The Toronto Port Authority Must Be Stopped

Breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out. There I'm sufficiently calm to talk about the TPA again.

So the Feds cut about a billion dollars and somehow the TPA doesn't get the axe?

Calling it federally-controlled assumes that the federal government is able or willing to exercise any control over it.

You get it right on in your final paragraph, when you refer to it as a rogue agency, which is my preferred term for it.

I don't think people are so worried about a very small number of planes flying in but that it will just be the thin end of a very large wedge, one the city won't be able to stop once it's start pushing its way in.

I wonder who operates the ferry... fingers crossed it's local ;)

miles - Actually the City will be able to stop it - the restriction on total movements is a tripartite agreement. The TPA can't change it on their own. Even to max out the current limit Deluce would have to persuade existing airport users to go elsewhere.

But Miller doesn't want even the crap service Air Canada Jazz used to provide, he wants none at all. Instead of (relatively) quiet and fuel efficient turboprops, he wants us to fly in Westjet and AC's jets, then get taxis to downtown.

If Miller wants people to use Pearson (which will soon charge $20 up from $15) he should start going to GO Transit board meetings and pressing for GO to replace the private Blue22 proposal as the preferred fast link to downtown using GO Transit fares rather than SNC-Lavalin's extortionate proposal, with a stop at Weston to help out the local residents who will have roads closed and a stop at Bloor to link with TTC.

Now that Deluce has his Air Operator's Certificate, the TPA and Air Canada should stop the stupid fighting and get their services going. A Porter monopoly replacing an AC monopoly is not the answer, and competition might force AC to purchase new Downsview-built Bombardiers to keep up with Deluce's newer model.

The island airport was Toronto's original airport, not the money eating monster in Mississauga (see the $20 improvement fee article). It shouldn't be news to anyone that the island airport is there... look folks deal with it.

The Miller crew are clueless how to manage the TPA, because they are simply clueless. That's the problem with idealogues. They are committed to doing things, not because they're right or wrong, because that's all they know how to do.

As to the rail link to the Money Eating Mississauga Monster, there's whole neighbourhoods opposed to more high-speed trains barrelling down the tracks. Besides, the train service will be an abject failure, because it assumes you want to go downtown and no where else.

Pitfield may actually be right, the people that the big planes fly over every day don't give a rat's about some whiners that live downtown complaining about a few overgrown mix masters!

This NIMBYism plane and simple!

I live in a basement apartment in Parkdale. I still hear jets on their way to Pearson. I'd really like to avoid adding more noise pollution by directing more planes to the Island airport. Is that too much to ask? Yes, I understand business is an important part of our economy, but to cater to the rich with luxury flaunts your wealth in the face of the working class. Why can't businessmen fly into and out of Pearson just like the rest of us and take a fricken airport cab to and from their downtown destination? What makes them so special that they deserve to add more noise pollution to my neighbourhood just so they can get a short puddle-jumper to Ottawa? Who, really, benefits from this?

I feel for the folks who live directly underneath flight paths in Mississauga, but I don't feel [b]that[/b] badly. My various homes [as a tenant] in North York have all been rocked by the sound of jets coming in.

Jane Jacobs believed that expansion of the Island Airport was the single biggest threat to a revitalized waterfront plan. The bottom line is that we don't need the airport for commercial flights, and most of us have never used it anyway.

The convenience for a tiny group of charter and business fliers hardly outweighs going ahead with a monstrously unpopular plan. If we don't build it now, I hardly believe we'll regret it in the future, which I can't say for the reverse.

Porter Airlines says that their service will be targeted predominantly to business travelers who will enjoy being closer to the financial district. Lucky for them. I hardly think the inconvenience of a Pearson commute is stifling business in Canada's financial capital. Hey, have we built that rail link yet?

It's also not a ragtag group of grumpy Island residents opposing the plan, as alluded to in a post above by Dave. Killing the bridge was supposed to, in turn, stop any expansion of the airport for commercial flights. The public wasn't aware that secret government deals to continue airport expansion were happening even as the feds were canceling the bridge contracts. There's a reason they marked the confidential document as particularly sensitive (a "Protect In Full" classification).

By the way, Jane Pitfield voted to kill the bridge back in 2003. Hmm...it's almost like she's running for Mayor or something.

All that aside, let me get back to the main focus of the article: is there anybody who believes that the TPA isn't an abysmal mess and shouldn't be handed over to the city?

