The ninth item in this series looked at the Toronto Port Authority’s (TPA) assertion that the ambient street noise is louder than noise produced at the airport.  This final entry looks at the TPA’s claim that the February 17 public meeting to seek public feedback on the Noise Management Study was, contrary to CommunityAIR’s contention, not disrespectful to the public. http://www.torontoport.com/PortAuthority/media_content.asp?id=439

The TPA version

Due to the volume of material in the TPA’s case that the contention that the meeting was not disrespectful, rather than reproduce their evidence twice, the TPA version appears below in point form under the CommunityAIR version.  The points are rebutted separately.

The CommunityAIR version

The TPA states the following in bulleted form.

• The Feb. 17 public meeting was held as an open-house-style meeting in which three officials from the TPA and Jacobs Consultancy were on hand to answer questions for 2 ½ hours. The date of the public meeting and the study was released to the Noise Management Advisory Group in mid-January. The date of the public meeting and the study was announced on the TPA website and through press release on Feb. 8. Two display ads announcing the public meeting were published in the Toronto Star and Toronto Sun later that week.

The points raised here outline the TPA’s process to advertise the meeting.  The process, as the number of links the TPA included in their rebuttal (see below) indicates that they are following a practice that has been used by other agencies - nothing more.

• Approximately 30 community members attended.

This may be taken as a statement of fact or an implication that the turnout was low in spite of the notification process.  However, notice was exceptionally poor – two ads placed the Friday before the Wednesday meeting and a  notice on their website. The number who attended was the result of CommunityAIR’s promotion of the meeting, not the TPA’s

Given this series’ examination of the TPA’s communications consultants, their avowed purpose and their methods, the reader is best positioned to judge on the TPA’s intent.

• Twenty poster boards outlining the study’s findings and recommendations were on display. As well, copies of the study and two background documents were available.

The information presented was inadequate.  There were no obvious graphs that displayed maximum sound levels from the airport, those most important to the community when discussing sound levels.  The data on the graphs that showed maximum readings were recorded when winds at the time lessened the noise impact on the community nearest the airport.  The technical people did not select the graphs.  Other persons, presumably TPA officials, chose them for their own reasons.  Alternate graphs that displayed data more relevant to community concerns were not available to the meeting.

In another instance, the noise forecast mapping, which delineated the Noise Sensitive Areas, does not include the Bathurst Quay area, the residences closest to the airport.  The residences have been occupied since 1986 and 23 years later are not on the study’s two NEF contour maps, III-1 and III-2, both dated 25-November-09.

Most pointedly, the study recommendations did not address one of the most contentious issues between the TPA and the community – curfew breaches.  It is difficult to view the TPA’s effort as anything more serious than a poor public relations exercise when it doesn’t address this primary community concern.

Finally, there were no dates by which any of these recommendations would be implemented.  A good number of the recommendations could have been implemented years ago once the TPA set out on its airport expansion program.  In other words, a proactive organization of good will that genuinely wished to work with the community could have implemented the majority of the recommendations years ago.

·         Any community member could attend, approach the three experts as well as the TPA’s President and CEO, ask questions about the data and the recommendations, and ask to have their concerns followed up later.

As referenced above, consultants couldn’t respond completely to questions on noise data graphs because they had no say in their selection.

Although the TPA announced on Christmas Eve that it had a study permitting up to 212 landings and takeoffs per day, the consultant who prepared that report was not present, nor was his report made available.

In a related matter, the building of a tunnel, a board member justified the TPA’s decision as a move to alleviate traffic congestion but had no plausible argument to support his contention.

Ken Lundy, the airport manager, was caught on video chatting with someone else when he was being addressed by Councilor Pam McConnell.

These instances, taken as isolated incidents, might be easily dismissed except that taken together and multiplied, they add up to that the unfavourable impression that community concerns are given lip service and not very professional lip service at that.

• Feedback forms were made available to attendees, but only four were submitted.

When attendees are treated in an inconsiderate, condescending manner, it is no surprise that their participation is minimal.

