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

[Cinnamon]

A significant liability for taxpayers? How?

Another example:

According to 2011 Annual Report, Pearson Airport recorded a $17,124,000 net loss in its operational results. (Link below, page 37).

I couldn't find a comparable data for Billy Bishop Airport. In the Economic Impact Study published by TPA, there is data about how much each tourist spends in Toronto or how much Porter employees spend last year to renovate their homes; but nothing like “We closed the 2011 with $5 net profit!!â€.

So, that means we have two airports reporting net losses every year and probably our tax dollars fill that gap. Are we that rich to keep two airports? Does it worth to spend millions of dollars to keep both of them alive because “it is more convenient†for people living in downtown core to walk to the airport?

If answer is yes so why on earth we are spending half billion dollars to construct a rail link between downtown and Pearson?

If answer is no, then what about diverting Porter and its 2,000,000 per/year passengers to Pearson? May be it will do the trick and we will have “one†but a sustainable airport.

Link here: http://www.torontopearson.com/uploadedFiles/GTAA/Content/Publications/GTAA_2011_AR.pdf

Another example:

According to 2011 Annual Report, Pearson Airport paid $27,591,000 for Payments-in-lieu of real property taxes. (page 35)

According the “The Starâ€, Wednesday, April 03rd, 2013, Billy Bishop Airport owes city $31,000,000 for Payments-in-lieu of real property taxes in arrears covering 1999-2012 and asks city to write-off $26,000,000 of it.

TPA and Porter cannot seriously expect to enjoy commercial and competitive benefits of occupying hundreds of acres of parkland in the middle of the downtown without paying the cost of it. I live in downtown too and I pay my taxes. What makes TPA or Porter different?

Link here: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...cts_tax_deal_with_toronto_port_authority.html


Another example:

If used properly, Airport Improvement Fees can create excellent results. Vancouver International Airport is a good example, please see following link:

http://www.yvr.ca/en/improvements.aspx

According to 2011 Annual Report, (and as expected) there are multiple capital investment projects ongoing at Pearson Airport too “to improve and redevelop the facilities to meet current and future demandâ€. (page 38)

If we can divert all traffic to Pearson and therefore funnel all AIF income into one source, we can expect:

1. Reduction in fees (This year Vancouver froze its fees & Toronto cut $4 thanks to increase in number of passengers)
2. Better airport, better facilities.

Another example:

You help me here. How much does it cost to provide safety, security and environmental protection at Billy Bishop Airport? Who pays for it? How much it will cost if we move them to Pearson? Will there be any savings? How much?

Another example:

Again you help me here. Toronto waterfront is a beautiful & precious area with some ugly condo developments. A different subject of discussion though. But they pay taxes. There are couple of academic studies show that residential real estate values generally drop if they are close to an airport or noise levels from airport increases. How much do you think Billy Bishop Airport pulls down the values of the residential real estate at Toronto waterfront? How much tax income are we losing?

 

[Cinnamon]

I think the idea of YTZ becoming a park is a complete non-starter and not even worthy of discussion. But that's just my opinion

No. It may make sense, especially after commissioning of Union - Pearson Express. We have to look at economics. Then I will help bulldozing it and we can play frisbee there.

Hahaha any bets leave it to your grandsons, the way rail development is going on in this country, it will be 100 years before that happens

Seriously, it is a joke. Even for Union - Pearson Express we are going with diesel trains. I wonder why not steam? At least we can lie and tell everybody we did it as a touristic attraction; it may even turn into one!

 

[nfitz]

TPA and Porter cannot seriously expect to enjoy commercial and competitive benefits of occupying hundreds of acres of parkland ...

Parkland? It's never been parkland. Much of it was lakefill.

Just because you might wish it to be parkland, doesn't make it parkland, any more than the Redpath sugar refinery is parkland.

It's quiet conceivable that if it is disposed of, that it could become something other than parkland. How about condos? For that matter, how about turning much of Algonquin Island into condos. It could be done without any loss of parkland - and we surely could do with having more people on the islands.

 

[Cinnamon]

Parkland? It's never been parkland. Much of it was lakefill.

Its irrelevant. Lets call it lakefill, island, artificial island, rock the on water. Are they paying taxes?

It's quiet conceivable that if it is disposed of, that it could become something other than parkland. How about condos? For that matter, how about turning much of Algonquin Island into condos. It could be done without any loss of parkland - and we surely could do with having more people on the islands.

Again irrelevant. I'm questioning economics of having a second airport in downtown. Sorry if I just missed your sarcasm.

 

[nfitz]

Its irrelevant. Lets call it lakefill, island, artificial island, rock the on water.

Very relevant. It goes to your bias.

Again irrelevant. I'm questioning economics of having a second airport in downtown. Sorry if I just missed your sarcasm.

No sarcasm to miss. Your simply looking at the tax base. What about the cost savings to people and business having an airport near downtown, rather than having to travel out-of-town to an airport in Mississauga. What about the environmental savings?