As a Torontonian, you may be surprised that I'm not against the airport expansion. If you compare with Pearson, it has the highest airport fees charged to airlines. Also, there are only few major airlines in Canada, if you want a more competitive fare when traveling, more competition is the only way to go. Canada needs at least 3 more major carriers in order to reduce the monopoly of Westjet and Air Canada.

The airport expansion is a very good solution to battle this problem.

Problem with graphics like that: they don't actually mean anything. People who make decisions about Canada's transportation system, like the minister of transport, don't respond to neat dark red graphics. They respond to hard facts and figures. And the opponents of the airport don't seem to have much in the way of those; at least, not in the way of any real facts. I've posted the facts of the matter, here and on more forums than I can easily count. Little matters such as the 150000 people who live in the high noise impact area of Pearson International Airport. Matters such as the 3000+ medical flights Toronto City Centre Airport handles every year. Matters such as the measurable and measured difference between the hum of turbo-props going over water, and the scream of jets flying over schools and homes.

Now, I claim that if Porter Airlines succeeds, it has the potential to reduce both the overall level of noise and air pollution, and the human impact of noise and pollution in the GTA. I have census data, fuel consumption statistics, sound and video recordings, GIS maps of the noise contours, photos and maps to back up what I say. Do you have anything behind that B-horror-movie poster graphic?

I would have posted a map of the noise contours instead, but the article was about the TPA's rogue, destructive behaviour and the City's powerlessness in relation to its own port. Plus, I wasn't trying to cure insomnia. ;-)

Nobody is trying to stop Medevac chopper flights or flying lessons or the private plane terminals at the Island Airport. What bothers people is more than the noise comparisons and pollution an expanded airport may or may not bring; it's about effective and forward-thinking public use of both our waterfront and our public parks (the Islands), and who's being allowed to make those decisions to benefit which entities.

The TPA and Porter Airlines deal is primarily a business decision that ignores both public urban planning initiatives and the overall (and future) use of our waterfront, which is absolutely unacceptable. It is strictly a business decision for a small set of people, but has very large ramifications for the City as a whole, some positive, many negative. It is also a permanent change.

I'd hazard a guess that if these all-important business travelers actually took public transit, the rail link to Pearson would have been built decades ago. If the TPA was actually run by the city and forced to consider non-commercial interests as well (as it should be), the Porter deal and the defunct Bathurst Bridge would barely have warranted discussion.

Our waterfront is sickeningly scarred with the marks of poor planning and suffocating private-sector development. It's amazing that this issue has progressed so far and at such expense at the hands of a malignant agency with no sense of civic responsibility. It is not supposed to be like this.

Marc in comment 14 performs the usual dodge of airport enemies - since it only benefits a small group of people, and has negative effects on most, we should kill it.

Both claims are false. First, the small group cited is not very small. Business people would surely use the airport, but so would (as mentioned) tourists, as well as everyday joes who are flying short distances to see their families. I haven't checked recently, but last I booked a ticket AC was running something like 7 flights to Montreal a day, so there is clearly demand for the route. And if given a choice between a $50 cab ride and a subway and a ferry (or bridge, natch), the latter may be more attractive (depending on pricing, etc.). More to the point - the entire city benefits from increased business activity. Enemies make it seem like this is irrelevant.

Second, the group inconvenienced is actually quite small, if not entirely negligible or incapable of accounting for. As demonstrated elsewhere, these planes are no louder or dirtier - in fact far quieter and cleaner - than the alternative, and there is little evidence that they would prevent an enjoyable use of the waterfront.

Third, who gives a toss what Jane Jacobs thought. The appeal to the deified authority is still an appeal to authority and a logical error, thanks.

Fourth, the philosophy on display here is quite bothersome. The starting point is that you can't do anything unless you can show that it directly benefits some other group, which group is usually defined as "people who never fly and live in suburbs distant from the islands". Or left wing blog writers who have decided that attacking the lifestyle of the haves is an preferable substitute for standing up for the have nots.

Rather, the approach should be that you are allowed to do anything you want to do provided it does not do undo harm. On this measure, there is no compelling reason to hold up Porter Air (see the eloquent comment directly above: hammer hits nail, squarely).

And oh, I like the TPA. Its the only thing that prevents the captured politicians at City Hall
running the port to the exclusion of the national interest. The debate the last five years has been that we need global cities to continue to attract the immigrants, capital and R&D investments that are fuelling increases in the national standard of living, and the Feds have backed that up with cash. Maybe you were distracted by the guy with the broom playing saviour to the city and missed it (and kept watching while he accomplished absolutely nothing).

