Mark, Mark, Mark:

As TPA Chair, you can do better than dragging out  that poll the TPA commissioned last August. It seems you’ve forgotten CommunityAIR’s response.To refresh your memory, here’s what we said back then:

“The Toronto Port Authority’s poll on the proposed tunnel is deeply flawed, “ said Brian Iler, Chair, Community AIR. “After  it found that not many people knew much about the TPA, it gave out some “facts” favourable to the TPA, and then – surprise! -  got a positive answer on the proposed tunnel.”

“If a similar set of readily-available negative facts about the TPA had been offered first, one can reasonably expect that the question about the proposed tunnel would have been answered very differently”, said Iler.

That survey, which the TPA has relied heavily on in its orchestrated campaign for a tunnel to the Island Airport, reveals the following:

    * A whopping 90% of respondents visit the waterfront at least once a year (Q3), and are attracted by cultural and recreational activities (Q3)
    * Only 18% knew that the TPA is responsible for the Island Airport (Q7).
    * When first asked of their impression of the TPA, 58% were indifferent – either neutral, didn’t have an opinion, or refused (Q8).

What the survey then went on to do is to supply alleged facts favourable to the TPA to fill that knowledge void. Those alleged facts included:

    * “The TPA dredges the mouth of the Don River” (Q9) – when, according to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, it has that responsibility
    * “The TPA provides transportation, distribution, storage and container services to businesses”(Q10) – when, aside from sugar, gravel, cement, and salt, that go directly to docks owned by their distributors, actual ships using into Toronto’s harbour are very scarce. The TPA has admitted that few, if any, containers arrive or leave by ship –  valuable waterfront lands are occupied with stored containers that arrive and leave by truck.
    * “The TPA ensures safe and efficient movement of ships in the harbour including sailboats” (Q12) – when the sole TPA role observed by sailors is its annual money grab for the mandatory harbour licence.
    * “The [Island Airport] is used often in medical emergencies” (Q18) – when in fact, our study clearly discloses that use of the Island Airport by ORNGE helicopters significantly reduces response time in an emergency because the airport is at the bottom, not the centre, of the area served by those helicopters. In addition, they drop the patients directly at the hospitals, not at the airport. Any patients who do fly in on fixed wing aircraft have been stabilized and are not classified as medical emergencies. (see www.communityair.org/briefing/docs/Medevac_Report.pdf) />     * “The TPA plays a vital role in the environmental well-being of Toronto” (Q17) – when it operates an airport devoted almost exclusively to short-haul commercial aircraft that, on a passenger-kilometre basis, are far greater contributors of greenhouse gases than any other form of transportation[1].

Here is an alternative set of actual facts about the TPA that would certainly have led to a different answer on the proposed tunnel:

    * The TPA was imposed on Toronto in 1999 by the federal government against the wishes of the City of Toronto, removing the City’s ability to control its waterfront
    * The TPA board is required to have representatives of the various port user groups on its board. Aside from an individual who is closely related to the airplane industry (who describes himself as a friend of Robert Deluce, CEO of Porter Air), there are no user representatives on the TPA board. The board has been stacked with appointees with close ties to the Harper Tories.
    * The TPA has failed to pay its fair share of property taxes to the City – it claims its payments are optional, and voluntary, when all other government agencies do pay their fair share. According to the TPA’s financial statements, the City claims $39,588,000 in unpaid taxes from 1999 to 2008.

On the tunnel itself, one might ask what the response would have been to questions such as:

    * Does it make sense for passengers to take a six-storey elevator down to a moving sidewalk, traverse under the Western Gap, and take another elevator up six stories, when the alternative is a 90-second ferry ride?
    * Do you support the use of $38 million of scarce tax dollars for the benefit of one private business (Porter), when the City’s innovative Transit City public transit plan needs funding?
    * Who should be setting spending priorities for Toronto – our elected City government or five men who operate in secret and are appointed by their friends in the federal Tory party?


Brian Iler

 

[1] See www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/04/high-speed-rail-adonis />
The average consumption per seat kilometre decreases with distance as a disproportionate amount of fuel is used for take-off and landing. See www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/climate-change/docs/short-haul-flights.pdf />