allabootmatt
Senior Member
As I said earlier, I'm still not sure what I think about this proposal. My initial inclination is to be opposed, not necessarily on substantive grounds but because Porter and the Port Authority, which seems awfully focused on advancing the interests of a single private company, have consistently obfuscated about their true intentions for the Island.
I recall during the 2003 election a rendering floating around of a significantly expanded terminal surrounded with jets that had been prepared for some conceptual study of the airport, and the Port Authority people dismissed it as a completely ridiculous misrepresentation of what they had in mind. Well, less than a decade later here we are. I am not generally sympathetic to slippery-slope arguments, but this is a case in which we might want to think about just that.
That said, I like and have used Porter, and there's no question it's a great amenity (though a decent Pearson rail link may reduce its relative attractiveness, especially to destinations like New York where you lose the time at the other end because Porter doesn't serve the most convenient airport).
One thing I hope all can agree on is that if this expansion gets the green light, there needs to be a significant financial contribution from Porter and the TPA toward fixing the absolute mess that exists at the foot of Bathurst St at the moment. That means decent public spaces and a traffic management plan that mitigates stress on the nieghborhood and its streets, which clearly weren't designed for this level of activity. I am not sure how this would work and I understand the geometry of the area is restricted, but there has to be a better way--and one that improves the pedestrian and cycling amenities along the water's edge as well.
I recall during the 2003 election a rendering floating around of a significantly expanded terminal surrounded with jets that had been prepared for some conceptual study of the airport, and the Port Authority people dismissed it as a completely ridiculous misrepresentation of what they had in mind. Well, less than a decade later here we are. I am not generally sympathetic to slippery-slope arguments, but this is a case in which we might want to think about just that.
That said, I like and have used Porter, and there's no question it's a great amenity (though a decent Pearson rail link may reduce its relative attractiveness, especially to destinations like New York where you lose the time at the other end because Porter doesn't serve the most convenient airport).
One thing I hope all can agree on is that if this expansion gets the green light, there needs to be a significant financial contribution from Porter and the TPA toward fixing the absolute mess that exists at the foot of Bathurst St at the moment. That means decent public spaces and a traffic management plan that mitigates stress on the nieghborhood and its streets, which clearly weren't designed for this level of activity. I am not sure how this would work and I understand the geometry of the area is restricted, but there has to be a better way--and one that improves the pedestrian and cycling amenities along the water's edge as well.