Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

"I don't necessarily agree with jets there because of the noise."

Many jets are quieter than the Dash 8s that Air Canada flew into the airport (and plans to one day do again if they can).
 
A blind eye to port agency's many failings

JOHN BARBER

Persistent rumours that the federal government plans to whitewash the tainted Toronto Port Authority fail to shock. It has already raised its own flag over this city's fabled ship of fools, having appointed five new members to the board over the summer, and today it is expected to release a report affirming that all's well on the waterfront.

Much hope attended last spring's announcement that the Harper government had appointed veteran civil servant Roger Tassé to investigate the rogue agency, especially after the Prime Minister declared himself "troubled" by the continuing local scandal and promised to "get to the bottom of it." The terms of reference of the Tassé investigation asked all the right questions: Why does a minor port like Toronto need such a powerful federal agency? What are the chances the perpetually money-losing TPA will ever support itself, as federal legislation demands? How did it manage to spend $35-million not building a $25-million bridge?

But hope began to fade when TPA boss Lisa Raitt flooded Ottawa with lobbyists, and reports emerged that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, the real boss in charge of the file, was a fan of the island airport. Hope collapsed when the government staffed up the TPA board, signalling its confidence in the agency and assuring its future. Then Transport Canada rushed to install new safety equipment at the island airport in time for the startup of Porter Airlines.

Six months ago, progressive Toronto naively imagined that the Harper government harboured plans to leap over apparent ideological barriers and embrace it, first by exposing Liberal corruption on the waterfront and then setting it right. There was even talk that Mr. Flaherty, formerly the most anti-Toronto minister of the Mike Harris government, had somehow mellowed.

Today, the government is expected to trot out, as an attachment to the Tassé report, a Liberal-commissioned consultant's report concluding that the $35-million payout was "reasonable." How convenient that both parties share the same view about secret deals forcing taxpayers to finance upstart airlines on the Toronto waterfront. But why did the Conservatives wait till now to reveal their concurrence? They could have saved time and money by declaring their allegiance to Liberal scams at the outset -- and sparing Mr. Tassé the trouble of sanitizing them.

In that context, the big question about the rest of the report is how far it will go in excusing the agency's many transgressions, especially its decision to sign a contract to build a bridge to the island airport in late 2003, months before gaining the necessary federal approvals to do so. That reckless attempt to pre-empt political misfortune -- the looming election of Mayor David Miller -- was the source of all the alleged liability the government subsequently mopped up with its $35-million payout, an incredible $20-million of which went to Porter.

But if the payout was reasonable, how can the process that made it necessary be anything else? It will be fun to read how far the Tory review goes to exonerate Liberal skulduggery, not to mention the role of the senior Transport Canada officials who abetted it.

Their latest scheme in that cause is to re-establish customs preclearance facilities at the island airport so that Porter can serve U.S. destinations without subjecting passengers to lengthy delays and inconvenience once they land. The island airport lost its customs facilities years ago because it couldn't generate the traffic needed to justify their high cost. Not even Joe Volpe, when he was Liberal minister of human resources, could talk his own government into re-establishing the service there. But without it, no island-based airline could hope to compete on cross-border routes.

Now the "new government," as it likes to call itself, is considering a proposal to shift customs resources from Pearson International to accommodate Porter, its taxpayer-fuelled pet. Maybe it could hire Mr. Volpe to negotiate the deal. He's got nothing better to do. And clearly, the new government prefers continuity over change on the Toronto waterfront.

jbarber@globeandmail.com
 
Concerning jets, they will require a longer runway. Let's not forget that as a business concern, the aim of the airport would be to eventually increase capacity to the maximum, both in terms of aircraft movements and with respect to passenger loads per aircraft. I doubt that the management or users such as Porter are at all interested in the status quo. Issues like a fixed link will be revisited, and will be done so aggressively as the number of flights are increased.
 
