Wednesday’s headlines

51 comments

1. Just who are these people who are opposed to the tunnel to the City Centre Airport?

   Developers and their astroturfing lackeys who want to turn the airport into a forest of condo towers?

   The bridge would have made more sense, as it would have also finally allowed emergency vehicle access to the island.

   But Miller chose to nix that (even though the feds had already paid for it) and permanently endanger the lives of island workers and residents. (Not to mention the lost jobs and revenue if he manages to drive the airport out of existence.)

   Maybe it’s time we pointed out to Miller that he doesn’t always know better than Torontonians what’s best for Toronto.

2. Diane> The 2003 municipal election can (and often is) looked on as a referendum on that bridge, and it lost. That story is closed. The people voted. The tunnel, IMHO, is a different story altogether, let’s not conflate the two. Pedestrians only.

   The emergency vehicle thing, endangering lives? That’s ridiculous rhetoric. What kept you from mentioning the children? It’s an island! That’s how islands work. But this island even has a fire station on it.

3. Dang it, Shawn. You already used all the best points. But I’d like to get see if this idea has any traction…

   Yes, the bridge debate is over. But I’d argue that the debate about the airport in general should be over, as well. David Miller thought killing the bridge would stop Porter and make the airport unsustainable. Like some of our dear Mayor’s other gambits (stimulus money for streetcars, anyone) this one did not pan out for him. The new ferry is great, the airline is great and the airport is expanding. So, can’t we agree that the anti-airport side has lost…at least for now.

   Finally, the tunnel is a pretty dumb way to spend a buck. Especially when the airline doesn’t seem bothered about having it or not. Time to move on.

4. Shawn,

   Absolutely, the pedestrian tunnel is a different issue than the pedestrian/vehicular bridge. It’s not the “eyesore”, not the “menace to boats” and not the “source of pollution” that Community Air claimed the bridge was.

   I mentioned the bridge because it seems that Miller is set to replay that scenario with the tunnel. There’s a pattern here, and it looks like spite.

   And emergency vehicle access may not be a real issue to you, but you’re not one of the hundreds who live, work or pass through there, and who may be faced with an extra 30-60 minute delay in getting critical emergency care.

   Why do you think it was necessary to build a fire station there, or to develop the privately-funded TCCA Emergency Response Service?

5. I go to the island a lot. I shall now worry, all the time, about emergencies when on danger island. Live in fear! At least when politically advantageous, anyway.

6. Diane, I think you should examine the concept of assumed risk. When one takes up residence on the island they must also except the possibility that when faced with an emergency, they won’t have the same access to rapid care that we mainlanders enjoy. One assumes that risk when visiting or living on the island. Adults do it for themselves and parents do it on behalf of their children.

   However, if you can show me a pattern of aggravated injuries or death caused by the lack of a fixed link to the island then I’d consider changing my tune.

7. Diane: I think a lot of the opposition to the tunnel as to do with the $$, and not the tunnel itself.

8. I’m not sure I agree with the tunnel with the details that have been proposed… but it seems to me that the last poll (done just a few weeks ago) indicated that most Torontonians are actually in favor of some kind of connection to the islands that lets people walk over. As for the 03 election being a “referendum” on the bridge issue, I think the outcome of that election had more to do with people’s perceptions concerning municipal government corruption and ineptitude. Miller’s “broom” was an incredibly potent symbol that propelled him to the front of the pack. Whether he’s actually put that broom to good use since then is another matter. Many (outside Spacing’s official contributor’s list and NOW magazine) would argue that he has not. The Star’s story today showing the fudging of numbers that is taking place with the green bin program seems to be the latest example.

9. As Andrew says. What is especially galling in these times of economic hardship is the notion that – with all of Toronto’s needs – “stimulus” funds may go to help a private entity, at the expense of the greater welfare of Toronto and its many worthwhile projects.

   And this is an important reminder of an oft-forgotten point: for all the talk of how Porter is a success, remember that it was founded on taxpayer money. That monstrosity called the Toronto Port Authority chose to give away $35M, most of it to Robert Deluce, as a result of the canceling of the bridge. In short, the taxpayer provided Porter’s seed money – essentially free. [the idea that Deluce suffered damages as a result of the bridge cancellation is preposterous; indeed, doesn’t the very fact of Porter’s success without a bridge refute the very notion?]

10. Shawn, resorting to sarcasm already? Usually you flail about for a bit before running out of steam.

    Josh, I’m familiar with the concept of assumed risk. You seem to be confusing it with moral hazard. It is generally better to reduce risk rather than ignore it and hope for the best.

