August 30, 2006
The Island Airport is All Abuzz
If it's an election year it must be time to discuss the future of Toronto City Centre Airport. But you can't do that unless someone wants to build a bridge or, say, start a new airline to fly out of there - enter Porter Airlines.
If you didn't catch the extensive article in The Star on the weekend, here's the deal: The commuter airline, set to start flying between here and Ottawa when they get approval from Transport Canada, proudly took delivery of their first aircraft at the island airport yesterday.
Now, if you're the sort of bourgeois capitalist who still thinks it's pretty cool to have a mini-airport in the centre of downtown, you can't help but giggle at the benefits: a new airline with splashy, retro stylings; a new ferry and renovated airport facilities etc.
Those militant tree-huggers, however, aren't impressed, despite the planes being turboprops (i.e. not jets). Mayor Miller was among those not invited/allowed to attend the ceremony yesterday.
Complicating matters is some good, old-fashioned pork barrel: Namely that the Bombardier Q400 turbo-props the airline will be using are built in Downsview so not every Toronto politician wants to see them shut down.
In the end, we don't think it's likely to galvanize people across the city the way the 2003 bridge plan did (remember the moral victory that cost us $35 million?), but you can't blame the media for salivating at the possibility of a good fight.
|
Meanwhile 680 news reported:
As the shiny new bird did a fly by, it didn't create the type of plate rattling ruckus one might expect.
What a catastrophe! How dare Deluce not fly in a jet or at least something noisy to wake up all those delicate condo dwellers!
we don't think it's likely to galvanize people across the city the way the 2003 bridge plan did
Of course that's not really true, Miller only won a 43% of the popular vote. If the issue then couldn't attract a majority, why would it now?
That's the second time I've seen you trot out that nugget on the interweb, Chester. Your arguement that he didn't get a majority is intellectually dishonest. Since City Hall is not a parliamentary democracy, not breaking the 50% mark is a moot point.
Mark:
Maverick and Goose would not be impressed.
Personally, I think that if the residents didn't want to live next to an airport, they shouldn't have, you know, moved next to an airport.
Michael - Even in our parliamentary system you don't need the majority of the popular vote to become the government. It's a plurality.
I don't think it can really be called democratic until the majority of all elligible voters votes someone in.
Imagine if all the money we throw at the Port Authority and this long-obsolete airport was used to contruct a low-cost, high-speed rail link to Pearson and pay for the full restoration of Union Station similar to Boston's south station. Imagine using tax-payer money for public goods that actually benefit a transportation facility that is growing and currently services hundreds of thousands of people, rather than one small group and an exclusive airline with no track record for success. Imagine Union Station as a hub and welcome mat for tourists..if only Toronto saw the bigger picture instead of sprouting lame attacks against condo owners and others who see that this is a huge waste and the wrong way to go.
Chester&Pape, I appreciate that you may want to live in a world full of clear majorities. I think it would probably be a nice, neat, clear-cut place to live. But it doesn't change the fact that our city doesn't work like that. Nor does it change the possibility that a mayor can be elected with even less than 43% of the vote. A plurality win is still a win.
By the way, David never mentioned the word majority - you did. I guess it all depends on your definition of Galvanize.
Clide - you should look into how much the Union Pearson deal was going to cost as well as Blue 22 (here's a hint - a LOT). The amount YTZ loses per annum ($1.7m in 2005, when only a couple of 37 seat Air Canada services as well as the usual private planes/medevacs operated) is tiny in comparison. Not saying you don't have a point but rapid transit to Pearson won't come that cheap.
What's needed for Pearson is to ensure Blue 22 vacate their sole right to run rail service for the next 30 years (I think) into Pearson so that GO Transit can operate more service downtown through the proposed GO Woodbine (and ensure passing VIA trains stop there too), including stops in Weston and at Bloor so people who don't live/work downtown get a benefit too. Provisioning the extra track in the Weston corridor for future electrification would be nice too if we want to reduce diesel emissions and increase train acceleration.
