Oct 19 2006
Special Interest Groups…Full Of Crap.
I received an email this evening from an aviation related mailing list that I belong to.
It was regarding the “Community Air” rally scheduled next week against the Toronto Island airport.
“Community Air” appears to be yet another anti-airport special interest group that is spewing misinformation and doing it’s best to “scare” Toronto residents into believing that the Toronto Island airport (CYTZ) really needs to be closed and turned into some sort of utopian parkland.
(Photos courtesy of Paul Tomblin)
Aside from the terrible website that appears to play havok with Firefox (at least on my iBook) the line after line of clear cut bullshit and mind-numbing misinformation that is posted there is infuriating.
Again and again I see the same crap spewed forth about the Island airport, and I must say that not only as a pilot, but someone who believes in speaking the truth, I need to speak out.
So for those not familliar with this topic of frequent discussion for me, I’d like to publicly debunk some of the trash that is freqently spoken of the Toronto Island airport, most of which are conveniently covered on the Community Air website.
The “Concerns” quote below are courtesty of the “Communtiy Air” anti-airport website. The following legitimate answers are courtesy of the Toronto Port Authority Airport Facts page, followed by some personal commentary on additional issues.
1/ The Pollution Problem
If the airport expansion folly is allowed to proceed it will ultimately drown the waterfront and downtown Toronto in a poisonous cloud of pollution that would harm the health of residents, recreational users, and nearby workers.
The pollution from a massively expanded airport would also harm the present and future of the waterfront as an economic engine for the city. Film makers, outdoor entertainment venues, restaurants, boaters and other recreational users, condo developers, and high tech businesses would all begin to flee the poisonous cloud. The lost tax revenue would be devastating for Toronto.
A KPMG Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellog study on TCCA was carried out in May, 1991 for the City of Toronto. It reported that under the present scenario, traffic on 5 km of the Gardiner Expressway (6,000 vehicles per hour with an average speed of 80 km/hr.) provided significantly large sources of all three major pollutants by at least a factor of 2 in the case of HC, and a factor of 5 for NOx in comparison with emissions of the Toronto City Center Airport. Less favourable conditions on the expressway eg. more traffic a lower speed and lower ambient temperature would result in even larger differences.
Other roads in the area of the Airport, such as Lakeshore Road and Bathurst Street, are also major sources of air pollutants. Although these roads do not carry as much traffic as the Gardiner Expressway, vehicles generally travel at lower speeds and many of them will be operating in cold start or hot start modes, resulting in significantly higher emissions per kilometre travelled. When these and other sources in the area, eg., railway locomotives, commercial and residential furnaces, are considered, the relative contribution of the airport is further reduced.
From the above information, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that emissions from operations at the Toronto City Centre Airport result in undesirable air quality in the airport vicinity.
2/ The Safety Problem
There are many serious safety issues related to the current airport expansion scheme, both for potential passengers and for those who work and live near the airport. The most significant safety issue is runway length. US Federal Aviation Administration standards call for a combined 8,000-feet of runway and runway safety areas to handle the Q400 plane proposed as the basis for the new service. However, the Island Airport’s main runway only offers some 4,600-feet of combined runway and runway safety areas — the FAA standard is nearly 74% greater than what is available at the Island Airport.
The approach and take-off paths to the main runways at TCCA are completely over water and non-residential areas. The total residential population within the 25 Noise Environment Factor Contour (NEF) at Lester B. Pearson International Airport is over 190,000; the total residential population within the 25 NEF Contour at TCCA is zero.
The TCCA is not an integral part of the air traffic control system that surrounds Pearson International Airport. Air traffic into and out of the TCCA is controlled by the TCCA with approaches and departures routed over the lake away from residential areas. As the majority of the passengers are business travelers, utilizing the buses provided to downtown, vehicle traffic has and is projected to only increase slightly.
Turboprop and turbofan aircrafts are normally on IFR flight plans, consequently there will be less flights per hour with the inclusion of more of those quiet type of aircraft at TCCA. Vehicle traffic will increase only slightly, as the majority of passengers would utilize the present bus system. This is again clearly substantiated in the KPMG Study commissioned by the City of Toronto.
