Winnipeg Construction X

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by trueviking

It’s not about height. It’s about population. The airport wants to restrict the number of people who live in that entire area of the city to prevent a critical mass of people complaining about noise and forcing them to reduce their hours.

The restrictions certainly need to be revisited. They include a ridiculously huge area.

You’d think they could do it with some kind of no complaints agreement. But maybe that’s not a thing.

http://clkapps.winnipeg.ca/DMIS/Docu....6378.cons.pdf

You can make a contract of anything as long as it isn't illegal

[esquire]

The current critical mass of residents getting by without problems on a daily basis is what I was getting at with my earlier posts about when the AVDP was developed. It dates back to 1997 IIRC, which means that the groundwork probably happened around 94/95/96, which is coincidentally the last time that airport noise was front page news in this city. So not surprisingly, the AVDP reflects the concerns of that era, when we still had decades old non-hush kitted noisy aircraft filling the skies at night.

I'm sure if you were holding public hearings on a AVDP today, noise would be nowhere near as prominent an issue as it was back then.

I'm not saying CF/Shindico should get to write a new AVDP, but the plan should reflect the current state of affairs and not what was happening when Susan Thompson was still the mayor.

[BAKGUY]

The no Brainer way to go about this is to allow development since the developers see it as a sure thing.....and ensure everyone renting or buying know in their lease or purchase agreement that the noise will continue and can not be challenged..Period! Everyone is protected.

[OverUnder]

You can’t permanently contract out of all claims for nuisance - property owners and tenants will change over time. The law of nuisance is messed up but if someone builds a new house next to a smelly mushroom farm or a loud airport they can claim for nuisance no matter how foreseeable their concerns were.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by OverUnder

You can’t permanently contract out of all claims for nuisance - property owners and tenants will change over time. The law of nuisance is messed up but if someone builds a new house next to a smelly mushroom farm or a loud airport they can claim for nuisance no matter how foreseeable their concerns were.

Sure, not permanently, but times have changed, and will continue changing, so I dont understand why this 25 year old bylaw should be allowed to be so ossified that it vetoes any new development in the area.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Sure, not permanently, but times have changed, and will continue changing, so I dont understand why this 25 year old bylaw should be allowed to be so ossified that it vetoes any new development in the area.

Agreed - the WAA needs to sit down & shut up, and maybe go back to trying to secure 747s and new air routes, instead of trying to lord over Winnipeg as if they own the damn city... has the WWA even managed to secure more air traffic, lately? Or are they still slamming their hooves at Winnipeg Transit, the City of Winnipeg & the residents of St. James? The incoming airport museum, hotels and developments over the years might have stabilized the bleeding, but those hotels, museums and other employment need way more air traffic, in order to make things work.

[DancingDuck]

Originally Posted by armorand93

Agreed - the WAA needs to sit down & shut up, and maybe go back to trying to secure 747s and new air routes, instead of trying to lord over Winnipeg as if they own the damn city... has the WWA even managed to secure more air traffic, lately? Or are they still slamming their hooves at Winnipeg Transit, the City of Winnipeg & the residents of St. James? The incoming airport museum, hotels and developments over the years might have stabilized the bleeding, but those hotels, museums and other employment need way more air traffic, in order to make things work.

It takes literally 30 seconds to find an answer to your question....seeing as you apparently can't be bothered to look the information up for yourself before you start ranting here it is

https://www.waa.ca/media/news/articl...d-setting-2018

https://www.waa.ca/uploads/ck/files/...Statistics.pdf

[RepomanYWG]

The problem is the 24 hour operation. A huge amount of money is made from 23:30 - 5:00 with the cargo business which continues to grow. If they are forced to shut down because of noise complaints it's going to harm the whole region.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by RepomanYWG

The problem is the 24 hour operation. A huge amount of money is made from 23:30 - 5:00 with the cargo business which continues to grow. If they are forced to shut down because of noise complaints it's going to harm the whole region.

I agree it would be foolish to jeopardize the 24 hour airport operations by bringing thousands of new residents into the vicinity. At very least this has to be thought through very carefully.

[esquire]

It is not clear to me that additional residential development is actually a real threat to overnight operations at the airport, though. If the airport is going to be allowed to continue to freeze development over a substantial swath of the city, it should have to meet a pretty high bar when it comes to justifying it. "Just in case" doesn't really cut it.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by esquire

It is not clear to me that additional residential development is actually a real threat to overnight operations at the airport, though. If the airport is going to be allowed to continue to freeze development over a substantial swath of the city, it should have to meet a pretty high bar when it comes to justifying it. "Just in case" doesn't really cut it.

Cargo operations are key to the viability of the airport, do you want to risk the 24 hr. status the airport now has, having the busiest cargo airport in Canada is a positive not a negative!

I’d hardly call the Polo Park site a substantial swath of the city and where limitations to residential development have been in place for decades. Seems to me development in the rest of the city is doing just fine!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Cargo operations are key to the viability of the airport, do you want to risk the 24 hr. status the airport now has, having the busiest cargo airport in Canada is a positive not a negative!

But that's the point... is the 24 hour status even at risk from the proposed development? I get that in 1995 aircraft noise was a big issue. The noisy old planes that replaced AC's cargo fleet were a problem. But things have changed over the last 25 years. Planes are quieter. The onus should be on WAA to demonstrate why these rules still need to be kept in place.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

I’d hardly call the Polo Park site a substantial swath of the city and where limitations to residential development have been in place for decades. Seems to me development in the rest of the city is doing just fine!

[dmacc]

Where does the Airport get it 24hr status? How would they lose this status? I'd be interested in the actual risk to this status.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by esquire

But that's the point... is the 24 hour status even at risk from the proposed development? I get that in 1995 aircraft noise was a big issue. The noisy old planes that replaced AC's cargo fleet were a problem. But things have changed over the last 25 years. Planes are quieter. The onus should be on WAA to demonstrate why these rules still need to be kept in place.

I can't imagine the noise being any worse than if you are downtown or on a major artery and have trucks rumbling by. In the summer the motorcycles just outside your window are guaranteed worse than any plane.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by RepomanYWG

The problem is the 24 hour operation. A huge amount of money is made from 23:30 - 5:00 with the cargo business which continues to grow. If they are forced to shut down because of noise complaints it's going to harm the whole region.

I feel like we're just going in circles here. There are already thousands of residences in the development restricted zone. Adding some has no effect. Honestly if noise complaints were really going to jeopardize the 24hr status, it would already be time restricted. Think about all the old houses with poor sound-proofing.

2 points:
1- newer builds will automatically have better sound proofing and newer aircraft are much much quieter, possibly eliminating almost all noise complaints in itself.
2- buyer beware ---> there are so many airports in the world where 10s of thousands of people live near the runway threshold and they operate 24hrs just fine, why not here?

[cllew]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Where does the Airport get it 24hr status? How would they lose this status? I'd be interested in the actual risk to this status.

Through Transport Canada and its regulations

this is a link to the TC site on noise

[joshlemer]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why can't flights just simply take off and land in the direction away from the city during the over-night shift, if noise complaints become a big issue?

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by joshlemer

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why can't flights just simply take off and land in the direction away from the city during the over-night shift, if noise complaints become a big issue?

I can't answer your question directly but I do know that no matter what there would be times when the orientation of the landing/take-off cycle would take flights directly over the city. Planes take off with the wind and land against it. I don't know anything about aviation otherwise but I imagine that sooner or later it's not just a good idea but the only way to do things.

[bomberjet]

It seems like such a non issue to me. But I'm not the WAA.