[Whoaccio]

We should really be focused on one simple question:

Does the tunnel serve broad public interest? If so, it is entitled to public funding.

Yes, thank god. That is the main question to look at.

1. The most immediate effect of the tunnel will be to shave off some traveling time for the customers of one airline. This does not strike me as being of public interest.

Why not? Porter is accessible to the public, and is indeed "public transit," albeit public transit with a specific niche. That doesn't usually disqualify things though: Blue22 has basically the same niche, yet is being subsidized by hundreds of millions, GO Transit serves a similar niche, as do TTC Downtown Express Buses both of which are subsidized.

As long as those niche benefits outweigh the costs, that is the important thing.

2. In the longer term, the tunnel may generate increased activity in the island airport, bringing more people into Toronto for business or pleasure. This could be considered to be in the public's interest. However, due to the island airport's location, we must accept that any growth is significantly limited. As well, airport growth will have negative implications for other issues of public interest, such as the revitalization/pedestrianization of the waterfront. Furthermore, even if we fully accept that airport growth is a good thing, it is unclear that a pedestrian tunnel, rather than a short ferry ride, will have any impact on people's decision to travel to Toronto.

I don't believe there are any major technical capacity restraints at this point for YTZ. It will obviously never be Pearson, and that is a good thing, but it isn't bursting at the gills either. Improved terminal facilities and better connectivity should provide for a fairly major boost in passenger volumes.

As to impacts on the Waterfront, evidence from the past while has shown this concern to be overstated. Development along the Waterfront has not been noticeably affected by Porter operations, and noise concerns are fairly minimal. The Q400s operate at below 100db, and impact on ambient noise levels on waterfront communities are well within urban norms. Individual noise complaints to the TCCA typically average about 10-15 per month. Considering thousands live within the area, that is essentially a rounding error. I would be interested in hearing, say, Concord Adex's opinion on how Porter has effected their projects.

The Pearson rail link, by contrast, offers several benefits for the public: traffic relief, significantly faster travel time for a larger group of people, the potential for far greater airport activity, the potential to act as a catalyst for more rail transit in the city, less reliance on carbon-emitting forms of transportation, etc.

I'm not opposed to the Pearson Rail link, but for the sake of consistency it seems odd to support one but not another. The local noise impacts of the Georgetown extension are actually larger than Porter operations, vibration impacts will be perceptible and it has fairly noticeable impacts on local NOx levels. The public subsidy is far, far greater (about 20x, last I checked) and the total people served will be roughly similar to Porter's anticipated service levels. Those people will have the same "privileged", single business traveler demographics than Porter. And how does taking a diesel train to a carbon-spewing jet lessen reliance on "carbon-emitting forms of transportation" more than taking a pedestrian tunnel to what are by all measures some of the most environmentally friendly planes in production?

 

[sjc]

I'm not opposed to the Pearson Rail link, but for the sake of consistency it seems odd to support one but not another.

It makes perfect sense.

The Pearson Rail Link will benefit the "middle class" which are people that vacation in Australia, Europe and the Caribbean and the Island Tunnel will benefit the "privileged few" who vacation in Halifax or Quebec.

Only "privileged" people vacation in Canada. (Why everyone has such a hate on for Canadian destinations, I'm not sure).

With reference to the "privileged" people that have to travel regularly to Ottawa or Montreal for work -- those people don't generally feel all that privileged to have to do all that travel. It's actually quite annoying, even with the improved quality of travel that Porter offers.

 

[AKS]

why does transit always have to revolve around "us" all the time. What about tourists and overseas business people? Pearson airport is one of the biggest transit hubs in Canada. Isn't it more important to build that rail line quickly? We're suppose to welcome tourists and make them feel comfortable. Yet we offer them 1 hour rides or more to get to downtown. And people here are all bitching about a 1 minute ferry ride? After 5-12 hours on a plane, people want to get to their destination fast to rest. Especially having to go through customs after as well. All you guys seem to bitch about is "we need a tunnel or bridge to porter". How long are the local rides? 1 hour? How can you compare that to travelling for 5-12 hours? And why does everything have to benefit Torontonians? Tourists are not important? Overseas business coming to Canada are unimportant? They provide people jobs because they spend money here. Or else we can just get rid of Ontario Tourism and not even encourage people to visit or do business here.

