kEiThZ
Superstar
And I suspect if you polled the whole 416, you would find similar support for YTZ...
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Thread starter Build Up
- Start date
And I suspect if you polled the whole 416, you would find similar support for YTZ...
sjc
Active Member
TPA Poll of 500 people by telephone July 7-9, 2009
Q25: As you may know, access to this airport is by a short ferry ride across a distance of 400 feet (or 121 metres) of water. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the construction of a pedestrian tunnel underneath this waterway to improve access to the Toronto City Centre Airport?
Total Support...........62%
Strongly Support.........34%
Somewhat Support .......28%
Total Oppose ................31%
jwill
Active Member
I think we have to question the benefit of spending taxpayer money to subsidize a private company. Thats effectively what we're talking about. And thats fine, as long as we get something in return.
Is Porter bringing more people to Toronto, or just bringing them into a different airport? Are they making the city more competitive by offering flights close to downtown? Or making the city less competitive by damaging our waterfront areas?
I honestly don't know, but I'm sure some people here will tell me the answers.
There's no debate that Pearson is very useful, and indeed completely necessary for our local economy. Its worth the local disruptions from noise, pollution, traffic, etc. But can the same be said for TCCA?
Is Porter bringing more people to Toronto, or just bringing them into a different airport? Are they making the city more competitive by offering flights close to downtown? Or making the city less competitive by damaging our waterfront areas?
I honestly don't know, but I'm sure some people here will tell me the answers.
There's no debate that Pearson is very useful, and indeed completely necessary for our local economy. Its worth the local disruptions from noise, pollution, traffic, etc. But can the same be said for TCCA?
sjc
Active Member
I think we have to question the benefit of spending taxpayer money to subsidize a private company. Thats effectively what we're talking about. And thats fine, as long as we get something in return.
The Toronto Port Authority is a public body, not a private company.
Neither the TPA nor their principal airport tenant, Porter Airlines, particularly "benefits" from an investment in access infrastructure. It is the users of the airport and the customers of Porter Airlines that benefit. Porter Airlines can operate pretty much the same whether the tunnel is built or not.
If building a tunnel leads to more people flying Porter, then Porter could be considered to have benefitted (and the Port Authority will benefit from more airport fees), but it is those people using the tunnel that benefit the most, no longer having to wait for the overcrowded ferry.
If the building of a tunnel leads to fewer ferry trips across the channel, then the neighbouring community will benefit as well (even beyond having even easier access to regional air travel).
Personally, I don't think the idea of "stimulus spending" is a very good one, but if the federal government is going to throw money and various projects across the country, this project appeals to me a lot more than most of the ones on the list.
While I would prefer the government to simply not spend the money (and maybe reduce taxes), that option doesn't seem to be on the table. At least the tunnel can be expected to benefit tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Canadians.
EDIT: In a similar way, I support the expansion of the subway platform at Union Station even though that "benefits" one company (the TTC) since it is actually the subway passengers that benefit from having a less crowded platform.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
I think we have to question the benefit of spending taxpayer money to subsidize a private company. Thats effectively what we're talking about. And thats fine, as long as we get something in return.
Nothing is being asked of the city here at all. At most, they'll have to approve the work, so let's establish that at the start. And as previously pointed out here, YTZ is not the only airport that is eligible for stimulus funding. And Porter is not the only beneficiary, though it is, of course, by large measure, the biggest to benefit. The government could do far worse than spending money on a tunnel or bridge that could be used long after the airport is gone.
Is Porter bringing more people to Toronto, or just bringing them into a different airport? Are they making the city more competitive by offering flights close to downtown? Or making the city less competitive by damaging our waterfront areas?
