|
Access to the City Centre Airport.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:
(1)the adoption, in principle, of a fixed link to the City Centre Airport being built in the form of a bridge, subject
to:
(a)the approval of the design of the bridge by the Fire Chief and the General Manager, Ambulance Services;
(b)the final design of the bridge being submitted to Urban Environment and Development Committee for review
and approval for consistency with established urban design objectives along the waterfront;
(c)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer being requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and
Development Committee that gives approval to the bridge= s business plan;
(d)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services being requested to submit a report to the
Urban Environment and Development Committee, prior to authorization of the alteration of Bathurst Street, on
the cost of such alteration and the source of funding;
(e)the Toronto Harbour Commission and the Port Authority being required to monitor and report annually to the
Urban Environment and Development Committee on the effects of the bridge operation, as requested by the City;
and
(f)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services being requested to submit a report to the Urban
Environment and Development Committee on the impact of the Fixed Link on traffic patterns along the
waterfront and what concrete traffic calming options exist, such report to seek the input of local residents and be
the subject of a public meeting;
(2)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the appropriate City
officials, be requested to submit a further report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the
amendments to the Tripartite Agreement to give effect thereto, as well as any further amendments in the form of
restrictions to the airport operation; and
(3)the adoption of report (November 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services, wherein it is recommended that:
(a)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate staff, be
directed to continue discussion and consultation on the appropriate role of the City Centre Airport and its
relationship to other uses and activities in the waterfront, and the impacts that these matters might have on the
terms of both the Tripartite and the Subsidy Agreements to which the City is a party;
(b)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services be requested to report on an assessment of the emergency response capability of the bridge,
tunnel and ferry including suggested improvements to the operation of each option; and
(c)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation appropriate staff, continue to
compile technical information on the bridge and tunnel options but the decision on the type of fixed link required
be deferred until the matters raised in Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) have been further resolved.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested:
(a)the City Clerk to notify interested parties in advance of the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on December 16,
1998, that the foregoing matter will be considered at such meeting of Council;
(b)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to City Council on any additional financial information
City Council should be aware of prior to final approval;
(c)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate staff, to meet with
the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (G.T.A.A.) and the Toronto Harbour Commission to discuss opportunities for the
involvement of the G.T.A.A. in the operation of the City Centre Airport and provide the Urban Environment and
Development Committee with a progress report on the said discussions no later than the meeting of the Urban
Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held in March, 1999; and
(d)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report on the future role of the City Centre Airport
and how it can be balanced with the other activities and uses in the waterfront area and report back to the Urban
Environment and Development Committee in that regard.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To provide a response on the actions of the special joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee
and the Economic Development Committee held on September 29th, 1998 regarding the proposal to build either a bridge
or a tunnel to the City Centre Airport.
Source of Funds and Implications:
There are no immediate funding requirements arising from the recommendations of this report. However, this report puts
forward suggestions for addressing some of the safety concerns at the City Centre Airport the assessment of which will
require further reporting.
Recommendations:
(1)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate staff, be directed to
continue discussion and consultation on the appropriate role of the City Centre Airport and its relationship to other uses
and activities in the waterfront, and the impacts that these matters might have on the terms of both the Tripartite and the
Subsidy Agreements to which the City is a party.
(2)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services be requested to report on an assessment of the emergency response capability of the bridge, tunnel and ferry
including suggested improvements to the operation of each option.
(3)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation appropriate staff, continue to
compile technical information on the bridge and tunnel options but the decision on the type of fixed link required be
deferred until the matters raised in Recommendations 1 and 2 have been further resolved.
Executive Summary:
As a result of a special joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Economic
Development Committee held on September 29, 1998, numerous requests for further staff reporting on the issue of access
to the City Centre Airport were made. Most of these requests were for more information about the bridge and tunnel
options to the airport and how these two alternatives compared. Staff is continuing to compile this information.
