There's a hell of a lot of passion when it comes to the
Porter Airlines and its
expansion at the Toronto Island Airport. Who knows what it is, but there seems to be two main camps. Those vehemently against it, and those who wholeheartedly support it. Okay, fine, there`s a third camp that sorta wonders what the other two are fighting over.
What we find interesting, not too surprisingly we guess, is that people from all over the city are engaged in the debate about the airport. On Monday, as the airline and federal officials were announcing a $45 million expansion and the addition of 10 planes to the fleet, such local luminaries as Adam Vaughan and Olivia Chow, along with the activist group
CommunityAir, protested. Later, at an event at the nearby Harbourfront Community Centre, CommunityAir said that a survey of the residents who attend said 47% said their chief concern was
noise and air pollution.
The
CommunityAir point of view is well documented on their website and you can see their
viewpoint on their blog.
So where should one lie as a resident of Queens Quay. There is an assumption that residents of the waterfront are against the airport. We at QQL are pretty much in the middle -- we can see the concerns with pollution but we also realize that we live just south of a major highway and are a few blocks from a major city core and you can`t argue against the convenience (yes, we`ve flown Porter before). We`re just not so sure that there is really a black and white answer to this (as in, no airport or yes airport).
We were interested enough to peruse the comment boards of some of the newspaper online articles for some other opinions. Here`s an interesting sampling.
From the
Toronto Star
Porter should be banned: Cannot immagine the pollution this will bring not to mention the total disregard of peace and quiet. Turn the island airport to a city park for all to enjoy. Poeple should be more environmentally conscious.
---
there's no way you can hear them at king st: I worked at wellington and Portland for 3 years, and i've never, every heard any planes from the island. Not once. There's so much other noise between here and the island (the expressway, train tracks, Toronto in general), there's no way.
---
Lived right there at 34 Little Norway facing the airport and the traffic on King Street is much louder (lived there as well). Just becuase you live on the water does not mean you are more entitled to quiet then everyone else. (BTW I love in a house now beside a subway station and the city buses are ALSO louder than any plane I ever heard on the waterfront).
---
The planes do make alot of noise. I live at Bathurst and Queens Quay. The traffic is pretty messy too. It's only a matter of time before something bad will happen due largely to poor urban planning. If they had better public trains going to Pearson Airport I doubt this Porter thing would have had much luck.
---
My 2 cents as someone that lives close by....First and foremost - Yes, I knew there was an airport when I moved in and I am not posting here to complain - just want to clarify a few points. Lets not give Porter too much credit for a successful business model since they received an undisclosed sum as a settlement when the bridge was cancelled (Estimates I have read are $20-$30M). Second, I will admit, the sounds of the planes are not that bad where I live - other than when they do their maintenance run ups - those are very, very loud and residents have a right to complain about them. Furthermore, The "Quiet" in the Q400 refers to the ride inside...not approach noise
---
I live in the neighbourhood. I didn't know there was an airport even there until a week after I moved in. The way things are now is fine. There is nothing more awesome than walking to the airport, flying direct to Newark and taking US Helicopter from the terminal to midtown Manhattan, all for the same price as flying out of Pearson. This is the way travel should be.
---
My sister lives near Bathurst and King. I visit her frequently. She knows the Porter airplanes bring plenty of noise.
---
Cities and downtowns are defined by density; swaths of people living, working, and playing in a common area. [A private community on a public island], barricading off acres upon acres of prime downtown real estate, goes entirely against this philosophy, restricting a huge area to a meagre few. A large chunk of downtown, a stretch of one of the city's finest beaches, and a huge portion of the inner harbour are all off-limits. Imagine the benefit of [evicting the squatters and freeing up that land for everyone]? Homes, jobs, amenities... benefits for thousands and proper growth for the city [everything denied us by a bunch of NIMBYs]. The waterfront should be usable and enjoyable for the whole city, not just [those few people living on it].
---
I lived on Queen's Quay for several years, right near the airport. Contrary to what the spoiled denizens of the Islands would have you believe, the airport is not a problem. In the years I lived there, not once was I awakened or annoyed by charter planes. It's also terrific that people can now take convenient trips without having to haul all the way out to Pearson, where usurious parking fees and terrible traffic reign. By all means, expand the Island Airport. Ignore the notoriously whiny NIMBY Islanders.
Anyways, this goes on and on and on and from what we see, a
majority are not against the Island Airport. Of course, commenting boards are usually the silent minority, but not worth ignoring.
