Here’s something for public space advocates to chew on: With their plan for a $38 million tunnel to the Toronto City Centre Airport, Robert Deluce and the Port Authority have inadvertently opened — or re-opened — the delicate issue of unfettered pedestrian access to rest of the Toronto Islands.
Which currently doesn’t exist, and we should all say that out loud, three times.
This summer’s strike offered a vivid reminder that the Islands really belong to the Corporation of the Municipality of Toronto, not the people of Toronto, who are granted access to said green space under carefully controlled conditions.
Sure, you can get there if you have a yacht or want to shell out a handful of tourist cash for a water taxi. But the islands, unlike the rest of Toronto’s parklands, remain a restricted access zone thanks to the city’s quaint but annoying ferry monopoly.
The Deluce/TPA tunnel scheme raises the question: Why?
Imagine that the City, at some point in the future, decided to bore a tunnel under the Eastern Gap — not unlike the foot tunnel that runs under the Thames, connecting Greenwich to Canary Wharf in London.
Over the next few economic cycles, the Port Lands will develop into a real part of the city, with thousands of people living and working in the area.
Does it make sense to create pedestrian/cycling connections between Cherry Beach and the eastern end of Ward’s Island? Of course. It’s not difficult to foresee an integrated network of shore-line bike trail/boardwalks circumnavigating the turning basin and the shores of Lake Ontario Park, with a tunnel to the islands to complete the link.
The TTC will someday run streetcar service down Cherry Street, and one could even make a case for dropping a streetcar tunnel under the gap, to provide even better non-car access to the Island and relieve crowding on the ferries.
I hope that day will come because I hate the herding pens at the ferry docks; in this day and age, they impede access to the islands.
The Porter/TPA proposal sets the stage for this debate. And it’s interesting to consider how city councillor Adam Vaughan’s lonely objections would fare in a fight over a pedestrian tunnel. In a recent open letter, Vaughan offered up a truckload of procedural counterarguments, the capstone of which decried the lack of a business case.
True, the airport tunnel does have a specific commercial mandate and Porter (or its successors) will benefit. But Toronto has been permitting pedestrian tunnels with commercial mandates for a long time (Exhibit A: the PATH system).
Indeed, the notion of building pedestrian links shouldn’t come with a profit expectation. We’re boring a tunnel under the tracks at Simcoe Street to link one area to another. We’re talking about pedestrian bridges over railway corridors for the same reason. There’s no business case. Such links are about city building.
Mayor David Miller wisely lost his appetite for the airport fight long ago. Council blocked the fixed link, Deluce built a successful airline and life at the harbourfront went on. Having forgotten the potency of the original battle as a symbol of the uneven disputes between developers and residents, Vaughan continues to tilt at turboprops with no prospect of success.
A more constructive strategy would be to re-frame the issue in terms of modernizing pedestrian (i.e., citizen) access to what is one of Toronto’s defining public spaces. Sam McBride might spin in his grave, but I’m willing to take that risk.
photo by Sam Javanrouh
59 comments
I really do not like the island airport – though I live far enough from the flight-path not to actually hear the planes – BUT I think we probably need to accept that it is here to stay.
If that’s the case then access by tunnel makes some sense but maybe the City should impose some conditions. Firstly, that it be open to all, not only passengers, and secondly that it should continue UNDER the airport runway to allow people to access the Island (maybe not 24/7?) and, as the TPA suggests, the City can use it (at no cost?) for things like the the new watermain to/from the Island.
The worst-case scenario would be that the Feds provide the $$ for the tunnel (which seems likely) and it is built only to the airport and built so it can’t easily be extended or expanded to deal with far more people.
Mayor David Miller wisely lost his appetite for the airport fight long ago.
Really, John? Miller’s let Vaughan take the lead on anti-airport activities but he’s been on the record opposing the tunnel idea very recently and went out of his way to publicly admonish the federal government for their pro-Porter appointments to the Port Authority board. I don’t get the sense he’s close to throwing in the towel on the Porter fight.
Lorinc! Lorinc! Love this guy. Best urban affairs commentator in the city, hands dizz-own!
Vaughn’s letter outlines most of my objections to the current proposal. But the biggest argument against the current proposal comes from Robert Deluce.
Here’s what he said in last Wednesday’s Star:
Deluce said he does not think installing a tunnel would “necessarily affect the total number of passengers” Porter flies
Then end of discussion. Point, game, set, match.
In a world where Toronto cries out for infrastructure spending on countless projects that will actually *matter*, how this gets any consideration is an absurdity.
I live near Trinity Bellwoods Park and I can hear the jet traffic from Pearson fly over all the time. The noise argument about the island airport is just silly. We live in a massive city with emergency services sirens, loud-pipe motorcycles and Tokyo drift cars, and air traffic.
The island should have permanent access for all of us city dwellers. Island residents think it is their private playground. This self-righteous group should get real. And the politicians (municipal, provincial, and federal) need to work towards a realistic vision for the city.
People must look at the big picture and realize that living in Toronto comes with a whole bunch of good (amenities, relative safety, great street culture, parks, museums, galleries, etc.) and some bad (pollution/litter, high taxes, noise, and many levels of politics).
Having easy access on both ends of the islands can mean the end of the island ferries, which to me is part of the islands experience. Just only a drawbridge over the Eastern gap makes sense to me.
As for the airport, it is also part of the identity and history of the waterfront and, to me, adds to the whole. A waterfront consisting of only shops, restaurants and condos does not appeal to me. It’ll just be another shopping mall. The waterfront needs business activity.
And for the war the city is having with the airport, they’ve been fighting for so long they’d forgotten what they’re fighting about, which is the vibrancy of the waterfront. There are many positive things we can do for waterfront, but they are fixated on this one negative thing. Miller, Vaughan and Chow needs to get over it and let Toronto move on. I’m sick of this fighting.