As pointed out in today's Star letters, the noise pollution from Pearson affects everyone in Toronto, not just the harbourfront so Pearson is not the solution - a plan for hourly, reliable, high speed electric train service in the Montreal/Ottawa-Toronto corridor should be the goal to reduce emissions from air shuttles. It would be quite a thing if Harper could be persuaded to fund VIA Rail to that extent given that it seems to be unpopular out west in Reform country.
Lets not get hung up on the details, that one of Toronto's biggest problems and why nothing gets done, nobody sees the big picture. Is it good policy to fund a loser airport on the waterfront when the biggest airport in Canada is 22 minutes away by rail, NO. Is it good policy to expand rail without improving the connections with other forms of transportation, NO. Is it good policy to close the island airport, establish Union Station as the regional rail/air hub with full check-in facilities, YES!!! Now we just need a leader with the stones to do!!!
Unfortunately, Mr. Rockwell, only your rhetoric makes the airport a "loser". If nothing else, the airport acts as a base for essential medical transportation and freight (and no appeal to the "big picture" will change the laws of physics which make it effectively impossible to mix medical and commercial flights). Words will not change the need for an airport to handle our medical needs, and words will not pay the cost of building another airport to fill those needs if we destroy City Centre Airport (at this point, several hundred million dollars, plus some of the last best agricultural land in the GTA). A turn of phrase alone will not keep Buttonville Airport in service past 2010 (when the GTA estimates that development pressures will kill it).
No amount of rhetoric can change the reality that aircraft leaving Pearson fly over homes and businesses, while aircraft leaving City Centre fly over open water. Nor can rhetoric alter the reality (call it a detail if you want to) that allowing Porter Airlines access to a convenient waterfront location in return for using the most modern, clean, and quiet aircraft will reduce pollution overall. Words such as "loser airport" and "lame attacks" do not change the reality that only Deluce's current venture offers a practical plan to reduce, at all, the noise and pollution our transportation needs subject the Toronto Area residents to.
John,
Medical flights, is that the best the pro-airport crowd can do? We should keep the airport for medical flights?!?!? Usually people who are required to be flown to or from a hospital in an emergency are flown by helicopter. If they are being transferred, they may fly by plane but this is not done on an emergency basis. And freight...what freight are you referring to. Not many cargo jets coming in and out of that airport as far as I know. Maybe specialised couriers, but why should the greater good suffer because of a few specialised couriers?
Oh yes, Deluce's practical plan, use public money to evict his "noisy and polluting" competitor and start a splashy airline with a questionable business plan straight out of the 1970s. I give him a year.
A sneer such as: "is that the best the pro-airport crowd can do?" begs for a sarcastic rejoinder. However, sneers, even sneers directed at medical facilities, don't actually add up to an argument.
I'll also point out that whatever you think of Bob Deluce's plan, he's got one. It may not suit your interests, but it exists. If it succeeds, the children of Rexdale and Malton, as well as the state of environmental justice in Toronto, come out ahead.
What a bunch of circuitous, contradictory malarkey. Stuff like "Porter Airlines access to a convenient waterfront location in return for using the most modern, clean, and quiet aircraft will reduce pollution overall" is just plain wrong. Self-serving crap like this should be buried under ten feet of slab concrete!
OK, let's look at the published performance and fuel consumption figures for the aircraft. Keep in mind that airframe manufacturers have to publish accurate fuel consumption figures, because pilots and airlines use them for flight planning, which makes them a safety of life issue. Keep in mind also that fuel consumption generally indicates pollution levels: you can't get anything out the tailpipe unless you put it in the gas tank first.
So let's compare range and performance figures for the Q-400, such as Porter will use, with the same figures for a Boeing 717, such as Jets-Go used for medium haul flights.
The published range and fuel figures for these planes make it clear that the Q-400 gets at least 7% further on a gallon of fuel than the Boeing 717, and at the distances over which Porter intends to operate, it may do 23% better. The shorter taxiways at Toronto City Centre Airport minimise taxi and idle times; according to a US EPA Study, taxiing and idling aircraft contribute over 70% of most ground-level pollutants at airports.
