for areas around airports. 

Traffic volume and aircraft type and mix are used in calculating the noise contours which normally forecast for a period of between five and ten years into the future.  Transport Canada will support the forecasts only to the level of accuracy of the input data but it limits the kinds of noises allowable.  For example, in the case of the island airport’s NEF contour, it excludes bird dispersal cannon and engine run-ups and limits take-off and landing noise to straight-line flight paths whether the aircraft fly over noise sensitive areas or not.

The purpose of the NEF is to encourage compatible land use planning in the vicinity of airports.  As indicated above, it was included in the Tripartite Agreement to ensure the level of island airport use did not conflict with the City’s plan for the waterfront.  That, at least, is the theory.  Reality, however, can be a stern teacher.

In 1995, with the federal government getting out of the airport business and the provincial government cutting ferry subsidies, the island airport’s future looked grim.  The Canadian Urban Institute took it upon itself to sponsor a two-day conference on Toronto’s City Centre Airport: What is its future role? 

Judging by the record of its proceedings, Stevenson, Don, and Andrew Farncomb, eds. Toronto’s City Centre Airport: what is its future role? Toronto: Canadian Urban Institute, 1995, the event seemed to galvanize the airport’s proponents to such a degree that while there may not now be the bridge that was called for then, there is certainly the expanded airport that the movers and shakers demanded.  But, how could this be with the NEF limitation in the Tripartite Agreement?

It appears the NEF calculation is a wonderfully elastic way of determining the number of flights permitted at the airport.

A Short History of Numbers

In 1989, as part of its obligation under the Tripartite Agreement, Transport Canada produced an NEF contour map for the island airport using traffic figures at that time.  According to Transport Canada documents, new noise planning contours were prepared in 1990 but never formalized.  The 1989 effort was Transport Canada’s last official one.

The matter of updating the NEF 25 contour lay dormant until 1998 when the TCCA manager (still under the Toronto Harbour Commission) advised Transport Canada four new air operators would start service.  A July 21, 1998 Transport Canada, Ontario Region Civil Aviation document states, “In accordance with the Tripartite Agreement, the available number of daily large turbo propeller-driven movements for allocation is a total of 97.  The number proposed for the new services totals 84.  The 97 available movements for allocation include a strategic reserve of 15%, to ensure that the NEF contour is not exceeded.”

The 97 available movements figure was repeated in Transport Canada documents dated September 15, 1998 and April 7, 1999.  The number 97 stood for four years.

A new NEF calculation did not come until 2002 when consultants Pryde Schropp reported that 167 large turboprop movements could be accommodated daily according to their NEF analysis.  Somehow, the 97 daily flights in 1999 expanded to 167 daily flights in the space of three years. 

The expanding figure may have been because the Toronto Port Authority, by that time in charge of the airport, had commissioned a study on the future of the facility.  The consultants who conducted the study, Sypher:Mueller International Inc., reproduced the 167 figure as part of an expanded airport scenario.  It is that expanded scenario with its 167 daily movements that has become gospel.

Roger Tasse in his report on the Toronto Port Authority repeats the figure.  “In June 2003, RegCo would have understood that the total ceiling for large turboprop movements (number of departures and landings) would be 167 in and out of the airport each day.”

However, the number of allowable daily movements would change once again.

In 2003, a Clause embodied in Report No. 6 of the Policy and Finance Committee, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on June 24, 25 and 26 stated, “Research conducted by consultants on behalf of the TPA and the City has determined that the proposed enhancement to Airport operations can easily be accommodated within this restriction (up to approximately 120 large turboprop flights per day).”

On March 2, 2006, Robert Deluce, President and CEO of Porter Airlines emailed Michael Stephenson, Transport Canada’s Acting Regional Director General – Ontario on the subject of the TCCA NEF Update Final Report.  Attached to the email was a 12-page report.  The report, prepared by Pryde Schropp for potential Porter Airlines investors, Edgestone Capital, Borealis Infrastructure Management and Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec, updated for a Q400 scenario, resuscitated the 167 daily large turboprop movements.  The report used the 2002 calculations that were based on Dash-100 data to reach the same figure, 167. 

Transport Canada still had no official position on the Pryde Schropp studies although a document, prepared for Debra Taylor, another Transport Canada Regional Director General – Ontario, on March 3 2006 and titled TCCA Speaking Points, did cite the Pryde Schopp report.

