Jump to content

Oh oh....maybe the Liberals are serious about no expansion


anonymous
 Share

Recommended Posts

The dribble and nonsense continues...

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/11/25/what-happened-to-the-liberal-commitment-to-our-cities.html

There is absolutely no traction with the majority of Torontonians with the message put forth....again!

This dog got run over more than a week ago boys and girls....R.I.P.

I don't have a dog in the race but I rather doubt you are voicing the opinion of the majority of Torontonians (whoever that may be).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a dog in the race but I rather doubt you are voicing the opinion of the majority of Torontonians (whoever that may be).

CPAIR....who said and who I represented or was voicing an opinion on behalf of Torontonians-your silly answer is the wedge style of political thinking the Canadian electorate just purged with the Harperites.

The democratically elected Transport Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada; the Liberal GTAcaucus and the local MP in Spadina Fort York; were on the record that an expanded Island Airport(the jets scheme) is not in the public interest to proceed-full stop, the decree and the party is over.

Between the Liberal and NDP vote in Spadina Fort York-80% of voters voted for both of these parties who on the record opposed the proposed expansion. Furthermore the entire string of councillors immediately around the airport (Cressy, Layton, McConnell, Fletcher) representing their democratically elected constituencies were clearly on the record against and on behalf of their residents-No Jets at the Island airport...

Yet we get pretty spin about the CS100 quietness, economics, yada, yada; but fails to address the infrastructure problems currently and in the future if expanded operations were to take hold. Neither Porter, the TPA have explained where $1 Billion dollars is going to come from to pay for the scheme.

Clearly money is not coming from the Liberals; and if there was $1 Billion kicking around to spend in the City of Toronto; politically don't you think the Libs would invest $1 Billion in TTC infrastructure before Billy Bishop so the leisure crowd can fly to Vegas; mandatory travel eh; give me a break. Don't see may road warriors flying to Vegas; not in the masses.

Now with that said; I would like to see Porter succeed as we do need more competition in the airline sector and would welcome my business to them; both regionally and long haul at Pearson or Hamilton.

It is troubling that after 10 years they still need to survive in a quasi-monopoly sucking on the teat still....it time for the baby racoon to grow up and stand on its two own feet.

Until that happens; I suspect this writers opinion may resonate with a much larger crowd than you might think...wake up boys and girls-the party's over with respect to expansion plans...

Porter seriously needs to implement a Plan B strategy....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vikingwarrior: is this not your opinion and I quote:
There is absolutely no traction with the majority of Torontonians with the message put forth....again!

Based on what you stated, you would seem to be speaking for the majority of Torontonians or perhaps just presuming that you know how they all think.

So I conclude "your silly answer is the wedge style of political thinking the Canadian electorate has to look forward to with the Lib. win. :Grin-Nod:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, MD2, if you can, you might look at it from the community perspective: the Airport,as it has expanded, encroaches on the Toronto waterfront's livability and enjoyment for millions of residents and visitors.

It has done so by distorting and ignoring rules that were put in place to constrain that growth.

Now Porter wants more.

There isn't a solution to parking, taxi routes, or emergency access, as there's no land to use to provide it, and clearly no funding to pay for it. Without solutions to the serious issues you identify, one must conclude that the Island Airport is in the wrong location, and its business should be conducted elsewhere - where ample parking, taxi routes,and emergency access are readily available.

Fortunately for those millions, politicians who listen to their constituents, not the jangle of money, have managed to achieve the power to say no to expansion, and to reform the mess that Ports Toronto has created. Nasty and personalized attacks may be your last resort, but they're not very helpful - Vaughan has been steadfast, articulate and committed to the best interests of his constituents. That's why he was re-elected with such an impressive margin - his only serious opponent also took the same position. And why he's being listened to in Ottawa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

How does paying $29.50 so you can get still get to Pearson hours before your flight to stand in line, get yelled at by commissionaires, get yelled at by CATSA and walk tens of thousands of steps in the process undermine what is offered from YTZ?

No, I think I'm sticking with the elevator to the gallows analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vikingwarrior, first you should know that ministers are not "elected" to their office, rather appointed, but at any rate, I am not much into politics and certainly not very partisan. You and a few others on the other hand seem to be very political and very partisan and also very critical of the previous government. Yet for the record they didn't issue a holy edict on the subject of the expansion of the airport, which they could have if they were as partial and as tyrannical as you suggest. Instead they devolved the matter to City Council where it belongs. Then may I ask, why is it that the new government within hours or days of coming to power has issued an edict on the subject via a tweet near midnight, and more importantly why are you a proponent of this form of governance?

What happened to political discourse and democratic discussion and process? What about the studies that the city council unanimously ordered? A city council in which Adam Vaughan was a member himself. Was that simply a tactic of delaying the process until it could be killed? Is issuing an edict and stifling a democratic process an acceptable behavior from "elected officials" of the government as you say? And all this under the guise that this was in their platform, which by the way it wasn't? Why then bother with the parliament at all, just govern by tweeting edicts late at night. So you promote democracy only if it's in agreement with your views and would be OK with dictatorship if it supports your ideas? Interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian,

Contrary to my usual practice I mention that history seems to suggest otherwise about Adam Vaughan simply because he was a member of the City Council that ordered the studies unanimously, which by the way means he voted for it too. It seems that his only intention was to delay the process, not really to discover the truth for the betterment of the city and its airports. And now that he perceives to be in a position of power he wants his friends to kill the whole thing without even a discussion. Is this what you mean by being "steadfast, articulate and committed"? Ends justify his means?