Competition that helps lower travel costs (and hence the cost of access) and shorten travel times to this city will always help our local economic outlook. In fact, most cities the size of Toronto usually have two major airports like Chicago (with O'Hare and Midway) or Washington (with Reagan and Dulles). Some like London City and Reagan are located along the waterfront as well beside major business and tourist centres. Of note, is that none of those airports have anywhere near the type of restriction that are placed on YTZ. So the notion that an airport so damages the waterfront is obviously disproved by several other examples. I have yet to hear any Torontonian say that they have stopped visiting or using the waterfront because of Porter. Beyond that, I hate the downtown-centric tone in comments like this. What about the rest of the waterfront in this city? Why is it that the waterfront is defined as the 2-3 km stretch in the downtown core? What about the Bluffs, the Beaches or Humber Bay? Does Porter impact them very much? Why should we define the impact on the Watefront by what happens on 10% of it?
There's no debate that Pearson is very useful, and indeed completely necessary for our local economy. Its worth the local disruptions from noise, pollution, traffic, etc. But can the same be said for TCCA?
There should be debate about whether it is fair to subject only one part of the city (containing lower income immigrants) to noise, pollution, etc. Why is the debate always focused around the usefulness of the airport (which is obviously not doubted by a million passengers) and not about the environmental justice issues of running A380s over neighbourhoods with low-income immigrant families. Why is a Condofront resident's complaint about a Q400 worth more than a Malton resident's complaint about a departing AC 777? Forget Malton, about a quarter of Mississauga is deemed an airport noise impact zone. YTZ does not generate any impact like that, yet is set to carry a million pax this year (in a recession) and more next year, while still leaving many to doubt its value. While still a long way off, consider that London City carries over 3 million passengers and Londoners aren't raving to shut that down.
Last edited:
jwill
Active Member
I completely agree about Pearson area residents having a valid complaint about living next to an Airport. Certainly many moved in knowing the airport was there, but so did waterfront condo residents. Perhaps both groups underestimated the growth of their local airports.
But nobody can argue against having an airport. Every city needs at least one, and it has to go somewhere, unfortunately. As for the airport being surrounded by low-income neighbourhoods, I'd say thats effect rather than cause. They are low-income because anybody with a high income doesnt want to live next to an airport (ask the waterfront condo owners if you dont believe me).
My real concern is that we spend the money on this project, only to have the airport closed due to local pressure in the next few years, making the investment a waste of money. I would like a commitment from somebody that the airport will be operating for at least 15-20 years if we are going to be spending public money to improve its access.
But nobody can argue against having an airport. Every city needs at least one, and it has to go somewhere, unfortunately. As for the airport being surrounded by low-income neighbourhoods, I'd say thats effect rather than cause. They are low-income because anybody with a high income doesnt want to live next to an airport (ask the waterfront condo owners if you dont believe me).
My real concern is that we spend the money on this project, only to have the airport closed due to local pressure in the next few years, making the investment a waste of money. I would like a commitment from somebody that the airport will be operating for at least 15-20 years if we are going to be spending public money to improve its access.
AKS
Senior Member
I really wonder about the polling results. Are they randomly polling from people all around Toronto or the porter customers? Also, I find many don't understand much about it. For example, my dad seems to think if a tunnel is built, people can just walk to the island instead of the ferry. But he doesn't consider that there might be regulations against entering into the airport. Or even if they allow you to pass, it is a far walk into the island. He just seems to think "it's there so you can do it". Another person I talked to said "it's great they're building an tunnel there". When I question why, she said you can drive there and develop residence and business on the island. I told her "the island doesn't allow cars or residential development" and she said "oh, then what's the use of the connection?"
kEiThZ
Superstar
....As for the airport being surrounded by low-income neighbourhoods, I'd say thats effect rather than cause.
Interestingly enough that rule does not seem to apply to Mississauga, whole chunks of which see noise levels far in excess of what the waterfront residents do. Yet, they aren't poor. I am skeptical that if Pearson were removed tomorrow that Rexdale and Malton would become thriving yuppie communities.
They are low-income because anybody with a high income doesnt want to live next to an airport (ask the waterfront condo owners if you dont believe me).
I'll believe it when I see condo prices dropping in that area. If it didn't happen during a recession, it won't happen with an airport there.
My real concern is that we spend the money on this project, only to have the airport closed due to local pressure in the next few years, making the investment a waste of money.