The Globe and Mail had more than
100 comments on their story. Here are a few from people
David McKenna from Toronto, Canada writes: I live in a condo apartment on the lakeshore and can see the airport out my window. It is true the planes actually are very quiet. As an airline, the service is superb and much better than any other airline. I travel regularly and cannot notice much difference between United, Delta, Air Canada, etc. Porter is significantly different.
---
GK cheese from Toronto, Canada writes: Claims about current quietness seem a stretch. I live about 2 km's from the airport and can hear the turboprops rumbling every morning at 7 am. Mind you it's not as bad as the sound of the Gardiner Expwy.
---
Bobby S from Canada writes: I am very happy for Porter and their CEO. They are a great company that run a pleasant, serviceable airline. I have used them many times and I live walking distance to the airport. I saw some of the protesters this morning, and I'm routinely greeted by them as I get off the flights, but I hope they don't derail, the good honest work by Porter. My only concern is that they don't become too big too quick. We all remember Jetsgo, and I certainly hope Porter sticks around for a long time.
---
Wayne Morrison from Toronto, Canada writes: One other point. The island residents, and anybody who lives in a condo on the south side of the Gardner, are the last people on the planet who are entitled to complain about anybody ruining the view, taking up park space, or being located in an inappropriate space.
The National Post wrote an editorial criticizing mayor David Miller`s opposition and also lack of attendance at the ceremony. Here are a few paragraphs from the editorial:
`More sensible Canadians can only shake their heads at such displays of small-mindedness. Porter — like larger, Calgary-based WestJet Airlines Ltd., which also took the risk of challenging Air Canada’s monopoly power — is succeeding in a cut-throat industry in which bankruptcies are all too common. (Air Canada is struggling to avoid its second such filing in six years in the face of dwindling demand and crushing debt and pension obligations.) It has done so not only through innovation and efficient service, but thoughtful amenities such as complimentary cappuccinos, Wi-fi service and computers in the Toronto terminal. (Oh, and you don’t have to join some hoity-toity “gold club” to get them.)
It is disheartening that Mr. Miller stands against the interests of a new, up-and-coming airline that has proven popular with passengers and revolutionized air travel in the region. Like Westjet, Porter has managed its feat without recourse to government bailouts or special subsidies. It deserves commendation, but instead faces continued hostility from Toronto’s obdurate left-wing council, which favours spending billions on a transit line to the distant and crowded Pearson while spurning the benefits to be had from promoting the more convenient island alternative.
And some comments from readers
Opposition to the Island Airport has never been about rationality or common sense. It has, however, served a useful ongoing distraction from the city's real problems which the Miller horde has done little to address.
His behaviour regarding the Island Airport is shameful and embarrassing; like a spoiled child that doesn't get his way, his rigid ideological opposition reveals how out of touch he really is. The success of the airport is a fitting tribute for this sad episode.
---
... Private enterprise is merely an opportunity for government bureaucrats to gorge themselves at the public trough for a few years.
---
This is Toronto, jda- nothing gets done on the waterfront. The bickering and infighting between various orders of government and their attendant visions lead to a whole lot of inertia and little else.
All we end up seeing are a lot of press conferences featuring artist concepts of things that will never get built with plenty of windy talk from assorted grandees about a new 'vision' for the waterfront. Please. We don't need any more visionaries announcing fancy schemes that are completely divorced from reality. No more Robert Fungs.
---
As a life long right of centre voter and against my own better judgement, I voted for Miller based entirely on the Island airport issue.
I do feel that his performance as a Mayor should be separated from the airport issue.
On his performance as a Mayor, he is a complete failure and should be removed from office. I won't get into the many reasons why here.
Despite his massive failure as a Mayor, the mere existence of the airport is an ongoing and embarrassing nightmare for the waterfront. The noise and pollution from the planes is horrific and in the long term erodes the potential for our city. (And don't try and convince me that the convenience of an inner city airport for a few thousand travellers is worth the cost - it's not even close...)
So, at least Miller was consistent with his views by not showing up yesterday and no one should be surprised, but add to Miller's many failures the fact that the airport still exists, and what we do agree on is that he should be booted from office as soon as possible.
---
Tablogloid - the condominiums near the bottom of bathurst don't have anything to complain about either. I've stood outside at the mainland ferry terminal waiting to meet people arriving, and you don't notice any sound from the planes. MAYBE if you had unusually sensitive hearing and were straining to make them out you'd notice a faint buzz, but realistically, the noise is a tiny fraction of the constant hum from the Gardiner.
---
Ya, those ~100 planes a day are a nightmare compared to the over 1-million cars that are drawn to the city daily by the over-concentration of business (jobs) downtown.
Phew, that`s a lot.