The Special Joint Committee also adopted the recommendations of my September 18th, 1998 report on the fixed link
which called for a fuller assessment of the future role of the City Centre Airport and the means by which airport activities
can be balanced with the other activities and uses in the waterfront area. The question of determining the appropriate form
of access to the City Centre Airport involves matters that go beyond conventional land use planning considerations and is
enmeshed in a number of wider issues including those related to organizational and financial aspects of the airport=s
operation. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners= plans or vision for the future of the City Centre Airport are quite
different from those that would apply if the GTAA were to have control of the airport. The City requires more time to
assess the relative merits of these competing visions, including the impacts that different operating strategies might have
on both the Subsidy and the Tripartite Agreements to which the City is a cosignatory. This assessment is an unavoidably
complex task and there is an inherently political component attached to it. It is my view that these broader, strategic
questions relating to the Arole and compatibility@ of the airport need to be addressed. City staff are continuing to discuss
and consult on these broader issues regarding the Arole and compatibility@ of the City Centre Airport and further time is
required to achieve closure on these matters. It is only after these wider issues have been resolved that the specific
operational decision on the form of a link required can be properly made.
In addition, the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, at its meeting dated October 6, 1998, requested the Chief
of Police, the Fire Chief and the General Manager, Toronto Ambulance, to report jointly to the Urban Environment and
Development Committee on whether the City Centre Airport should be immediately closed down and remain closed until
a fixed link is in operation because of unacceptable safety concerns. A joint letter from the Fire Chief and the General
Manager of Ambulance Services (appended to this report) concludes that the emergency response to the City Centre
Airport and the Toronto Islands could benefit from a fixed link of appropriate design although the ferry option was not
declared as inadequate or unsafe. This is important from the standpoint of the City=s current responsibility with providing
secondary response in the event of an emergency. The joint letter also indicates that the adequacy of the existing
specialized crash rescue trucks and staffing at the airport should be reviewed. Also noted is the potential role of the
Ministry of Health two ambulance helicopters in the event of an emergency. While the tunnel is preferred, the proposed
bridge option could be considered acceptable if altered in accordance with the criteria listed above. In light of the City=s
responsibility to provide secondary response in the event of an emergency and given the concern of both the Fire Chief
and the General Manager of Ambulance Services with respect to the adequacy of crash rescue equipment and staff at the
airport, it is recommended that the emergency response capability of the bridge, tunnel and ferry should be reassessed.
1.The Issues of Role and Compatibility
1.1The Existing Situation
Before looking at alternative future roles for the City Centre Airport, it is useful to briefly review where matters currently
stand.
The City Centre Airport is operated by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners on its own behalf in accordance with the
Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act 1985. Currently, the airport provides general aviation services which include private
planes, corporate aircraft, training and some recreational activity as well as limited scheduled air-passenger services. The
scheduled air service includes flights to Ottawa, Montreal and London and, in 1997, some 115,000 passengers flew into
and out of the airport. The maximum annual volume of passengers handled at the airport was achieved in 1987 at around
the 400,000 level.
It must be remembered too, that the operation of the airport is subject to certain limiting conditions spelled out in the 1983
Tripartite Agreement. The Tripartite Agreement is, essentially, a 50-year lease agreed upon by the three owners of the
airport lands, namely the City, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Federal Government. The Agreement
contains some key conditions including the imposition of strict noise controls on flights to and from the airport, including
a ban on jet aircraft, and the acknowledgment that runways are not to be extended nor a fixed link built to connect the
airport and the mainland. Since the time of the signing of the Tripartite Agreement, the former City of Toronto has agreed,
in principle, to relaxing some of these restrictions. As a result of technological advances that have led to improvements in
aircraft noise performance, the City has agreed to broaden the definition of Type III turbo-prop aircraft that can use the
airport. Several years ago a review of the emergency response needs of the airport resulted in the City=s conditional
approval to consider a fixed link and the recently completed Environmental Assessment Study concluded that a bridge
would be the best means by which to improve emergency access. The terms of the Tripartite Agreement are expected to
apply to the Toronto Port Authority when it comes into being and any changes to the Agreement will require the
concurrence of all three parties.