    Andrew, agreed except in the case of our Mayor, for whom it seems more a matter of making political hay.

11. Diane – you introduced a ridiculous, over the top notion and tone to support your position. You sounded reasonable, then went extreme with the “endanger lives” nonsense. No steam running out at all — don’t reduce your comments to the worst kind of outrageous comment material.

12. Diane: Help me out here. I haven’t seen Miller’s response anywhere. Do you have a link?

13. Oh, and regarding the pollara poll with the 60+% support for the tunnel: I’m pretty sure it would plummet if people knew the costs were to be bourne by tax revenues and the tunnel would not allow access to the rest of the Island.

14. One thing I’d like to find out first about the proposed tunnel: does it provide access to the island for general public, or does it provide only access to the airport for Porter customers? If the latter, I see the spending as much less defensible.

15. Only to the airport. Am hoping to put together a post suggesting that if we’re going to get a tunnel, it ought to pop out on the other side of the airport as well, so everybody can use it.

16. Let’s start a campaign for an alternative tunnel location! I do enjoy taking the ferry to the island, but a tunnel that takes me straight to Hanlan’s Point (ideally on bike) would be phenomenol!

17. Andrew — Miller’s reaction is quoted in the National Post article in today’s list. The article in yesterday’s Star also had a similar reaction / statement.

18. @Shawn — wouldn’t that require cooperation between the city and the TPA, as the park portion of the island is city controlled and the airport is TPA controlled?

    I love the idea, but these are 2 groups that seemed determined to hate each other.

19. Thanks, Shawn,

    it seems to make a lot of sense for the tunnel to also serve the purpose of public access to the island as well.

    Yu

20. @Diane — what the hell is moral hazard? Is that like a water trap full of drugs and sex-crazed virgins?

    Bail out on this silly (and completely unsupported) argument. Or, present some evidence that lives have been ended or adversely effecting by the level of service on the island.

21. Thanks Brent. Being stupid, I missed that. 🙂

    Miller’s flack is quoted as saying, “The Mayor feels that $38-million in public infrastructure funds could be much better used for broader public purposes and not for the benefit of one private company – particularly when there is already access via the ferry.”

    I mean, that sounds pretty damn reasonable to me, even if you disagree. Not “political hay” as Dianne puts it.

22. Shawn, I wrote:

    “The bridge would have made more sense, as it would have also finally allowed emergency vehicle access to the island.

    “But Miller chose to nix that (even though the feds had already paid for it) and permanently endanger the lives of island workers and residents.”

    When you took exception to that, I clarified:

    “And emergency vehicle access may not be a real issue to you, but you’re not one of the hundreds who live, work or pass through there, and who may be faced with an extra 30-60 minute delay in getting critical emergency care.”

    How is this “ridiculous rhetoric”, “over the top”, “extreme”, “nonsense” and “the worst kind of outrageous comment material” as you have called it?

23. Josh, since you asked so nicely, “moral hazard” is the notion (often characterized as foolish) that an individuals’ reckless is in proportion to the level of protection they feel.

    An example of this would be the claim that being in a large SUV causes motorists to drive less cautiously because they don’t feel that they are as likely to get hurt. My favorite example of moral hazard is the Pope claiming that condoms cause AIDS because they encourage promiscuity.

    That seemed to be what you wrote about but called “assumed risk”.

    Can we get back on topic now?

24. I have been looking at the Island Access issue for a while now and posted quite a few mentions of the fact that if this Tunnel is built under the gap then it is technically quite easy and cheap to build a cut and cover tunnel under the runways that would give direct access to Island. The same point was picked up by TPA in National Post article today. Going under the gap is expensive because it is deep and requires tunnelling. Going under the runways is much easier because you basically dig a shallow wide ditch from the top and drop in prefabricated concrete tunnnel sections that interlink. GO Transit uses the method all the time when they put tunnels under the tracks to move more people from platform to platform. Shortest route is about .6km long from Airport Terminal coming out beside the Hanlan Point Ferry Terminal. Free, year round pedestrian/bike access and save some money on cutting back some ferry service.
    Free year round access to Hanlan

25. Shawn,

    The other part of the idea is that there is probably enough space that you could use ramp entrances to give tunnel handicap access without need for costly elevators. On the construction technique think of installing a big water main but instead of connecting big round concrete pipes you use use big rectangular concrete boxes. The tunnel is also shallow enough that you could install some skylights to let in natural light.

26. “…present some evidence that lives have been ended or adversely effecting by the level of service on the island.”

    My mistake. I had assumed it was obvious to everyone that response time is a critical factor for emergency services.