I agree with John Lorinc’s major argument, but I disagree with this part of it: “…the Port Lands will develop into a real part of the city, with thousands of people living and working in the area.” Plenty of people already work in the port lands, and I object, as I have always objected, to the notion that a manufacturing district, a place where we actually make some of the things we use, does not count as a “real” part of the city.
I should not assume any particular meaning for what Mr. Lorinc wrote, so perhaps he simply means that in future we will see a significant investment in a revitalized manufacturing and transportation center on the port lands, with mixed residential neighbourhoods for workers and managers alike. But most of the plans for the port lands that I have seen over the past decade have reflected a “creative class” ideology, which insists this city can sustain itself with “creative” jobs, and pictures the industrial port, cleansed of industry and industrial workers, sprouting latte shoppes sustained by software and design studios (which, in the real world, decamped to Bangalore a decade ago).
Destroying the port, shutting down the container terminal and vandalizing the turning basin with a promenade and matching condo developments, will put this city in a terrible bind once the world gets serious about global warming. Electric rail can replace some of the vast legion of trucks we use to bring goods into this city, but marine shipping offers the lowest emissions per tonne kilometre of any transport mode, and the only existing and proved zero-emissions technology. Vandalizing the port could easily sever this city’s link with the future.
A fixed link at the Eastern Gap is a great idea. But, given its recreational uses, instead of a tunnel I would recommend a bridge (“not unlike” the footbridge over the Thames at Southwark). Why not require the Port Authority to bundle the two fixed links together as one project? This might help in getting federal infrastructure funds, with minimal local matching.
Although I usually like JL’s columns, this one is a little confused on a few points, I think:
1. The current proposal does not include any link beyond the airport. So this is public money solely for the airport and its customers, not for public space/access to the islands.
2. The PATH is really not a good comparison, since the capital costs are largely bourne by private interests, not taxpayers. The problem is not that the airport tunnel has a commercial mandate. The problem is we really shouldn’t be paying (much) for it.
It may well be that the current debate will open up discussion about connecting the islands to the mainland. But this current proposal is so far away from anything that might break the ferry monopoly or open up more access to the islands. When there are millions of taxpayer dollars involved, it’s irresponsible to act otherwise.
Re: Lorinc’s comment: “A more constructive strategy would be to re-frame the issue in terms of modernizing pedestrian (i.e., citizen) access to what is one of Toronto’s defining public spaces.” Excellent comment. Unfortunately, the prospects that this re-framing will take place are probably next to nil. That would require some actual leadership on the part of someone on City Council. Too many of the people on either side of this issue seem to have an awful lot invested in limiting the discussion to the stark choice of whether or not we get pedestrian access to the airport only?
I live near Trinity Bellwoods Park and I can hear the jet traffic from Pearson fly over all the time. The noise argument about the island airport is just silly. We live in a massive city with emergency services sirens, loud-pipe motorcycles and Tokyo drift cars, and air traffic.
This is inane.
Because there is noise in some parts of the city, there should always be noise everywhere? Well, lets eliminate all green spaces and controls on development and traffic too, if we take this reasoning to its logical conclusion.
Geez, I’ve been bitterly opposed to John Spragge before on issues around the waterfront, but I have to say that I agree with pretty much everything in his post, above.
John, though I like many of the plans for the waterfront, and I think the Eastern Bayfront in particular makes sense given how close it is to the heart of the city, in my heart of hearts I wonder if the more grandiose plans that would see the destruction of remainder of the port, including the turning basin, will ever be realized. It seems to me quite likely that before we demolish them, their value as an asset may become more apparent to all. Perhaps I’m just an optimist.
Statistics Canada recently reported the unemployment numbers for the month of July.
Nationally the unemployment rate sits at 8.6 per cent. In Ontario that number is slightly higher at 9.3 per cent. In Toronto unemployment has climbed to 10.0 per cent.
Most citizens would agree that spending public dollars on infrastructure projects that create jobs and stimulate the local economy is money wisely spent.
Spending tax dollars on a pedestrian tunnel to the island airport is worth a look.
This project has the potential to create hundreds if not thousands of jobs at a time when so many workers in the city are without a job. It can also provide some much needed tax revenue to the City of Toronto coffers.
The building of the tunnel would require construction workers. Upon completion, it is anticipated that Porter Airlines would see an increase in passengers. An increase in passengers would lead to additional destinations which in turn would require not only more airline workers but also additional Toronto manufactured DASH 8 Q400 aircraft thereby stimulating jobs at Bombardier.
Indirectly, additonal destinations and an increase in passengers means more money being spent in Toronto on taxi’s, restaurants, shops etc.
This plan is worthy of stimulus funding consideration given its potential value in terms of job and revenue growth.
Roland Kiehne
President
CAW Local 112
30 Tangiers Road
Toronto, M3J 2B2, ON
Hear, hear! I loved using the Greenwich Tunnel when I lived in London and immediately thought of it when the idea of an Island Tunnel came up. Pairing the construction of a tunnel with improved public access to the Island is a brilliant idea that serves the infrastructure, business, tourism and residential recreation needs of the city in one fell swoop.
The Islands are underutilized in terms of the benefit they could be providing to city residents and tourists because of the limited access via ferry. It would be one thing if Toronto offered free ferry service, as New York does for Governor’s Island, or if the Island Ferry was seamlessly part of the TTC fare as it used to be decades ago. Instead, there is a $20 toll booth at the entrance to the city’s main showpiece park for a typical family of four. Runners can’t go for a jog because they can’t fit the ferry waits or travel time into their routine. Tourists have to commit to an Island trip rather than spontaneously take a peek, etc. etc. This is a huge negative for a city that is supposed to be rediscovering its waterfront.
A short tunnel across the Western Gap could serve both airport and park goer if a way could be found to circumnavigate the airport. Here is a map of one route: http://bit.ly/1mlIZo The issue seems to be crossing the foot of the runway – obviously this is a dangerous spot for people and planes if there is not adequate protection. The rest of the perimeter is probably ok, and some of it already exists as a route. Perhaps two short underpasses, baseball-dugout-like-shelters or other clever means could be devised to keep people out of the runway path? In any case, worth investigating.
