Time for a tunnel to airport island?

[jn_12]

While the new terminal is being built and operated by Porter, they are open to leasing out space in the terminal if another airline were to want in. The new terminal will have ten gates, double what they have now. They could operate 8 or 9 of the 10 and then lease the remaining out if they wanted. It's just a matter of what makes sense financially to them.

IIRC they went to court once over this issue and Porter won the right to not let the other company in at a time when Porter was using 0 gates (they hadn't received aircraft yet). This would be a rather large change in position.

Well I wouldn't just throw that out there if there was nothing to it. It comes from the best source possible.

 

[js97]

The real issue behind Island Tunnel/Porter

So I know there is an 'infrastructure' thread dedicated to this, but I feel this has become the most politicised project in Toronto? Would people not agree?

To me, it seems fairly simply. The city is building infrastructure so Torontonians have better access to an airport.

It is no different than building a Pearson Rail link.

What is the issue? Besides the obvious 100 households of NIMBY's that live on the island, on subsidized payments might I add (the fact that their infrastructure costs substantially more to deliver per household than anywhere else in Toronto but they pay the same rates. They also pay a devalued 'property tax' that is WAY below market value. )

Who's really the 'privelidged few?

Pros:
faster, more convinient access to the Island
$38M worth of infrastructure spending in a city with 11.5 % unemployment rate
Potential to increase Porters capacity (which hires mostly TORONTONIANS!)
Cons:
Potential of more flights/noise.

I live at the foot of strachan and King and it's the Gardiner and tour helicopters cause more noise issues than the planes


I'm not sure about you, but I'm pretty certain porter would continue to have more flights, even if the tunnerl doesn't get built. To increase capacity, they could just use 2 ferries instead of one. (it is about a 90 second ride right now, which is pretty upsurd)

If they're gonna do anything, they should just build a retractable bridge onto the Island.

 

[UD2]

Your argument may hold true if the money's coming from Queen's Park.

But I wouldn't in any day buy that Harper would in any weather fund anything that wouldn't buy him votes.

And I believe we're all familiar with the demographics that votes for Harper.

 

[EnviroTO]

Are you suggesting that every Porter customer will be flying over 30 times this year? I doubt that very much. I am willing to bet that the unique customer count is at least 100 000 or higher.

I'm suggesting that the frequent users will easily do 30 round trips a year (consulting commuters) and that equates to 60 "customers" but only 1 person. There are 45-50 work weeks per year for most people. A frequent flier will fly almost weekly, maybe more. On the Ottawa, Montreal, and New York runs I would expect high numbers of people who take Porter every three weeks or more frequently which equates to 34 "customers" or more being 1 person.

 

[Eastside]

The real issue is the ongoing TPA vs. City of Toronto feud. There are myriad reasons why these two entities don't get along, going way back to a land transfer from the old Harbour Commission to TEDCO in the 1990's before the creation of the TPA that essentially deprived the Port Authority of much of the land it was going to use to become a viable self-sustaining entity. It's only peripherally an actual airport funding issue, it's really more of a Hatfeild-McCoy type thing..

 

[kEiThZ]

Your argument may hold true if the money's coming from Queen's Park.

But I wouldn't in any day buy that Harper would in any weather fund anything that wouldn't buy him votes.

And I believe we're all familiar with the demographics that votes for Harper.

Except in this case, it is quite likely that the majority of Porter's passengers are 416 residents with a high probability that a good chunk of them living south of Bloor.

I have no problems with Harper sticking it to Miller in this case. If the situation was turned around and it was a right leaning mayor who was supporting a polluting ferry service over a bridge backed by downtown NIMBYs, could you imagine the uproar?

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm suggesting that the frequent users will easily do 30 round trips a year (consulting commuters) and that equates to 60 "customers" but only 1 person. There are 45-50 work weeks per year for most people. A frequent flier will fly almost weekly, maybe more. On the Ottawa, Montreal, and New York runs I would expect high numbers of people who take Porter every three weeks or more frequently which equates to 34 "customers" or more being 1 person.

