Whoaccio
Senior Member
We should really be focused on one simple question:
Does the tunnel serve broad public interest? If so, it is entitled to public funding.
Yes, thank god. That is the main question to look at.
1. The most immediate effect of the tunnel will be to shave off some traveling time for the customers of one airline. This does not strike me as being of public interest.
Why not? Porter is accessible to the public, and is indeed "public transit," albeit public transit with a specific niche. That doesn't usually disqualify things though: Blue22 has basically the same niche, yet is being subsidized by hundreds of millions, GO Transit serves a similar niche, as do TTC Downtown Express Buses both of which are subsidized.
As long as those niche benefits outweigh the costs, that is the important thing.
2. In the longer term, the tunnel may generate increased activity in the island airport, bringing more people into Toronto for business or pleasure. This could be considered to be in the public's interest. However, due to the island airport's location, we must accept that any growth is significantly limited. As well, airport growth will have negative implications for other issues of public interest, such as the revitalization/pedestrianization of the waterfront. Furthermore, even if we fully accept that airport growth is a good thing, it is unclear that a pedestrian tunnel, rather than a short ferry ride, will have any impact on people's decision to travel to Toronto.
I don't believe there are any major technical capacity restraints at this point for YTZ. It will obviously never be Pearson, and that is a good thing, but it isn't bursting at the gills either. Improved terminal facilities and better connectivity should provide for a fairly major boost in passenger volumes.
As to impacts on the Waterfront, evidence from the past while has shown this concern to be overstated. Development along the Waterfront has not been noticeably affected by Porter operations, and noise concerns are fairly minimal. The Q400s operate at below 100db, and impact on ambient noise levels on waterfront communities are well within urban norms. Individual noise complaints to the TCCA typically average about 10-15 per month. Considering thousands live within the area, that is essentially a rounding error. I would be interested in hearing, say, Concord Adex's opinion on how Porter has effected their projects.
The Pearson rail link, by contrast, offers several benefits for the public: traffic relief, significantly faster travel time for a larger group of people, the potential for far greater airport activity, the potential to act as a catalyst for more rail transit in the city, less reliance on carbon-emitting forms of transportation, etc.
I'm not opposed to the Pearson Rail link, but for the sake of consistency it seems odd to support one but not another. The local noise impacts of the Georgetown extension are actually larger than Porter operations, vibration impacts will be perceptible and it has fairly noticeable impacts on local NOx levels. The public subsidy is far, far greater (about 20x, last I checked) and the total people served will be roughly similar to Porter's anticipated service levels. Those people will have the same "privileged", single business traveler demographics than Porter. And how does taking a diesel train to a carbon-spewing jet lessen reliance on "carbon-emitting forms of transportation" more than taking a pedestrian tunnel to what are by all measures some of the most environmentally friendly planes in production?