Roland: Building a tunnel to Rochester, NY would be a good idea too.
We can take that money and put it to much better use elsewhere. Say, let’s use $38 million to build a Yonge Street Mall. Or start building Downsview Park. Or build better pedestrian bridges over the rail corridor.
In particularly, the Port Authority has never presented a biz model for the tunnel nor has the board of the PA ever voted on such a thing. And today the island residents claim a tunnel wold be illegal to build.
Another circumnavigation route for the airport, shorter and perhaps easier to deal with. Only one short section near the taxiway and runway would need extensive barriers.
http://bit.ly/24jBeg
The 1st route you drew there, iSkyscraper, seems ideal (west route) – you can walk along the beach from the south (Hanlans) right up to the rocks at the runway. So it’s all open right now. Some nice dunes, excellent driftwood, too.
Roland, are you aware your comments on Porter’s capacity are opposing the President of Porter who says the tunnel will not increase the number of passegers they carry? Who is right, you or him?
Can we please stop the inanities?
Roland, nobody disputes that spending $38M to build the tunnel would create jobs. But the City of Toronto has hundreds if not thousands of other worthy projects that can use that $38M and thus *also* create jobs.
And read the comments I cited above by Porter airline president Robert Deluce. As Jonathan says, why do you think you know better than him what the tunnel would do for his airline? Or as Matthew Blackett says, shouldn’t there be a business case to actually show this before we put the island tunnel project ahead of the countless other ones on the City agenda?
Finally, we do remember that there is already an airport in Toronto? Even assuming Porter *does* increase its passenger load. These aren’t people who never have and never would fly, these are simply people who are changing their airport destination from Pearson to the island. It’s zero sum. Those extra airline employees are going to come from all the ones Air Canada laid off due to the airport switch…
Interesting proposal. I never have looked at the ferries as cutting off access to the island park system, but rather Ive always viewed them as a beautiful way across the water. An ecentric wonder unique to Toronto. I like the ferry trip, it has always given me the sensation that I was leaving the city not simply going to a park.
Lining up with hundreds of people to access the islands through a tunnel (let alone walking with a crowd underground) does not appeal to me. Making the ferries free would be better. Unfortunately the Port Authority charges the city to cross the harbour.
As for tilting at turbo props I make no apologies. I represent the neighbourhoods that surrond this noisy dirty little airport. These residents have my support in their fight to reclaim the peace and quiet of their community. Dozens of flights taking off and landing, empty Porter buses racing in between the local school and community centre and the local park and people’s homes, not to mention hundreds of taxis queuing for non-existent fares only makes the situtaion worse.
Yes a few dozen people a day fly out of Toronto for business in Ottawa or shopping in New York (far fewer people from those cities come here), but what all of us who love the waterfront are fighting for is a clean green and beautiful waterfront where no one use overwhelms another.
The fight to protect neighbourhoods was a key promise in my election campaign and not one I will back down from. In particular if waterfront residents can’t count on their local councillor to represent them in this fight who would speak up for them at City Hall?
It might be nice to fly to Chicago on a whim to see what a great waterfront city has done with its lakefront, but if I did, I wouldn’t be landing at Chicago inner-city lakeside airfield. That aiport was closed a few years ago as the Mayor of Chicago fought to re-claim his city’s waterfront from private interests.
Incidently, I live close to Bathurst and Queen, near Trinity Bellwoods Park, and I can hear the island planes and helicopters landing and taking off regularily. What is especially agravating is that many Porter planes do so after curfew.
It’s ironic that city residents can’t use the islands after 11pm, but in violation with the operating agreement signed with the city, a private airline does. What is worse the Port Authority imposes no penalty for breaking the rules.
It is time all of Toronto’s waterfront was returned to the residents of the city and run by a local body accountable to city residents. If this happened we could have a debate about the islands free from the corupting influence of cabinet ministers elected from far off places making decisions about Torotno without the advice or support of a single member of Parliament elected in the city from the same party.
Adam Vaughan
p.s. the next post is a copy of my open letter to residents of my ward mentioned in earlier posts.
August 27, 2009
Dear Residents of Ward 20,
Keeping in mind Mark Twain’s advice never to start an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel, let me try to set the record straight by presenting the actual argument I gave Globe and Mail columnist Marcus Gee against the tunnel to the Toronto Island Airport.
My opposition to the latest scheme that is being promoted by some members of the Toronto Port Authority and apparently being supported by Minister John Baird and the Tories in Ottawa revolves around these issues:
· Where are the plans for this project and how was a cost estimated without detailed drawings?
· Where is the business case for this $38m project? The TPA board has not seen one and neither have the governments or taxpayers.
· Why shouldn’t the Island Airport or the airlines self-finance this project as Pearson must do when it contemplates improvements?
· Why is a third access route to this tiny airport being considered within months of a second ferry being purchased, and only a couple of years after the last new ferry was purchased?
· How can the premier and the federal government give a favourable review to this vague project when an actual application for infrastructure funding has not been approved by the TPA Board?
· What local elected body has declared this project a priority for funding? How has this project jumped ahead of the city’s streetcar needs, the goal of electrifying rail to Pearson, or simple road, bridge and highway repairs in Toronto?
As an elected official I am stunned at how easily this project has been embraced by senior levels of government with virtually every media outlet and commentator doing the cheerleading.
The city and municipalities across Canada have been engaged in long, complicated and highly politicized negotiations with the Federal Government to get established projects fast-tracked and most local governments, despite months of back and forth with John Baird’s office, have yet to receive a penny of funding, let alone a commitment to fund important and badly needed projects.
Why has this particular proposal jumped the queue? Why when the city wants to build a subway to York University and serve millions of people with better transit, do the Federal Tories insist that the city form a public-private partnership to qualify for funding, yet on this project they propose a 100% public subsidy all to the advantage of a single airline?
