Time for a tunnel to airport island?

[rbt]

Basically, Miller gambled, and lost badly. Then they went back and submitted the stuff they should have in the first place, but only because the feds were willing to cut them some slack.

I don't exactly agree with this. Whether it backfired or not depends on whether you believe streetcars would have been funded if submitted in another manner.

If you believe streetcars would have been funded AND stimulus would be funded, then we lost.

If you believe only one or the other would have been funded, then the city is up roughly $200M due to that stunt because the province opted to fund 1/3rd of $1.2B rather than 1/3rd of ~$500M.


What is the likely scenario if the current stimulus list was submitted on time and the streetcars were submitted immediately after in July or even this January?

 

[Darwinkgo]

For the city stimulus, the city isn't counting on any provincial contribution since it went to the streetcars. List of Toronto projects eligible for stimulus funds revealed shows as much (from the Globe and Mail).

The streetcars would have been financed likely through gas tax, or the building canada fund. Since they are 3 years out still, I wouldn't count out federal funding coming for them anyways. Only problem is lots of transit infrastructure programs are going to need money right around then (the 2 subway extensions, transit city, Go Big Move #2), and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit of a crunch that leads to timelines being stretched a bit.

I think they could have got both, if they had applied correctly for funding for both, and not solicited a time sensitive streetcar bid.

 

[TOareaFan]

i also imagine it's easier to crank the volume on a beer garden concert than on a violin. i'm not saying that flights should be suspended forever, just an hour (not easy, but doable, near impossible at pearson), just a little give and take to lower the current level of animosity.

The key success element to a "scheduled" air carrier is the "schedule"....customers have to be able to refer to a schedule, pick the flight that best suits their travel plans and have confidence (with the obvious, mechanical and weather ocassional problems) that the airline can/will fly them out on/in that schedule....if people could not rely on a plane leaving on time because a violin (or other intstrument) needed to be heard......mmmm that could/would have a far more far reaching impact than just inconveniencing the 40-70 people who were on that flight.

 

[mettle]

mmmm that could/would have a far more far reaching impact than just inconveniencing the 40-70 people who were on that flight.

true. i'm a business traveler myself. i understand that there'd be a significant impact. i'm just saying that there's already a significant impact to the performers and concert goers.

anyway... i was just wondering out loud if there was any possibility of accommodation. so far it doesn't seem like.

at the heart of it, isn't the sin of the nimbyism blind self-centeredness? this can go both ways.

 

[sjc]

anyway... i was just wondering out loud if there was any possibility of accommodation. so far it doesn't seem like.

Any accommodation might have to involve moving the times of the concerts. I believe that Thursday at 7pm and Sunday at 4pm are relatively busy timeslots -- people heading back to Toronto after a week of work in Ottawa and people heading to Toronto on Sunday afternoon (those flights are always full).

Earlier in the afternoon during the week might work (perhaps 2pm to 3pm) or Sunday morning.

You would need to work it out well in advance. I wouldn't want to be a Porter employee in Ottawa having to tell passengers waiting for the 6pm flight that their flight is delayed an hour due to violins.

EDIT: I just looked at the schedule for this coming Sunday. It looks like the only departing flight between 4pm and 5pm is the 4:30 Ottawa flight. It looks like the plane arrives in Toronto from Ottawa at 3:30, so maybe they can turn it around by 4. There is a Chicago arrival at 4:35pm -- backing that up by a half hour might be possible. So at first glance, perhaps accommodation might not be that tough (I didn't check the Thursday flights). Or they could do the concert from 3:30 to 4:30.
EDIT: Oops. There is a Montreal arrival and departure in there too.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Ubisoft grant... don't like the idea.
Filmport ownership and funding... don't like the idea, especially since it harmed other studios.
EDC loans to Bombardier... great idea since it is a loan.
Auto bailout... bad idea but because the US did it there was little option.
Subway to green field in Vaughan... bad idea in that it is green field, but fine in that it serves no specific company or person any better than another. All of Vaughan gets a benefit with busses from every part of Vaughan connecting to the terminal.
YTZ... one company stands to benefit far more than any other.

Hahahahahahahahah. You do know that the Sorbara Groub (of Greg Sorbara fame) own a vast majority of the land up there right.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Exactly. The feds said that they have a huge bucket of cash that they want to give to anyone that wants it for stuff that is going to be built right away. So the TPA came up with something that could be done quickly.

The city came up with a list of one thing that didn't qualify for the federal dollars.

I expect that the tunnel plan would have come up in due course. The current ferry is already getting very crowded, and unless the new one is a LOT bigger, growing passenger volumes won't take to long to fill up that one too.

EDIT: Does the TPA own the shipping channel that the tunnel would cross? Or is that city property?[/QUOTE]

And furthermore does Pearson or the City own Airport road? If the city owns the road. Could the city have blocked construction of the people mover bridge over Airport Rd that linked the parking lot (airport lands) with the terminal (Airport lands)?

 

[sjc]

And furthermore does Pearson or the City own Airport road?

Peel Region owns Airport Road. It's Peel Region Road 7.

 

[AKS]

From my understanding, the TPA has issued an RFP regarding the tunnel to be received within three weeks. I don't know why this is really question worthy, every project starts with preliminary estimates and requirements before further clarifying goals and costs.

So if there's no detailed plans, how is the project shovel ready? The project would need to be completed within a few months time frame. It would take time to produce a detailed study, then time to build. Winter will be coming up soon as well. Even the decks took a year to build and it's simpler than a tunnel.