27. Sure Diane…back on topic. Enough with the wordplay and back to the issue at hand. What evidence exists that increased ambulance service is required on the island…maybe if I ask you this for a 3rd time I’ll get an answer.

28. Money to link to YTZ bad, while money to link to YYZ good?

29. And emergency vehicle access may not be a real issue to you, but you’re not one of the hundreds who live…there

    It is probably the case that of those hundreds who live there, you could count on one hand the number of people who support building a fixed link between the mainland and the airport, even with the bonus of having expedited emergency services. Islanders hate the airport and anything to do with it.

    So please don’t presume to speak for them.

30. Andrew, I would agree with you regarding your comments about the Pollara poll. The majority who indicated support likely were under the impression that it would provide access to the island — not just the airport. I’m sure, however, the majority of respondents assumed that such a link would be paid for by tax revenue, since most people generally understand that its taxes that pay for these sorts of things. If I brought up this poll, it was merely to suggest that the 2003 municipal election was far from a decisive referendum on an island to mainland link. And again, regarding this tunnel to the airport-only proposal, I’m not sure I agree with the idea of this project getting public monies.

31. samg –> Ah, cool.

    You know, I do think overall the whole 2003-as-referendum-on-the-bridge thing has always been a little overblown. Miller won, sure, but Tory was only 5 percentage points behind. And I think his victory had just as much to do with his image as anti-cronyist as bridge-buster.

32. Diane…it is a critical factor and you’ve failed to prove that the response time on the island is inadaquate for the needs of its residents. Like McKingford, I question why you’re taking it upon yourself to argue for something that (to the best of my knowledge) has never been requested by island residents. McKingford is also very correct in suggesting that island residents have, in the past, overwhelmingly opposed fixed links to the island.

    So…if they’re ok…what’s you real beef here?

33. What impact, if any, would the closing of Buttonville Airport have on the island airport? Many flying schools and media use Buttonville, and would any of these move to the island? thoughts?

34. Josh, as per my first post, my beef is with NIMBYs, especially the astroturfing variety. This whole side-debate about emergency services seems to be your issue.

    Even if the island residents don’t want any emergency services beyond the existing small fire station (unlikely, IMHO), they’re not the only ones to think of.

    While crashes are relatively rare, TCCA *is* an airport after all, and carries a higher potential for a disaster involving multiple casualties than cottages over on Algonquin Island. TCCA of course has it’s own very competent emergency response team, but it still must rely on support from the mainland, just as residents do.

    And let’s not forget the hundreds of visitors to Centreville and the parks each day.

    I won’t accuse you of taking the ridiculous position that some people shouldn’t have the best possible access to emergency services. And maybe I’m just misunderstanding why you’re fixating on this relatively minor point. But it seems to me that you’re automatically arguing against a fixed link to the Island in general, and refusing to consider that some good, however small, might have come of it.

35. Here’s what I think. I think that ambulance and fire services on the island are just fine. Transport Canada is happy with the level of service at the airport or TCCA wouldn’t have a license to operate. The residents of the island must be relatively happy because IF they felt lives were in danger, we’d hear about it. (On the cover of the Toronto Sun, no doubt) I think your statement that the lack of a bridge “permanently endanger(s )” the lives of anyone is therefore unfounded and a bit extreme.

    On the airport itself — I am an fervent supporter of the airport, but not a great fan of its substantial expansion. Serving one, lovely airline is fine. Were it to serve 5 more…that’s a problem for me. The lack of any fixed link seems to me a good way to set an upper limit on the airport’s size.

    Finally, I don’t think the island is unsafe. And I would also argue that anyone one the island today is getting, as you’ve said, the “best possible access to emergency services”.

    OH…last but not least…for a moral hazard to exist, one party must have more information about a potential danger than the other. By extension, your use of moral hazard in this case implies that you believe the city knows of dangers inherent in the island that visitors and residents do not and thus should provide greater service to address those unknown issues. I don’t think you actually believe this, but I’m just letting you know that when I didn’t know what moral hazard was, I looked it up and your use of it doesn’t seem appropriate.

    PS: debate is a bi-directional thing and I’m the kind of debater that will go wherever his opponent wants to go, because it’s all equally interesting to me. You kept answering me when I talked ambulances…so here we are.

36. A couple points.

    The idea of cut and covering a tunnel through the airport lands (and across the runway) would be far fetched for a few reasons. First, any loss of runway use even for a day would result in the need for compensation of lost revenues (whether to Porter or more likely, the TPA). Porter has roughly 100 combined departures and arrivals every day. If each plane is at least half full you’re looking at anywhere from $500k to $1million+ worth of lost revenue per day.