In 1994, the former City of Toronto entered into the Subsidy Agreement with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners which
followed from the transfer of approximately 400 acres of land in the eastern harbour from the Harbour Commissioners to
the newly created Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) and 200 acres to the City. As a result, the City
pays the Toronto Harbour Commissioners an operating subsidy of $2.8 million annually. Of this total subsidy, $2.4
million is funded by TEDCO through its operating budget, which does not rely on taxes, and the remaining $0.4 million
comes from the City=s tax-supported operating budget. The Subsidy Agreement further specifies that up until the year
2000 capital expenditures will be funded from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners= reserves but, thereafter, additional
capital expenditures could be funded by the City if required.
In 1998, the City Centre Airport, which is only one component of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners= operations, is
expected to operate at a loss of $624,000. The majority of this airport operating deficit is attributable to the ferry service
which operates at a loss of about $500,000 a year after the revenues from the charges on passengers and vehicles are
deducted. Consequently, the City and TEDCO, through the Subsidy Agreement, subsidize the operating costs of providing
ferry access to the Airport. Clearly, the City has a direct financial interest in any proposals to alter the access arrangements
to the airport since any such change could impact on both the City=s operating and possibly capital budgets. Even if the
money to build the bridge were borrowed privately, paying the carrying costs is largely dependent on increased passenger
use of the airport. If the expected passenger volumes do not materialize, the airport will be in a deficit position once again.
The City would then in effect be paying for the carrying costs of the bridge.
With the recent passage of the Canada Marine Act, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners are soon to become the new
Toronto Port Authority although the letters patent that are required to effect this transfer of control have yet to be
finalized. The Toronto Port Authority comprises seven directors, only one of whom will be appointed by the City. It is
expected that the City=s financial obligations, as defined in the Subsidy Agreement, will carry over to the new Toronto
Port Authority.
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners would like to terminate the Subsidy Agreement relationship with the City provided
they are fairly compensated since the Subsidy Agreement resulted from the transfer of certain lands in the port area,
previously owned by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to TEDCO and the City. At its meeting held on July 29 and 30,
1998, City Council adopted a motion requesting the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and
other staff as necessary to meet with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and TEDCO to discuss options for eliminating
the City=s obligation to provide an annual subsidy. Subsequently, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, in
camera, has recommended that discussions continue and that progress reports be brought forward as needed.
The letters patent will describe the mandate of the new Port Authority. The letters patent will:
-define the port=s jurisdictional boundaries;
-define the federal property to be managed;
-describe the property the port authority will hold or occupy;
-set out the board of directors;
-describe the extent of the activities of the port authority and any wholly-owned subsidiary;
-describe the limits of the port authority to borrow money; and
-any other provision the Minister considers appropriate.
City Council has passed several motions related to its interest in being involved in the preparation of the letters patent.
The Canada Marine Act does not allow for any involvement by municipalities in the development of the letters patent
other than to nominate a member to the board of directors. The negotiations over the elimination of the Subsidy
Agreement requirements offer City Council an opportunity to ensure its participation in the process of drafting the letters
patent. Any resolution to the obligation under the Subsidy Agreement should include a guarantee that City Council will
have been permitted to review and consent to the letters patent of the new Port Authority. Similarly, City Council should
ensure that any amendments to the Tripartite Agreement permitting a fixed link should not occur until letters patent have
been reviewed and the Subsidy Agreement discussions concluded.
1.2The Toronto Harbour Commissioners= Vision
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners clearly view the City Centre Airport as a potential profit centre that could not only
help improve their own financial position but also strengthen the downtown economy and bolster the City=s Olympic bid.
Right now, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners see the airport as Aa lost economic opportunity.@ Presently, only one
airline, Air Ontario (a subsidiary of Air Canada), operates scheduled passenger service from the airport. It is through
significantly expanding passenger use that the airport can achieve financial profitability. A number of other passenger
airlines are said to be prepared to begin operations at the airport once the necessary upgrades have been made. The
Toronto Harbour Commissioners see the building of the bridge as one of the key improvements to attracting more airport
passengers. With the new bridge in place and a 400-space garage at the airport to park cars, the Toronto Harbour
Commissioners believe that within a few years the break-even level of 400,000 passengers a year would be achieved.
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners prefer the bridge option mainly because it is cheaper than a tunnel. The lift bridge is
estimated to cost $16.0 million, while a tunnel might cost upwards of $50.0 million. Further, the Environmental
Assessment study, which the Toronto Harbour Commissioners funded, is completed and recommends the bridge solution.
