[jn_12]

Yeah, I've never been a fan of the bridge, mainly because I'm a sailor, and I think a bridge would be annoying for boat traffic. How about a tunnel though? It wouldn't interfere with boat traffic, and would allow easy access to the airport, maybe even for streetcars. Would it be much more expensive than a bridge?

There is a tunnel.

 

[CDL.TO]

There is a tunnel.

You tease. Dare to provide more details? Steam tunnel, electric tunnel, long-forgotten multi-lane expressway tunnel?

 

[nfitz]

Well there is the tunnel that the Tories announced, but the Liberals scrapped after the 1935 election, in revenge for Toronto voting Tory ...

 

[jn_12]

Well, I've seen the site plans for the new terminal/entire north side of the island. On it, it indicates there is a tunnel that crosses approximately where the malting silos are and where the old brown bricked hangar is on the east sideof the island. I don't know what it is, but it is clearly indicated, and they wouldn't have included it if it didn't exist (also, it's not a "planned tunnel." On the site plans it is clear what is new and what is old, and this tunnel currently exists). Based on the plans I would say it's approximately 5 feet wide. No clue about height or what's actually in it. We've talked about it at work a few times, but it's a mystery to everyone really.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was built during the WWII. Considering the island was a training facility, it would have been a fairly easy target if the war ever made it to this side of the Atlantic, so they would probably have wanted some sort of secret escape route. Here's a quote from Wikipedia "The airport was intended to be connected via tunnel and construction of a tunnel was started in 1935 but was abandoned." Would they have only built half a tunnel? Because on the site plans that I have seen, the north shore isn't visible, so it's just assumed that that the tunnel continues on.

 

[rbt]

Well, I've seen the site plans for the new terminal/entire north side of the island. On it, it indicates there is a tunnel that crosses approximately where the malting silos are and where the old brown bricked hangar is on the east sideof the island. I don't know what it is, but it is clearly indicated, and they wouldn't have included it if it didn't exist (also, it's not a "planned tunnel." On the site plans it is clear what is new and what is old, and this tunnel currently exists). Based on the plans I would say it's approximately 5 feet wide. No clue about height or what's actually in it. We've talked about it at work a few times, but it's a mystery to everyone really.

There is a service tunnel. Takes electricity and other things across through a protected area.

Oh, and its flooded 99.99% of the time so it doesn't require much in the way of maintenance.

 

[EnviroTO]

If traffic picks up to a level the ferry and two lane Bathurst can no longer handle they can always load people on to a helicopter and take them to Pearson. There is significant roadway and ground transportation capacity there.

 

[jn_12]

There is a service tunnel. Takes electricity and other things across through a protected area.

Oh, and its flooded 99.99% of the time so it doesn't require much in the way of maintenance.

then take makes sense. Just seemed a bit big for a tunnel intended for cables.

 

[rbt]

then take makes sense. Just seemed a bit big for a tunnel intended for cables.

The Port Authorities Archivist quite enjoys talking about stuff like this. As I recall there has been work inside the tunnel a few years ago for utility upgrades of some type or another. They pump out the water and send in people.

It's very similar to Toronto Hydro's electrical tunnel under front street. It's just big enough for people to get in and work but not particularly comfortable or sized for regular use.


Anyway, a good chunk of TPA's older records may be available to the public on demand. Often you just need to call and possibly pay a nominal fee for the data to be retrieved/copied.

 

[TOareaFan]

If traffic picks up to a level the ferry and two lane Bathurst can no longer handle they can always load people on to a helicopter and take them to Pearson. There is significant roadway and ground transportation capacity there.

You may be kidding but accessibility is, and always will be, the ultimate limitation on how much service growth can be provided at the island airport and should comfort those that (irrationally IMO) feel that the Island airport will grow to somekind of Pearson Deux.

At the point the roads and ferries leading to and from the terminal become too slow or two congested, the balance will swing back towards Pearson and its ability to handle so much traffic.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As for a bridge, I think Porter is over that. Considering the amount of traffic that traverses the channel in the summer months, you'd need to raise a bridge every ten minutes for 5 minutes.

What they really need is a tunnel. At my hometown of Greenwich, England they have a tunnel under the Thames to the Isle of Dogs on the other side. A tunnel under the narrow straight to the airport would be easy to build compared to crossing under the Thames.

 

[TKTKTK]

I still say bridge (especially a draw bridge):

 

[jks]

Whoa! Where is that?!?

 

[TKTKTK]

Whoa! Where is that?!?

It's Slauerhoffbrug in the Netherlands

 

[kEiThZ]

Very funny to see freemarket Keithz arguing for a taxpayer funded ferry to the island, from a bunch of cronies, to an airport where only one airline is allowed to fly. Nothing smelly about that. The TPA, which is by law supposed to raise enough revenue to fund itself, never has, even with the recent upswell of traffic at the island thanks to Porter. So, yes, we are paying for the ferry with our tax dollars.

As I stated previously the users of that airport as paying an airport improvement fee. Presumably that provides sufficient revenue to cover the airport's operating costs including the acquisition and operation of the new ferry.

Jn_12 makes the same point:

A couple points that perhaps I can shed some light on...