When $38m dollars is given over to one company with no public process and it is used to subsidize the movement of a small group of travellers, something is seriously wrong. This is the privilege that I question.
It has nothing to do with class, unless you are talking about a particular class of politician who circumvents public process to hand out public tax dollars to private interests.
I was elected on a platform that promised to fight airport expansion and taxpayer subsidies for the un-elected and unaccountable Port Authority. Even current Board members of the TPA (some appointed by Baird himself) have filed complaints to the Parliament’s Integrity Commissioner and Federal Auditor General concerned about financial irregularities and governance concerns at the Port.
Even more alarming was the behaviour of the Minister in charge of the TPA last December. Faced with opposition to how airport improvements would be financed and a call for full disclosure to the Board itself over expenses filed by the previous CEO (current Federal Cabinet Minister Lisa Raitt), a half hour after Parliament was prorogued, Baird reconfigured the Board unilaterally and added two more federal appointments to the body to ensure the board would vote to prevent an investigation of the allegations.
Something is wrong at the TPA, and before the Conservatives, with help from Queen’s Park, shovel more taxpayers’ dollars towards this tunnel project of questionable value Torontonians, taxpayers – in fact Canadians – deserve answers. Instead we get a silly debate about class war.
To be clear: I don’t think the island airport is needed; it’s not a boon to the waterfront or a transportation priority for Toronto. But if it is there and people use it, so be it. My quarrel is not with the choices people make to get to Ottawa. My concern is with a federal government in Ottawa that makes up the rules as it goes along and in doing so provides substantial public subsidies through its agencies to private interests. It is this set of privileges I attack and seek to end.
Best regards,
Adam Vaughan
City Councillor
To heck with a tunnel…BUILD THE BRIDGE!
I like the boat for many romantic reasons but as a frequent island-goer, I don’t want to wait in the holding pen. Too many times have been on time for a boat but the Parks department has left early (yes, there is a disclaimer).
We should separate the argument — merits of a tunnel and the rogue-ness of the TPA as public body. The latter seems well-documented.
Adam Vaughan must be allowed a politician’s recourse to rhetoric, I suppose, but let’s respect the facts. Vaughan writes of “Lining up with hundreds of people to access the islands through a tunnel” and “a few dozen people a day fly out of Toronto for business in Ottawa or shopping in New York”.
Both statements are simply nonsensical. Queues occur now because ferry service is infrequent – a fixed link would eliminate them. And Porter flies literally thousands of people each day, and employs hundreds. Lying about the numbers won’t change that.
Of course these statements are obvious to everyone reading. So what to say about a city councillor says otherwise but must know better?
I respect Councillor Vaughan’s defence of his position, though he does slip in a class dig: “Yes a few dozen people a day fly out of Toronto for business in Ottawa or shopping in New York”…. Please do not demonize Porter’s patrons as filthy rich neer-do-wells. Sometimes people just fly because they are trying to go from A to B – my last trip from New York to Toronto was for a funeral, and a friend just flew Chicago-Toronto on Porter to visit family. Porter is also often the least expensive airfare; it is hardly a toy for the wealthy.
Speaking of Chicago, absolutely right that they tore up the old Chicago lakefront airport and are now busy populating the space with parks and pavilions. (http://bit.ly/gbwV7) But Chicago has Midway as an in-town supplement to O’Hare, and both airports are directly on the subway. If Pearson had a subway link and Pickering had been built, the context for operating the Island Airport would be quite different. All I know is that as a tourism, travel and business asset, YTZ is making the city shine in a way that no other infrastructure has in years. A ped tunnel looks like a good solution that suits all parties, especially if you can use it to access the Island’s parkland.
i wish that people who hate the island airport (unlike me!) would spend some time lobbying for a rail link to pearson.
i must travel for business and have taken air canada from pearson dozens of times and porter from the island once. i would take porter all the time if it went more places and had more flights. the trek to pearson is expensive, unpredictable and unpleasant. and porter is a nice airline.
i currently live in adam vaughn’s ward, near a major railway and under part of pearson’s flight path. i will be moving to another downtown neighbourhood shortly that is near a highway and under the flight path of small planes approaching the island. so i don’t really shed a tear for those who can hear porter planes at queen and bathurst, or even in the condos at the foot of bathurst for that matter.
it’s obvious that major transportation infrastructure — an airport, a highway, a railway — is annoying to live near. but that’s literally life in the big city. and it’s not as if this kind of infrastructure is cropping up everywhere. for example, the railway near my house was built before union station.
… and by the way, ferries don’t have a monopoly on getting to the island. the water is accessible to everybody. make friends with a sailor.
Links to the island at either end are of little use to many people who want to go to the “recreational” areas at Centre. How many have walked from Wards’s Island dock to Centre? Assuming a convenient pedestrian path can be found past the airport, how many have walked from there to Centre? The Eastern Gap is not exactly close to transit service, and the Cherry Street line won’t go near it for a decade.
A link to the island should not be created for only those who want access for cycling, jogging and long walks in the park. Most people want to go to places near the Centre Island docks, especially if they have kids in tow. A link over or under the eastern or western gaps will do nothing for them, and the thousands who queue at the docks should not be cited as justification for links at the extremities.
I’m not sure why creating a Western and/or Eastern Gap link necessarily has to mean the end of the ferry. After all, if you are starting from Union (GO train passengers, YUS passengers, downtown dwellers) why would you want to go to either point to access the islands?
The number of ferries needed might decrease but I think convenience and the view might leave the market open. I propose that the TTC operate fare collection on both the fixed and marine links, so that a Metropass still takes you anywhere in the City, with the cost differential covered within the general TTC budget.
I like the (crazy, expensive) idea of retaining the current streetcars to run a route from Union to Cherry, across the gap and round the island, under the island airport runway and terminal and emerge at Queens Quay and Bathurst for the run back to Union. This heritage line could operate from a limited number of high platforms for accessibility (like the Calgary C-Train) with the existing car steps filled in.