Past experience indicates that the airport can cope with up to 400,000 passengers a year, even with just the ferry service,
but beyond this level community disruption may become a more significant factor and the higher-cost of a tunnel might
become justifiable as a means of addressing neighbourhood concerns. The Environmental Assessment study notes that
when passenger volumes reach 600,000 a year vehicle congestion on the Bathurst Street approach to the bridge will
become problematic and City staff recommended that at this level of use an off-site (remote) terminal building is required.
Expanding the airport beyond the 600,000 level will require a further round of substantial capital investments.
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners see the City Centre Airport as in direct competition with Pearson International
Airport for the patronage of the lucrative business traveller. Consequently, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners wish to
see the bridge built as soon as possible and the City Centre Airport aggressively marketed to beyond the 400,000
passengers a year level as there is A.... a significant potential for profit with higher utilization.@ In their Business Plan for
the City Centre Airport, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners put forward estimates of passenger growth that envisage
volumes of around 575,000 passengers in the year 2002, a five-fold increase over today=s levels. It is through passenger
user fees that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners expect to produce the revenues to cover expenses, generate profits and,
perhaps, eventually expand the airport to an ultimate level of around 900,000 passengers a year.
1.3The Greater Toronto Airports Authority=s (GTAA) Vision
The GTAA views the City Centre Airport as a part of an integrated and coordinated regional airport system under the
control of a single operator. Each airport in this regional system would have a distinct role that complements that of the
others and, in this way, full advantage can be taken of the economies of scale and operational efficiencies that such an
integrated airport system offers. In particular, strategic cross-subsidization of facilities in the system can eliminate
counter-productive and wasteful competition between airports in the region.
Like the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, the GTAA regards the City Centre Airport as primarily serving short-haul
passenger routes catering to the business and leisure traveller in selected corridors in the Canada and U.S. markets.
However, the GTAA feels that, although the City Centre Airport should become financially self-sufficient, it should be
operated on a not-for-profit basis. The GTAA claims that its aim would be to phase-out the need for any subsidy from the
City and that, eventually, it would be prepared to share any excess revenues that might arise from City Centre Airport
operations with the Toronto Port Authority. In this context, the GTAA considers that 400,000 passengers a year would be
likely the maximum level of use by commercial airlines operating at the City Centre Airport and is prepared to recognize
this as the figure to take for future planning purposes.
However, even at the more limited target figure of 400,000 passengers a year, the GTAA feels that a fixed link would be
an asset both in terms of increasing the attractiveness of the airport for passenger use and addressing the need for
emergency access by fire, ambulance and police services. The GTAA=s position is that the fixed link, in either a bridge or
tunnel form, should provide only limited or controlled access to the airport. In this regard, the GTAA feels that there
should be no public parking provided at the airport and that an inter-modal passenger terminal and transfer point should be
established off-site at Union Station. The fixed link itself should be designed to reduce the impacts of the airport on other
uses and activities in the surrounding community and to be compatible with the level and type of access demanded by the
airport in its planned or mature state. However, while the GTAA has indicated a preference for the tunnel as the best
option in terms of minimizing community disruption, further review of the financial viability of the tunnel must be
undertaken. With the resources at its disposal, the GTAA is able to take a more flexible approach to the access issue than
the Toronto Harbour Commissioners are.
1.4The Question of Compatibility
The City Centre Airport represents something of a mixed blessing in the waterfront area. Clearly, the airport has the
potential to be a key economic generator but its unbridled expansion would create stress among a number of the other
legitimate uses and activities that share this waterfront location. There needs to be a generally acceptable balance struck
between the expansionary ambitions of the airport=s proponents and the concerns of those sectors of the surrounding
community negatively impacted by increased airport activity.
As noted in David Crombie=s letter of September 11, 1998:
AThe Waterfront Regeneration Trust has always sought to promote a balance between increased investment in the
waterfront and the natural attributes of the waterfront environment. Our 1997 study, Development Activity on the
Waterfront, commissioned from Hemson Consultants, identifies over $2.5 billion in new investment planned or underway
in the next 5-7 years. The investment is primarily in residential, recreation, entertainment and cultural uses.