I am sure there are frequent users who fly weekly. But it is ridiculous to suggest that Porter's customer base consists entirely of 30 000 customers who fly weekly. Unless you have data to back this up, it's quite a ridiculous assertion and a fantastical attempt at branding any traveler using Porter as "privileged". We could make the same suggestion for any airline operating in the corridor. Why single out Porter as carrying "privileged passengers" and not Air Canada or Westjet?

Moreover, by extension of your argument, the Union-Pearson Rail Link is being built for "the privileged few" as well. I am willing to bet that the sweetheart deals and subsidies it is getting amount to a lot more than $38 million. You can virtually guarantee that a good chunk of it's clients will be regular business travelers. Does that make it any less of a valid project?

Finally, even if there are 10 000 passengers flying a round trip every week, what makes them "privileged"? Personally, I'd feel sorry for any sap logging that much time in a plane (even if it's a Porter Q400). Just because somebody flies once a week (most likely for work) does not make them any more or less privileged than the sun-worshiper taking a charter flight (likely on an older polluting jet) to the Caribbean. This argument, taken to its logical (and ridiculous) conclusion would suggest that anybody who flies is "privileged".

The job of government is to build infrastructure according to demand, not to make value judgements on the lifestyle of the people who will use said infrastructure. Does the city not pick up trash, clear snow or maintain roads along the Bridle Path just because a few (actually) privileged people live there?

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't believe that the ferry would be replaced by the tunnel. It would be complemented by it. There would continue to be a need for vehicle access to the island which would not be provided by the tunnel.

But it would negate the requirement to run two fume belching ferries.

 

[EnviroTO]

I am sure there are frequent users who fly weekly. But it is ridiculous to suggest that Porter's customer base consists entirely of 30 000 customers who fly weekly.

If I was suggesting 30,000 people fly weekly the number of customers they carry would be in excess of 2,700,000 but it is currently 500,000 so I am certainly not suggesting all their customers fly weekly. If 18.5% of 30,000 people flew round trip weekly that would equate to over 500,000 customers. However nowhere near 18.5% is required because even the most infrequent customer is likely to do a round trip and not a one-way trip. There is also many customers who will take Porter three of four round trips per year. The average number of trips for 30,000 people to make 500,000 customers is 8.5 round trips with there being some who will fly signficantly more frequently than that and many signficantly less. This curved distribution where frequent fliers quickly make up the bulk of the people flying is the reason frequent flier programs exist.

It is because of curved distributions that I said "I would not be surprised if they only have 30,000 unique people as customers".

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Regardless, how does any of that make them "privileged" and less deserving of city infrastructure? Or why single out Porter for this line of thought? How come the same argument does not apply to AC and WJ as well? Please answer the other questions in post 112. Arguing over some hyopthetical frequent flier percentage is a pointless distraction.

 

[EnviroTO]

Frequent fliers are most likely to be well paid business people. The market targeted by Porter is mainly business people. There is a significant low-income population which never flies anywhere and a significant middle class population who when flying are going on vacation or visiting relatives in their homeland. Porter doesn't serve vacation destinations nor international homeland visits and therefore does not serve the middle class as well as Pearson, Air Canada, and Westjet do. If you go into a normal neighbourhood in Toronto and ask someone who doesn't fly for business where they last flew to it is not likely they will give you a Porter destination. The most likely answers will be destinations like Las Vegas, Florida, and the Caribbean. This is supported by the most often flight additions during holidays and vacation periods.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ I am fairly sure that there aren't huge business communities in Tremblant or Thunder Bay or Quebec City.