 

[mettle]

2. In the longer term, the tunnel may generate increased activity in the island airport, bringing more people into Toronto for business or pleasure.

i think this is the issue.

there are other people besides nimby's and porterites. some waterfront residents don't mind the idea of a tunnel that much, but just like porter is growing, the waterfront is getting more populated as well (tip top, panorama, quay west, etc.). yes, q400's are pretty quiet, but not always. for whatever reason, they can be deafening. people living on king street or even cityplace wouldn't know that.

(by the way, whoaccio, i use to complain about the noise - not always, just the super loud incidents - but they never do anything about it. they just say it's "normal". i stopped after a while. it really is disheartening.)

there are fair limits in place regarding airport usage. if they were honored (now and *in the future*), i don't think people would be so quick to take up arms. however, the tpa almost always does what it pleases (or sues if it can't). it's annoying really. if expansion is the tpa's goal, which the board chair mcqueen strongly hints at, then it's no wonder why there's an outcry. where's the limit? how's it possible to stop them?

 

[Darwinkgo]

why does transit always have to revolve around "us" all the time. What about tourists and overseas business people? Pearson airport is one of the biggest transit hubs in Canada. Isn't it more important to build that rail line quickly? We're suppose to welcome tourists and make them feel comfortable. Yet we offer them 1 hour rides or more to get to downtown. And people here are all bitching about a 1 minute ferry ride? After 5-12 hours on a plane, people want to get to their destination fast to rest. Especially having to go through customs after as well. All you guys seem to bitch about is "we need a tunnel or bridge to porter". How long are the local rides? 1 hour? How can you compare that to travelling for 5-12 hours? And why does everything have to benefit Torontonians? Tourists are not important? Overseas business coming to Canada are unimportant? They provide people jobs because they spend money here. Or else we can just get rid of Ontario Tourism and not even encourage people to visit or do business here.

Getting this tunnel done won't slow down the EA for the rail corridor expansion, and it won't deprive a rail link of any money.

It is not a zero sum game, one or the other. If it meets the infrastructure funding rules for stimulus cash, it should be done. The rail link does not qualify for stimulus funds as it won't be done in time. There is a P3 pot of money from the federal government that could help the rail link.

 

[sjc]

however, the tpa almost always does what it pleases (or sues if it can't). it's annoying really.

If the TPA (or their tenants) are actually breaking the rules, suing someone isn't going to help. In the cases where they have sued, it is because the facts were on the TPA's side.

if expansion is the tpa's goal, which the board chair mcqueen strongly hints at, then it's no wonder why there's an outcry. where's the limit? how's it possible to stop them?

My understanding is that the limit is between 120-160 takeoffs and landings per day. Any expansion beyond that would require an amendment to the Tripartite Agreement (of which I have been unable to find a copy).

I'm personally hoping that with a new city government we can get an amendment to the Tripartite Agreement to allow more flights, but for now that seems to be the limit. It is possible to change the agreement since it was changed a few years ago to allow the building of a bridge (it used to prohibit the building of a fixed link).

 

[mettle]

If the TPA (or their tenants) are actually breaking the rules, suing someone isn't going to help. In the cases where they have sued, it is because the facts were on the TPA's side.

i'm not saying they can't sue, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. there's a "good neighbor' policy", but sometimes i really doubt it.

for example, with respect to the tunnel, mcqueen said this recently, "there's no legal basis for them to oppose it. period." it's the "period" quip that gets me and i'm sure others as well.

or for example, people have complained of loud planes taking off during music garden concerts. the tpa response is "no unusual operations at times noted." while that's true, maybe something better could be worked out. no flights for an hour? i dunno.

 

[sjc]

or for example, people have complained of loud planes taking off during music garden concerts. the tpa response is "no unusual operations at times noted." while that's true, maybe something better could be worked out. no flights for an hour? i dunno.

It would be nice if Pearson stopped allowing flights while Woodbine racetrack has races running, but they don't. Depending on which runway is in use, the planes can fly pretty low over the race track.

 

[mettle]

comparing horses to violins?

 

[kEiThZ]

If we are talking about the inconveniences to Waterfront residents from having the airport nearby than what about Malton and Rexdale residents who have to live beside Pearson. Don't they count? I would suggest that anyone who supports limiting air traffic at YTZ is a NIMBY if they aren't willing to support similar restrictions elsewhere in the GTA. Classic "NOT IN MY BACKYARD" if you want air traffic located elsewhere.

Building a short tunnel (or bridge) to replace an expensive, polluting ferry service would be a no-brainer in any other city, except Toronto where it gets tied up because of the politics of a few local politicians and their NIMBY backers. I still can't believe that those who are opposed to the airport on environmental grounds can lay claim to the moral high ground by supporting an activity that is antithetical to their beliefs. So plane pollution bad, boat pollution good? Is that how it works in Toronto?