From my understanding, the new ferry will be paid for using the $15 Airport Improvement Fee that is added to the cost of the ticket. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the ferry could be paid off quite easily just using these fees over the course of a year. Mind you, there is an extensive terminal expansion currently being prepped, so the money probably isn't going just towards this ferry.

And I would add that given Porter's rapid expansion and growth rate, it's probably a fair bet that the airline will pull in enough revenue for the ferry to be paid off within a fair capitalization period.

Interesting as well, that I can find no mention anywhere in the financial reports of the TPA of paying ground rent to the federal government. Companies using Pearson pay over $100 million in ground rent every year to the feds.

That's a standing federal policy:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/airports/policy/NAS.htm

Only national airports (having 200 000 pax/a for three years consecutively) pay rent. The Island is not receiving any special treatment. In fact, with Porter there, the island may just get bumped up into the NAS and actually start generating revenue for the feds...a likely reason why they support the island and Porter.

Hmm, so one of Toronto's airports essentially receives an illegal taxpayer funded subsidy, while the other is a cash cow for the federal government. But businesses do not have the option of using both, in fact, Air Canada and WestJet are banned from using the TCCA. Nothing odd there at all.

Given what I have mentioned above, it's clear that the island is not receiving an 'illegal taxpayer funded subsidy'.

As to the banning of Air Canada and Westjet, there are several reasons behind that. For Westjet it's simple, their fleet is not compatible with the airport. For AC of course the history is torturous and complicated. But how can you not fault AC for their tactics with regards to the island. They basically undercut any competitor (City Express) who comes in, and then cut service when they leave. Would you tolerate that behaviour if it was on a rail corridor?

A prime example of AC's maximization of the island:

For the last couple of years before Porter arrived, Air Canada Jazz was down to a single Dash-8 going back and forth to Ottawa. The first flight out in the morning to Ottawa was 8:30 and the last one back was 4:30 with no weekend service at all.

Personally, I usually needed to go earlier than 8:30 and come back later than 4:30, so I had pretty much given up on using the Island Airport.

Moreover, they were not evicted by the airport authority. They were evicted by the new owner's of the terminal space they were leasing. Of course many will claim that this was a sleazy transaction because the new terminal owner (REGCO) was also the parent of Porter. I would dispute that. There was nothing stopping Air Canada from buying out City Centre Aviation Ltd (the previous terminal owner) before or after REGCO began to court CCAL. They chose not to invest in a permanent presence on the island because they had no intention of running any successful and sustainable operation out of there. I see no reason why the government should intervene in a private transaction between two businesses. AC had it's chance.

Of course I do not doubt that the TPA probably favoured the deal because the increased traffic levels would improve the airport's financial viability. That's the TPA's mandate. They have to turn a profit for all involved. They can't do that with one customer who had close to zero committment to the island. Porter will change all that.

Also, as the TPA has yet to turn a profit, one wonders what will happen in the current economic environment? Glad to see the deepening recession has stalled their extravagant spending plans. And if Porter goes bust (when?) what happens to the revenue from the TCCA? Would it collapse.

Yep, sounds like a second ferry represents prudent financial planning.

I think jn_12 explains it well below.

Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks Porter is going to be non-existent within the next 5 years. Considering Porter has 8 planes and probably 12 or 14 by the end of 2009, you're looking at a period of time when they were expecting to be spending considerable amounts of money anyways. Even if routes are slow to develop, the business model suggests they're prepared to take hits at the beginning (multiple $27million plane purchases in 3 years adds up). In 5 years from now, the US should be out of its recession and business would flourish based on the business model. Not to mention, Porter doesn't even codeshare with another airline. That could be another option down the line. Also, people don't realize that Porter has been profitable for well over a year. I know for certain this is the case because I received my first profit sharing cheque at x-mas time. So not only are they profitable, they're able to actually significantly share that profit with employees, which says something to me at least.

Anybody would be mad to start an airline without a 5 - 10 year game plan that includes at least one full swing of the business cycle. Given that they just exercised an option for two Q400s in October, I am wondering why you think their plans have stalled. That's no small feat for such a small airline. That's over 10% capacity growth in less than a year.

Given that growth rate ordering the ferry now is probably prudent financial planning.

As for a bridge, I think Porter is over that. Considering the amount of traffic that traverses the channel in the summer months, you'd need to raise a bridge every ten minutes for 5 minutes. I don't think Porter wants that considering the ferry schedule that has been consistent since it first launched. A 200 person ferry is necessary, and it's here to stay.

It's sad to hear that a bridge might be out of the picture. One can only imagine how much money would have been saved in the long run by building a bridge instead of a ferry. Not to mention the energy and emissions wasted on the world's shortest ferry ride.

 

[Admiral Beez]

One can only imagine how much money would have been saved in the long run by building a bridge instead of a ferry. Not to mention the energy and emissions wasted on the world's shortest ferry ride.

In New Brunswick I used to cross the Saint John River at several points on a cable ferry. They operate year round, even in the winter and transport medium sized trucks and my little motorcycle just fine. Let's have a cable ferry powered by electricity for the Island Airport.