• The open-house public meeting is a valid and widely accepted tool for soliciting public input into such initiatives. In fact, the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto often use this format to engage the public:

• Public Open House: Port Lands Soils Management Stockpiling Facility http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs//4ac1f554084a9.pdf
• Trinity Bellwoods Park-Public Open House: Multi-Use Path Upgrade
  http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/public-consultations/trinity-bellwoods.htm
  http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/public-consultations/pdf/trinity_park_flyer_2010-02-24.pdf
• Notice of Public Open House, Proposed Wind Monitoring Station, Toronto Hydro Lake Ontario Anemometer
  http://www.torontohydroenergy.com/pdf/Offshore%20public%20meeting%20Ad%20oct%2027%2008%20FINAL.pdf\
• Public Open House: Martin Goodman Trail (Ontario Place)
  http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs//48497e07d7e2b.pdf
• Eglinton Crosstown LRT: Have your say at upcoming open houses
  http://www.torontocat.ca/main/node/308
• Don Mills Road Light Rail Transit: Series of Open Houses
  http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/don_mills/pdf/2008-06-10_notice.pdf

The TPA is using the bandwagon argument.  Simply put it means the TPA is attempting to associate itself with the methods used by organizations which have an interest and stake in hearing from their constituents.  It is an attempt to give an air of legitimacy to the TPA’s interest in community complaints.

The TPA’s purpose for the February 17 meeting was to let the community know how the TPA was proceeding with its study.  The study, in turn, was an inadequate attempt to show the community the steps that the TPA will perhaps take to mitigate the effects of the increased noise from doubling the number of current flights.  The meeting’s execution in its inadequacy and its transparency of purpose are an insult to the community.  To argue otherwise is to ignore the TPA’s actions.  Their actions speak far louder than their words.

In 2003 the TPA and the City concluded a negotiated settlement over outstanding issues cleared up to allow for a fixed link.  Roger Tassé refers to this on Page 39 of his report.  It includes, “a commitment on the TPA to work with a community advisory committee”.  That was in 2003.  The TPA set up the NMSAG in 2008, five years later, and as detailed in previous posts, proceeded to deal with it in either a cavalier or incompetent manner.

The next step in the TPA’s airport expansion is to build a tunnel.  Unable to secure tax dollars in the short term, the TPA is seeking alternative funding.  As a first step, they are initiating an environmental assessment screen (EA).

As an indication of the level of commitment towards public participation, the TPA is holding an initial public information session today, Wednesday March 24, 2010, from 6pm to 8pm at the

Harbourfront Community Centre, 627 Queens Quay West, Medium Assembly Room. 

Rather than giving notice of the meeting under Latest News on the TPA home page, http://www.torontoport.com/index.asp, or with press releases under the Media link, http://www.torontoport.com/media_releases.asp, the TPA has posted details of the meeting in a project information document reached through a link on the TPA Corporate page,

http://www.torontoport.com/Corporate.asp; however, the document may not be readily evident.

To ensure CommunityAIR’s participation, Dillon Consulting, the TPA’s agent on the screening, announced the meeting in a letter to CommunityAIR chairman Brian Iler dated March 11, 2010.

What can the public expect from the meeting where in the words of the project notification, information about the Project and the EA screening will be available and comments are welcomed?  If previous experience is anything to go by, not much.

Consider the description above of the public’s treatment at the February 17 meeting. 

Consider also the EA screening for the fixed link that Dillon Consulting conducted on May 24, 2003 for the TPA. 

• In June 2003, Dillon Consulting produced a final draft report of the screening.  Appendix I was attached to the draft.  Appendix I contained 44 pages of comments and concerns register at or after the meeting. 
• In August 2003, Dillon Consulting produced its final screening report.  Each of the comments and concerns was noted or considered.
• In spite of the number of comments and concerns, there is no substantive difference between the two documents. 

The TPA elected to proceed with the project as originally envisioned.

Bob Kotyk