References to Blue 22 are irrelevant. Blue 22 won't erase the inconvenience of traveling to Pearson (though it will lessen it). And Blue 22 won't do much for the near 1 million residents of the GTA who live east of Yonge St. For us, Porter and YTZ will still be easier to travel to, faster to access and cheaper….and we'll be using a more environmentally friendly form of transport using GO/TTC instead of our own cars and cabs or a 50 year old RDC.

The only thing that would kill YTZ is HSR that takes less than 3 hours from centre to centre for Toronto-Ottawa and Toronto-Montreal. I will be the first person to support closing down YTZ the day we have real HSR in the Corridor. Till that happens, Porter and YTZ should stay. It provides a valuable alternative to Pearson and is far more accessible (than Pearson) for at least a million residents. It also provides a direct link for business travelers and tourists to our city centre.

Some might consider potential investors or visitors to our city to be "privileged" or view Torontonians who visit Thunder Bay, Quebec City or Halifax in the same light, but I consider such travelers as vital to the health of our city. I am more than happy to have an airline that's run from Toronto, employs Torontonians and uses Toronto built aircraft to provide executive class service at economy class prices to residents and visitors. We could do worse than Porter and YTZ providing first impressions of Toronto.

 

[kEiThZ]

comparing horses to violins?

Is a fan of the races more "privileged" now than a concert attendee at the Beer Garden?

 

[mettle]

I would suggest that anyone who supports limiting air traffic at YTZ is a NIMBY if they aren't willing to support similar restrictions elsewhere in the GTA.

there's a guy called joe who posts on the communityair blog. i just skim the blog, but i think he was a former air traffic controller at tcca. he's pro-porter and his position is similar to mine: limit air traffic to what's allowed in the tripartite agreement. does that make him a nimby?

i'm not against labeling people, but it can also obscure the issues.

Is a fan of the races more "privileged" now than a concert attendee at the Beer Garden?

i'm not talking about privilege. just saying that the primary way people enjoy a violin is by listening to it, which isn't the primary way people enjoy horses racing.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Building a short tunnel (or bridge) to replace an expensive, polluting ferry service would be a no-brainer in any other city, except Toronto where it gets tied up because of the politics of a few local politicians and their NIMBY backers. I still can't believe that those who are opposed to the airport on environmental grounds can lay claim to the moral high ground by supporting an activity that is antithetical to their beliefs. So plane pollution bad, boat pollution good? Is that how it works in Toronto?

Well said.

 

[mettle]

i also imagine it's easier to crank the volume on a beer garden concert than on a violin. i'm not saying that flights should be suspended forever, just an hour (not easy, but doable, near impossible at pearson), just a little give and take to lower the current level of animosity.

 

[kEiThZ]

there's a guy called joe who posts on the communityair blog. i just skim the blog, but i think he was a former air traffic controller at tcca. he's pro-porter and his position is similar to mine: limit air traffic to what's allowed in the tripartite agreement. does that make him a nimby?

i'm not against labeling people, but it can also obscure the issues.

I only label those who have earned them. There are a few folks here and elsewhere who want all air traffic re-located to Pearson. ie. they want to dump air traffic on a neighbourhood other than their own. What would you call that?

I have no problems with the view that the tripartite agreement should be adhered to. I think that agreement is a rather fair one. But I will challenge those who suggest that YTZ should be shut down without providing a real alternative (HSR).

i'm not talking about privilege. just saying that the primary way people enjoy a violin is by listening to it, which isn't the primary way people enjoy horses racing.

Have you ever seen how low a 777 gets on approach over Woodbine and how much noise a departing 777 makes over that area? I'd suggest it's rather distracting to race fans and maybe even to the horses themselves. I suggest every waterfront resident take a trip out to that area to experience this. Then consider the fact that Pearson has an aicraft movement (landing or departure) every minute for most of its operating hours. Yet, nobody here would suggest that we should relocate Woodbine or impose flight restrictions on Pearson. Suggesting that we should shut down ops at YTZ during concert hours is equally unfeasible.

Given that the Medevac helos operating out of YTZ generate far more noise than a Q400, shouldn't the constructors of the Garden have taken aircraft noise levels into account? And if the Garden is that sensitive to airplane noise what about the drone of the Gardiner or streetcars screeching by? Shouldn't the same standard apply to that interference? Would you suggest that we halt the Gardiner and streetcar service during concerts?