[EnviroTO]

However, that's not reality. Please tell us your opinion of Ubisoft, Filmport, and EDC loans to Bombardier. I'd love for you to explain why building a bridge to an airport owned by a public entity is viewed as an unfair subsidy to a private entity while building billion dollar subways to green fields in Vaughan which developers will clean up on is not a subsidy. At least YTZ charges airport improvement fees which will recover some of the cost. The government does not impose any sort of tax or fee to recoup the incredible increase in land value that the developer will reap due entirely to billions in public expenditure.

Ubisoft grant... don't like the idea.
Filmport ownership and funding... don't like the idea, especially since it harmed other studios.
EDC loans to Bombardier... great idea since it is a loan.
Auto bailout... bad idea but because the US did it there was little option.
Subway to green field in Vaughan... bad idea in that it is green field, but fine in that it serves no specific company or person any better than another. All of Vaughan gets a benefit with busses from every part of Vaughan connecting to the terminal.
YTZ... one company stands to benefit far more than any other.

And again, if you are so concerned about tax dollars being wasted, than your stance on rail is absolutely contradictory. You are opposed to wasting 38 million once on bridge but are okay with VIA taking in tens of millions of subsidies annually and a potential HSR requiring hundreds of millions of dollars (especially if as you contend that the routing will be politically determinted and so will not be the most profitable choice). You suggest that because HSR will be publicly owned (and there's no guarantee of that) that it's okay. Well YTZ is publicly owned as well.

It is like building a road with public money that only a specific trucking company can use. VIA is government and the benefits of VIA's service do not benefit one company more than any other. The HSR rail corridor will almost certainly be publicly owned as it is almost everywhere it currently exists. Private companies may be able to benefit from the HSR corridor but they will do so through a process that does not favour one company over another such as with a tendering process or a track usage fee.

 

[EnviroTO]

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'm against Pickering airport unless all expansion options at Pearson have been exhausted and I don't live nor do I ever plan to live near Pickering. I am against creating new garbage dumps unless all other options are exhausted as well. Sewage plants stink and just because some parts of the city deal with the smell doesn't mean we all should. Some people think that because one part of the city suffers that all parts of the city should suffer whereas I believe that as few parts of the city should suffer as possible. There is no way to prevent the ill affects of everything that is needed for a city to run properly from impacting anyone but it should certainly be the goal to limit it to impact as few people as possible. Toronto needs airport capacity to meet the needs of the travelling public, it doesn't need an airport within 10km of every resident and business. Toronto needs sewage plant capacity to meet the needs of the city, it doesn't need sewage plants upwind of every resident and business.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Would you be opposed to the tunnel if there was another airline operating out of YTZ in addition to Porter?

 

[EnviroTO]

^ Would you be opposed to the tunnel if there was another airline operating out of YTZ in addition to Porter?

In that case I would have no problem with public money because there would be competition and evidence of equal opportunity for other companies. I still wouldn't be a fan of the airport on the waterfront but I would have no problem with the principal of using tax dollars on the link.

 

[afransen]

I would still believe that the tunnel ought to be covered by user fees. As it is, government has provided a basic level of access to the airport, if they want an upgrade, it ought to be paid for.

 

[DSC]

In that case I would have no problem with public money because there would be competition and evidence of equal opportunity for other companies. I still wouldn't be a fan of the airport on the waterfront but I would have no problem with the principal of using tax dollars on the link.

Very well said, I also do not like the Island Airport (and I don't live in the Waterfront) but if it's there AND OPEN TO ALL AIRLINES, then a tunnel makes sense - especially if it can be extended to allow pedestrian access to the Island.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would still believe that the tunnel ought to be covered by user fees. As it is, government has provided a basic level of access to the airport, if they want an upgrade, it ought to be paid for.

Is Pearson paying for the upgrade and dis-entangling of the 409? And that work has cost a lot more than 38 million.

 

[kEiThZ]

In that case I would have no problem with public money because there would be competition and evidence of equal opportunity for other companies. I still wouldn't be a fan of the airport on the waterfront but I would have no problem with the principal of using tax dollars on the link.

You are aware that there are other users of the airport besides Porter right?

I support the link because I think the ferry service is a waste of cash. The TPA is going to spend millions to acquire a second ferry and will spend millions more to run it every year. I'd rather see them spend 38 million on a tunnel (or less on a pedestrian bridge but that's a different story) and not burn money every day (almost literally).

Though I will concede that in this case, perhaps, Porter should be chipping in a little more. I don't know how that would impact the ownership issue though since the TPA is supposed to own the tunnel.