Hmmm,
The Port Authority charges the City for the ferries crossing the habour???
I vote for turning Bathurst south of Lakeshore into a toll road!
Or maybe just threatening to and then negotiating a no-fee for ferries deal in exchange.
Then we can cut Ferry fares to TTC levels, and make a valid transfer good for the trip.
My first point here is not to advocate for the end of the ferries but to consider the importance of choice, as it is understood in the Toronto of, say, 2025, when there’s a substantial population of people living and working on the portlands and in the East Bayfront. At that time, the difficulty of access will be magnified because there will be lots of people who live very close to the islands, as the crow flies, but who will be forced to do the whole island ferry ritual in order to reach what could well be their local park.
Second, I think it’s entirely legitimate to ask whether the ferry service needs to be modernized — something city council has resolutely avoided for decades. Yes, I like the view from the boats. But I avoid visiting the islands specifically because of the daunting ticket lines and the waits for the ferry. To me, it seems like a tourist attraction, and I think, for many Torontonians, that’s exactly what the islands have become. The wonder of the Don River ravine systems is the sheer connectivity — the fact that you can travel a long way thru’ these extended parklands thanks to the network of linked trails. Imagine if you could get on a bike at Queen East and Victoria Park, ride along the boardwalk to Lake Ontario Park, traverse the south shore of the portlands (or the turning basin), hop over to the island, cross over to Hanlan’s Point and then follow the circuit around the airport suggested above until you can reconnect with the mainland thru the Robert Deluce Memorial Tunnel.
That would be a very cool experience…
The discussion raises a few additional points:
1) The truth about Porter matters.
In addition to a successful airline, Robert DeLuce has built a relatively environmentally friendly one: the Q-400, because of the altitude at which it flies, produces only about a third of the global warming impact a jet does to go the same distance. And I second the comments that decry Mr. Vaughn’s spin on the success of Porter; I note he seems to feel the need to write “My quarrel is not with the choices people make to get to Ottawa,” a comment he would not need to make if a number of the voters in his ward did not choose to use Porter.
2) Closing Toronto City Centre Airport has a price.
iSkyscraper correctly points out that “If Pearson had a subway link and Pickering had been built, the context for operating the Island Airport would be quite different.” I agree, and would go farther: Buttonville Airport now seems certain to close; if Toronto City Centre Airport closes as well, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority will have an unanswerable argument for building at least the first phase of the Pickering Airport they have always wanted. Building that airport would destroy some of the last arable land in the GTA, impinge on the Oak Ridge Moraine, wreck the tiny and heart-breakingly bucolic villages of Whitevale and Green River, and cost the Toronto Area residents and businesses between $300 million and $1.3 billion. But we can’t go without a reliever airport in the Toronto area; the medical traffic alone demands one.
3) Laws matter
Regardless of what you think of the destruction of Meigs Field, Richard Daley Jr. carried it out in a lawless manner, breaking rules designed to ensure the safety of fight. If an aircraft in distress had made for Meigs Field the night “du mare” sent his bulldozers out to wreck it, that aircraft might have crashed with a loss of lives. It disturbs me that so many “progressives”, who seem to favour the rule of law in theory, seem all too willing to applaud lawlessness when it achieves an end they want. I would suggest, however, that if Mr. Vaughn condones lawlessness that actually poses a threat to the safety of life, he can hardly expect us to get indignant about a few technical violations by the Toronto Port Authority board of directors.
First, bravo John Lorinc…
Second…
Dear Adam Vaughan,
Could Porter Airlines expand their business on a few dozen people? Could the airline even survive at it’s day-one service levels on only a few dozen people? Both of these scenarios seem terribly unlikely. Is it wise to use the “few dozen people” argument as a strike against the airport when your claim is likely impossible to substantiate and if so, a reckless untruth.
I too think the tunnel is a bad idea. A slow walk under the Eastern Gap seems little better than a slow boat ride across it. Could those $38 million be better used elsewhere…yeah. Is it likely that if we defeat this tunnel the $38 mil will be used somewhere else in Toronto, no. Why? The TPA is filled with Conservative cronies and shouldn’t that be your real fight. Of course, it’s much easier for a politician to fight against something tangible like the airport, (even if it is a losing fight) than it is to take on an intangible like the TPA. But those are the people we should be attacking; the powerful and corrupt, not the citizens of this city who use Porter to whom you’ve been rather unkind.
I’d like to also take minor issue with your comment about “the corupting influence of cabinet ministers elected from far off places”. Unless you’re willing to stop supporting the unelectable (in a broad government-forming sense) NDP, then you’re going to have a whole life of never having your guy in power. It’s nice to be an idealist, but only realism gets things done. Supporting the NDP federally isn’t realistic.
So, here’s some realism. The airport battle is over. Yes, you were elected on a platform of stopping airport expansion. Think you can get elected on that platform again? Certainly not based on your record of success, eh. Do you think the Mayor’s gonna spend much time on the airport. He’s failed just as bad as you have on the issue. I’ll bet real money that in the upcoming election the airport will be a non-issue for your electorate, the mayor and for anyone that doesn’t belong to an interested lobby. It’s time to start thinking about a waterfront that includes the TCCA…it’s either that or you risk being left even further behind this argument.
Yer pal,
Josh
Two ferries running to Centre Island and Hanlon’s, and a bridge at the Eastern Gap are the obvious solutions, and the cheapest meaningful upgrades. I cannot imagine that a tunnel is going to be adequately maintained over time so that it won’t get that urine smell so many underpasses have in our city, besides being ruinously expensive and claustrophobic.
How people get to Porter should be Porter’s problem. They want to pay their own way, tunnel away. Denying them a tunnel is not going to make them go away (making them carry the cost for tunneling might). Previous commentator is right, an intelligent rail link to Pearson is the way to kill Porter (not ‘Blue 22’.
