BQNA Environmental Assessment feedback – Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs)
- BQNA
- Jul 6
- 2 min read
Why Ports Toronto needs to go back to the drawing table to meet Runway End Safety Area regulations for Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.
July 7, 2025
By Bev Thorpe
Today the BQNA sent our comments to Ports Toronto about why we believe their draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for complying with Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) is wrong. Let’s face it, we have a lot of skin in the game, as they say, because our community exists next to Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. That is why we not only highlighted what was wrong with the whole process, but also what could be done to benefit our community and the future of Toronto’s waterfront.
Here’s the gist of our four-page submission
First off, the whole Environmental Assessment process was rushed, confusing and did not allow adequate public input. The EA report was not released until last month and the public was given a 30-day window in the middle of the summer to comment. We were faced with a 295-page report plus an additional 17 separate Appendices and to further complicate matters, the report discusses three options in detail – even though Toronto Council only approved Option 1! This does not instill confidence that the city’s recommendation will be followed.
Next, alternatives to lake filling were dismissed out of hand. In particular, an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) was discounted with no adequate explanation. EMAS is widely used in the USA, including New York, indicating the system’s viability in winter northern climates. It is the cheapest, and the most effective way to stop wayward aircraft and it can be built entirely on the existing landmass with less disruption. So why was it really dismissed we ask ourselves? A further way for BBTCA to meet RESA requirements would be to shorten the runway and reduce their passenger numbers by relocating some of their commercial aircraft to Pearson. This was not even considered although it has merits on so many levels.
Finally, our community now faces 18 months to over 2 years of nighttime construction, noise, and light pollution from lake filling and more. Ports Toronto proposes overnight construction from 11 pm through to 6.45 am so as not to disturb daytime airport operations. This will exceed the threshold for adverse sleep impacts, while light pollution will affect nearby residential areas, marine users and wildlife, especially migratory birds and aquatic species. In response to these problems the EA proposes such actions as angling the lights downward and notifying residents in advance of construction schedules. As for sleep disturbance, according to the EA report, the number of people that would be ‘highly annoyed’ would not be a significant problem. We firmly rejected this assumption.
So, let’s see how Ports Toronto, and the City for that matter, responds to our submission. We may be in a David and Goliath scenario, but we will keep on proposing a more sustainable way forward.
Comments