 

[trainfiend]

In the Economic Impact Study published by TPA, there is data about how much each tourist spends in Toronto or how much Porter employees spend last year to renovate their homes; but nothing like “We closed the 2011 with $5 net profit!!”.

So, that means we have two airports reporting net losses every year and probably our tax dollars fill that gap.

That's a pretty big leap, Cinammon...

 

[TOareaFan]

Another example:

According to 2011 Annual Report, Pearson Airport recorded a $17,124,000 net loss in its operational results. (Link below, page 37).

I couldn't find a comparable data for Billy Bishop Airport. In the Economic Impact Study published by TPA, there is data about how much each tourist spends in Toronto or how much Porter employees spend last year to renovate their homes; but nothing like “We closed the 2011 with $5 net profit!!â€.

So, that means we have two airports reporting net losses every year and probably our tax dollars fill that gap. Are we that rich to keep two airports? Does it worth to spend millions of dollars to keep both of them alive because “it is more convenient†for people living in downtown core to walk to the airport?

If answer is yes so why on earth we are spending half billion dollars to construct a rail link between downtown and Pearson?

If answer is no, then what about diverting Porter and its 2,000,000 per/year passengers to Pearson? May be it will do the trick and we will have “one†but a sustainable airport.

Link here: http://www.torontopearson.com/uploadedFiles/GTAA/Content/Publications/GTAA_2011_AR.pdf

I am not inclined to spend too too much reviewing the financials of Pearson but your comment that I have bolded made me look. I was surprised at the thought that a successful airport like Pearson could need annual taxpayer subsidy.

What I found in my (serious) 5 minute look at their income and expense statement was:

1) in the year that you link to they had an extraordinary expense related to refinancing of some bonds/debt. they made a call to repay older, higher rate debt, with some newly issued, lower rate, bonds. To repay the bonds early, they incurred a penalty which will be recovered over the life of the new bonds. The penalty, though, for accounting reasons has to be expensed in the year incurred while the recovery happens in bits over the years they save money. The amount of that penalty, was $27.5million. If they had not done that they would have shown positive results by $10 million (I know you may say "well they did do it so they lost money"....but they don't do this every year and it will enhance profits in future years);

2) Included in their expenses is an annual ground lease payment of $131 million to the federal government ...so I doubt our taxpayer dollars are subsidising Pearson.

3) A further $210 million of their expenses are of the non-cash nature. While these are legitimate expenses and contributed to the "loss" they are the sort of expense that would not need any taxpayer support to allow them to keep operating.

In short, without a lot work, I can see easily that the notion that Pearson is annually losing money that needs taxpayer support is wrong. Quite the contrary, Pearson is paying money to the taxpayer on a contractual basis.

 

[sjc]

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.

What I would like to see would be high-speed rail from the east and west (and potentially north) that stopped at both the Island Airport and at Pearson. It could then be used as a feeder for passengers from the rest of Ontario to get to the airport(s) and more distant destinations, as well as helping people transfer from one airport to the other. This would mean that the high-speed rail would have a number of stops along the way and would not be focused on end-to-end traffic.

Airplanes are very good for major-centre to major-centre traffic. Rail is very good for feeding people from the smaller centres into the long-distance transportation network.

 

[Swarez99]

I am not inclined to spend too too much reviewing the financials of Pearson but your comment that I have bolded made me look. I was surprised at the thought that a successful airport like Pearson could need annual taxpayer subsidy.

What I found in my (serious) 5 minute look at their income and expense statement was:

1) in the year that you link to they had an extraordinary expense related to refinancing of some bonds/debt. they made a call to repay older, higher rate debt, with some newly issued, lower rate, bonds. To repay the bonds early, they incurred a penalty which will be recovered over the life of the new bonds. The penalty, though, for accounting reasons has to be expensed in the year incurred while the recovery happens in bits over the years they save money. The amount of that penalty, was $27.5million. If they had not done that they would have shown positive results by $10 million (I know you may say "well they did do it so they lost money"....but they don't do this every year and it will enhance profits in future years);

2) Included in their expenses is an annual ground lease payment of $131 million to the federal government ...so I doubt our taxpayer dollars are subsidising Pearson.

3) A further $210 million of their expenses are of the non-cash nature. While these are legitimate expenses and contributed to the "loss" they are the sort of expense that would not need any taxpayer support to allow them to keep operating.

In short, without a lot work, I can see easily that the notion that Pearson is annually losing money that needs taxpayer support is wrong. Quite the contrary, Pearson is paying money to the taxpayer on a contractual basis.

I work for a consulting group that deals with the GTAA pretty heavily so I can correct some items some people are just guessing/assuming about

1-Pearson doesn't get any tax breaks, since 1992 airport is run as a private not for profit company. The redevelopment of pearson IE T1 was paid for by GTAA, which took on debt to built it. Government did not pay for anything in airport lands, but they did for the new interchanges around airport.