Joe -- as I've said dozens of times now, rhetoric, sarcasm, even genuine wit alone won't cut it. Sometime, somewhere, you have to have some hard cold facts to back up what you say. So do you think you could come up with some serious facts and arguments?

Marc -- I don't seriously see how you can describe an NEF contour map as a cure for insomnia, ad in the same breath, claim an interest in good urban planning. Good urban planning serves the public, all the public, which means NEF contours matter.

I don't agree with the article - but I love the poster, is there a higher-resolution image of it anywhere?

Marc in 23 - thanks for dancing on a head of a pin. You didn't really respond to my post, except to re-state that the benefits are small and the costs large, without (as noted) any substantiation. You need to cite some evidence of harm that outweighs the interest of those travellers (not just for business purposes, as you insist), tourists and commuters to a downtown airport. That we already have an airport is of no moment - it is clear there are unmet needs and the market is moving to provide for them. Again, you start from the perspective that the needs of these travellers will only be met if they can prove some overall public benefit, which isn't and shouldn't be the case.

rek/lek - why would you replace a federal body with a provincial or city body? why can't commercial interests be taken into account in determining the commercial use of the waterfront?

Hi Joe, a different John here.

>Fact - airplanes are noisy
Fact - turboprops are less noisy than the jets which are already flying in to Pearson. Fewer jets = less noise.

>Fact - airplanes cause pollution
Fact - they sure do, but so do cabs and cars which are what business people use to get to the core because Pearson's so difficult to get to and far from their destination. You might also find that turboprops cause less pollution than the jets they'd be replacing. Fewer jets & car trips = less pollution.

>Fact - the TPA should be accountable to the tax payers of Toronto
This isn't actually a fact, but an opinion. It's also one I agree with.
A Port Authority needs to be run in the public interest (which in this case mainly means Toronto's interest, not the country's), rather than as a commercial for-profit business.
And the structure of the TPA certainly needs to be revised and the City needs more (though by no means total) control over it.
However that doesn't preclude commercial flights.

>Fact - the TPA has cost this city tens of millions in lawsuits, and owes this city
>millions in back taxes.
In conjunction with the feds in general, it certainly has. And this money needs to be paid back. The entire income TPA makes from Porter should go direct to the City's coffers, and if they don't pay, the feds should be brought to court over it.
This also doesn't preclude commercial flights.

The airport's not a real problem noise or pollution-wise as long as there aren't totally unreasonable numbers of flights coming from it and the Island already has enough parkland on it.
The problem is the broken nature of the TPA. Do something about that instead of complaining about Porter.

that graphic is hilarious.

I remember taking the City Express STOL flights to NYC back in the late 80's, and it was cheap, quiet and efficient. I don't recall there being any public outcry at the time, but it's quite possible I wasn't paying attention.

Still, with all this debate going on, surely someone can post a link to some actual facts about how environmentally/socially/spiritually devastating this thing is going to be? I'm not being sarcastic, I just have not been able to find hard numbers on exactly who is going to be affected and how. I reckon, however, that with 100,000 people moving into the GTA every year, transportion in and out of the city is going to continue to be a huge issue in the future.

Probably what's most offensive is how quickly something like this can happen, while we still wait and wait for much-needed developments like the rail link to the airport, a GO-TTC hybrid metropass, bike lanes, and our waterfront lands in general.

The city isn't particularly against having planes fly out of the Island Airport, but they need a say in how that works, which hasn't happened. The TPA even blatantly ignored city-issued stop-work orders when starting bridge construction. Doing it in secret allows it to be accomplished before the public has time to react.

I'm not against the airport in its current incarnation, nor am I particularly against a commuter service (especially now that Air Canada has been evicted). What scares me is a project run entirely by business interests for the sole purpose of making money for a small amount of people, potentially at the risk of non-commercial interests and money from city coffers. Like the bridge would have done, an airport expansion and big new terminal will have permanent effects on the area that haven't been parsed with the other concerns.

The Toronto Port Authority can change the face of our port to feed its own coffers and the City of Toronto has no control over that. Their decisions have the power to change recreation, traffic patterns, business involvement, and the future of our urban design, and there's no way they should be allowed unfettered, reckless permission to do that without appropriate public consultation -- especially as a government-funded agency.

The TPA has acted with impunity, similar to developers who demolish a historical building at 7 AM because they know a stop order is coming at 9 AM. It's skeezy, selfish and sociopathic.

