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

[kEiThZ]

I think most people who are against the airport would have the airport land become part of the Toronto Island park system and so maximizing revenue would not be so important as park space. Looking at the issues the city is facing collecting a normal tax rate due to it being Federal land as an airport I think that there are some groups which would just be happy to see the TPA not getting a free (or subsidized) ride.

The TPA is firmly moving away from getting a free ride. The more revenues its gets, the more it'll be able to pay the city. I honestly believe that's actually what some people resent. It'll make their case for sinking the airport less tenable.

And while maximizing revenue from the lands may not be a consideration for many, it certainly is for the Feds.

All that said, I don't dispute that there is a case to be made for closing the airport. I just think that case is rather weak at the moment. When people complain that its damaging the waterfront, that case is rather spurrious when there's so many other issues on the waterfront much higher up the priority list for the public.

Okay, but I wouldn't necessarily say that the expansion of the runway is in the public interest, either.

People keep saying it's not in the public interest.

Have you seen the polls? Particularly the recent one by The Star? There is literal public interest in the expansion. And that support is highest in the core, surprisingly.

How people can say it's not in the public interest when the public actually thinks it's in their interest is beyond me.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keithz:

As a point of contention - public opinion isn't the same as public interest - the latter is broader in scope and timescale, and may very well be against public opinion at the time (e.g. smoking in public, seatbelts, etc.) Not to say that there isn't public interest in this issue (for and against) but public opinion don't have much to do with that.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

I think we will see the island airport shut down and converted to park land the day we have 2h30m rail service between Toronto and Montreal. Place your bets now.

I honestly would support closure of YTZ if we had HSR from Toronto to Montreal and Ottawa.

However, I honestly don't see it happening. Costs are apparently pushing $30 billion to do the entire Quebec-Windsor corridor. Even at half that for just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal, we're looking at $15 billion. Assuming the feds pay a third ($5 billion), what interest does the federal government have in spending $5 billion to build a taxpayer funded HSR to compete with private tax-generating airlines, which also generate lots of rent revenue for the feds through the airports? If we can answer this question, we'd have fed dollars on the table tomorrow.

Another take from the Post:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/17/porter-airlines-takeover-speculation/

AoD

Critics have been saying this about Porter since Day One. And yet, they are still here. Here's the thing. Nobody is going to buy them unless they actually have a viable plan. And if they have a viable plan, why would the owners (which includes huge investors like Teachers and OMERS) sell?

Also, it would be interesting to see what the competition bureau says if there is a buyout proposed. Now that we have actual evidence of a substantial decline in air fares because of higher competition (mostly centred on Toronto).

 

[kEiThZ]

Keithz:

As a point of contention - public opinion isn't the same as public interest - the latter is broader in scope and timescale, and may very well be against public opinion at the time (e.g. smoking in public, seatbelts, etc.) Not to say that there isn't public interest in this issue (for and against) but public opinion don't have much to do with that.

AoD

I get this. But public opinion is at least partly the public's perception of self-interest. Surely, the public wouldn't favour something if they actually thought it wasn't in their interest.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

keithz:

That's why I said for or against - but again, self-interest isn't the same thing as public interest. Case in point - there is self-interest in minimizing taxes imposed on oneself at this moment in time, but it is not necessarily in the public interest to drive taxes down and negate the ability to fund things like health care, transit, etc.

AoD

 

[Hipster Duck]

People keep saying it's not in the public interest.

Have you seen the polls? Particularly the recent one by The Star? There is literal public interest in the expansion. And that support is highest in the core, surprisingly.

How people can say it's not in the public interest when the public actually thinks it's in their interest is beyond me.

AoD has already corrected you on the difference between public interest and public opinion. This is especially true if the question is phrased without a trade off:

"Would you like to see the airport runway expanded?"

versus

"Would you like to see the airport runway expanded at taxpayer expense?"

