Mr Freeman:

Before we respond in detail to your story, I did just want to set the record straight on a few facts.

1. The Story in the G&M was a CP story, written by Dean Beeby of Canadian Press.

2. CP was advised that their headline was incorrect, and is now reviewing options for a retraction/correction.

3. The basis for that retraction is a letter from the very consultants who wrote the report, who categorically dispute the headline's conclusion.

4. The report itself was a 'peer review' of the TPA's own consultants, undertaken in September 2010 by the City's Waterfront Secretariat, at the behest of the former mayor.

5. The Report substantiates, validates, exonerates, whatever language you want the approach that the TPA's own independent consultants used. Namely, the number of slots as it relates to the NEF standards is APPROPRIATE, and therefore is within the terms of the Tripartite Agreement.

6. The report, commissioned by the City, was therefore paid for by taxpayers.

7. The TPA does not receive funding from the public.

8. The pedestrian tunnel would only be paid for by airport users. The question whether you would pay $50m for 4 minutes is, therefore, not only misleading and incorrect from the point of view of the study's findings, it's also moot, if your readers do not take advantage of flights from Billy BIshop.

7. It is not moot for Island residents who are the only prospective users who wouldn't be paying for it. These residents occasionally use our ferry to get on/off the island when the city's own ferry doesn't work (most recently this past winter). Island residents would, therefore, have occasion to benefit from the use of the pedestrian tunnel, were it to be built, without paying a dime for it.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

Suzanna Birchwood, Toronto Port Authority