 

[kEiThZ]

Very well said, I also do not like the Island Airport (and I don't live in the Waterfront) but if it's there AND OPEN TO ALL AIRLINES, then a tunnel makes sense - especially if it can be extended to allow pedestrian access to the Island.

I'd support spending a little more and extending the tunnel under the airport to the rest of the island. That could get expensive though.

 

[mettle]

What would you call that?

if you check my first post, you'll see that i acknowledged the existence of nimby's. there'll alway be nimby's. however, not everybody against your position is a nimby.

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.

i'm not saying that people aren't affected by pearson. i'm saying that horses aren't violins, and aircraft noise affects one more significantly than the other.

equally unfeasible? ytz isn't yyz.

often, but not always, when a turboprop takes off, you cannot hear the music during a music garden concert (unless it's those japanese drummers). you can easily hear the music over the streetcar (unless for some reason they're dinging their bell) and you cannot hear the gardiner at all.

i'm not calling for the removal of porter. it's an asset to the city. however, so is the music garden and its concerts - a hugely popular draw for residences and tourists. there're non-nimby waterfront residents who make accommodations for airport/aircraft noise. so far i've yet to see any accommodation from your side. it's just... too bad for your music concerts. and that's the beef people have with the tpa. there's just no neighborly give and take.

the concerts in the music garden are 2 hours a week and only for the summer. planes can take off and land from ytz all year round each day from 6 am to 11 pm.

 

[marcus_a_j]

I received this email from Adam Vaughan's office.

An open letter on the Island Airport tunnel proposal

Dear Residents of Ward 20,

Keeping in mind Mark Twain's advice never to start an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel, let me try to set the record straight by presenting the actual argument I gave Globe and Mail columnist Marcus Gee against the tunnel to the Toronto Island Airport.

My opposition to the latest scheme that is being promoted by some members of the Toronto Port Authority and apparently being supported by Minister John Baird and the Tories in Ottawa revolves around these issues:

- Where are the plans for this project and how was a cost estimated without detailed drawings?

- Where is the business case for this $38m project? The TPA board has not seen one and neither have the governments or taxpayers.

- Why shouldn't the Island Airport or the airlines self-finance this project as Pearson must do when it contemplates improvements?

- Why is a third access route to this tiny airport being considered within months of a second ferry being purchased, and only a couple of years after the last new ferry was purchased?

- How can the premier and the federal government give a favourable review to this vague project when an actual application for infrastructure funding has not been approved by the TPA Board?

- What local elected body has declared this project a priority for funding? How has this project jumped ahead of the city's streetcar needs, the goal of electrifying rail to Pearson, or simple road, bridge and highway repairs in Toronto?

As an elected official I am stunned at how easily this project has been embraced by senior levels of government with virtually every media outlet and commentator doing the cheerleading.
The city and municipalities across Canada have been engaged in long, complicated and highly politicized negotiations with the Federal Government to get established projects fast-tracked and most local governments, despite months of back and forth with John Baird’s office, have yet to receive a penny of funding, let alone a commitment to fund important and badly needed projects.

Why has this particular proposal jumped the queue? Why when the city wants to build a subway to York University and serve millions of people with better transit, do the Federal Tories insist that the city form a public-private partnership to qualify for funding, yet on this project they propose a 100% public subsidy all to the advantage of a single airline?

When $38m dollars is given over to one company with no public process and it is used to subsidize the movement of a small group of travellers, something is seriously wrong. This is the privilege that I question.

It has nothing to do with class, unless you are talking about a particular class of politician who circumvents public process to hand out public tax dollars to private interests.

I was elected on a platform that promised to fight airport expansion and taxpayer subsidies for the un-elected and unaccountable Port Authority. Even current Board members of the TPA (some appointed by Baird himself) have filed complaints to the Parliament's Integrity Commissioner and Federal Auditor General concerned about financial irregularities and governance concerns at the Port.

Even more alarming was the behaviour of the Minister in charge of the TPA last December. Faced with opposition to how airport improvements would be financed and a call for full disclosure to the Board itself over expenses filed by the previous CEO (current Federal Cabinet Minister Lisa Raitt), a half hour after Parliament was prorogued, Baird reconfigured the Board unilaterally and added two more federal appointments to the body to ensure the board would vote to prevent an investigation of the allegations.
Something is wrong at the TPA, and before the Conservatives, with help from Queen's Park, shovel more taxpayers’ dollars towards this tunnel project of questionable value Torontonians, taxpayers – in fact Canadians – deserve answers. Instead we get a silly debate about class war.