It wasn’t until March 21, 2006, when then airport manager Bill Yule wrote Dave Bayliss, Regional Manager, Aerodromes and Air Navigation, about the Porter investor’s Pryde Schropp data, requesting Transport Canada investigate the methods and practices used to arrive at the movement limits.  “It would be prudent to know if the information contained in the above mentioned study is factual and properly represents limits that can be relied on”, he wrote.

On March 27, 2006, Tom Lowrey, Program Manager, Noise Management & Land Use, Transport Canada, responded to Mr. Yule in the affirmative.  The NEF model was applied correctly according to accepted practice and it performed correctly, Mr Lowrey wrote.  He cautioned, however, that the contour that Pryde Schropp produced was not an NEF contour but rather a planning contour.

According to Transport Canada’s website, the planning contour is produced to investigate planning alternates and must be labelled as such.  It may be released to the public by a regional TC Aviation office without Headquarters’ (Ottawa) approval. Any agency may produce these contours as they do not have any official status.

 A New NEF Contour

It could be argued that matters would have remained where they were with 167 daily Q400 movements as the accepted limit if it weren’t for a couple of things.

One thing is the limit of 120 movements quoted in Report No. 6 of the Policy and Finance Committee, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on June 24, 25 and 26, 2003 and repeated, as indicated above, in the Tasse Report.  Critics could easily point out that 120 and not 167 should be taken as the official number.

Another thing is CommunityAIR’s efforts to have the NEF contour revisited based on the Q400’s breach of the allowable noise limits set out in the Tripartite Agreement.  As a result, Transport Canada agreed to produce an up-to-date NEF contour, which presumably will produce a figure on the daily limit of large turboprop movements.

However, it appears that Transport Canada may be facing a difficult situation.  It could be argued that the letter dated March 27, 2006, from Tom Lowrey, Program Manager, Noise Management & Land Use, Transport Canada, gave the go ahead for Porter Airlines to plan their business around 167 daily movements.  After all, it stated that Transport Canada tested Pryde Schropp’s work and did not find it wanting.  Plus, the results were good enough to be called a planning contour.

Indeed, on what other basis would Porter Airlines feel confident in purchasing more aircraft and in spending millions in an airport upgrade?  However, while Porter’s Commercial Carrier Operating Agreement (CCOA) with the port authority is limited to under 120 daily movements according to the Tasse Report, Porter has gone ahead and will be operating a total of 20 aircraft within a year (according to a news release dated June 4, 2000) and spending millions on an airport terminal upgrade. 

Certainly, the numbers on the Porter expansion plans don't add up.  A count on Porter's current schedule shows that 90 daily movements are used on a busy weekday, Mondays, with a current fleet of 12 planes.  A further eight aircraft means that 20 planes will be in service by the end of the year.  Under the current CCOA, by the end of the year, Porter will have eight more planes available for fewer than 30 movements.

This scenario does not make economic sense.  Either the last eight planes will be seriously under-utilized or some of them will not fly anywhere near Toronto, which is a financially questionable way to run a regional airport: not working out of one's own hub.  To make economic sense, the number of daily movements will need to be expanded beyond 120, perhaps to 167 and the Commercial Carrier Operating Agreement will have to be re-negotiated.

Given Porter’s expansion plans and Transport Canada’s position, how will it carry out this official current NEF contour undertaking?  One clue may be in Michael Stephenson’s response to Elaine Baxter-Trahair.  Ms Baxter-Trahair heads up the City’s Waterfront Secretariat.  Ms Baxter-Trahair asked if helicopter movements would be included in the new study.

According to the Tripartite Agreement, Sections 34 and 35, helicopter movements are required to be included when there are over 4,000 movements a year.  The following chart lists the number of helicopter movements per year for the last five years according to StatsCan figures.

Year # of Movements
2004 5,001
2005 5,251
2006 6,135
2007 5,621
2008 5,191

Mr. Stephenson wrote to Ms Baxter-Trahair that helicopter movements would not be included in the new study.  It appears that Mr. Stephenson is prepared to ignore that provision of the Tripartite Agreement, a legal document to which his employer Transport Canada is a signatory. 

Leaving helicopter movements out of the calculation just may help to give the airport the 167 daily Q400 movements it so badly seems to ne

Bob Kotyk