We continue to support the airport=s historic role of serving general aviation and a limited amount of the air commuter
market. In this way, the scale of airport operations would remain compatible with adjacent waterfront development and
the all important balance among waterfront uses would be maintained@.
Also, as pointed out in my previous report of September 18th, 1998, the former City of Toronto endorsed the construction
of a fixed link based on the understanding that the airport operations would remain compatible with other waterfront uses.
It was envisioned that, through negotiation, specific restrictions on airport operations would be developed at the same time
the Environmental Assessment for the fixed link was being prepared.
Other reports have noted the various existing uses and activities in the waterfront area that are sensitive to the impacts of
expanded airport operations. Among there are the nearby residential developments; the local school and adjacent park;
recreational and commercial boating activities, and the use of the islands as an area of natural parkland for the enjoyment
of people throughout the region. As noted above, many of these activities and uses will be continuing to expand over time
in the waterfront and, in this sense, the airport threatens to become an increasingly incompatible activity with this
outcome being further compounded by any expansion that the airport itself might undergo.
The long-term role of the City Centre Airport must remain compatible with the overall planning strategy for the area.
Existing and proposed developments along the central waterfront have been developed in accordance with a land use plan
that accounts for the existing role of the airport. Changes to the role of the airport must be carefully considered with
respect to the impact on the current land use policies for the central waterfront.
2.Emergency Response Requirements:
The General Manager of Toronto Ambulance and the Chief of Toronto Fire Service, in a joint, letter dated November 16,
1998 and addressed to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, provide an up-dated assessment of the City
Centre Airport=s emergency response requirements (see Appendix A). Access is identified as one of three key
requirements, the other two being staffing and equipment.
In comparing the access options, the review found that existing ferry (supported by the fire boat , if necessary) to be
problematic mainly because it operates until 11 p.m. only. A tunnel was preferred choice of access owing to its reliability
of access at all times. The bridge proposal was not considered acceptable in its current design. However, the bridge
proposal could be considered acceptable if the 12 criteria outlined below could be incorporated into the design. Also, there
would remain the need for a back-up system, presumably a ferry, in the event the bridge is not available as a result of
some type of mechanical failure, maintenance work or accident repair.
In examining the equipment and staffing requirements, Toronto Fire and Ambulance staffs concluded that the most
effective way of coping with such a major emergency, under current conditions, is to establish a Acommand and control@
centre at the scene to implement the orderly deployment of equipment and manpower from a staging area on the mainland
to give support, as required, to the first response. Such protocol would apply no matter which access option is chosen.
Nevertheless, the review finds that, overall, there are inadequacies today in terms of access, equipment and staffing levels
with respect to fire, crash-rescue and emergency medical response to the City Centre Airport. Improving access alone, by
either a bridge or tunnel, will not remedy the situation. Indeed, it is important that adequate equipment and staffing needs
are provided. With respect to equipment needs, the review observed:
AWhat is actually required, then, at the Toronto City Centre Airport, is a sufficient number of aircraft crash rescue trucks,
staffed by dedicated firefighters. This resource should then be Abacked-up@ with conventional fire apparatus from the
Toronto Fire Service, such as a rescue truck and a command officer who will determine whether any additional response
is required@.
The staffing concerns appear twofold. First, there is the concern that there is not a sufficient number of dedicated
fire-fighting staff at the airport and, secondly, neither the airport fire service or the ferry are operational during all the
periods of the day that an emergency situation might arise.
The ferry already handles an average of ten medivac cases a day and, in critical situations, the airport-control tower can
summon the ferry on demand even if this means it has to reverse direction in mid-crossing. This feature of the ferry
service is important and sets the standard by which any other access option must meet. While the tunnel appears adequate
in this regard owing to its uninterrupted flow of traffic , the bridge was considered inferior because of the length of time it
might take to close the bridge if it is in the open position during an emergency. However, if the airport expands its
activities in the future as contemplated by the THC vision outlined above, the emergency response capability of the ferry
service will become increasingly less effective.
The joint letter also notes that the Ministry of Health has two ambulance helicopters stationed at the City Centre Airport.
