(Editor's note:  This is a letter to the Editor of the Toronto Star.  You might ask why they didn't print it.)

On June 8, the Toronto Star carried an editorial, ‘For an island tunnel’.  It made several points in support of more tax dollars going to the Toronto Port Authority under the auspices of federal infrastructure money.  These points require further examination.

Point 1, “This would allow the airport to handle more passengers, which, in turn, would open the way for additional flights at this still underused facility.”
 
The island airport is governed by the Tripartite Agreement, a legal document signed by the federal government, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Port Authority (TPA).  The agreement limits the daily number of aircraft movements based on the level of noise or Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) that the various aircraft using the facility produce.  This number is currently under study by the federal government so it is premature to state that the airport is underutilized until the results of Transport Canada's study are released.
 
The number of daily movements is also limited by the Commercial Carrier Operator Agreement (CCOA) between the port authority and Porter Airlines.  The current CCOA according to the Tasse Report is fewer than 120.  Former TPA CEO Lisa Raitt, in letter to the U.S. Department of Transport in support of Porter’s application to fly to U.S. destinations, stated that the airport would make available six daily movements to Piedmont Airlines.  This would allow Porter 114 daily movements.  Under Porter’s current schedule, 90 are the average number of weekday daily movements.  Do the 24 remaining daily movements available to Porter warrant the $20 to $40 million for a tunnel?
 
Point 2, “A tunnel would also provide island residents with reliable, year-around access to the mainland, thereby reducing the need for the costly winter ferry service to the islands.”  While the reliability and convenience of a tunnel at first glance seems like a good idea, there are logistical problems. 
 
The tunnel would presumably exit in Porter’s new terminal.  Island residents would still need to get across the runways.  This would require at least two buses with escorts during the morning and evening rush hours to make the crossing.  These are the hours when the runways are at greatest use by commuter aircraft.  Does this mean that the reliability and convenience of a tunnel are replaced by a safety hazard or has the price tag just gone up by tens of millions to continue the tunnel to the other side of the runways?
 
Point 3, “The port authority lacks the necessary $20 million to $40 million to build the tunnel. But in a letter last month to Ottawa, it listed the tunnel as a shovel-ready project that meets the criteria for federal infrastructure funding.”  This raises two sets of questions.  Is it reasonable to expect this project to come in on budget when the top estimate is twice the bottom estimate?  Why would the final cost not be three times for $60 million or four times for $80 million by the time the tunnel is complete, especially if it has to go under the runway?
 
The second question set has to do with whom the tax dollars are helping and how they are able to help.  The tunnel would benefit a number of small players at the airport but the biggest beneficiary of the federal largesse would be Porter Airlines.  REGCO and/or Porter have already received a $20 million settlement from Canadian taxpayers for the bridge cancellation, a further $10 million in benefits with the port authority’s two $5 million ferries and another $1 million plus by having a Canadian Border Services installation at the airport.  How many tax dollars should a successful, money-making, privately-owned airline benefit from?  Why does it need them?

Bob Kotyk