And those "issues" that you listed do have solutions that are included in the studies that will come out shortly.

Any airport, including Pearson, have challenges. Just because they don't matter to you, doesn't mean they don't exist. Pearson is stretched to its capacity, yet you are suggesting more traffic be sent there? This may be good for you, but not good for the city of Toronto that needs access to more airports. If you lived on Mars and were brought in to examine its merits, you would readily say that expanding City airport makes sense because it increases access to Toronto's network of airports while maintaining its stringent noise limitations by the virtue of the Canadian-built and environmentally friendly C series aircraft, has its arrivals and departures over water, and proposes a responsible growth plan while providing a myriad of economical advantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 3 parties (Not One) that need to come to an agreement in order for any change to be made.The first is a Corporate entity, The Second a Municipal Entity and the third a federal entity.

The Corporate and Municipal entities can discuss and argue over the expansion to their hearts content but if the federal entity says no then it is its not going to happen. The agreement is protected and must be adhered to.

Arguing that this will change is a waste of breath.

The Fact that a Canadian Company build a nice efficient aircraft has ZERO effect on the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rejection-of-torontos-billy-bishop-airport-expansion-becomes-ammunition-for-opposition-in-ontario/article27505191/

This about as desperate a move the pro jets crowd could ever dream up-a SOCON acting as quarterback who has an alliance with Rob Ford (the backroom Porter cheerleader) doing the ultimate "Hail Mary" pass for the Deluce's benefit.

When in the last three years will you find the word(s) jets, island airport, Porter Airlines, waterfront development, Billy Bishop, extended runways, etc... in the provincial hansard?

Now that the Federal Libs have shut the idea down; the Porter crowd hasto go to third stringers (haven't been in govt in 13 years) at the provincial level?

Pathetic.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MD2. if I were from Mars, the reaction, I suspect, would very much be like those of many tourists from around the world who come to our waterfront to say, this is wonderful, but why do you allow an airport to operate in the middle of it? Here's one:

http://youtu.be/FnFru2728es

Other cities have seen the wisdom of closing City Centre airports: Edmonton, Chicago, Berlin, Tel Aviv, Hong Kong - largely because the land's just too valuable for a low-return use like aviation.

Pearson has ample capacity: "Pearson projected in 2008 that it would need to add a sixth runway, but it appears that may not be necessary for at least another two decades, she said, because airlines are using larger planes and have increased the number of seats they have on all sizes of planes." [from The Globe and Mail, Oct. 08, 2015]

Porter's never even attempted to justify its Jets proposal on the basis of need. And none of the studies underway consider need. It's always been about what Porter wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and here's another perspective on "PorterPlans": http://youtu.be/UMgshtPWRpA

Good sound editing. Just need to add more smoke and mirrors.

Having spent many hours watching all kinds of planes take off & land at various airports around the world, I would have to say the sound bites used in your video do not match the location of the camera. Or even the type of aircraft, which were just enough out of focus

The camera should also turn the other way to see the concrete jungle, construction cranes, and noise generated by city traffic, the Gardiner and CN/CP/GO rail lines. And of course the newly added UP line.

Also, were any of the 'Jets' a Bombardier CSeries? Go to Mirbabel and place the camera 1000 feet away from the departure path on 06-24. Then hit record.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transport Minister Marc Garneau says he won’t change his decision that effectively halted an expansion of the island airport in downtown Toronto.


He says it’s a quality of life issue for Torontonians who want a greater say in the development of their waterfront.


Garneau says nothing is going to change his mind.


Porter Airlines wanted to renegotiate an agreement among the City of Toronto, Ports Toronto and the federal government to extend the runway at Billy Bishop airport to allow jets to land.


The Liberals promised before and during the federal election not to open the three-party agreement.


Garneau says the decision follows through on what he calls an obligation the party has to the voters in Toronto.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Affluent singletons who don't have kids but do have small dogs". Adam Vaughn

Perhaps this is the real problem.....waking up the dogs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/vaughan-and-chow-battle-for-the-condo-vote-in-torontos-new-downtown-riding/article25819976/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2015 at 2:19 PM, blues deville said:

"Affluent singletons who don't have kids but do have small dogs". Adam Vaughn

Perhaps this is the real problem.....waking up the dogs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/vaughan-and-chow-battle-for-the-condo-vote-in-torontos-new-downtown-riding/article25819976/

Aren't the libs the party who was going to look after the average middle class and families? Are they instead singling out "higher class citizens" for special consideration? Surely not.

smiley_xmas_irony1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that the subject of CYTZ has now moved into a classification called "beating a dead horse". It is apparent that the Libs, and who thought otherwise, are no different than any other political party lead by a powerful "ruler".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...