But, more importantly, this project is not in the public interest because it solely benefits one private company which, by definition, makes decisions in its private interest. Sure, you can argue, like Peepers does, that expanding the runway may allow Porter to be more competitive and lower fares, but that's conjecture. There's no guarantee that Porter will use its competitive position to lower fares because that may not be in the company's interest, if it is in the public interest.

My bottom line - which I think is actually a traditionally conservative position - is that the government should not be involved in private interests. That means that they shouldn't thwart Porter's attempts to build a runway, but nor should they enable it in any way.

 

[sjc]

My bottom line - which I think is actually a traditionally conservative position - is that the government should not be involved in private interests. That means that they shouldn't thwart Porter's attempts to build a runway, but nor should they enable it in any way.

So should the government (federal and city) agree to amend the Tripartite Agreement to allow jets and the runway extension (which would "enable" it) or refuse to amend it (which would "thwart" it)?

But, more importantly, this project is not in the public interest because it solely benefits one private company which, by definition, makes decisions in its private interest.

It also benefits the people of the city who will have more transportation options available to them when traveling to other cities (especially for travelers that live close to downtown and have no car). As well, the city may benefit from travelers from elsewhere coming through downtown Toronto who might otherwise have traveled through Pearson and not brought dollars into the city.

 

[Peepers]

AoD has already corrected you on the difference between public interest and public opinion. This is especially true if the question is phrased without a trade off:

"Would you like to see the airport runway expanded?"

versus

"Would you like to see the airport runway expanded at taxpayer expense?"

Just because the definition of "public interest" and "public opinion" are different does not make them mutually exclusive. kEiThZ is absolutely correct therefore when he points to the public opinion polls as a sign that this proposal is in the public's interest. I think the general public is bright enough to figure out what is in our best interests. We don't need the Adam Vaughan's and Olivia Chows of the world to tell us what is in our best interest! [/quote]

But, more importantly, this project is not in the public interest because it solely benefits one private company which, by definition, makes decisions in its private interest.

More than just one company will benefit. Because they are proposing to utilize a Canadian manufactured Aircraft the impact of allowing this to go forward will have a positive ripple effect throughout the Canadian economy. For this reason you could say it is in our national interest to allow this proposal to go forward and this national interest should override any perceived negative impact on the vacation home owners on Ward and Algonquin Islands.

Sure, you can argue, like Peepers does, that expanding the runway may allow Porter to be more competitive and lower fares, but that's conjecture. There's no guarantee that Porter will use its competitive position to lower fares because that may not be in the company's interest, if it is in the public interest.

It a well established fact that more competition in a market leads to lower prices. This is not conjecture. We can already see how the current Porter service has resulted in lower fares. We can see this in the below StatsCan study of Canadian airfares. In 2012, Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa - three cities that are served by Porter - saw decreases in airfares. All other Canadian cities saw increases!

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130410/dq130410a-eng.htm

The cities recording the largest year-over-year quarterly increases in air fares were Saskatoon (+8.7%), Halifax (+4.0%) and Vancouver (+3.9%). During the same period, Montréal (-4.6%), Ottawa (-3.7%) and Toronto (-1.5%) were the only cities of enplanement to post average domestic air fare decreases.

My bottom line - which I think is actually a traditionally conservative position - is that the government should not be involved in private interests. That means that they shouldn't thwart Porter's attempts to build a runway, but nor should they enable it in any way.

If the proposal is in the public's interest why shouldn't Governments enable it? That's not to say that government should fund the expansion. Taxpayer dollars are not involved. Any expansion will be funded by user fees.

 

[Cinnamon]

And that support is highest in the core, surprisingly

I'm not surprised. I live in downtown, have no car and travel very frequently for business. Being able to "walk" to the airport is very convenient. Most of my colleagues, friends live close by have the same opinion. From very selfish perspective I prefer to see Porter keep focusing on business travellers and don't overcrowd the airport with tourists. That is my personal and selfish opinion.

On the other hand, especially after commissioning of the Union Station - Pearson Airport Express, Porter operations from downtown will be a significant liability for the tax payers and city of Toronto.

