The Honourable John Baird
Minister of Minister of Transport,
Infrastructure and Communities
 
Minister:
 
On January 29, 2010 the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) announced the initiation of a Public-Private Partnership process to construct pedestrian tunnel from the mainland to the Billy Bishop Toronto Centre Airport.
www.torontoport.com/PortAuthority/media_content.asp?id=432
 
Prior to this, TPA Board of Directors Chairman Mark McQueen staged a summer-long campaign to secure Infrastructure Funds for the project.  See Tunnel Vision blog.communityair.org/2010/03/29/tunnel-vision-2.aspx.  Wisely, your government saw fit not to spend tax dollars on a scheme that would benefit primarily a select group of travelling business people, bureaucrats and politicians.
 
I hope as, a fellow taxpayer, that you will take a close look at the rationale for such a tunnel and suggest to Chairman McQueen that as a public agency, the TPA put its money to better use than to the advantage of this elite group, for example fixing crumbling seawalls in its port.
 
Chairman McQueen puts forward a number of claims as reasons for carrying out the project.  It is worthwhile examining each to assess its value.
 
The Claim
City Hall is considering the construction of a new water main to provide better quality to residents of Toronto Island.
 
The Reality
What Chairman McQueen neglected to explain is why it is necessary to build a new tunnel for the main rather than simply replace the pipes in the existing service tunnel.
 
The Claim
There’s the simple business case. Provide island residents much better access to the City and return during the December to March period at a cost savings between $2 to $3 million to the City on ferry operations per year or $25 million over 10 years, “Not very different than the cost of building a tunnel to the TCCA.”  This was the rationale that the Star editorial and the Economic Club of Canada used in their support of the project.  See attached.
 
The Reality
In making his promise, it appears that Chairman McQueen did not bother to tell anyone at the City that he was prepared to save the City $2 million to $3 million a year.  A June 3, 2009 Star article, Tunnel vision at island airport, quotes Stuart Green, a spokesman for Miller said, "Our office has not been made aware of any proposal.
 
Also, by citing the operating months and the cost savings, Chairman McQueen implies that bus transport across the runways will operate on a schedule thus eliminating the need for the City to operate the winter ferry.  There are a number of problems inherent in running a commuter bus service across a busy runway five days a week and a reduced service on the weekends for four months.  One is possible contravention of the provincial bill that established the Toronto Island Community Land Trust if the guaranteed level of service isn’t met.  Another is the danger tof busloads of school children crossing two runways twice daily.  A third is delays to time-sensitive business people.  Then there is the question of increased liability insurance premiums, if the TPA can find a company willing to insure the risk.
 
Finally, Chairman McQueen’s savings figures are suspect.  The Parks Department reports annual expenses of approximately $5 million to run their fleet.  The bulk of revenue and expenditures takes place in June, July and August when five boats run with full staff.  On the other hand, the winter schedule uses the smallest ferry, with two shifts.  How Chairman McQueen comes up with a savings of between 40% ($2 million) and 60% ($3 million) on $5 million when the ferry service is reduced by 80% is curious, especially given his financial background.
 
The Claim
Chairman McQueen first stated that the working budget of $38 million for the 120 metre tunnel needs to be finalized. 
 
The Reality
The estimates seem to be suffering from the Pinocchio nose syndrome.
 
According to the January 29, 2010 press release cited above, the cost of the tunnel had grown from $38 million to $45.  The length of the tunnel had grown from 120 metres to between 130 and 180 metres according to information on the TPA website.  www.torontoport.com/notices/PanelsMarch23.pdf
 
While it may be argued that a project this big is expected to suffer from differences in estimates during its lifetime, it is important to note that in its examination of various forms of fixed link, Dillon, the same firm conducting the present environmental screening, felt somewhat differently when it came to a tunnel. 
 
Dillon Consulting rejected the tunnel concept when investigating fixed links, rejecting it because it was too costly.  In its April 1998 document, Fixed Link to the Toronto City Centre Airport, Environment Assessment, Dillon writes on Page 13, “It was concluded that a moveable bridge is the most practical form for the Fixed Link due to the significant land based effects associated with the long ramps for either the shallow or deep tunnel and the high costs associated with the tunnel (i.e. in the order of 400% higher).
 
The approximate cost of the fixed link bridge in 2003 was $20 million.  Based on Dillon’s ‘’in the order of 400% higher’, a tunnel with ramps would cost $80 million in 2003.  Seven years later, Chairman McQueen has estimated the tunnel to cost $45 million.  Either he believes dropping the ramps would save $35 million or he needs to revisit his estimates.
 
The Claim
A tunnel has practically no carbon footprint, despite being able to move one million passengers or more each year.
 
The Reality
This is absolutely true, especially given the TPA’s pledge to use Bullfrog Power.  However, by telling only half of the story, the TPA appears to be greenwashing - the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service,
sinsofgreenwashing.org/ and in particular the sin of the hidden trade-off.  sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/the-seven-sins/
 
By focussing on the environmental benefits of the tunnel, after it’s built, the TPA ignores the fact that the ferry will still run to accommodate the vehicles that must get over to the airport for very little environmental gain.
 
The Claim
Medical patients and organs for transplants arriving on medevac aircraft are sometimes transported in open boats over choppy Western Gap water in very inclement weather. A tunnel would give paramedics and their patients safe, reliable, round-the-clock access to downtown Toronto hospitals.
 
The Reality
Medical patients would certainly know the difference between being transported in open boats over choppy Western Gap water.  However, an organ is not likely to care.  The key word in Chairman McQueen’s claim is ‘sometimes’.  How many medical patients does ‘sometimes’ represent?  Is the tunnel cost, somewhere between $45 and $80 million, justifiable so that an undisclosed number of medical patients would not notice they are being transferred over choppy water?
 
Minister, the real need for the tunnel is not to provide new water mains or to save the City money or to save the environment.  The real need is for the convenience of an easily identifiable type of airline passenger: federal, provincial and municipal politicians, Transport Canada bureaucrats and their counterparts from other ministries, the time-sensitive business person and the new-economy creative types – in other words, the laptop and briefcase crowd.
The ferry runs every 15 minutes.  With somewhere north of 1.3 million passengers expected to use the airport this year, there is real concern that some of them may be inconvenienced waiting for the boat.  The tunnel is for them.
 
Minister, I hope that you as a fellow taxpayer will take a close look at the tunnel especially at this time after a Supreme Court decision involving the City of Montreal and the Montreal Port Authority.  The precedent is very likely to cost the TPA the $48 million it owes the City of Toronto in back taxes.  Also at this time, the TPA has tied itself exclusively to a money-losing airline, a business decision that would have severe financial implications for the TPA should the airline fail.
 
Should you need any evidence of the TPA’s business acumen, look no further than across Toronto harbour at the $10 million fast ferry terminal that sits empty save for a few Great Lakes tour boat stops and its use as a TV film set.
 
Minister, you appointed a number of sitting TPA board directors who are your colleagues from the Harris years.  Please call them and ask if a public agency’s money can’t be put to better use than for a hole in the ground.
 
Sincerely,
 
Bob Kotyk
Toronto