How could a tunnel to the airport be a waste? If the airport was turned into parkland tomorrow, we would still have access issues. And we'd still be spending 2.5 million on a ferry and additional costs for sewer, water mains, electricity and gas lines (all could be relocated to the tunnel). From a purely financial perspective, this tunnel offers more of a return than many other stimulus projects on the list.
I would like a commitment from somebody that the airport will be operating for at least 15-20 years if we are going to be spending public money to improve its access.
Unless the Condofront crowd succeeds in changing the opinion of the rest of the millions of residents in the city, the airport will be around longer than that. Even with HSR for example, Porter could have new life as a US/Canada regional airline. And with transit and taxi fares continuing to rise, the cost advantage of accessing a downtown airport keeps growing.
Additionally, the noise issue is also getting more difficult to use. Planes are getting quieter all the time. The q400 is among the (if not the absolute) quietest in its class. You can be sure that its replacement will be significantly quieter in the future as well.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I really wonder about the polling results. Are they randomly polling from people all around Toronto or the porter customers? Also, I find many don't understand much about it. For example, my dad seems to think if a tunnel is built, people can just walk to the island instead of the ferry. But he doesn't consider that there might be regulations against entering into the airport. Or even if they allow you to pass, it is a far walk into the island. He just seems to think "it's there so you can do it". Another person I talked to said "it's great they're building an tunnel there". When I question why, she said you can drive there and develop residence and business on the island. I told her "the island doesn't allow cars or residential development" and she said "oh, then what's the use of the connection?"
Read the survey. The questions are detailed enough that it's obvious they have polled a wide variety of respondents not just Porter customers. And the question clearly states that they want to build a pedestrian tunnel.
mettle
Active Member
hmmm... just a couple of comments...
from scanning the tpa complaint summaries, the majority of complaints about airport noise come from bathurst quay (which isn't surprising since they're closest to the airport). they aren't well-to-do. i've never called porterites privileged jet setters. similarly, not all complainants of the tcca are merely concerned with their property values. in fact, many live in non-profit affordable housing.
though i don't think it'll change anything, i think jwill's question is a semi-okay one to ask. appropriate land use is not an entirely objective judgment. i remember people talking about http://manhattanairport.org/ when it first came out. of course, it would provide jobs, increase accessibility, decrease commute times, be good for the environment, take pressure off sister airports, etc., etc., but nobody really took the project seriously.
the streetcar really doesn't screech, at least not in the garden itself.
but i think we should move on from such questions. i mean unless you plan to bulldoze the music garden, it's staying. maybe it was wrong to put it there, but it's there. on the flip side, i'm sure there're some who want to bulldoze ytz, but like it or not, it's there. i dunno. i keep thinking back to the israeli–palestinian conflict. there're a few who think that the israelis will eventually be frightened away by suicide bombers. there're some who think that the palestinians will break under constant oppression. the fact is -- regardless of how they got there -- nobody's leaving. the only question is how to best live amicably with each other.
from scanning the tpa complaint summaries, the majority of complaints about airport noise come from bathurst quay (which isn't surprising since they're closest to the airport). they aren't well-to-do. i've never called porterites privileged jet setters. similarly, not all complainants of the tcca are merely concerned with their property values. in fact, many live in non-profit affordable housing.
though i don't think it'll change anything, i think jwill's question is a semi-okay one to ask. appropriate land use is not an entirely objective judgment. i remember people talking about http://manhattanairport.org/ when it first came out. of course, it would provide jobs, increase accessibility, decrease commute times, be good for the environment, take pressure off sister airports, etc., etc., but nobody really took the project seriously.