 

[Peepers]

On the other hand, especially after commissioning of the Union Station - Pearson Airport Express, Porter operations from downtown will be a significant liability for the tax payers and city of Toronto.

A significant liability for taxpayers? How?

 

[Peepers]

Also, it would be interesting to see what the competition bureau says if there is a buyout proposed. Now that we have actual evidence of a substantial decline in air fares because of higher competition (mostly centred on Toronto).

I agree that National Post article is pure speculation (or wishful thinking by investment bankers). Not mentioned in the article is the fact that any such sale would require government approval and I would hope that a sale to WestJet or Air Canada would be rejected by the Harper government - although who know's with Harper - he allowed RBC to buy Ally Bank and Scotia Bank to buy ING eliminating high interest saving accounts for consumers in the process.

 

[Cinnamon]

I think the general public is bright enough to figure out what is in our best interests.

True. Problem is, some of us are little bit too bright and not shy jumping to conclusions with limited or no information. I'm not so bright, so I'm trying to dig into the details of this proposal and educate myself what is really being offered, and what will be the mid to long term consequences. It is not an easy task for me as I'm not full time "public opinion generator" and I don't have access to some key information. Disinformation created by Porter and TPA is not helping too. This is why public opinion is not always align with public interest; we simply do not have enough time and information even we have interest to make a decision.

We don't need the Adam Vaughan's and Olivia Chows of the world to tell us what is in our best interest!

First of all I would expect them to educate themselves on the subject. This is why they are where they are today. If required, they should involve more professionals to conduct unbiased and realiable feasibility studies and then base their decision on that. They cannot rely on information pushed by Porter or its sweetheart TPA or any other PR work. This is their responsibility and they are accountable for that.

If you believe the names you have mentioned are not capable of doing so, then it was our mistake to gave them that responsibility in first place, and we are accountable for that.

An example: TPA claims that Billy Bishop airport generates $2b for Toronto Area Economy and Porter uses this data in its full page advertisements. I read the report and I don't agree. On contrary, I believe Billy Bishop Airport with Porter on it is a liability. If I were a councilor, first I would ask to see a third party report before making any decision.

 

[EnviroTO]

So should the government (federal and city) agree to amend the Tripartite Agreement to allow jets and the runway extension (which would "enable" it) or refuse to amend it (which would "thwart" it)?

Having no position or doing nothing can be seen as being both for and against depending on perspective, but really it is about saying what is in place now is acceptable and not worth changing. Is amending the agreement to allow jets and a runway extension something that shows the government is against Air Canada and Westjet? Is not amending the agreement to prevent commercial flights supporting Porter? Is not giving me $5 million of taxpayers money thwarting my plans for success?

 

[Cinnamon]

A significant liability for taxpayers? How?

A good example is Union Station - Pearson Airport Express (UPE) itself:

According to Metrolinx, it is 100% funded with a full commitment from the Government of Ontario and total cost for the project is $456 million in 2010 dollars. It is expected to be commissioned in 2015. Once UPE is operational, If we let Porter continue to operate from downtown airport it will reduce ridership of UPE up to 2,000,000 passengers per year. This means higher fees, longer amortization, and limited or no funds for further improvements. Another option is Government of Ontario will simply write-off the cost of the project with my tax dollars.

I prefer to see complete electrification of the UPE, reduction of fees, improvement of service and execution of further environmental measures such as installation of noise barriers along the route like in Europe instead of a redundant second airport in downtown.

 

[DavidJamesTO]

Apologies for going back a few posts, but I don't think high speed rail and the Island Airport have to be mutually exclusive. Even if we manage to get a St. Lawrence/Great Lakes high speed network connecting Toronto to Montreal, New York, Chicago, and all points in between, not everybody will be interested in travelling end to end. The decision to buy jets for more distant destinations is added insurance; rail can take over some of the domestic short-haul, freeing up slots for long distance flights.