The ferries should be free or part of the TTC’s fare, needless to say, and if it is true that we have to pay the illegitimate Port Authority to cross OUR harbour, that is scandalous. The Eastern Gap bridge needs to be a swing bridge for the few Lakers. Sailors can wait on a regular schedule, or take the Western Gap.
This seems huge. Is there something we can do force an investigation?
What most of you do not get is that the tunnel is ONLY for airport users!
You cannot access the rest of the Island from the airport.
Using the TPA figures it would cost the City another quarter of a billion dollars to tunnel under the airport to get access to the Island.
That is probably all the infrastructure money that the City will get from the Harper government.
The Port Authority is low balling the actual costs of this project. The tunnelling under the Western gap through shale and at a depth of 27 meters will cost more than the 38 mill that they are quoting. They do not have any completed tenders back to base that figure on.
The other thing about this tunnel is its size. It is 8 meters (27 ft) wide X 4 meters (13 ft) high.
It would be converted into a vehicle tunnel at the drop of a Tory hat.
The comparable TTC tunnel is the one at Wilson Station, It is 23 ft wide X 9 ft high and can handle the discharge of a full Subway Train of 1200 people in less than five minutes. The Port tunnel is accessed by three elevators at each end and might have 60 people coming into it at one time if all the elevators were full and landed at the same time.
As to the question of Streetcar access to the Island it would cost over a billion
dollars because the tunnel has to be bigger and all the other infrastructure has to be in place.
And to end this letter for all you fans of Porter. The Canadian tax payer has loaned Porter almost half a billion dollars to buy his planes. The success so far has been at taxpayers expense.
When I listen to politicians I always have to decide at what point does exaggeration become a lie? What is the long range vision of Toronto as a port? A tunnel under the Eastern Gap is a logical requirement for the future and it would not hamper yacht or shipping traffic.
I remember when the working poor of the city went to the islands for a day holiday. Now a family of 4 pays $20 (???) for the experience plus what they spend on the islands. Sounds like it benefits most those with money or those living on the islands. The time for island living is past. That land is needed for public green space now and the ferry tariff should be returned to a TTC fare.
Two thumbs up for the tunnel under the Western Gap!
I don’t mind the tunnel, as long as Porter pays for it.
Despite iSkyskraper’s optimistic proposals (above) I highly doubt that regulations would a allow a ground-level pedestrian walkway at the edge of an airport runway. Essentially, that means the the pedestrian tunnel would only serve the airport, not the island. No tax dollars should be spent on that.
There are much better ways to public money. I like John’s idea of an eastern link. A fixed link, or tunnel, with no cars allowed sounds like a good idea (and will keep CAW happy too).
Contrary to popular belief, a rail link to Pearson won’t kill Porter. From Union station, it takes 10 mins on the Porter shuttle and at worst 15 mins waiting for a 2 min ferry ride across. One could reach Union 1 hr before their flight and still make it.
Even with the Pearson rail link, a passenger would have to check in an hour prior and take about 30 mins to get there (wait for the train, change terminals, etc.). In reality that passenger would probably have to depart Union at least 1hr 45 min to 2hr before his flight. And he gets to pay 20 dollars for that privilege.
And that does not include getting to Union station. For those of us in the east end, Union is far more accesible by transit than Pearson. Heck some days Union is more accessible by transit than Pearson is by car.
Thanks but no thanks. I’ll keep flying Porter. Vaughan and his Condofront NIMBYs can keep calling us working class folks from Scarborough (insinuating we’re wealthy is hilarious), all kinds of nasty names and insinuate all kinds of things. That won’t do anything to change my opinion about Porter, the utility of the Island airport or a city council dominated by useless councilors that try and find issues to yammer on about instead of actually, you know, improving the waterfront (in ways they can).
I’ll give up my Porter ticket when they’ve actually done something significant to improve the waterfront and those free-loading Island residents have given up the keys to their heavily subsidized retreats. They get a $2.5 million dollar a year ferry service (and let’s not talk about the cost of infrastructure to the Island), I get a bus that barely shows up on time, has poor evening and weekend service and Vaughan and his ilk have the never to call me and my kind spoiled?
ps. Build the tunnel. Only in Toronto would anybody support maintaining an expensive and polluting ferry service over a pedestrian tunnel. When we eventually close YTZ, that tunnel will still be handy as a link to whatever replaces the airport.
I agree with Adam Vaughan that the ferry ride is enjoyable.
I disagree with Adam Vaughan that the ferries don’t cut off access. They do, because of the expense. Recently a man asked me at the QQ LCBO parking lot: “Do you know where I can park the car for less than $25 and then get to the ferry to take my family to the Island?” I didn’t know. But add up the parking and the ferry fares, and it’s quite an expense for a family.
I agree with Adam Vaughan that a bridge at the Eastern End would be better than a tunnel – a beautiful bridge such as that over the Humber at the lake or the new one proposed in Calgary.
I’m neither here nor there on the tunnel question, so this is somwhat off-topic, but I wanted to address this:
I disagree. Living in Riverdale without a car, and having little money to spend on brief trips (let alone a proper vacation), a relatively inexpensive round-trip to New York, Chicago, Ottawa, Halifax, etc., etc., just a shuttle-bus ride from Union Station is vastly more attractive to me than the prospect of a cab to Pearson plus the whole rigmarole there for a more costly flight on a more environmentally damaging aircraft.
The last time I flew was from Ottawa to Waterloo (to just barely make a summer exam on time while working co-op in Gatineau) on a tiny twin-engine plane. Before that, I flew to Florida with my parents when I was 9 (give or take a few years).
Apologies to whoever did the creative on the Dos Equis commercials, but: I don’t always consider flying, but when I do, I always consider Porter. Taking a bus or train over the border is a huge hassle, and my future leisure travel is most likely to either the northern US or within central/eastern Canada. We can fight about how many people share my situation and preferences, but it is a non-zero quantity and therefore it is not “zero sum”.