A better question to ask is why the music garden was built there in the first place knowing full well there's an airport and a screeching streetcar line nearby.
the streetcar really doesn't screech, at least not in the garden itself.
but i think we should move on from such questions. i mean unless you plan to bulldoze the music garden, it's staying. maybe it was wrong to put it there, but it's there. on the flip side, i'm sure there're some who want to bulldoze ytz, but like it or not, it's there. i dunno. i keep thinking back to the israeli–palestinian conflict. there're a few who think that the israelis will eventually be frightened away by suicide bombers. there're some who think that the palestinians will break under constant oppression. the fact is -- regardless of how they got there -- nobody's leaving. the only question is how to best live amicably with each other.
kEiThZ
Superstar
^ You do know that the Manhattan Airport thing was a joke right? Nobody is seriously proposing plopping down not just a YTZ but a Chicago Midway in Central Park.
Beyond that, this issue is not as intractable as the Palestine-Israel conflict. The only real opponents to YTZ are those who live right by it (and even that's not uniform). I for one, would be supportive of a referendum on the Island Airport. I am fairly confident on which side would win. I don't buy it one bit that Miller got in because of the airport and therefore has a mandate to do anything and everything possible to take YTZ down. The airport was simply not an issue that anyone cared about in the burbs. Nobody I knew out in Scarborough was talking about the airport bridge as an election issue. However, if politicians are insistent on seeking a mandate to close the airport, let's have a clear question seeking a clear majority on the issue.
Beyond that, this issue is not as intractable as the Palestine-Israel conflict. The only real opponents to YTZ are those who live right by it (and even that's not uniform). I for one, would be supportive of a referendum on the Island Airport. I am fairly confident on which side would win. I don't buy it one bit that Miller got in because of the airport and therefore has a mandate to do anything and everything possible to take YTZ down. The airport was simply not an issue that anyone cared about in the burbs. Nobody I knew out in Scarborough was talking about the airport bridge as an election issue. However, if politicians are insistent on seeking a mandate to close the airport, let's have a clear question seeking a clear majority on the issue.
mettle
Active Member
no, no, i know it's a joke. however, the factors involved are similar. the issue here and there isn't so much different in substance, but in degree.
i agree, i don't think miller has a mandate to close the airport. it wasn't the only issue he ran on and people vote for a variety of reasons. however, i bet a referendum to close the co-ops in bathurst quay, buy out harbourfront residents and relocate the music garden (at xx millions of dollars of course) would equally fail. that's why i think the issue now is one of peaceful coexistence (and not questioning each other's existence).
while i'm not in favor of the blind self-interest of nimby-ism, why should people be allowed to vote on issues that they know or care little about? in a democracy, there's also the danger of the tyranny of the majority.
The airport was simply not an issue that anyone cared about in the burbs. Nobody I knew out in Scarborough was talking about the airport bridge as an election issue.
i agree, i don't think miller has a mandate to close the airport. it wasn't the only issue he ran on and people vote for a variety of reasons. however, i bet a referendum to close the co-ops in bathurst quay, buy out harbourfront residents and relocate the music garden (at xx millions of dollars of course) would equally fail. that's why i think the issue now is one of peaceful coexistence (and not questioning each other's existence).
while i'm not in favor of the blind self-interest of nimby-ism, why should people be allowed to vote on issues that they know or care little about? in a democracy, there's also the danger of the tyranny of the majority.
sjc
Active Member
the majority of complaints about airport noise come from bathurst quay (which isn't surprising since they're closest to the airport).
Are there things that could be done to minimize the noise impact on that street? Perhaps a wall? Maybe a big white-noise generator that they could turn on during engine runups?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Even if you don't support the airport though, I don't see why one can't support the tunnel. This is infrastructure that will save money for a public entity (the TPA), improve service and be fully usable beyond the use of the current airport. By any definition it's a great candidate for stimulus spending.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Is Porter bringing more people to Toronto, or just bringing them into a different airport? Are they making the city more competitive by offering flights close to downtown? Or making the city less competitive by damaging our waterfront areas?
Anecdotally I don't see passenger numbers at pearson dropping in a way that would coincide with Porter's success, do you? Although AC has stated that they have been affected by Porter (i.e. that porter has poached a few of AC's customers). Is Porter taking passengers that would otherwide be car/train trips then, or are they creating new demand?
Truthfully the nature of transportation is so complex that we can't know.