Time for a tunnel to airport island?

[adma]

Second, I plead ignorance to not knowing that the Terminal Building was designated a historical site. That said, I read and understand the significance of the building. The building itself is charming, but I don't see or feel anything much beyond that from the few photos I can find of the building. I haven't used the Island Airport since the late 80's when I flew in & out of there a few times on City Express and I can't say it left much of an impression on me. That said, no, I wouldn't want to see it torn down given it's status.

Well, there you have it. And I feel it's an ignorance shared by a lot of others who propose a tabula rasa solution to the airport lands--fundamentally, they're approaching the airport from the standpoint of heritage and historical philistinism, even on an elementary "hitting the ground running" basis. (But it needn't be. After all, Island Airport was an early Doors Open attraction.)

 

[kEiThZ]

dt

I am curious. Do you wish for the buildings to be razed because you are completely against any and all man-made structures on the Islands? Or because you are against the airport?

The latter can obviously be refuted on heritage grounds. If you hold the former view, than I am curious how you square that with the presence of the homes on the Islands. Obviously they interfere with the enjoyment of the Island as a park significantly as well. They create fenced off lots which can't be enjoyed by the public and which are gardened as per the occupant's wishes instead of in accordance with any kind of general plan for the Toronto Islands.

 

[AKS]

Actually, I wouldn't mind having the Malting Silos removed. It's pretty ugly IMO. It would be nice if it could be made into a public area for tennis, baseball or soccer field. There doesn't seem to be any outdoor areas for people to use around the harbourfront area.

 

[jwill]

Harbourfront has plenty of public outdoor areas. What it needs are unique buildings and spaces, like the malting silos and redpath. If they tear it down, all we'll get is either more generic condos, or more generic parks.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

dt

I am curious. Do you wish for the buildings to be razed because you are completely against any and all man-made structures on the Islands? Or because you are against the airport?

The latter can obviously be refuted on heritage grounds. If you hold the former view, than I am curious how you square that with the presence of the homes on the Islands. Obviously they interfere with the enjoyment of the Island as a park significantly as well. They create fenced off lots which can't be enjoyed by the public and which are gardened as per the occupant's wishes instead of in accordance with any kind of general plan for the Toronto Islands.

I'll repeat it for the last time, I never advocated razing anything at the Island Airport, glance back a couple of pages.

No, I am not against man made structures on the Island, how did we get there?

I do however stand by my comment that I think the Island Airport is a blight from the mainland and yes I am against an airport at the Island as I have opined in the Porter Airlines thread.

As for the tunnel, I could care less if Porter builds and pays for it but not using $38M "stimulus" money.

 

[AKS]

Harbourfront has plenty of public outdoor areas. What it needs are unique buildings and spaces, like the malting silos and redpath. If they tear it down, all we'll get is either more generic condos, or more generic parks.

I'm not talking about generic parks. But spaces people can use. Are there outside public tennis courts, soccer fields and basketball areas? All I saw on the west end is a community centre.

 

[adma]

I do however stand by my comment that I think the Island Airport is a blight from the mainland and yes I am against an airport at the Island as I have opined in the Porter Airlines thread.

I still think that if you factor out its functioning as an airport and whittle things down to fundamentals like the original terminal, the brick hangars to the E, even the 50s butterfly hangars to the W, you might have some neato raw materials for an airport-site park that's richer still for its vestiges of an airport-that-once-was.

Oh, and go to the heights above Picton ON. If this astonishing place fails to move you...

 

[sjc]

Mark McQueen responds to critics of the tunnel

TCCA commercial passenger traffic doubled between 2007 and 2008. It is encouraging to see that Torontonians believe the success of the airport is compatible with the direction of Toronto’s waterfront redevelopment strategy. Why else would 64% of Torontonians think the Waterfront is on the right track, with only 14% disagreeing? Moreover, the TPA has worked diligently to ensure that the passenger growth at the TCCA complies with a “good neighbour” policy. Over the past 12 months, noise complaints have dropped 61%.