To be clear: I don't think the island airport is needed; it's not a boon to the waterfront or a transportation priority for Toronto. But if it is there and people use it, so be it. My quarrel is not with the choices people make to get to Ottawa. My concern is with a federal government in Ottawa that makes up the rules as it goes along and in doing so provides substantial public subsidies through its agencies to private interests. It is this set of privileges I attack and seek to end.

Best regards,

Adam Vaughan


Councillor Adam Vaughan
Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina
416-392-4044


Toronto City Hall
100 Queen Street West
2nd Floor, Suite C50
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2

 

[Whoaccio]

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.

Porter and the TPA have sued the City because the City behaves in bad faith, and was found to do so by an Ontario Court. For instance the TPA donated land owned by it to the City (what is now Little Norway Park) on the condition that the City lease land to the TPA for a parking lot. Specifically, the agreement specified that the City shall not unreasonably reject changes to the area by the TPA. The TPA decided to install a taxi cue in the given land and began a zoning process with the City. When it became clear to City Council that their zoning staff supported the TPA's proposal, City Council, without notifying the TPA, designated the area a fire route and hence ineligible for the required zoning changes, even adopting measures that their own environmental studies had rejected as unsafe in the process.

The TPA and Porter felt this violated numerous clauses in their agreements, specifically relating to the portion of the Tripartite Agreement stipulating no party shall undertake actions designed to interrupt the operations of YTZ. Following affidavits by professional traffic engineers retained by the City on the TPA's behalf, it was ruled that the City did neglect its' contractual duties.

As to competition claims, with respect to relevant Canadian legislation (mainly the Canadian Marine Act) AC Jazz's claim that Porter and the TPA colluded or otherwise conspired to limit competition on YTZ has been rejected several times. The lack of any commercial competition at YTZ is due to a general lack of interest from relevant parties, like AC Jazz or West Jet, to invest in operations at the airport, not collusion.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ridiculous politicking by Vaughan:

1) Where are the plans for this project and how was a cost estimated without detailed drawings?

It's a proposal. Obviously it takes some money and time to do more detailed engineering work that would provide a good estimate.

2) Where is the business case for this $38m project? The TPA board has not seen one and neither have the governments or taxpayers.

The city does far more ridiculous projects without a business case. But I don't see the City submitting business cases for every pedestrian tunnel or bridge it builds. Why the exception for the Island Airport?

3) Why shouldn't the Island Airport or the airlines self-finance this project as Pearson must do when it contemplates improvements?

Pearson does not pay for upgrades to access routes to the airport. It pays for improvements to facilities on its properties. Porter did just that when it paid to upgrade the terminal on the Island. And the city isn't even being asked to pitch in for the tunnel, it's the feds and the province who are helping out.

4) Why is a third access route to this tiny airport being considered within months of a second ferry being purchased, and only a couple of years after the last new ferry was purchased?

Because the project would be feasible now that senior governments are doling out money and because it makes economic sense not to waste millions on fuel costs running two ferries every year. Is Vaughan really that dense?

5) How can the premier and the federal government give a favourable review to this vague project when an actual application for infrastructure funding has not been approved by the TPA Board?

...because unlike City of Toronto labour negotiators, senior governments like ideas that eliminate significant recurring annual costs.

6) What local elected body has declared this project a priority for funding? How has this project jumped ahead of the city's streetcar needs, the goal of electrifying rail to Pearson, or simple road, bridge and highway repairs in Toronto?

Wow. Neither the province nor the feds have made any statement that this project would jeopardize funding for any other initiative in the city, yet the hyperbole has already started flying. And why does a local body need to have authority on every project? The airport is federally owned and governed by a tripartite agreement. Why should the other two partners not have a say?

 

[rbt]

Is Pearson paying for the upgrade and dis-entangling of the 409? And that work has cost a lot more than 38 million.

Pearson paid for all of the road work in that area to date.

Everything in their development plan was funded by Pearson with the exception of the Blue 22 station which they believed (and the feds agreed) were outside the scope of the airport. They built that component and got a refund on it from the feds -- didn't cost much though.

 

[kEiThZ]

Pearson paid for all of the road work in that area to date.

Everything in their development plan was funded by Pearson with the exception of the Blue 22 station which they believed (and the feds agreed) were outside the scope of the airport. They built that component and got a refund on it from the feds -- didn't cost much though.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the province did chip in heavily for the roadwork on the 409. Is the 409 not maintained by the province? Irrespective though, the city is not being asked to pitch in. The province and the feds are deploying stimulus cash to help the airport pay for the tunnel. So how is Vaughan justified in throwing a fit with that letter?