 

[kEiThZ]

Any accommodation might have to involve moving the times of the concerts. I believe that Thursday at 7pm and Sunday at 4pm are relatively busy timeslots -- people heading back to Toronto after a week of work in Ottawa and people heading to Toronto on Sunday afternoon (those flights are always full).

Earlier in the afternoon during the week might work (perhaps 2pm to 3pm) or Sunday morning.

You would need to work it out well in advance. I wouldn't want to be a Porter employee in Ottawa having to tell passengers waiting for the 6pm flight that their flight is delayed an hour due to violins.

Accomodation is always a question of how far to take it. Today it's two hours a week. If Porter gives in, will they be expected to cave when there are daily concerts? A better question to ask is why the music garden was built there in the first place knowing full well there's an airport and a screeching streetcar line nearby. If it's only 2 hrs a week, I am sure some kind of deal could be worked out.

 

[Whoaccio]

So if there's no detailed plans, how is the project shovel ready? The project would need to be completed within a few months time frame. It would take time to produce a detailed study, then time to build. Winter will be coming up soon as well. Even the decks took a year to build and it's simpler than a tunnel.

Shovel ready isn't exactly a clinical term. Federal requirements are that all of their contribution has to be spent by March 2011, so anything that meets this criteria could qualify as "shovel ready." The TPA has requested the EA be submitted in 3 weeks and claims it will be able to start construction by January '10, contingent on funding approval. That still gives them 15 months, and this isn't really a terribly complex project.

 

[AKS]

Shovel ready isn't exactly a clinical term. Federal requirements are that all of their contribution has to be spent by March 2011, so anything that meets this criteria could qualify as "shovel ready." The TPA has requested the EA be submitted in 3 weeks and claims it will be able to start construction by January '10, contingent on funding approval. That still gives them 15 months, and this isn't really a terribly complex project.

I don't know. With government, I find things are always built over budget and never on time. Anyhow, wouldn't the money be better spent fixing the drainage system on QQ? It keeps getting flooded every time the snow melts too fast or when there's a lot of rain.

 

[jwill]

A better question to ask is why the music garden was built there in the first place knowing full well there's an airport and a screeching streetcar line nearby.

Well, theres a nice and quiet lake nearby too, and Queens Quay is not a very busy road. I dont think the airport was so busy in those days either.

I expect Peel Region, as the owned of Airport Road, could have prevented the GTAA from building its little train above the road. But of course, Peel Region wants their airport, and is thus willing to accommodate them.

 

[sjc]

It might be interesting to, rather than have the tunnel end at the ferry terminal, extend it all the way up to Queen's Quay. It could be a long underground ramp, or perhaps a shorter one with the rest of the distance in an above-ground glassed-in tunnel (like a mini-skywalk). There would still be elevators at the terminal for those wanting to catch a cab or the Royal York shuttle.

Run the tunnel along the edge of the park next to the taxi lane. You could also roof in the taxi area at the same time to make it warmer for them in the winter, allowing them to turn off their taxis rather than idle them to keep warm. It may also improve safety on the entry road for pedestrians and park goers.

Extending the tunnel up to Queen's Quay would make it more accessible to waterfront pedestrians and to those that want to come to the airport by streetcar. Rather than have visitors from New York or Chicago immediately hop on a bus to downtown, perhaps some of them might start their visit with a walk along harborfront. Unfortunately, harborfront is a little inconvenient to get to right now from the airport by foot since you have to navigate through cabs, buses and cars to get up to Queen's Quay.

Unfortunately, this wouldn't happen without the city signing on, which isn't likely with the current government (the TPA could do it alone, but I don't think they would see it as a worthwhile investment).

It would be really nice for there to be some pro-airport candidates in the next election so we can move forward and look to how best to integrate the airport into the ongoing waterfront development.

If the city was willing to put in some actual cash, you could roof over the whole bottom end of bathurst to put the access road underground. Extend the Little Norway park over the road to connect it with Ireland park and make one big park.

But we aren't going to see any efforts to make things better for the locals until we get a council (and local representative) that are willing to move beyond "close the airport".

 

[sjc]

Here is an interesting newsletter from 1998: Novae Res Urbis September 28, 1998

It indicates that the airport was busy at times in the past and that none of these are new issues:

during the recent Air Canada strike the island airport handled as many as 4,200 passengers per day – which translates into more than 1-million passengers per year – with no problems on the airside of the airport. The only problems were on the ferry and in the line-up to get on the ferry.

In 1998, they considered extending Spadina Avenue to the airport:

Spadina Tunnel - So far, a $16-million moveable bridge is the recommended fixed link from Bathurst Street across the western gap to the airport, notwithstanding that a tunnel is “more reliable and effective for emergency response events in that it is always accessible”. Planning staff have investigated the option of a tunnel from the foot of Spadina Avenue at the request of Mayor Mel Lastman.

Though a tunnel is listed as an option in a 1993 intergovernmental staff committee study, Spadina Avenue was not contemplated. Costs of a tunnel were estimated to be between $35-million and $40-million in 1996. Rather than using Bathurst Street, this tunnel option alleviates traffic concerns from residents in that area of the waterfront.

If pursued, this tunnel option would see the extension of Spadina Avenue beyond Queens Quay into the Spadina slip. From this point, the road would run west along the southern edge of the Spadina Marina and begin its decent into the western gap at an 8% grade. The resulting shallow depth tunnel would be 16 to 18 feet below the surface to accommodate the safe passage of recreational watercraft.