Many jets designed for urban airport use wouldn't require a longer runway, the BAe Regional Jets are examples. The RJ70 can do it in 3281ft, well short of the 4000ft runway length.

Don't disagree with your other points, but there really are a lot of misconceptions out there regarding the basic facts of airport operations.
 
From the Star:

Federal report backs Island airport
Nov. 3, 2006. 06:09 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH AND VANESSA LU
STAFF REPORTERS

Any attempt to shut down commercial flights at the Toronto Island airport would have "dire financial and economic consequences" that would cost millions of dollars, a new federal report warns.

The report, which was commissioned by Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon in May, is a blow to critics, including Mayor David Miller, who were hoping it might give them ammunition in their arguments that the port authority should be disbanded and the airport closed. They argue the agency, which oversees the airport, acts on its own, harming the city's efforts to reshape the waterfront.

But in the report released yesterday, former federal bureaucrat Roger Tassé finds that the actions of the Toronto Port Authority — a federal agency — are not hurting waterfront revitalization.

Tassé found the authority behaved properly in its running of the Toronto City Centre Airport, including making $35 million in settlements after an airport bridge was cancelled in 2003.

Miller, who during his 2003 mayoral campaign promised to kill the bridge arguing it would lead to airport expansion, blasted the report, saying it wasn't "worth the paper it's written on." The issue has heated up with the launch of Porter Airlines at the airport.

However, Tassé cut the legs out from airport critics who have claimed the noise, pollution and even the sight of airplanes will ruin the waterfront.

"Aside from the fact that there is an airport, in what way does the airport inhibit the growth and the revitalization of the waterfront?" Tassé said in a conference call with reporters yesterday.

"Quite frankly, I've not heard any comments. Quite the contrary, many people have told me that this is working well," he said, adding that the Bombardier Q400 turboprops now used at the airport are "very, very quiet."

Porter Airlines began regular flights from the island airport to Ottawa last month, so any attempt to cancel agreements now would be very costly.

"Who would be ready to assume those costs?" writes Tassé, adding that the city, while calling for the airport's closure, isn't ready to pick up the tab.

Tassé slaps the wrist of the port authority for its poor relations with the city, residents and community groups and urges officials to take a more proactive approach. "The status quo ... is not acceptable," the report says.

And he urges federal politicians to be more active in debates on the future of the port and the island airport.

But on the big controversial issues, such as the decision to build a bridge to the airport, its $35 million payout to private firms after the bridge was cancelled and the purchase of a new ferry, Tassé finds no fault with the authority.

"(It) has in all respects complied with due diligence requirements and the generally respected principles of good governance," the report says.

Miller, who has called the port authority "a rogue agency," argued Tassé's report doesn't address accountability.

"I'm very surprised given the mandate of this (Conservative) government to be accountable, I was very surprised by the tone and quality of this report," he said, vowing to make the port authority an issue in the next federal election.

His main challenger in the Nov. 13 municipal election, Jane Pitfield, said the report shows the airport is here to stay. "Miller's style of adversarial politics — always blaming other levels of government for his shortcomings and lack of leadership — has come back to haunt him," she said in a news release.

NDP MP Olivia Chow, an ardent foe of the authority, dismissed the report as a "total whitewash" that shows "contempt for the city and its residents."

Tassé defended the report yesterday and questioned whether critics such as Miller and Chow had even read it.

The 127-page document recounts in detail the often tense relationship between the city and the port authority and its predecessor, the Toronto Harbour Commission, a difficult history marked by lawsuits and power plays over waterfront land, some of the most valuable property in Canada.

When Miller was elected mayor in 2003, the airport bridge had already been approved by the city and was in the early stages of construction.

Tassé cleared the port authority for giving the final signoff on a contract for the bridge's construction in October 2003, just days before the municipal vote, saying it had a duty "to ensure that the construction would proceed with diligence," adding the outcome of the election was not known.