3/ Not Needed
The Island Airport has been a commercial failure and a major drain on the public purse since it was first opened in the 1930s. It was almost immediately supplanted as Toronto’s principal airport by what is now Pearson International on the edge of the city. With Pearson near the end of a $4.5-billion capital improvement program, a better solution to providing enhanced air service to downtown businesses and residents would be the long-promised fast rail link (22-minutes) from Union Station to Pearson International.
There is no commercial air traffic out of the obsolete and unsafe Island Airport at the moment. The airport should be closed and turned over to its official zoned use as public park, recreation, culture and entertainment space. As a spectacular new park, the airport lands could be used to help create a continuous greenbelt along Toronto’s waterfront from Etobicoke to Scarborough.
Both Federal and Provincial governments have withdrawn funding from the Toronto City Center Airport. Acres International conducted an Economic Viability Study for the Toronto Harbour Commission in 1988 that stated that the airport can become a profitable entity, providing increased employment, business tax revenues and economic development to the City of Toronto. For this to occur, changes to the operating criteria of the airport are being agreed to. These changes can be made, while at the same time safeguarding the environmental and social aspects of the surrounding area. City Centre Airports operate in Europe, the Middle East and the United States of America with great success.
The TCCA is an ideal alternative to Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
4/ Finally, airports are serious sources of water pollution from de-icing chemicals, fuel spillage and solvents used in and around airports. The rule of thumb is never to locate an airport on a fresh water source. In the case of the Island airport, a main water intake for Toronto is not far offshore.
TCCA has had a water sampling and mitigation programme in place since 1992. All storm water discharged into Lake Ontario is closely monitored and tested. TCCA has created a new Glycol Containment Area where the run-off goes directly into storm sewers connected to Metro Toronto Sanitary Sewage Network.The TCCA has remained and will continue to remain within the environmental limits as established by governmental authorities. Aircraft utilizing TCCA do not require fuel jettison capabilities. A fuel jettison area, for heavy aircraft utilizing Lester B. Pearson International Airport, is established in an area 20 to 50 nautical miles east of Toronto. Fuel jettison occurs very infrequently and when necessary, is done above 10,000 ft. so the fuel is vaporized before reaching the surface.
Those “official” answers now aside, here’s my own take on some of the additional garbage that the website has to say:
Despite the 9/11 tragedy in the US, downtown Toronto continues to host flight training schools, sightseeing flights and largely unregulated transient aircraft movements, all courtesy of the Island Airport.
Potential users of this airport should be very concerned about problems associated with the approaches to the airport, as described by Transport Canada. It warns about a series of obstacles surrounding the Island Airport, including a 700-foot high industrial chimney on the eastern approach, a 132-foot high flagpole to the north, and high-masted ships to both the east and west.
Wow, no airport “Scare” website would be complete without a token reference to 9/11, huh? Tastefull, guys.
As for the “problems associated with the approaches to the airport”, perhaps these people should take a peek at a CFS and realize that the majority of airports in existance have noted obstacles. Every pilot deals with them - being aware of them is standard practice for any pilot, and simply because an airport should happen to have notable obstacles is no excuse to point it out as a “safety issue”.
Grasping at straws, and a clear cut effort to mislead the greater public, most of whom are unlikely familiar with aviation and the fact that ground based obstacles are commonplace.
The footprint of this airport is simply too small for comfort, with too many people living adjacent to it and too much boat traffic under its main approaches, including(snip_
And somehow Pearson International (which is surrounded by residential zones) is better? If an aircraft crashes at Pearson it’s very likely to result in a residentlal area - if one was to unfortunately crash at CYTZ, it’s likely going to end up in the water.
And accidents do happen. In a typical year, one or more small aircraft will crash in and around the Island Airport. The last incident was in July 2001, when a light plane crashed into Toronto Bay, immediately adjacent to the Hanlan’s Point ferry run. In 1941, a twin engine plane crashed into the John Inglis ferry, bouncing off its top deck into Toronto Bay, killing both people on board the plane.
It is only a matter of time before this unsafe airport produces a real tragedy.
5 years since the last notable accident, and they’re dredging up accidents from the 40’s. Wow.