If John Barber's FOUR lobbyists constitute a
"deluge", I wonder what term of sufficient
rhetorical flair he would pick to describe the
2369 (!) registered lobbyists in Ottawa.

x_the_x: The Island Airport may indeed be useful to me if the expansion goes through, but I'd gladly (potentially) sacrifice the convenience for proper process. The most important unmet needs are not at the Island Airport; they are everywhere else in this city, from transit funding to lack of a city planner for our ubiquitous construction.

What irks me is that the TPA intentionally conducted this deal in secret for their own benefit, clearly aware of the public opposition and sensitivity of this issue. The Marine Act needs a revision that removes the mandate to make money and surrenders at least some control to the city.

You say that "unknown future cost could as easily be phrased an unknown future benefit," but we don't know which one it will be yet, and a failed plan has more significant repercussions. Historically, the TPA has proven that they not only can't be trusted, but they don't even have our civic needs on their radar. They've already cost us $35 million so far, so is this really the agency we want making these decisions for us?

You also mention, "the requirement is in place so that the TPA doesn't drain taxpayer dollars," yet the TPA has been hemorrhaging public money, and has yet to make their balanced-books mandate. Part of the infamous $35 million settlement was paid back to themselves for money allegedly spent on the bridge/Porter deal (almost $8 million). Last year, the TPA reported a loss of more that $3 million.

You say that any increased costs will be passed-on to users of the airport, but what if there are not enough users of the airport? Airports, like airlines, are not unfamiliar with government bailouts.

The Mayor may also have been elected on a plurality, partially because of this issue, but the majority of polled citizens (around 53%) opposed the bridge. Majority, not plurality. This feeling was especially concentrated downtown for obvious reasons. Much of the project's support unsurprisingly came from the aviation industry and other business/port stakeholders.

The Island Airport, in context with the metropolis of Toronto and the waterfront on which it lies, is neither a crucial international hub nor an essential part of Canada's transportation system. That alone should allow more input and control by City Council (who did originally vote for the bridge, which TPA gladly celebrated. TPA will co-operate with the City when they're winning).

My point is that the Toronto Port Authority is in business for nobody but itself, and that is on account of both their profit mandate and lack of accountability to Toronto. That should have changed before any discussion about our port expansion took place.

Marc--
I admire your concern for process. I've always said that we should make transportation policy, including air transportation policy, through a region-wide process of respectful, inclusive dialog. However, I don't see how you can have a workable process if you treat the facts as a cure for insomnia. I don't see any "process" working for the people of Mississauga or Pickering, against the "rogue" Toronto City Council.

I also find your concern for the $35 million puzzling. If the GTAA builds Pickering, they plan to spend a minimum of $300 million, and their cost estimates max out at $1.5 billion. And guess whose pockets that money would come from? Who do you think ends up paying Pearson's Airport Improvement Fees? That kind of money would keep TCCA running for over a century.

John, you once again hit many nails on the head regarding the reality of the Island Airport.

The airport as a whole is seemingly a non issue to most except for those who might actually hear an engine running, and the mayor himself who seems bent on ridding the city of it. Meanwhile, the rest of the populace of Toronto seem to shrug their shoulders and simply wonder what all of the fuss is about.

Airports are part of society today. The Island Airport has been around for a great many years before the people who are now upset about it's existance.

Deal with it.

When streetcars and the GO trains at Union Station make more noise then the airline traffic that will be going in and out of City Center, you can tell that there are questionable motives behind all of the rediculous spins that are being put on this story.

John S.: Please don't take my comment about the noise contour map too seriously. I was more poking fun at the sensationalistic graphic I posted.

My problem with the TPA is that it doesn't have to answer to the city. I wouldn't necessarily want the City to make every decision either (they voted for the bridge originally), but it really should be happening inclusively, including those with non-commercial interests. It's a conflict that the Board, and therefore the TPA, is run predominantly by commercial interests with a mandate to make money.

Don't get me wrong about the airport. I am a huge fan of aviation and I love flying, but I don't see a need to expand the airport when so many believe that it might not only damage the long-awaited waterfront revitilization, but also set the ball in motion for more commercialization of the island lands.

I wouldn't have any particular problem with the airport if it remained as-is, and if Porter provided a service similar what Air Canada Jazz was operating. However, the plans are not only for expansion of the service, but building a bigger terminal, larger parking lots, and increasing commercial access to the airport. I'd much rather keep it the way it is, and I think it's nice that we have a relatively inoffensive airstrip for private planes and Medevac choppers. I just can't see the need. It's certainly not going to change anything for Pearson.