Within weeks of Miller's election, city council had withdrawn its support for the bridge, which led to a total of $35 million in settlements to three firms: Aecon, the company building the bridge; Stolport, a firm that had begun to demolish its hangar at the airport to make room for the bridge; and Robert Deluce's REGCO Holdings.

But since REGCO is behind Porter Airlines, which launched flights last month without a bridge, Chow said yesterday the firm should return the cash.

Port authority chair Michele McCarthy was pleased with the report. "We're very proud of our process, our efforts and due diligence. We can take some pride in what we've done to date."

AoD
 
What reason is there to doubt Tasse's findings, other than a simple dislike of the outcome? The thrust of the report was not the suitability of the airport's location, but to verify that the proper legal and regulatory steps were taken by TPA. The Conservatives could have smeared the Liberals for this one but either chose not to, or truly couldn't find anything smear-worthy.

Miller and Chow are not addressing the content of the report honestly. They were hoping for the conservatives to join them in some good old-fashioned muckraking and now can't accept that the CITY is the one that truly screwed this up. They're trying to score cheap political points and I detest them both for it.
 
It doesn't sound like this report addresses the most important points in the island airport debate. It's not about whether the Port Authority or the airport are dilligent, financially responsible, obedient to laws, etc. It's about how the airport affects the waterfront and its physical development.

I don't see how anyone can say that "the airport doesn't affect waterfront redevelopment at all". Even if you support the airport, you have to see that, at the very least, it takes up a huge chunk of the island (which could be parkland, or something else geared toward more local and recreational uses) and that it adds an industrial aesthetic to many lake views from the central waterfront.
 
The report wasn't intended to address the impact of the airport; that is a seperate issue. It did make it clear, however, that the $35 million costs incurred by the present council's decision to stop the bridge can be fairly blamed on their having overturned the previous council's decision. I suppose you could, if you wished, push the blame back to the previous council who gave the bridge its original approval.

Either way, it is the city's fault and Miller should just accept that. If he is proud of the bridge defeat (arguably electorate-supported to boot), then he should stand up for it despite the cost, not point fingers. As a couple of today's Expo articles said, finger pointing seems to be his main talent.
 
I used to be completely opposed to the island airport. Now I'm not so sure it's so bad. Part of me wishes they would go all or nothing and build the bridge to make the damn thing work and be profitable.

Instead, we have a startup that relies on a ferry, it's been protested non-stop from the beginning, it may or may not make it, levels of government are fighting (as usual), and it's another half-assed result of squabbling and disagreement.

It's just like the now dead expo bid. Squabble, squabble, squabble, missed opportunity. I would rather have a great downtown airport that's something to be proud of or have nothing at all. I'm so sick of mediocrity.
 
So the airfield at Downsview is turned into a park (in theory), and the potential parkland (in theory) on the waterfront will remain as an airport.

Many jets designed for urban airport use wouldn't require a longer runway,
Click to expand...

Many, but certainly not all. One option for expanding access to more prospective airlines and aircraft types is to lengthen the runway.
 
If something like Harbour City were the alternative to the Island Airport, I'd support shutting it down today. Unfortunately, if the airport were closed it seems that it would likely sit there for a year or two while we decide what to do with it, and then we'd plant a few trees and call it a park. In that case, I'll take the airline.
 
If the city wants to get rid of the airport all it needs to do is push plans for the airport rail link (a good plan rather than the Blue 22 one). Once there is a quick link to Pearson there is no market for the Island Airport and eventually the federal government will pull the plug on it rather than throw money at a sure money loser. Most people working at the Island Airport realize that if Porter fails the airport closure is pretty much a sure thing. With the bad weather the last couple of days Porter has had to bus people out to Pearson after getting them to ride the ferry (which today hit a log and was put out of service) making the island airport more inconvenient than driving to Pearson directly. If fog or bad ferry experiences due to wind in the gap or mechanical issues hit frequently enough then customers will be alienated and the airline will collapse on its own. Build the rail link and the airport closure becomes almost a certainty.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top