Measurements of sound levels on takeoff show the Dash-8 produces hardly enough sound to register against the background noise of cars on the Gardiner and streetcars on Queen's Quay. In contrast, Boeing 717 type aircraft produce significant noise spikes when measured at Rexdale or Malton.
In summary, the Q-400 does have better fuel performance than the common jet alternatives which fly out of Pearson, and the environmental (noise) restrictions on TCCA encourage environmentally friendly aircraft design. And as we see from the recent collapse of CanJet that air carriers respond to competitive pressures. If Porter Air succeeds under the environmental restrictions at TCCA, that will reduce the number of other, more polluting operations at Pearson.
Next time you call something I say "just wrong", you might consider doing your own research and coming up with some references first. I don't usually make statements of fact I don't have references for.
Should Porter succeed, it most certainly has the potential to reduce both overall noise and atmospheric pollution.
Compare the Q-400 aircraft which Porter Air intends to fly with the Boeing 717 type of aircraft, which Jets-Go flew out of Pearson, before they went out of business. Please note that airframe manufacturers have to publish reliable fuel consumption figures, because pilots and airlines use them for flight planning. Based on the published fuel consumption figures, the Q-400 which Porter intends to use will get at least 7% more passenger miles to a gallon of fuel than the Boeing 717, and over the distances Porter intends to fly, the advantage of the Q-400 increases to as much as 23%.
The structure of Toronto City Centre Airport will help to further reduce the local pollution produced by flight operations there. The short taxiway and small airport reduces the amount of taxiing and holding the planes will do by 50% or better, and figures published for Midway Airport by the US Environmental Protection Agency suggest that taxiing and idling aeroplanes produce over 70% of many of the local pollutants emitted by airport operations, including volatile organic compounds, and benzine.
Measurements of sound levels of planes taking off from Pearson and TCCA make it very clear that while jets taking off from Pearson produce severe noise spikes, the Dash-8 aircraft taking off from TCCA barely register over the noise levels of traffic on the Gardiner, or the streetcar on Queen's Quay. The noise exposure forecast (NEF) contour map (produced by Shawn Morgan, used by permission) confirms what the recordings tell us; that Pearson operations subject Rexdale and Malton (a total of 150,000 people) to a barrage of noise from which the Tripartite agreements protects the waterfront neighbourhoods.
As the recent withdrawal of CanJet from scheduled passenger service shows, airlines respond to competitive pressures. If Porter succeeds, it will divert passengers from noisier and dirtier jet flights out of Pearson. That, in turn, will reduce noise and pollution in the city and region as a whole.
Before you refer to a claim of mine as “just wrong” in future, you might want to check your facts and references. I don't usually make claims I don't have the cites to back up.
Should Porter succeed, it will reduce both overall noise and atmospheric pollution in the GTA.
Compare the Q-400 aircraft which Porter Air intends to fly with the Boeing 717 type of aircraft, which Jets-Go flew out of Pearson before they went out of business. The Q-400 will get 7%-23% more passenger miles to a gallon of fuel than the Boeing 717.
The structure of Toronto City Centre Airport will help to further reduce local pollution produced by flight operations there. The short taxiways reduce the amount of taxiing by 50% or better, and figures published for Chicago Midway Airport by the US Environmental Protection Agency suggest that taxiing aeroplanes produce over 70% of most pollutants emitted by airport operations, including volatile organic compounds and benzine.
Measurements of sound levels of planes taking off from Pearson and TCCA make it very clear that while jets taking off from Pearson produce severe noise spikes, the Dash-8 aircraft taking off from TCCA barely register over the noise of local traffic. The noise exposure forecast (NEF) contour map (produced by Shawn Morgan, used by permission) confirms what the recordings tell us; that Pearson operations subject Rexdale and Malton (a total of 150,000 people) to a barrage of noise from which the Tripartite agreement protects the waterfront neighbourhoods.
As the recent withdrawal of CanJet from scheduled passenger service shows, airlines respond to competitive pressures. If Porter succeeds, it will divert passengers from noisier and dirtier jet flights out of Pearson.
Before you refer to a claim of mine as "just wrong" in future, you might want to check your facts and references. I don't usually make claims I don't have the cites to back up.