While only one is normally staffed, the second be place in service rather quickly. These aircraft are capable of transporting
2 to 4 of the most critical patients from the site to the heliport on top of the Hospital for Sick Children.
The letter from the General Manager of Toronto Ambulance and the Fire Chief concludes with the following criteria that
must be met in order for the bridge to receive their support:
(1)The opening and closing of the lift or swing bridge mechanism should take no more time than a crossing on the
existing ferry service (3 minutes).
(2)Any lift or swing bridge mechanism must be reversible in mid cycle.
(3)Traffic flow onto the bridge must be controlled to eliminate any queuing on the bridge.
(4)Any lift or swing bridge be staffed by an operator twenty four hours per day.
(5)Direct telephone line access from the Toronto Ambulance Communications Centre and Toronto Fire Service
Communications Centre to the operator must be provided.
(6)The bridge operator must monitor Marine Channel 16 continuously, in order to be aware of any emergencies occurring
on the water, so that the bridge position can be adjusted accordingly.
(7)The airport=s crash alarm system should be extended to the bridge operator=s booth and the operator instructed that on
activation of the crash alarm, the bridge is to be place in the down position and left there until advised that it is no longer
required.
(7)Vehicular traffic to Toronto City Centre Airport is to be actively discouraged.
(8)Both Fire and Ambulance divisions should be consulted prior to any construction activity which will alter or impede
our access to the Toronto City Centre Airport.
(9)Both Fire and ambulance divisions will receive at least two weeks advance notice prior to the implementation of any
changes to airport access which are contemplated.
(10)Alternatively, both Fire and Ambulance divisions would favour a conventional bridge which is high enough to permit
the unrestricted passage of both pleasure craft and the fireboat and the permanent rerouting of all commercial traffic
though the Eastern Gap.
(12)The approaches to either a bridge or a tunnel must not exceed the 8% required to accommodate the operation of large
emergency vehicles.
The joint letter from Fire and Ambulance Services concludes that the emergency response to the City Centre Airport and
the Toronto Islands could benefit from a fixed link of appropriate design although there the ferry option was not declared
as inadequate or unsafe. This is important from the standpoint of the City=s current responsibility with providing
secondary response in the event of an emergency. The joint letter also indicates that the adequacy of the existing
specialized crash rescue trucks and staffing at the airport should be reviewed. Also noted is the potential role of the
Ministry of Health two ambulance helicopters in the event of an emergency. While the tunnel is preferred, the proposed
bridge option could considered acceptable if altered in accordance with the criteria listed above.
In light of the City=s responsibility provide secondary response in the event of an emergency and given the concern of both
the Fire Chief and the General Manager of Ambulance Services with respect to the adequacy of crash rescue equipment
and staff at the airport, it is recommended that the emergency response capability of the bridge, tunnel and ferry should be
reassessed.
Contact Name:
Mr. Joe D=Abramo, Senior Advisor on Harbour Lands Issues, 397-5260.
Mr. Greg Stewart, 392-0070.
________
Appendix >A=
Joint letter from Toronto Ambulance and Toronto Fire Service, November 16, 1998 to Commissioner, Works and
Emergency Services:
ARe:Emergency Response Implications, Fixed Link Proposal
At the joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee
on September 29, a motion was passed, requesting that you prepare a report on the implications of emergency response to
the Toronto City Centre Airport, with respect to their consideration of the proposal to construct a fixed link, in either
bridge or tunnel form, to the Toronto City Centre Airport. In considering the implications of this fixed link, it is not
enough to merely consider the crash-rescue response; all types of emergencies must be considered. In the spirit of our
closer strategic alliance, our two Divisions have jointly prepared this report for your consideration.
There is no doubt that the construction of a fixed link between the Toronto City Centre Airport and the mainland has the
potential to improve access, but, depending on the design of the option selected, it also has the potential to create
problems. These problems have the potential to impact significantly on the operations of both Toronto Ambulance and the
Toronto Fire Service. Both agencies are concerned with the impact of a fixed link on the timing of reaching the City
Centre Airport. In an emergency, seconds can be critical, and any time wasted trying to gain access can be disastrous. In
addressing this issue one must look at the key elements of emergency response; access, manpower, and equipment.