Something interesting that I found in the poll results that makes me wonder about who these 500 Torontonians are that were polled:

Q37: Region.
Etobicoke ....18%
North York ...27%
Toronto / East York ...30%
Scarborough........26%

30% of those polled were in Toronto or East York.

Q32: And, FROM YOUR HOME, do you hear any sound or noise associated with the airplanes that land at, and take off from, the Island Airport?
Yes... 10%
No ... 87%
Don't Know... 1%
Refused....... 2%

10% of respondents hearing noise from island airport airplanes seems awfully high to me. Planes from the island fly primarily fly over the lake and not over anyone's houses. Assuming that you would have to live in (old) Toronto to hear the planes, this would imply that at least 1/3 of Torontonians can hear the planes.

Personally, I can't hear them from the waterfront any time I've been there. I certainly haven't heard a plane from the island from anywhere north of the Gardiner.

I am pretty sure that more than 2/3rds of the people in Toronto and East York live north of the gardiner.

Unless perhaps they are talking about the helicopters that buzz all over the city from time to time? Or are small planes causing lots of noise somewhere?

Do Porter flights to Chicago or Thunder Bay fly over people's houses? The Ottawa and Montreal ones (and I assume New York) fly almost entirely over water.

However, if the number is skewed high, it would only make the results stronger -- lots of people can hear the planes and the still the results show strong support for the airport and for building the tunnel.

EDIT: From where exactly can you hear the Porter planes? I could hear them at Polson Pier when I was there last year (nobody lives in that area). I assume the people living in those blocks south of the Lakeshore and west of Bathurst can hear them sometimes. The people living on the island can probably hear them sometimes (although the flight paths avoid them). Can people in the condos along Queen's Quay hear the planes? Is it a constant thing or occasional (like the rest of us get occasional noise from fire engines, helicopters, etc.)? Can anyone report on the actual impact of the island airport on their part of the city?

 

[rbt]

10% of respondents hearing noise from island airport airplanes seems awfully high to me. Planes from the island fly primarily fly over the lake and not over anyone's houses. Assuming that you would have to live in (old) Toronto to hear the planes, this would imply that at least 1/3 of Torontonians can hear the planes.

In the late evening (10pm onward) on a quiet day you can very easily hear Porter aircraft up to Queen between High Park and Leslie Street Spit.

It is loud or unbearable? No. It it audible with the windows open at home? Yes.

Now, the noise level certainly isn't high but it is audible. This might actually increase as more people fly Porter. Once you recognize the sound (from having been stuck in their tin cans for an hour) you can pick it out of the background easier.

You can also hear canons, streetcars rumbling past (even on newer tracks), among other things.

 

[mettle]

However, if the number is skewed high, it would only make the results stronger -- lots of people can hear the planes and the still the results show strong support for the airport and for building the tunnel.

very nice analysis. however, you could also say that if that many people north of the gardiner hear noise, the people south of the gardiner aren't just crying wolf when they say the aircraft movement from the tcca can be loud. i can't remember exactly, but i'm pretty sure sound dissipation to distance isn't a linear function, probably much less.

personally, i've found that sometimes (not always) it can be deafening - much, much louder than the regular din of the city (i use to live on bloor near spadina). it's the weirdest thing though. sometimes two q400 take off a few minutes apart. one can be hardly noticeable and the other can be impossible to ignore.

 

[DSC]

From The Star:

Tunnel to island airport sunkPort Authority says project is dead because it can't qualify for stimulus dollars

The Toronto Port Authority says a plan to build a $38 million pedestrian tunnel to the island airport is essentially dead because it can't meet the completion deadline to qualify for stimulus dollars.

"Although the tunnel concept was warmly received by a majority of Torontonians, it must be concluded that there is now insufficient time for the TPA to be assured that it will be able to meet the federal government's deadline for 'substantial completion' by March 2011," said Alan Paul, acting president and CEO of the port authority, in a news release issued Tuesday.

The idea to build a 120-metre tunnel deep beneath Lake Ontario as a way to ferry passengers for Porter Airlines was first floated in June and the port authority started lobbying for federal and provincial dollars.