The above entry on the website then goes on to show all kinds of intentionally “Scary” pictures that demonize everything from the flight paths, to the unfortunate airshow crash in 1995, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Toronto Island Airport other then the fact that it was in the same vicinity at the time.
Again, grasping at straws, and fearmongering at it’s best.
There is a clear analogy between downtown Toronto and the Manhattan portion of New York City. Central Park in NYC is about the same size as the Toronto Islands and, like the Toronto Island Park, it is surrounded by the key assets of the city.
The difference is that 200 acres of the Toronto Island Park are taken up by a polluting and disruptive airport, while Central Park is pure parkland, surrounded by some of the most expensive property on the planet. This property generates unprecedented property tax revenue for New York that can be used to finance services for the rest of New York.
The idea of putting an airport into the middle of Central Park is a ludicrous idea, but that is exactly the situation in which Toronto finds itself with the Island Airport.
WTF? Last I checked Central Park is landlocked. The Island Airport is on an ISLAND! Within seconds of takeoff from three of the 4 runways you are over water! Toronto Island versus Central Park is Apples vs. Oranges - how can you even draw a comparison?
Property taxes? It’s public knowledge that residents of Toronto Island are covered under a sweetheart deal of a previous government that has them paying some of the most rediculously low property taxes in all of Toronto.
So…this special interest group suggests that if the airport wasn’t there and replaced by something else that somehow “huge” property taxes could be collected? This is in reality prime real-estate - no debate there.
But wait..oh yes - the airport should be replaced by parkland, right? Isn’t that your goal?
Hmm. Not much property tax collected from parkland. Quite to the contrary, parklands cost quite alot to maintain - ask Chicago. (*cough cough*…Meigs)
Seems like our special interest group is somewhat confused.
Airports are major generators of air, noise and water pollution, including numerous known carcinogens. The drive to massively increase commercial air traffic at the Island Airport will add significantly to downtown Toronto’s already unacceptably high pollution loads.
If these people could take their short sighted views a little to the north they might notice the hundreds of locomotives that rumble through Union Station daily, locomotives which I might add burn low regulated high-sulphur (dirty) diesel fuel that creates many times the levels of pollution of any other mode of transportation in Toronto.
(That aside, Noise surveys have been completed and have clearly shown that the noise of a freight train rumbling through the railway corridor exceeds that of the Q400 turboprop, the aircraft that has created this entire stir to begin with.)
Oh yes, there’s the tens of thousands of cars stuck in the perpetual traffic jam of the Gardiner Expressway every day, and they just happen to create pollution as well. Forget about that as well, dear special interest groups?
The Toronto Port Authority page (Which I quoted earlier) addresses (and completely debunks) this garbage theory that the airport is somehow going to become a major polluter, yet every single special interest and advocacy group repeatedly dredges it up as somehow being a valid complaint.
Do your homework, guys.
This website has enough fodder that I could spend another 2 hours ranting about all of the misinformation they have posted there.
Clearly this is a website not based on reality, but based on the fact that if you can scare people and misinform them, you can perhaps get them on your side. Since they clearly identify themselves as opponents of the airport, it’s not surpising that they’re against it.
However, against it or not, there’s a valid way to get your point across.
Posting garbage like this simply isn’t it.
Try speaking the truth.
Oh wait…the truth is less sensationalistic and doesn’t strike fear into the hearts of all Torontonians?
Well, surprise surprise. I guess we all know what your modus operandi is now.
With that, I’ll close with another great picture of Toronto from the air, CYTZ in view.
I need a Tylenol.
The misinformation and flat-out nonsense peddled by Community AIR has gone far beyond the boundaries of any kind of decency; their oft-repeated claim that Pearson has a “large buffer zone” flat-out denies the existence of a large working-class community in Malton.
Great post, Mark. Makes me want to go out and do some touch and goes at CYTZ right now.
Could you forward that mailing list posting to me (at the address in my message)? I have some ideas for addressing the lack of coherent regional planning for (air) transport in the GTA. As I have said elsewhere, when I asked Mayor Miller point blank to consent to study long-range (including air) transport needs and evaluate the social, economic, and environmental costs and bebefits, he claimed the region of Durham would not agree to do it. I think, if we want any coherent research done, we’ll have to convene a citizen’s commission.