I would add to my post above that a tunnel to the airport would have no effect whatsoever on my transportation decisions. If the argument really boils down to stimulus-for-stimulus’-sake, we might as well dig a pit & fill it in again as far as I’m concerned. Others above suggest that other municipal projects deserve priority, but recall that the stimulus money from Ottawa is only for “new” projects.
The following is a letter I sent to my councillor, Bill Saundercook, last week asking him to push council to discuss the pros and cons of pedestrian linkages, specifically one on both the eastern and western gaps, including cost-benefit analysis of savings from not running ferries in the winter (though expecting they’ll be needed in winter). Haven’t heard back yet.
Dear Councillor:
I am writing so that you know my opinion on the Island tunnel proposal
by the Toronto Port Authority, and hope that you share this opinion
with Toronto City Council. I understand it is a federal (with matching
provincial funds) funding decision, and the Port Authority is a
federally regulated agency. Please do not ask me to forward my
concerns to my MP.
First, I don’t support a tunnel proposal that only serves the airport.
However, I do, in theory, support an easily accessible/rideable
tunnel/bridge to the islands, with connections at both the eastern and
western gaps, that can be used by all citizens including bikers, in
line skaters and pedestrians to access the islands for the following
reasons:
1) With the TPA’s funding application out there, I believe it is
important to get in front of this issue and get something that the
City needs, a connection to the islands rather than allowing the TPA
to merely be able to build a tunnel only to service airport
passengers. The TPA has said this is possible. While I understand the
concern about the existence of the airport, I fear that battle is lost
and if a tunnel to serve the airport receives funding, then the rest
of the City will have missed their opportunity to mould the design of
a connection to their parkland.
2) With the plan to build a watermain connection to the island,
perhaps this is the time to marry a fixed link to that construction?
http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/toronto_island_water_supply/index.htm
3) A connection at the western and eastern gaps would do two things:
i. Allow bikers, in line skaters, pedestrians a fast, easy, free
connection to their precious parkland
ii. Provide a contiguous connection for the Martin Goodman Trail,
alleviating the disconnect that exists on Queens Quay at this time
iii. Allow the City to reduce the money losing ferry in off-season
times, though I suspect it will still want to maintain the ferry
during high season for tourists, etc.
I understand the funding issue for the tunnel comes from the
Canada-Ontario partnership, not the City, and the TPA won’t require
approvals to built its tunnel. I bring my opinion to you for you to
attempt to cajole council into intervening with a common message about
the issue – i.e. let’s have a full debate about the pros and cons of
two fixed links to both sides of the islands, including costs and
savings. I wish to see a full debate about this issue, and not allow
it to be shelved due to concerns about enabling expansion of the
airport.
I support Mayor Miller, and am proud to have him as my Mayor. However,
I am not a single issue voter and therefore don’t feel his promise
about no bridge to the airport precludes (a debate about) connections to the islands.
The problem with an Eastern Gap bridge is twofold –
* it would have to be openable to allow port traffic to enter (I’m fond of the idea of a high speed ferry from Niagara Region to Toronto instead of a GO train the long way round)
* there would be pressure to allow the islands become part of the normal street grid with the noise etc. that goes with that and congestion of the new portlands districts. I think there should at least be a rule that non-emergency vehicles be electric, with trolleybuses or streetcars handling transit service.
Tim, nothing precludes you from sending your letter to the Mayor — and seeing if you hear back.
You have to admit, a large version of a “curling bridge” would be a pretty darn awesome sight perched at the edge of the Eastern Gap, providing pedestrian access AND shipping lanes AND a tourist attraction all in one. Just call the Brits and order one up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Bridge
Since I originally posted the gmap above I’ve studied aerial shots of both Buttonville, near Toronto and Teterboro, a very busy small airport near New York. Both have public roads/sidewalks that come right up to the foot of the runway with barely any more clearance than what the Island provides. The more I think about it, the more I think a footpath around the airport is absolutely achievable.
Roland, a project needs to stand on its own merits. Job creation simply for the the sake of creating jobs, is foolish.
You should also note that Toronto’s unemployment rate is 11.5%. Despite rhetoric that the loss of manufacturing jobs during the implementation of NAFTA would re-balance Toronto employment base and make it more resilient during the current crisis, that has not been the case. Once again Toronto leads the the GTA and CMA in job losses.
Adam, your feelings of nostalgia should not taint your positions. If a case can be made for a fixed link to the island’s, not for the airport, it should be investigated.
It is time that the islands had a transit link, even if a surcharge was needed to support it!
The dilemma is how to allow greater access without ruining what’s there. It would be a shame if the islands were overrun by homeless people like the rest of downtown (cue homeless defenders). But $6.50 a ferry ride is getting too steep. Bridges or tunnnels that shut down at night would be best.
To Samg:
I am not really concerned about hearing back from my councillor or the mayor (or their constituency assistants really). Just wanted to let my councillor that some people might be thinking of the issue beyond, ‘should the TPA be able to have their tunnel or not?’
Mark Dowling makes a good point about the concern of fixed bridges impeding water traffic, and it’s just another one of the issues that should be discussed – technological alternatives and the cost/benefit of those.
Kudos to uh-huh for daring to put forward the unpopular, but valid opinion.
A question though…do homeless people tend to take up residence in Toronto’s other large parks? High Park, for example? Perhaps I should go to the park more often as I truly don’t know if this is an issue.
It’s an interesting topic. Parks in NYC and London tend to close their gates at XX O’Clock. We don’t do that here. Parks there look nicer, but maybe Toronto is more open and public and, like, into Freedom. Which is better?
Uh-huh, the logical conclusion of any attempt to parse who is and isn’t welcome in public space is the ultimate elimination of public space in favour of access controlled places such as malls. By the same argument, should we allow only people with photo ids into public libraries? There are lots of lost souls who hang out in the libraries, and perhaps to some patrons, they’re not congenial company. But should they be barred, or should we write library access rules with an eye to excluding them because they sit at tables and talk to themselves?