    Second, there would be immense safety concerns for a variety of reasons having a tunnel that close to surface level. The airline industry takes security very seriously and the idea that anyone unauthorized would be in that close of proximity of a runway or other airport infrastructure including the planes would automatically be nixed. I’m not one to fear monger at all, but a tunnel directly under a runway or other airport infrastructure could be tagetted if someone felt the need to do so. I’d also suggest that it would be a safety concern for the people in the tunnel. It’s one thing to have cars driving on cut and covered Yonge St. but 60,000 pound planes sometimes have hard landings, and sometimes even worse. Obviously, very rare, but landings and takeoffs are when most accidents occur. The part of the tunnel going through the airport would have be able to withstand the worst happening. I don’t think your standard cut and cover would cut it.

    If the cost to build a 100 metre tunnel is $39million, how much would it cost to extend it beyond the airport? If greater access is what we’re looking for, maybe it’s time to invest in another boat and increase the ferry frequency to the main islands from Bay St. Surely you could get a boat or two (or three, or…) for the price of a tunnel through the airport lands.

37. Josh, thanks for clearing up your position.

    I also don’t think that the Island is unsafe, though it must necessarily be less safe than the mainland just 150 meters away. I believe it could be made safer still, at least raised to the lever of the mainland, with easier access by emergency services. And making things safer is a pretty good use of infrastructure money.

    I’m certain as are you that TCCA’s emergency response team is considered adequate.

    I mentioned moral hazard because it seemed to fit your argument which you labeled “assumed risk”. You seemed to indicate that someone on the Island must know and accept the greater risk of being there, so they should not have greater protection available to them.

    I would point out that, for example, a visitor to Centreville would more likely assume wrongly that an ambulance is only 7 minutes away, because that’s what it (supposed to be) like on the mainland. That’s the “information asymmetry” part of moral hazard.

    “I think your statement that the lack of a bridge “permanently endanger(s )” the lives of anyone is therefore unfounded and a bit extreme.”

    This is the heart of the matter, I think. I’m sorry if you find “endanger” to be extreme. I don’t think you’d find “jeopardize” or “threaten” much better, however, and a milder adjective which still conveys my meaning escapes me.

38. And making things safer is a pretty good use of infrastructure money.

    First of all, I think you overstate the supposed increases in safety from having a fixed link because it wouldn’t appreciably improve response times. Assume a child is mauled at the Centre Island petting zoo (and, if we apply your inane reasoning about moral hazard, that child would *never* have been allowed near the petting zoo if the parents truly appreciated the EMS response); I would guess, as most who are actually familiar with the layout of the islands, that having a fixed link through the airport would not actually result in an ambulance getting that child to the hospital faster than current means.

    But more important is the fact that infrastructure money is a finite item. If we were living in a world of unlimited means, then you *might* say that on the very rare occasion that there is an emergency on the islands, the off-chance that a fixed link might increase response times by – what, a minute? might justify expending infrastructure money. But we don’t live in that world. Instead, we live in a world where Toronto literally has hundreds, if not thousands, of projects where money would be better spent. Even if we were to limit the investment of infrastructure projects to those intended to “making things safer”, this would still likely be the case.

39. @James – Pearson seems to be doing fine with the tunnel under 15L/33R… a four lane tunnel!

40. “Assume a child is mauled at the Centre Island petting zoo…”

    Don’t be fatuous. Assume instead that a toddler receives her first bee sting and goes into anaphylactic shock as her throat closes up. Or assume that Grandpa, flushed with the excitement of the day has a stroke. Or that a bolt or cable on a ride that should have been checked wasn’t, and half a dozen people suffer serious injuries.

    “…and, if we apply your inane reasoning about moral hazard, that child would *never* have been allowed near the petting zoo if the parents truly appreciated the EMS response…”

    That’s not my reasoning, it’s Josh’s. I just corrected him for mislabeling it “assumed risk”.

    “having a fixed link through the airport would not actually result in an ambulance getting that child to the hospital faster than current means.”

    Unless the “current means” is to employ an air ambulance from TCCA, I doubt it.

    “on the very rare occasion that there is an emergency on the islands, the off-chance that a fixed link might increase response times by – what, a minute? might justify expending infrastructure money”

    You don’t want to follow that line of reasoning, because it will only end in us debating the value of a human life, with you valuing it less that I. I know that’s not your intent.

    “Toronto literally has hundreds, if not thousands, of projects where money would be better spent.”

    Yes, agreed. I was referring to the original bridge proposal, already paid for by the feds out of money earmarked for economic development. It made more sense than the current tunnel proposal. But any fixed-link proposal will provoke a knee-jerk reaction from loudmouth lobbyists, (some) waterfront condo owners and Olivia Chow.