The first element, access, is problematic under the current system. Under normal circumstances, the vehicle ferry from the
bottom of Bathurst Street only operates until 11 p.m. The Toronto Fire Service keeps an extra pumper and aerial,
unstaffed, at the Island Fire Hall, because transporting firefighters to the islands in Police vessels has proven more
effective than waiting for a ferry to be brought back into service to transport fire apparatus, in an emergency. The creation
of a fixed link could eliminate this access problem. A lift or swing type bridge, could pose problems from an emergency
response perspective.
The Toronto Harbour Commission declared its= intention to permit private vehicles to access the airport directly, via this
bridge. This plan would include the creation of a 400 space parking garage immediately east of the terminal building. Any
queue of cars could block the passage of fire apparatus or ambulances across the bridge in an emergency. Both Divisions
share concerns about the logistics of unrestricted vehicle access to the Toronto City Centre Airport. Airports are notorious
sources of traffic congestion. Traffic >jams= may occur, particularly when regional commuter flights are arriving and
departing. unless vehicular access is strictly controlled, the potential will exist for delays in ambulance response, every
time a medevac flight and a commuter flight coincide. Nor would this be the only issue of concern with a bridge. In the
down position the Toronto Fire Service fireboat, the Wm. Lyon Mackenzie, would be unable to pass through the Western
Gap to respond to a call. At a minimum, the fireboat would be delayed while the bridge was raised, but any queued cars
would prevent the raising of the bridge, and the fireboat might have to be rerouted, delaying its= response to an emergency.
The Outer Harbour area sees heavy recreational usage by pleasure craft, particularly during the months of April-October.
At most times there are a large number of people in boats on the water. It is not uncommon for the Toronto Police Service
Marine Unit to have to respond quickly to boaters in distress. Any obstacle to the speed of that response has the potential
to be disastrous. When boaters develop an on board emergency, such as a heart attach in one of the passengers, there has
been a long standing tradition of proceeding to the Toronto Police Service Marine Unit docks with all speed for assistance.
There, they are generally met by an ambulance for transport to hospital. Any delay while waiting for a bridge to open so
that the vessel can pass safely constitutes a delay in the victim receiving medical aid.
At the moment, the Toronto Fire Service also provides first response for medical emergencies in the island communities.
Patients are then transferred to either the fireboat or Toronto Police Marine Unit vessels, for transport to the mainland.
There they are met by Toronto Ambulance paramedics and taken to hospital. Medical treatment would begin sooner if, as
in the rest of the city, an ambulance could meet the Fire Service crew at the patient=s side, and transport the patient to the
hospital lin a more controlled environment. A fixed link could make this possible.
Additionally, both Divisions have concerns with respect to the mechanical reliability of the bridge option. Presumably,
such a bridge system would require repairs from time to time. The Harbour Commission advised during the September 29
Committee meeting that they had no intention of retaining either of the ferries; the vessels are to be sold and the crews
retrained for other jobs. The Harbour Commission has indicated that, if the bridge were to be disabled, they would
maintain the ferry service using a barge and tug. The result is potential >windows= between the failure of the bridge and
staffing of the ferry, during which access to the Toronto City Centre Airport would be impossible, even in an emergency.
The aircraft currently in use typically seat between thirty and forty passengers, with a current maximum of fifty. From an
Emergency Medical Service perspective, this translates as a potential for thirty to fifty victims in the event of an
emergency. Technology which is about to be released into the marketplace (ie. DeHavilland Dash 8-400) would result in a
fifty percent increase in these capacities. Such an emergency would require a substantial commitment of resources.
Firefighting resources at this airport are quite limited, and there is no ambulance dedicated to that location. In the event of
any major emergency, such as an aircraft crash, the emergency resources responding must come from the mainland. The
survival of the victims of a survivable plane crash is directly related to the speed of the response of emergency services.
Any obstacle to that response can potentially have a direct impact on the survival of victims.
The fighting of aircraft fires is a completely separate discipline. In order to guarantee the survival of victims, what is
needed is an adequate supply of specialized crash rescue trucks, such as those used at Pearson International Airport.