Beyond that this view is simply ridiculous and a straw man. Yes, Porter caters to business travelers. But on any Porter flight you'll have tons of averagely compensated civil servants, students, and vacationers. Not every traveler to New York or Chicago is a financier dressed in Armani. It's ignorant to suggest that just because Porter connects major urban centres that automatically means their customer base is almost entirely business travelers. Have you never vacationed in a major urban centre? Heck, believe it or not, there are a number of us who have never been to Florida, Vegas or the Caribbean (myself included) but on occasion will travel to Chicago or New York to visit family. Does that make us privileged?

It's a straw man argument to suggest that because there are low income people who don't fly often or only do so to visit relatives that we should not improve infrastructure for an airport that serves people with an above average income. By this argument, we should severely limit any sort of improvements that help Westjet since it doesn't serve too many foreign destinations. And if you believe this argument, then why only for an airport. I suggest that transit service, garbage pickup and road works should be scrapped to all wards with above average income. I also particularly resent having to contribute to the 2.5 million dollar tab for ferry service to under a thousand residents on the Islands. Why should the city pay for that privileged group but not travelers (business or otherwise)? The 30 000 in your hypothetical scenario is still about 30 times larger than the number of Island residents. Yet it's somehow fair in your books to offer them a service with an annual recurring cost of $2.5 million while not spending $38 million on a one-time tunnel construction project. Can you share with us, your definitions of "privilege" and "fairness"?

 

[Disparishun]

What an odd debate.

If, as EnviroTO seems to be arguing, the chief purpose of the Island airport is to increase the flow of business between Toronto and other places, then the economic benefit of the Island airport for Toronto is, indeed, substantial, and it is a good investment.

 

[js97]

I still don't understand the idea of this tunnel beeing built for the 'privelidege few'?????


Porter flys to NYC/Chicago, and other destinations at a lower price (most of the time) than Air canada out of pearson. Porter provides a service to business men and leisure travellers with a economical option of NOT paying 60 dollars for a pearson airport cab.? There is nothing privelidged about taking a more economical flight that is more efficient (and more environmentally friendly due to propeller engines vs jet) than the alternative.

The truly privelidge few are the ones living on the island for again, a fraction of market cost for taxes and infrastructure costs.

p.s. My point about porter is that most of their employees are Torontonian residents... last time I checked, unemployment in Toronto was something in the 11.5%? Now if I was a politician, why would I not fund an environmentally friendlier airliner that was nothing but good news to the local economy?

It still blows my mind how the 'privilidged' few on the island can have soo much influence in this. The 300 or so residents opposing 600+ employees, workers that will build this tunnel, plus thousands of commuters (leisure and business), plus the option of 'walking' to the island vs. taking a ferry. Oh wait, that's about the same ratio as 3000 garbage men holding up a city of 3.5 million for their union cause.

This makes sense now.

 

[Whoaccio]

Frequent fliers are most likely to be well paid business people. The market targeted by Porter is mainly business people. There is a significant low-income population which never flies anywhere and a significant middle class population who when flying are going on vacation or visiting relatives in their homeland.

Well, then we might as well give up on high speed rail. Wouldn't want those nasty business people getting a leg up. Note to self, anything that has business applications = evil. Next up for the Neanderthals that inhabit Chow's office: GO trains, the Yonge Subway and VIA Rail.

Porter doesn't serve vacation destinations nor international homeland visits and therefore does not serve the middle class as well as Pearson, Air Canada, and Westjet do.

You do realize that is incredibly stupid, right? People flying for recreational (as in, luxury) purposes are normal while people whose job requires frequent travel are "privileged"? That makes a lot of sense...

If you go into a normal neighbourhood in Toronto and ask someone who doesn't fly for business where they last flew to it is not likely they will give you a Porter destination. The most likely answers will be destinations like Las Vegas, Florida, and the Caribbean. This is supported by the most often flight additions during holidays and vacation periods.

The horror! The poor plebs have to travel to Florida for their all inclusive vacation resort while some patrician oligarch takes discount airfare for a day trip to the Montreal office.