Tuesday’s headlines

12 comments

1. Just when the Post is so close to getting something right for once, they have to screw it up with this line:

   “It deserves commendation, but instead faces continued hostility from Toronto’s obdurate left-wing council, which favours spending billions on a transit line to the distant and crowded Pearson while spurning the benefits to be had from promoting the more convenient island alternative.”

   I’m entirely pro-Porter but don’t drag the Eglinton line into this. No reason why can’t be like Chicago and have good public transit to BOTH airports. After all, if something is “distant and crowded”, isn’t that a good indication that it needs a transit line?

2. The city has used the ill effects air travel has on the environment as an argument against Porter. So, perhaps the Post is simply pointing out that if we’re to reject the Island Airport for reasons of noise and pollution, then shouldn’t we apply the same rationale to Pearson? And if we do, why would we build a rail line to one while trying to kill the other?

   For the same reason, the Post shouldn’t run down the idea of greater access to Pearson. If they see the benefits of one airport, they should at least acknowledge the benefits of the other. We need both airports. One to get around the region, the other to get around the world.

   Lastly, it’s poor form to simply label Island residents as “eccentric hippies”. One should add “…with a strong, misplaced sense of entitlement” to the end.

3. • Signs are a-changin’ – maybe [ Toronto Star ]

4. It wouldn’t hurt for the Post to mention that Porter Air is a frequent full page advertiser.

   The idea that Porter has been a private endeavor free from public subsidy certainly ignores the federal meddling, millions in payouts, and property tax waiver it and the Island airport enjoy.

5. Nice double flip of the bird to Toronto by Flaherty and Baird. They show up at the Porter expansion announcement, knowing that the Mayor and much of the city oppose the Island airport. And on the same day, Baird says that our streetcar replacement probably won’t qualify for federal infrastructure funds. Of course the streetcar purchase doesn’t qualify – it’s in Toronto.

6. I mentioned this in another forum, but if these people don’t like being next to an airport, maybe they shouldn’t have moved in next to one? I’m willing to bet that the condos in the area have been built to block out excess noise pollution. Even when outside, the plane noise blends right in with the general hustle and bustle of Downtown Toronto.

   I’m also willing to bet that those who have invested in property near Queens Quay and Spadina find the transportation offerings of the airport and expressway to be more of a convenience than an annoyance.

7. I love the Island neighbourhoods and I think the whole park is one of Toronto’s best assets, but I’m beginning to tire of the Island resident’s protests. If you choose to live inside a park at the base of Canada’s largest city, you’ll have to share a little slice of paradise with others.

8. The island airport is handy for downtowners. But what would be handier is high-speed, downtown to downtown rail connecting us to all the places Porter now flies, thus rendering the airport redundant and enabling it to return to park land. I know – dream on.

9. Rail isn’t quiet either – I hear the insanely loud diesels churning uphill at Bathurst & Front. Nevermind the fact that the airport was there before everyone involved in the debate chose to move there. YTZ was the city’s first airport, and the waterfront has been industrial from the start, so it is the residents who are the interlopers.

   On the rail options – no way to get rail to downtown Ottawa anymore, while Chicago, NYC, and Halifax are impractical rail destinations given the huge distances even with never going to happen Japanese level high speed rail. Plus they are neither quiet nor pollution free.

10. Residents are not interlopers. People have lived on the waterfront since Toronto began. It has always been mixed-use.

    Yes, Halifax is beyond range. I forgot Porter flies there. NYC and Chicago are quite feasible for speedy rail. It is less polluting than air and motor vehicle travel.

    It’s a good thing our leaders who built the transcontinental railroad weren’t so negative or it never would have happened, especially since BC had only about 40,000 residents at the time.

    The U.S. is taking the lead now:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8010221.stm

11. We should probably fly somewhat less and use rail more (we should also use trucks less and use the port a lot more). But the airport lands (which had a private amusement park and a baseball stadium, never a public park) should remain dedicated to transportation. Toronto City Centre Airport still handles over 3000 medical flights a year. An airport within 3 km of the main hospital complexes, which has flight paths that go over water, makes an ideal medical resource.

12. Worldwide, air travel only accounts for 1.6% of human greenhouse gas emissions. However, due to the fact that they’re emitted higher up in the atmosphere, there’s actually an additional factor of 2.7 impact of airplane emissions on global warming. So overall, airplanes are currently responsible for about 4.3% of human global warming impact, which contrary to Jim’s claims below, are responsible for almost all of the current global warming.