Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport Noise Management Study: Public Meeting

Community Feedback

I am responding to your request for Community Feedback regarding “Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport noise Management Study: Public Meeting. I attended the rather disastrous event on February 17^th to give feedback. No one was taking notes and there was no time allotted for proper discussion. I believe the noise management study has already been completed without this input, or any real input from the community. So, I’m not sure that my feedback will be reviewed or valued. However, here it is.

Community Noise Measurement: Don’t use misleading statistics and graphs and then obfuscate when this is pointed out. Your “unattended sound level monitoring” graphs were for average sound levels and minimum sound levels. You did not display a graph in any of your documentation which shows the maximum sound levels. This is what is of most import to the community when discussing sound levels. Your response was that another graph showed this. The other graphs in fact were of “attended sound level monitoring” and again were misleading. The graph displayed from 680 Queens Quay West (north of the airport) was for a period during which north winds were blowing. The graphs from the Island locations (south of the airport were for periods when the wind was blowing from the south. When asked why these particular choices were made, we heard that the people there hadn’t picked the graphs to be used. When asked if we could see the other graphs, we were told they weren’t available.

The graphs we were shown therefore do not reflect the true noise impact of the airport. Having lived and worked at 680 Queens Quay West for over 20 years, I can tell you that the noise from the airport is a huge problem especially since Porter Airlines started operations. My sleep is disrupted almost every night. I cannot hear music, radio or TV or carry on conversations with the windows open in the summer months. My balcony is virtually unusable because of the noise from the airport. At work I have to close the windows to carry on phone conversations. Especially bad are engine run-ups. Doubling the take-offs and landings will make my living and work space untenable.

Aircraft Noise Modeling:

The ‘Noise Sensitive Area’ as delineated on your noise forecast mapping does not include the Bathurst Quay area. We are closer to the airport than any other residents with the possible exception of the Toronto Islands. There have been residents on this land since 1986 in six different buildings, plus additional buildings have been constructed in more recent years. We have voiced our concerns, called in noise complaints for many years yet we are not considered a ‘Noise Sensitive Area’. This needs to be addressed.

Doubling the number of take-offs and landings will double the amount of noise. I do not see this reflected in the mapping, and yet it has been announced that this will happen.

Recommended Noise Abatement Measures: Most of the recommendations about policy do not include how these policies will be policed. Currently the tripartite agreement requires a curfew. Porter continually breaks this curfew and may or may not be fined. Whether they are fined or not does not help us to sleep. If the law is not policed why would we expect that policies would be?

 Specific:

Recommendation #3: Designated Run-up Areas: I’m not convinced these will be effective. Has any research been done as to how this would impact the areas around these designated areas? It looks like they’ll make that side of the island completely unusable.

 Recommendation #4: Noise Control Barriers: The picture of where these will be does not suggest that they will be effective.

 Recommendation #5: I agree with revising the Noise Sensitive Areas to include Bathurst Quay.

 Recommendation #6 & #8: It seems like a good idea to re-route flights away from noise sensitive areas but where would they be moved to?

 Recommendation #7: I don’t think the preferred runway is going to help when the number of flights increases to more than double. How will they all take off and land on the preferred runway.

 Recommendation #9: If there had been proper public consultation this time around, we would not be seeing this recommendation as the TPA would have had the information to take to Transport Canada.

 Recommendation #10: You need to make reports to the community clear and understandable? This suggests that somehow you haven’t been trying to do this yet. Also, this specific report is not clear and understandable.

 Recommendation #11: Improve response time and communication: I haven’t had a response from a noise complaint in May 2009. There would have to be a lot of improvement here. How about improving the restrictions on noise and enforcement of same?

 Recommendation #12: conduct quarterly meetings… In the past 8 months, you haven’t been able to meet with the community group you set up, yet you had sufficient time to build a new terminal, purchase a new ferry, announce 212 slots, and a tunnel – all without any discussion with the community. You would need to go a long way to change this.

 Recommendation #13: Provide further opportunities for educating the community regarding aircraft noise. This is insulting. We know about aircraft noise. We experience it on an daily (and nightly) basis. It’s driving us around the bend. I ask that you educate yourselves about aircraft noise and the health problems that it is causing.

 Recommendation #14: You want to reward pilots for compliance with mandatory noise mitigation procedures. You don’t get a reward for obeying the law. This is ludicrous. How about grounding them for not complying with the mandatory noise mitigation procedures?

 Recommendation #15: You want to assess possible organizational changes to better address and implement noise initiatives. Start by removing Ken Lundy from your employ. At your Public Meeting, he showed a complete lack of respect for the community. His disdainful manner and rudeness including making faces and chatting with someone else when he was being addressed a question were completely unacceptable. You could then hire someone who is equipped to respond to public concerns.

 Recommendation #16: establish a permanent noise consultative process. This would be very helpful if it happened and was implemented. But would there be a mechanism whereby the concerns would be addressed? What sort of authority would this team have?

 There isn’t a specific recommendation regarding rotorcraft operations. These are very noisy and very disruptive. I recommend that the Ministry of Health air ambulances be moved to Buttonville where they are proven to be more useful in saving lives (closer proximity to the actual victims), and that there be no other rotorcraft allowed at this airport given its close proximity to residences.

 My other concerns are:

The noise and air pollution is having a detrimental effect on our health. This is an ongoing concern and it is destroying the community.

The traffic congestion on Eirann Quay across from the two schools and community centre. On any given day cars go through that intersection against a red light.

The taxi stand which is always filled to overflowing… and often has idling taxis. The taxis often wind right onto Queens Quay.

The cost of this airport to the taxpayer: 2 ferries, 2 terminals, a tunnel(?), subsidized airplanes.

The idea of a tunnel to the airport… this is a fixed link – unless it is not going to link the island and the land – or perhaps it’s going to move? This is a very dangerous idea. When I questioned a board member about this he said it was to alleviate traffic congestion. He had no plausible argument to support this.

The expansion of the airport to double the slots. This is against the tripartite agreement and yet it is being announced – again with no public consultation. The resulting noise and air pollution will make our neighbour uninhabitable.

 Our community is rather distrustful of the TPA given the history of the past 20 years. At the meeting, the board remarked that they were new this past year and that they intend to mend fences, listen to the community, and repair the relations with the community. However, I noted a complete disdain for the community at this meeting. There were no chairs for an evening meeting to span 1 ½ hours. There were meaningless charts. There were no dates by which any of these recommendations would be implemented.  The officials there could not answer many of the questions put forward. The charts were full of misleading statistics. Some board members, and most especially Ken Lundy were patronizing, rude, and condescending to the community members who attended. The meeting itself was structured by the TPA in a way that ensured community members felt shut out of the process and were not able to actively participate in the discussion.

 A valid noise study would address the impact on the health of the community it is studying. This has never been done.

 Sincerely,

  Rebecca Quigley