    And no matter what this “infrastructure” money is ultimately spent on, there will always have been a better use for it.

41. James, a couple of points,
    Pearson already has just such a tunnel that carries Jumbos so that is not a problem.
    When GO puts a tunnel under the tracks they do it in one night, tear up the track, dig the ditch, drop in the tunnel sections, backfill and reinstall the track. Going across a runway is much easier.
    As noted in previous post the cost of a cut and cover tunnel is a fraction of the type of tunnel needed to go under the gap because it does not involve any underground mining, expensive and deep shafts for access and expensive elevators.

42. I was just dragging a suitcase through the tunnels under Heathrow runways last week between terminals — they are all outside of security and the A380 was up above. They are deeper than cut-and-cover though, but still, open tunnels. There is already a road tunnel under one of Pearson’s back taxiways. The old Aeroquay T1 had an auto tunnel, if I recall.

43. @Mark Dowling

    I know Pearson has a tunnel, but my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that it is for those with airside clearance, and is not accessible by anyone without airside clearance. It’ll mostly be used for access to hangars, catering and cargo and be of little to no use for the public. Are we going to force anyone using the island tunnel to go through security clearance, even if they aren’t flying? Essentially anything that can’t be brought on a plane wouldn’t be allowed in the tunnel.

    Also, was this a cut and cover? From the pictures I’ve seen it’s hard to tell. But if so, we have to acknowledge that the same idea applied to the Island airport couldn’t work while maintaining operations, with just the one main runway in commercial use. Pearson can shut down a runway and disperse flights onto any of their other runways without a problem. That just isn’t possible on the island.

44. I should acknowledge that my point about the safety concerns of a cut and cover being able to withstand repetitive hard impacts were based on no evidence as well, so really that shouldn’t be up for debate (why I included it in my post yesterday, I’m not sure.)

    The other points I’ve made with regards to airside clearance concerns/security and disruptions to service and use that cut and covering a tunnel through the landing strip would cause still stand though.

45. James> I keep thinking of the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver — when they reparied it, they lowered sections out of it each night, and put it back in for morning traffic. Was quite amazing. “I’m no engineer” (as the TPA CEO might point out) but there might be some way to do it at night.

46. James> I keep thinking of the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver — when they repaired it, they lowered sections out of it each night, and put it back in for morning traffic. Was quite amazing. “I’m no engineer” (as the TPA CEO might point out) but there might be some way to do it at night.

47. Sorry for the triple post

    @Shawn
    Deep tunnels aren’t a problem, I’m just talking about cut and cover. I’ve walked those same Heathrow tunnels myself and no one should need airside clearance for those. But that’s far different from a simple cut and cover, which is what i think people are envisioning for the Island. If the cost of a deep tunnel under the channel is $39million, what is the cost to extend that beyond the airport? If the cost is going to be that significant, improve ferry service from Bay St by buying a couple more boats.

48. For my part, my only regret in using the term “assumed risk” is that it comes from the same legal bullshit lexicon as “moral hazard”. These aren’t terms we invented to make society better, they’re terms we invented to make it easier to sue each other.

    And I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t make things safer or that we should left kiddies die of bee stings or anything. I’m arguing that we should worry less about these things unless we’re presented with some concrete reason to worry. I keep asking someone (preferrably Diane, as she taken the opposing side of this argument) to present me with a need for more ambulance service on the island? Alas, nothing. I can’t get behind doing something just because it seems necessary or because it involves “saving lives”. Saving them from what? I would ask for the same supporting evidence anytime someone suggests adding more money to the police budget, for example. Just give me some facts about what this is going to do make the city better. Because without some kind of support, statements like “permanently endanger” are just empty rhetoric.

49. I can’t see how driving an ambulance across a tunnel to the island is going to be significantly more efficient than zipping somebody across the water in a police boat to one waiting shoreside. The ‘safety’ issue is a total red herring; it has nothing to do with the calculations behind the tunnel proposal.

    As I’ve said before, I like Porter as it is now, but I don’t think it will scale effectively if it gets much bigger. I don’t think a tunnel should be necessarily prohibited, but I don’t think it should be paid for with taxpayer money, either.

50. Keep in mind that we wouldn’t be driving an ambulance through this tunnel, either. It would be a pedestrian-only tunnel with elevtor shafts at either end (not a ramp).

51. You, know they do have helicopters at the island airport which will whisk urgent patients to a hospital. In fact it could be argued that in the most urgent cases, access to care might be better on the island than off.