Quick update-
At the Port Authority general meeting today they finally admitted that they have no intention of allowing the public use of their tunnel to access the islands. It will be exclusively for airport ticket holders. The $38 million dollars is to subsidize Porter passengers and airport employees only… Imagine what the city could do with that money. Perhaps we could make the ferry free with a subway transfer.
Adam Vaughan
PS the TPA also admitted today that they land Porter planes, MediVac Helicopters and all other craft after 11pm without any Nav Canada personnel in the control tower, and they admit that they edited this safety concern from all official documents but denied it was any sort of a cover-up
@Adam Vaughan – the Port Authority have already offered a public purpose joint venture by combining the tunnel work with the water main work the City had already planned. Whether that was just PR or actually feasible I’ll leave to the water engineers to decide. The bit about post-11pm landings is concerning and both pro- and anti-airport citizens should hope that is followed up.
If access to the Islands was “bolted on” to the tunnel project then obviously the City should have to defray part of the cost directly, which they are not being asked to do at the moment (although there is the question of whether they are implicitly if the Tunnel is treated as Toronto spending and thus reducing the amount available to the City from the Feds). At the very least it would reduce/eliminate the cost to provide emergency service the next time the CUPE ferry workers strike.
One way to deal with the problem of where public access to the islands could go from the airport without requiring the public to pass security would be to extend 08/26 westward about 120m using tunnel fill and build a road around the current eastern 08/26 stopway, which would be reduced by the same length, as far as the Hanlan’s ferry dock road. (This wouldn’t be cheap, and it would also shorten 06/24 – extending that would have an impact on the beach)
@uh-huh – good on you for proving John Lorinc’s original point, which is that the islands are if not a gated community, certainly a tolled one.
The offer of a “joint project” is yet another red herring. The Environmental Assessment on the city’s water-main proposal still has a year to run. It is for a 2m (aprx) round utility pipe. It would run from the city side of Eireanne Quay (through city owned property) to the eastern tip of the the island on the airport side, and has been deliberately routed to avoid conflict with the air terminal. It then cuts diagonally across the airfield and under the airstrip to avoid the new fuel tanks on the airport’s southern boundary. The city’s pipe only needs to sit a few feet below the lake bed and just below the permafrost.
The Port Authority originally suggested the tunnel could be expanded and in their own polling told Torontonians that the public could use the tunnel to access the islands and save the city money by canceling ferry service to the islands.
It turns out that the project contemplated by the TPA involves a tunnel 18m x 4m, the route they demand is from the ferry terminal to the airport terminal (much) further west. The tunnel would be accessed by a six story deep elevator on each side of the channel. Cost $38m.
To make the tunnel work for the public going to the islands it would have to be about six times as long, it would require a complete new EA. and some very interesting line-ups would be generated as island goers mingled with airport passengers. The estimated cost of a tunnel like this based on the TPA costing model would be a lot closer to $380m when an extra elevator, engineering and testing and design costs are added in. Of course under the TPA plan the entire waterworks project would have to be re-engineered top to bottom as well. sunk costs on work already completed would be added to the bill.
Further none of this work could be completed (perhaps not even started) before the March 2011 drop dead cut off point for projects funded by Harper’s infrastructure. In other words it is doubtful that the project is eligible under the federal governments own rules.
To put this in another perspective, the cost of making this a public tunnel to the islands is the same as the cost of electrifying the rail link to the airport. A project that would clean the environment, enhance access to all air travel for all Torontonians and truly modernize rail service in this city.
For this reason much of the hyperbole, and quite frankly misleading characterizations of the benefits of the tunnel have fallen away under scrutiny. The Port Authority has now admitted all they want is a tunnel for private use. They have also admitted that the issue has never been tested for cost through a business case analysis, the board has never voted on the project, nor has the board ever been asked to formally support an application to the federal and provincial governments.
The Port Authority now admits (watch for revisions !) that they never intended to let every taxpayer use the tunnel they want every taxpayer to pay for. Hopefully this ends the debate. Coupled with all the governance issues, expense account scandals, code of ethic transgressions, safety concerns and attempts at covering up the behavior of the TPA board no government in their right mind would send a penny to the Port Authority.
Add in curfew violations and all the lawsuits is it any wonder why I continue to tilt perhaps not just at turbo-pops but certainly at Turbo-Charged Propaganda!
Return control of Toronto’s waterfront to the citizens of Toronto, and then lets have a debate about how to take advantage of the beauty of the islands.
Adam
Adam,
Your implication above about what might transpire in a line-up with a mix of island goers and Porter customers is completely inappropriate. Torontonians, even those with different views, can certainly queue without incident.
And, to the original point of this post, the City of Toronto shouldn’t be waiting for the repatriation of the airport to commence a discussion about improved pedestrian/cyclist access. I personally don’t see how one could achieve that goal at the western gap, mainly due to distance and the issue of airport security. But the eastern gap, as articulated above, is another matter altogether and as a city seeking to redevelop the portlands, we should put the idea on the planning agenda rather than waiting for a realignment of the sun, the moon and the port…
I disagree with John’s use of the word “repatriation” and Adam’s use of the phrase “citizens of Toronto” for the same reason: Toronto doesn’t have the status of a country. My fellow-citizens don’t just live south of Steeles; my country goes all the way north to Iqualuit, east to Cape Spear and west to Cape Scott. That means, as much as I want to see the rail system in Toronto (and eventually all Ontario) electrified, I also want to see us continue to do our part in ensuring the provision of medical air transport, and not shunting all of the pollution from the air travel out to our fellow citizens in Rexdale and Malton.
By the way, and off topic, but since Mr. Vaughn brought it up, if the Port Authority didn’t mention the “safety” concern with operations that take place after the tower closes, maybe they did so because no such concern realistically exists. Aircraft the world over land at airfields after the tower closes, or even airfields with no working control tower at any time.