2-Many of the expenses are not part of cash flow, it actually does generate substantial postivte cash flow YOY, and for 2012 the net income is positive around the $20 Million mark, plus it paid the federal goverment approx $150 Million in rent which goes to general revenue.

3-Your tickets have a security charge on them, in general good idea. Pay for what you use, the problem is Pearson generates 4x what they need, government takes rest, and goes into general funds. Can't lower the charges as its administered by Feds. (The ratio is similar at almost all major airports in this country).

-Airports make money for federal government in this country, its almost a hidden tax most are unaware of. Since privatized Pearson has paid 5x the value of the land in rent back to Ottawa, they have for years behind the scenes been trying to get ownership of the land so they can stop the payments.

Now the kicker to Pearson, most don't know. They like Billy Bishop, they like buffalo airport. Pearson is worried they will be at max capacity by 2020 and that point will need to add 2-3 Billion in new debt to look at new a runway and new Tier on T1. The new CEO (who is fairly new) works with the other two airports in sees how they can all benefit each other. They want to avoid this as long as possible and don't mind having Billy Bishop go to 4-5Million passengers a year and 2-4 Million go to buffalo (as they see as low hanging fruit regardless). This slows there growth and lets them pay off more of there debt before taking on anything new. There loans are at a pretty high rate for some reason, and are locked in to large degree in terms of rates.

Now with that said, I want this to be approved since I so prefer Porter vs other carriers in this country and no longer live on the water front. Yes, I am selfish.

 

[Cinnamon]

Very relevant. It goes to your bias.

Let's say I'm biased and let's call that piece of land which airport sits on anything you want. Are they paying their taxes?

No sarcasm to miss. Your simply looking at the tax base. What about the cost savings to people and business having an airport near downtown, rather than having to travel out-of-town to an airport in Mississauga. What about the environmental savings?

Your first and second posts were completely different in their context. While I found "how about turning much of Algonquin Island into condos" sarcastic, now you have a very good point.

I think UPE can provide a good connection between downtown Toronto and Pearson Airport but it must be economically sensible for riders. I mean, cost of the travel, travel time and level of convenience should make sense, otherwise nobody will use it, or it cannot reach sustainable ridership. It must give a good reason for not driving (cost) or taking a taxi (time).

On the other hand, island airport has a very limited connection to public transportation. Even today, traffic in that area is very hectic. I'm not sure how that small intersection can handle traffic created by 5,000,000 passengers/year, each dropped or picked up by a car or a taxi. I guess soon it will take more time to drive from Bay Street to Island Airport then to Pearson. (There was a Jays game on Saturday and it too me more than 15 minutes to drive through and exit Bremner, which normally takes less than 1 minute)

 

[nfitz]

On the other hand, island airport has a very limited connection to public transportation. ...(There was a Jays game on Saturday and it too me more than 15 minutes to drive through and exit Bremner, which normally takes less than 1 minute)

What? It's about 250 metres from the Queens Quay/Bathurst 509 stop to the door to that new tunnel. It feels like you walk further than that at Pearson, just trying to get from the car, to the terminal ... and even further if you use the outdoor car park south of Viscount station ... Terminal 3 alone is 400 metres from end to end ...

 

[rbt]

What? It's about 250 metres from the Queens Quay/Bathurst 509 stop to the door to that new tunnel. It feels like you walk further than that at Pearson, just trying to get from the car, to the terminal ... and even further if you use the outdoor car park south of Viscount station ... Terminal 3 alone is 400 metres from end to end ...

It's about 1km from Terminal 1 parking to the gates at the hammerhead (Pier F) and the hammerhead itself is 200m wide. With twists and turns, ticketing, and various lines you might hike 1.5km from car to gate taking a direct route. The high-speed walkway is apparently over 270m long.

509 Bathurst/Queens Quay stop to Porter's gates is about 600m in total.

 

[Cinnamon]

What? It's about 250 metres from the Queens Quay/Bathurst 509 stop to the door to that new tunnel. It feels like you walk further than that at Pearson, just trying to get from the car, to the terminal ... and even further if you use the outdoor car park south of Viscount station ... Terminal 3 alone is 400 metres from end to end ...

Street cars are cute, but I think there won't be too many people using 509 to reach the airport. It was already over crowded before they shut it down and not reliable at all. Especially if you have a luggage, forget about it. I generally walk to the airport or ask a friend to drive me.

 

[Cinnamon]

It's about 1km from Terminal 1 parking to the gates at the hammerhead (Pier F) and the hammerhead itself is 200m wide. With twists and turns, ticketing, and various lines you might hike 1.5km from car to gate taking a direct route. The high-speed walkway is apparently over 270m long.

509 Bathurst/Queens Quay stop to Porter's gates is about 600m in total.

I don't think Pearson is any worse than any other airport. If you cannot walk you can get assistance though.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Street cars are cute, but I think there won't be too many people using 509 to reach the airport. It was already over crowded before they shut it down and not reliable at all. Especially if you have a luggage, forget about it. I generally walk to the airport or ask a friend to drive me.

There's a free shuttle running from union as well.