Advertisement

News

City accused of bias in Porter study

The city’s first public consultation on a divisive proposal to expand the island airport boiled over on Wednesday, with about two-dozen people storming out, complaining that the process was biased.

The meeting in the Blue Barracks Room at Fort York was filled near to capacity with over 100 people, the vast majority of them opposed to Porter Airlines’ plan. The company is seeking permission to extend the main runway at Billy Bishop Airport into Lake Ontario by at least 336 metres in order to accommodate jet aircraft. Both the extension and the use of jets contravene the agreement that has governed the airport since 1983.

After a one-hour drop-in session in the historic fort building and a brief presentation from city staff, the floor was opened up for questions. From there, the meeting quickly fractured amid accusations that the city was attempting to skew the process in Porter’s favour.

“This thing is just being stage managed,” one man said, to loud applause. “Send them to Pearson where they belong!” shouted another, as city staff pleaded for order in the room.

Participants were supposed to break out into small groups, but many people objected to that format, claiming their opinions would not be properly recorded. Staff agreed to change the consultation to an extended Q&A with city officials, but that didn’t prevent many from walking out.

“I have no confidence in the city right now. Because they’re pushing this through and our voices are not being heard,” said waterfront resident Teresa Ascencao on her way out of the building.

“I was hoping that this was going to be an honest, democratic experience for people who are sincerely concerned about our waterfront, and I can see that it’s not.”

As evidence of bias, some participants pointed to the consultation’s information booklet, which they said highlighted potential benefits of expansion but made little mention of residents’ existing complaints about noise and traffic congestion near the airport.

They also charged that the three “discussion questions” staff distributed were unfairly weighted in Porter’s favour. One question asked for “key reasons why Airport should allow jets,” another solicited “possible terms and conditions if jets are allowed.” Only one asked for reasons why jet aircraft should remain banned.

And with a final council vote expected in December, seven months after the city launched the airport study, several participants complained that the process was moving too quickly for a project that could permanently impact Toronto’s waterfront.

Casting a shadow over the whole event was Porter’s decision Tuesday night to release a new proposal to extend the runway by 200 metres in each direction. That’s a substantial increase over its original ask of a 168-metre extension at both ends. The airline floated the second, longer option in a press release Tuesday night, and it wasn’t reflected in any of the consultation material.

“It undermines whatever kind of sincerity is involved in the consultation already because clearly everyone is wondering [about] the next proposals or options they might have up their sleeve,” said Rose Dyson, a sailor who’s concerned about the expanded airport’s potential impact on recreational boating. “That does not seem like fair play to me.”

A second public meeting is scheduled for Monday, followed by a town hall on Thursday and another sometime in November.

Deputy City Manager John Livey said that in response to criticism from Wednesday’s participants, staff will be reviewing the format for future sessions.

“I’m disappointed that we couldn’t have provided a format that was more suited to their needs,” he said. “Obviously there is a large degree of concern about the legitimacy of the process. We’re going to redouble our efforts to make sure that their concerns are fairly and honestly dealt with.”

Livey defended the consutlation discussion questions however, saying he didn’t believe they were biased.

Meanwhile, there are few signs that Porter is bowing to opposition to its plans. In an interview Wednesday morning, airline president Bob Deluce stood by his the last-minute second proposal, saying it wasn’t meant TO disrupt the consultation process and was “part of the ongoing dialogue.”

He said he felt it was worth presenting because a 200-metre extension could mitigate jet noise by allowing for longer, lower-power takeoffs, and could also help boaters by reducing waves in the harbour’s western channel.

“We don’t necessarily want it extended by 200 metres. We’ve offered that up as a second viable option. The original option that we put forward…months ago is still on the table, and one that we very much support,” he said.

“Our objective has always been to design a runway that does not change the enjoyment of Lake Ontario by Torontonians, including the boating community. We believe that both runway options actually achieve this objective.”

Deluce maintains that neither option would have a material impact on the current marine exclusion zone, the area around Billy Bishop where boats are prohibited from entering. The airline also claims that the CS100 “whisper jets” would have noise impacts comparable to its current turboprop fleet, although city staff say they have not yet received key data on the planes’ sound levels.

The CS100s are still in the testing phase and have never been flown. Porter has put in a conditional order for up to 30 of the planes, a purchase that could be worth up to $2.4 billion.

Roughly 1.9 million passengers travelled through Billy Bishop in 2012. Introducing jets would allow Porter to serve long-haul destinations on the West Coast and the Caribbean, increasing passenger loads by an estimated 1.2 million people. According to consultation documents, visitor spending in Toronto would rise by $68-134 million a year.

Staff will deliver an update on the airport study to Mayor Rob Ford’s executive committee on September 24, after which the proposal is expected to go to a final council vote in December.

Any changes that council approves to the airport agreement would require the consent of the other two signatories, the Toronto Port Authority and the federal government.

Advertisement

Exclusive content and events straight to your inbox

Subscribe to our Newsletter

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By signing up, I agree to receive emails from Now Toronto and to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Recently Posted