The port authority, which issued a request for proposals in August for an environmental assessment, had been prepared to pay $7 million and was seeking $19 million from Ottawa and $12 million from Queen's Park.

The proposed tunnel would have been been 8 metres wide, 4 metres high and outfitted with moving sidewalks for passengers who must currently take a 90-second ferry ride across the western gap.

In 2006, the port authority paid $4.5 million for a new 150-seat ferry. This year, it ordered a $5 million backup ferry expected to be delivered in December.

In an interview in August, port authority chair Mark McQueen had said the environmental assessment could be completed in four months and the tunnel built within a year.

Opponents of the island airport, including Mayor David Miller, feared the tunnel would encourage more air traffic and result in more daily flights.

 

[Hypnotoad]

This is not surprising because if there is a will there is a way. There will always be tradeoffs and priorities set in infrastructure spending such as this.

Think about it. This news comes the day after Queens Park approved the expansion of train-use in the Georgetown corridor to (eventually) link Pearson with Union Station. This link all but negates the need for the Island Airport. Indeed, $875 M for Metrolinx to serve all airlines and commuters is a higher priority than $45 M to serve one airline.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps they can save some money and build a bridge.

I don't see why a train to Pearson negates an island airport. The biggest issue at Pearson is the check-in times! Cutting 10-minutes off the travel time doesn't help that much.

 

[wagthedog]

im glad they killed it. It's gotta be one of the dumbest ideas ever, what is wrong with the ferry? The $36 million tab would be sure to grow.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is not surprising because if there is a will there is a way. There will always be tradeoffs and priorities set in infrastructure spending such as this.

Think about it. This news comes the day after Queens Park approved the expansion of train-use in the Georgetown corridor to (eventually) link Pearson with Union Station. This link all but negates the need for the Island Airport. Indeed, $875 M for Metrolinx to serve all airlines and commuters is a higher priority than $45 M to serve one airline.

Yep. So $875 million is better spending than $38 million (it's not $45 million)? That's over 20 times the amount. It's not that I don't agree with the project. But I strongly disagree with the logic of those who complain about "subsidizing" the Island airport but then are more than ready to spend the better part of a billion bucks in a flat-out gift to a private consortium that will take all the profits from the venture while shouldering so little of the risk. This is a worse deal than the 407 ETR.

As for it killing the YTZ. That's not going to happen. The 20 dollar fare vs. the free Porter shuttle from Union makes the decision very easy. Throw in the one hour check-in time vs. 20 min check-in requirement for Porter and the latter still comes out the favourite by far. And that doesn't even account for the convenience of the Island airport for the entire east half of the GTA and the city. It may even be faster on some days to get to YTZ by GO train and shuttle from Mississauga than to Pearson. The train won't fix any of that. It's really a niche service for connecting some business travellers and tourists to the airport.

As for Porter....the only way Air Canada can become even marginally competitive is if they bring back Rapidair and offer services and prices on par with Porter. And that's not going to happen...the services part anyway.

Perhaps they can save some money and build a bridge.

I don't see why a train to Pearson negates an island airport. The biggest issue at Pearson is the check-in times! Cutting 10-minutes off the travel time doesn't help that much.

Who knows, when the next mayor comes in or in a few years as Porter becomes even more popular, there'll be support for a bridge. Moreover, at $36 million, it's about a third more than the cost of a Q400. In a few years, after Porter's done paying off it's fleet, it may just consider the tunnel an investment on par with adding an aircraft and may well be able to reach some kind of accommodation with airport authority.

im glad they killed it. It's gotta be one of the dumbest ideas ever, what is wrong with the ferry? The $36 million tab would be sure to grow.

The ferry is the most polluting thing in the area. Not the planes. That and they cost 5 million a piece and have a shelf life and maintenance costs that are no where close to that of a tunnel. Over the long run a tunnel or bridge would be the financially responsible choice over the ferries if we are taking total life cycle costs into account. As for some projected cost overrun, as long as they get a good estimate, we have every reason to believe that any overrun would not be extremely unreasonable. It;s not crossing the English channel. It's a glorified PATH tunnel. It could be pulled off without too much difficulty.