It's back near the trees to the south side of the runways/terminal; they moved it last Saturday night. When I remember how to upload pics, I will post one 
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
themarc
Senior Member
It's back near the trees to the south side of the runways/terminal; they moved it last Saturday night. When I remember how to upload pics, I will post one
Awesome and thanks in advance. I'm pretty sure its going to stay on the island.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Yeah, i guess..when you're not on the same page
The recent decision of the Toronto and East York Community Council to defer approval of the site plan will delay the TPA's long-planned initiative to improve traffic management on Eireann Quay. As per a letter sent to Councillor Adam Vaughan by the TPA earlier today:
"[The TPA is] trying to live up to our commitment to our neighbours and Toronto City Council…[by] better organizing the taxis on a portion of the rented Canada Malting site over the next three years. We had understood that this taxi solution was what you had been seeking, based upon many discussions held directly with you and other community stakeholders.
We asked the City of Toronto to include the taxi move in the larger 2011 Agreement that Council approved last summer. We are trying to live up to our commitment to our neighbours and Toronto City Council, and it is you who are preventing us from keeping this promise".
The TPA is hosting a previously-announced community meeting on its tunnel construction plans on Wednesday, March 28, at 7pm in the Harbourfront Community Centre gym.
More......http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/943085/construction-work-on-eireann-quay
GTS
Active Member
Will we be able to access the Toronto Islands itself with this tunnel or only the airport? Looked online and it seemed that the only purpose for this tunnel is for the airport.
TOareaFan
Superstar
EnviroTO
Senior Member
If someone can't stand to wait for the ferry to the rest of Toronto Island they shouldn't be going to a laid back park environment.
sjc
Active Member
If they extended the tunnel under the runways through to the park, then arriving passengers could go and sit in the park while waiting for their connection (there can't be too many airports where you can do that). Charging people walking to the park would help to pay for tunnel construction.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Isn't the closest thing to the airport on the other side of the runways the nude beach? That would be quite the international attraction "Toronto City Centre Airport and Clothing Optional Beach"......you could have people going through security, disrobing and then sunning themselves and come back in time for their flight to put their clothes back on and get on their flight!
Kidding aside, the current tunnel project is actually cost positive for the city (ie. they are not paying for the tunnel and getting some free water/sewer work out of it that they would otherwise of had to pay for).......extending the tunnel beyond the aiport would have to be paid for by the city and I think that creates a whole new political/fiscal discussion.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
Interestingly, the tunnel for the watermains is going to run all the way under the airport. The pedestrian portion of the tunnel stops on the south side of the western gap. Not that I'm suggesting a 1.5km pedestrian tunnel would be viable.
The work on the city watermains is not being done for free; the city is paying for it. The deal the city struck was to grant certain property rights to the Port Authority to allow construction of the tunnel, and in return the city was allowed to piggyback on the tunnel construction to negotiate with the P3 consortium to do the watermain work. Obviously this should result in some efficiencies (i.e. compared to the two projects being done separately), but I doubt the city squeezed the Port Authority for maximum value. Quite simply, the City could have held the Port Authority to ransom but did not do so.
Here's the city's staff report on the project. On page 3 it characterizes the projected savings in the following terms:
TOareaFan
Superstar
Thanks...and sorry.....not free but $10 million cheaper...that is a good deal for the city and my point was that the fiscal elements (from the City's point of view) would change dramatically if they then extended the project to go under the runways to the public areas of the island.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
It's a nice idea. But I think the added cost of operating a 1.5km pedestrian tunnel would be very high, and the logistics of sharing the cost and use of the pedestrian tunnel with the Port Authority would be too difficult.
The pedestrian tunnel is being paid for with an airport user fee that Porter has been adding to the cost of each ticket for the past couple of years. So there would have to be a turnstile/tollbooth for the added portion of the tunnel that extended byond the island-side airport access escalators, and a portion of those revenues would have to be paid back to the TPA. Also, logistically, I doubt Porter's customers would want to share an elevator with a lubed-up crew of sunbathers on their way back from a day of frolicking and picnicing at the nude beach.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, because I do like the idea of getting more use out of the pedestrian tunnel. I just don't see how it would work in practice.
The pedestrian tunnel is being paid for with an airport user fee that Porter has been adding to the cost of each ticket for the past couple of years. So there would have to be a turnstile/tollbooth for the added portion of the tunnel that extended byond the island-side airport access escalators, and a portion of those revenues would have to be paid back to the TPA. Also, logistically, I doubt Porter's customers would want to share an elevator with a lubed-up crew of sunbathers on their way back from a day of frolicking and picnicing at the nude beach.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, because I do like the idea of getting more use out of the pedestrian tunnel. I just don't see how it would work in practice.
sjc
Active Member
People pay $6.50 for the ferry (the regular Bay Street one(s)), so there is room to get revenues from island-goers. It also would provide year-round access (including in bad weather) to the people living on the island.
EDIT: How much of the cost of building a tunnel is in getting everything in place and building the entrances and how much is the actual operation of the tunnel-drilling machine? Once the tunnel-drilling machine reaches the far side of the channel, wouldn't the cost be relatively minimal (although still expensive of course, as everything is) to have it just keep going? Would it be far enough down that it wouldn't interfere with ongoing operations at the airport as it tunnels under the runway?
Last edited:
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
^As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe the TBM is already supposed to keep going all the way under the airport for the purpose of completing the water main work for the city. I believe the added cost for a pedestrian tunnel would be the cost of finishes and ongoing maintenance costs. Also, I'm guessing that "extra finishes" for a pedestrian tunnel (i.e. beyond what is required for a water main) would include emergency escape routes and ventilation shafts, which would likely be a problem for airport operations.
But I think the most significant obstacle would be getting the Port Authority / Porter to agree to share the pedestrian tunnel with the general, island-going public. Again, perhaps that is a concession the City could have demanded as part of negotiations with the Port Authority before granting the land rights, but that ship has sailed.
But I think the most significant obstacle would be getting the Port Authority / Porter to agree to share the pedestrian tunnel with the general, island-going public. Again, perhaps that is a concession the City could have demanded as part of negotiations with the Port Authority before granting the land rights, but that ship has sailed.
jwill
Active Member
The tunnel would end up being at least 800m long, and connect to arguably the most remote corner of the islands. It would have limited use for people living on the east end of the island, and as bad as it is waiting for the ferry on a busy summer weekend, I can't imagine walking through a long tunnel with a sweaty mass of people on my heels would be any better.
Maybe a better strategy is for the TPA to get more use out of the airport ferries by running them to Centre Island from the Bathurst St. dock during summer weekends. It would relieve congestion at the Bay St. docks, and there's extra room at the Bathurst dock during weekends, when there are fewer flights.
Maybe a better strategy is for the TPA to get more use out of the airport ferries by running them to Centre Island from the Bathurst St. dock during summer weekends. It would relieve congestion at the Bay St. docks, and there's extra room at the Bathurst dock during weekends, when there are fewer flights.