CommunityAIR Letter to TPA

CommunityAIR wrote to the TPA’s CEO seeking the apparent strong business case:

From: Brian Iler
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 10:53 AM
To: Geoffrey Wilson (gwilson@torontoport.com)
Subject: The Tunnel Business Case

Geoff, as you may have noticed, we are confused by the statement from Tim Meisner of Transport Canada that the TPA has made a “strong business case” for the proposed tunnel

We’ve not seen one, and have requested the document he has seen, but he has refused, simply referring us to the TPA website, which does not contain any business case for this tunnel.

Could you provide it? Our comments on the proposed legalization are incomplete without that, as you will appreciate.

No response was received.

Excerpts from our Briefs to Transport Canada on the Proposed Regulation

CommunityAIR’s submissions opposing the legalization of the tunnel included the following:

“According to the Ministry’s February 10, 2011 letter, the government is initiating the process for the regulatory change based on the TPA’s strong business case; potential economic benefits for the City of Toronto.

…

Two of the findings of the Airbiz Aviation Strategies report Final Draft dated February 3, 2011(Copy Attached) in particular bear on any discussion of the need for the tunnel.  They are found in the final paragraph on Page 30 of the report.

“The ferry is not a capacity issue for the overall airport rather it is a level of service issue. The current layout of the airport terminal is still preventing significant increases in passenger demand primarily because of security, immigration and baggage handling provisions.”

In other words, the ferry is capable of transporting current levels of passengers.  …

Also, the airport will not be able to accommodate any more passengers than it is currently capable of handling which, as the following sections also indicate, imply a limit to growth.

Media reports [last March]  emphasized the report’s observation that the tunnel will save passengers four minutes in a line-up.  One presumes that the TPA’s compelling business case is built upon more than saving four minutes in a line-up.

…

Your government has recently invested a massive amount of money in upgrading VIA Rail’s passenger service between Toronto and Montreal:

• All of the 98-car LRC corridor rolling stock fleet is now being rebuilt by Industrial Rail Services in Moncton
• The F40 diesels are being rebuilt by CAD Railway Industries in Lachine and
• VIA is overhauling the frontline GE P42 locomotive fleet in its own shops. 
• There are also a number of new stations to be built or major station modifications to take place between Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Windsor. 

In total, it is estimated that about $750 million provided by your government is being invested in VIA's Windsor-Quebec City corridor infrastructure and equipment, to boost frequency, speed, and ridership.

This very substantial investment is effectively undermined by investments in aid of short-haul aviation, such as this tunnel project.

…

“If, contrary to the apparent view of the TPA’s Ms Birchwood, the deal is not already done and the Minister is open to serious consideration of the business case for a $50 million plus tunnel, which surely must be greater than the need of a few potentially inconvenienced airport passengers, he would do well to consider the reliability of previous TPA assurances. 

The Minister may also want to consider the reasonableness and reliability of the TPA’s potential economic benefits, especially in light of the Airbiz.Aero report that states unequivocally that the airport can grow no further. 

Finally, the TPA’s business case must be examined with a critical eye.  The words of a noted airline analyst in describing Porter Airlines, are apt: “great product; lousy business model”.  These words sum up the airport’s dilemma where sustainable passenger numbers are concerned. 

Will the Minister approve the building of a tunnel for a facility that faces underutilization?

After all, a $10.5 million fast ferry terminal sits sorely underutilized on the other side of Toronto Harbour due to an earlier TPA miscalculation.”