Anti-airport lobbyist: "I was spectacular"

If you are one of the 108,000 plus people who used the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport last month, you will be interested in this update. As part of the mandated environmental assessment into the proposed pedestrian tunnel linking the city to the 1939-vintage airport, the Toronto Port Authority is holding a series of public consultations. Between 60 and 70 people showed up at this week’s event, and both the Star and National Post provided balanced coverage of the session.

The anti-airport crowd were out in force, as you’d expect. Although the meeting was about the environmental impact of the proposed tunnel project, invariably the lobby group really wants to focus on shutting the operation down. You can’t blame them for spinning away in the hopes of getting their misinformation campaign into the mainstream media. Even if the rest of the City has moved on, as we witnessed in October when 90% of Torontonians voted for change at City Hall. Two of their choice arguments:

1. The proposed pedestrian tunnel will double the airport’s traffic to 212 slots.

Fact: The tunnel is merely about improving access to the airport, not increasing the traffic. The airport’s passenger volume has increased 50 fold in a few short years, despite the obvious space constraints of a passenger ferry.

The 1983 Tripartite Agreement (signed by the City, TPA and Federal government) governs the number and type of flights at the Billy Bishop Airport. Jets are banned as part of that agreement, and the airport is closed to commercial or recreational air traffic between 11 pm and 6:30 am. The number of commercial flights permitted each day is a function of the “Noise Contour” of the airport, which is determined (I’m simplifying) by the number and noise envelope created by small planes, commercial planes and helicopters, with a particular emphasis on the number of fixed wing flights using the airport between 6:45 am – 7:00 am and 10:00 pm – 11:00 pm.

That’s a long way of saying that the Tripartite Agreement laid out the parameters, almost 30 years ago, that determine how many commercial flights could land each day at the airport. The fact that Porter (and soon Air Canada and Continental) are now using slots that weren’t used five or ten years ago isn’t, in my mind, “expansion”. It’s improving the permitted utilization of an airport that was built in 1939.

That’s what taxpayers are demanding, after all: improved, cost-effective utilization of public assets.

As for the anti-airport crowd’s claim of “212 slots”, the TPA has conditionally awarded 202 slots earlier this year. We also announced a hard cap earlier this year based upon the Noise Contour analysis conducted by an independent $12B revenue consulting firm.

2. The TPA doesn’t own the land needed to build the tunnel.

Councillor Adam Vaughan tried this angle (note I didn’t say “fib”). The proposed tunnel route has been chosen so that it only uses TPA land, either above or underground. I wrote to then Mayor Miller in October to see if the City would allow the TPA to build the proposed tunnel, if it were to come to pass, under a certain City-owned dockwall (10 stories down). By going direct, rather than “jogging” around the City’s dockwall, airline passengers would save ~$3.5 million in construction costs (100% of the tunnel is being financed via a P3 model and ultimately paid for by the existing $20 outbound Airport Improvement Fee; Pearson charges $25). In the wake of the strong message sent by voters in the recent municipal campaign, you’d assume that Mayor Miller and Councillor Vaughan wouldn’t want to waste $3.5 million of your money, just because they despise the airport. Alas, he didn’t write back.

It’s true, though, that to save $3.5 million in construction costs we need the support of City Hall regarding a “direct vs. jog” route. Not to prejudge the outcome of Mr. Vaughan’s refusal to support the tunnel, but I doubt that passengers (who are also taxpayers) will stand for anything but the utmost of cooperation between their local agencies.

One of the more compelling outcomes, if you have a sense of humour, is that one media outlet took a very negative tack with the TPA’s public consultation process. Toronto’s The Bulletin newspaper laid waste to the entire event. The opening paragraph of their coverage said it all:

It was a tour de force! Brian Iler and Adam Vaughan were spectacular. [TPA rep] Ken Lundy looked dazed and the representatives from [Environmental Assessment firm] Dillon appeared gobsmacked. All those pretty posters on display and all the people milling saying, “this is a meeting? This is a consultation? This is a show!”

Where’s the humour in that, you ask? The Bulletin’s “news” article was authoured by none other that the head of the anti-airport lobby group, Brian Iler, who described his own performance as “spectacular”.

Perhaps he was channeling his inner Teri Hatcher. [Note: After this was published, Mr. Iler wrote to me to advise that although he forwarded the article to The Bulletin, and although The Bulletin credited Mr. Iler with the byline for the article, he advises that he did not write the specific article in question; ie., someone else called him “spectacular”, and he just sent it to the newspaper in question. The Bulletin updated their article on Dec. 9th to advise that it was now written by “Bulletin Staff” — got that? Mr. Iler forwards articles to the Bulletin for publication that were written by their own staff; let’s put that down to an odd relationship between a lobby group and a media outlet. Mr. Iler also acknowledged that the lobby group made factual errors in a separate Dec. 1st Bulletin article he wrote about the tunnel EA and the number of flights pending at the airport, blaming the work of Community Air researchers that he advises he didn’t validate himself before including in his piece. The avg. number of flights per hour is about one quarter what Mr. Iler claimed in the piece. That article has not yet been corrected.]

Fortunately, there was plenty of useful feedback at the session, as there was at the prior one, and TPA officials have taken it all on board. Despite all the fire and brimstone in some corners, which gets most of the media attention, there is tremendous positive collaboration going on between the agency and various community and neighbourhood organizations. New initiatives in the area of traffic management, taxi marshaling, security, and sidewalk improvements have all come to pass with the advice and counsel of local neighbours.

Consultation works, and produces a better outcome, even if the naysayers would dearly hope otherwise.

MRM
(disclosure � this blog, as always, reflects a personal view and in no way represents the views of the TPA, its Board/Staff or the federal government)