Marc, you wrote "It's certainly not going to change anything for Pearson." I disagree. If Porter succeeds, it has to cut into the business of the airlines operating those same routes out of Pearson. Toronto has only got so many passengers who want to go to Ottawa (or any other Porter destination). If the airlines running out of Pearson have fewer passengers, they have to cut flights; airline economics make it impossible to fly empty airplanes for the purpose of making noise and pollution. If the number of flights goes down, the children of Malton will benefit.

Marc also wrote: "For the most part as far as the public is concerned: bridge opposition = airport expansion opposition." This definitely holds true for some people, but for plenty of bridge opponents, the problem lay with the obstruction of the waterway, or with the fear (which David Miller stoked) that a fixed link would lead to development they did not want on the island. I know, from talking to Jane Pitfield (I used to live in her ward) that she voted no on the bridge because (as a voter) she worried about the effect on the Western Channel. You would need a poll, which as far as I know, nobody has done, to determine how many people felt the way she did.

As for your comment that: "The public couldn't call their councillors about it because they didn't know about the deal until it was finalized and announced." the public could not do anything about the compensation paid to REGCO, but Robert Deluce announced his intention to fly from City Centre nine months ago. David Miller had all that time to sponsor council resolutions, which would have considerably strengthened his hand in dealing with Transport Canada and the TPA. If he didn't get those resolutions, that naturally implies that the majority of councillors wouldn't support them. Since councillors like to get re-elected, you would expect them to vote for a popular council resolution. The inability of a relatively popular and competent mayor to move aggressively to support the Community AIR position inevitably suggests that he couldn't get council resolutions, which in turn implies the Community AIR position enjoys very little widespread support.

John S: I pretty much agree with most of what you're saying. David Miller isn't going to make too much of a stink over it because he needs much more co-operation from the federal government for other issues. He's just hoping that they'll turn-over the TPA to the city, but he's not going to go after anyone too strongly. It's also a volatile issue for other councillors to get behind since their support can turn on a dime, as offensive as single-issue voting is.

CommunityAIR is only a minor part of what I'm talking about since they are focused on noise and pollution, whereas I mainly fear lack of accountability and unwelcome precedents set by expansion.

As for Pearson, any challenge to existing routes will be met as they always have by the other airlines. If a route gets reduced or canceled, that's competition and I welcome it. As it stands now, Porter is (marginally) more expensive (cheap on the way out, less-so for the ticket back), but since they target business customers, it's probably not too much of a big deal.

I'm not at all against Porter operating flights from the Island Airport, but I don't think expanding the airport to allow for more flights and a larger operation will prove to be a smart civic decision, especially considering the needs set forth in the waterfront revitalization plan. The TPA is one gigantic conflict of interest yet they wield enormous power over key public land, which is why they must be forced to change.

Some of the arguments in favour of expanded operations at the Island Airport need comment:

1. Opponents are rich central city dwellers.
First, the people living near the waterfront have a wide variety of incomes, and many closest to the Island Airport live in coop housing. Second, Toronto Island functions as a cottage equivalent for literally hundreds of thousands of city dwellers who can't afford a cottage. Third, Porter is targeting a luxury service at business people. Fourth, could someone please explain how the income of people opposed to the Island Airport has any relevance at all to the debate about whether extending its operations is a good thing for Toronto?

2. London has a city centre STOL port.
You can argue this if you've never actually spent any time in London. In fact the London STOL port is miles east of Carary Wharf, which is itself way east of the City or the West End. London has developed is waterfront (south side of the Thames from Cotton Centre to Battersea) as a strictly pedestrian space with - key point here folks - no planes in sight.

3. David Miller belongs to the NDP and anything he says is "ideological".
Like anyone who makes that statement isn't an ideologue (right wingers can look up "ideologue" in a "dictionary"). Here's a right wing perspective - any federal comercial agency that loses money year after year should be shut down. Conversely, any Toronto Port Authority supporters should be properly seen as socialists who want government to subsidize non-viable enterprises.

4. Porter Airlines is good for the economy.
Only if you believe that Toronto's future is based on a brownfield industrial downtown. Only if you believe that real estate development and tourism on the waterfront are a bad thing.

Of course none of this really matters because the TPA is a federal authority and Toronto's influence in Ottawa is precisely zero whether the Liberals or Conservatives are in power.