Aircraft fires are by nature very hot and intense, and are extinguished using special fire retardant foam generators, which
deploy their chemicals from a safe distance. Conventional fire trucks are not particularly effective with this type of fire,
and the necessity of fire crews to work >close in= with conventional equipment provides a level of risk to firefighters which
is inappropriate.
What is actually required, then, at Toronto City Centre Airport, is a sufficient number of aircraft crash rescue trucks,
staffed by dedicated firefighters. This resource should then be >backed up= with conventional fire apparatus from the
Toronto Fire Service, such as a rescue truck and a command officer, who will determine whether any additional response
is required. Any additional firefighting resources would then be deployed from a staging area on the mainland side, based
upon the command officers= assessment.
The Ministry of Health has two ambulance helicopters at Toronto City Centre Airport. It was suggested at the Committee
meeting that these constituted the medical first response capability of the airport. What was overlooked was the fact that
the aircraft and their crews are away on calls a great deal of the time. Even if they are present, the use of this staff for on
scene triage and treatment of patients would represent a waste of a rapid transport resource. While only one is normally
staff, the second could potentially be placed in service very quickly, using Toronto Ambulance paramedics as attendants.
It is anticipated that these aircraft would transport 2-4 of the most critical patients from the site.
From a fire suppression perspective, the island communities would benefit from a fixed link, because Toronto Fire Service
would not be dependant on the ferry system to transport additional firefighting resources, such as a rescue truck or aerial
ladder truck to the islands, in the event of a major fire. It would also improve our ability to staff the island Fire Hall in a
cost effective manner, while being able to deploy additional personnel resources rapidly, in an emergency. Other response
capabilities would also be improved, as the need to >stage= responding ambulances and fire apparatus on the mainland side
would be eliminated.
Toronto Ambulance also has some concerns which solely impact on their operation, primarily revolving around the issue
of medevac flights. For many years now, within the province of Ontario, medical teaching and specialty training have
been concentrated in only four centres (Toronto, Hamilton, Kingston, Ottawa). As a result, the majority of high-tech
health care, as well as certain medical specialties, such as trauma care, have been concentrated in the City of Toronto. This
trend was driven by population size, and occurred primarily as a result of a desire for cost-efficiency. What this has meant
for the residents of Northern Ontario, as well as other rural locations, is that to receive trauma care, advanced cardiac care,
pediatric and neonatal intensive care, or even oncology, one had to travel to Toronto by air, and usually on an emergency
basis.
Throughout this period, Toronto Ambulance, and its= predecessor, Metro Ambulance, has served as the final link on the
journey from smaller communities to the medical teaching centres of our city. Most days, Toronto Ambulance meets
approximately ten medevac flights at the Toronto City Centre Airport, and transports these patients to the City=s hospitals
for the care which they require. In many cases, these patients are in critical condition; they have already endured an
extended journey in a poorly controllable environment, and they need to be back in a hospital as quickly as possible. At
the moment, when an ambulance needs to get to Toronto City Centre Airport for an emergency, the dispatcher contacts
the airport Control Tower, which contacts the ferry captain, and asks him to wait for the ambulance before making the
crossing from the mainland. In the event that the time necessary to assess and load the patient is short, the ferry will
simply wait for the ambulance before making the return trip. Even in a worse case scenario, where the ferry is already
returning to the mainland when the paramedics discover that the patient is in worse condition than anticipated, the ferry
has been known to simply reverse to the island side, so that the patient can be removed without undue delay. In an
emergency, the crossing time takes approximately three minutes.
The Toronto Harbour Commission has suggested that they would attempt to attract more medevac flights. It can be safely
suggested that this is unnecessary. Since almost all medevac patients are transported to downtown hospitals, it is almost
certain that the creation of a fixed link would result in all medevac traffic shifting to the Toronto City Centre Airport.
With the landing restrictions of the heliport license at the Hospital for Sick Children, it is reasonable to assume that many
Transport Team calls would also be taken to the Toronto City Centre Airport, with the rooftop heliport reserved for only
truly critical patients. This would result in an almost immediate doubling of the existing medevac load.
There have been some inaccurate statements made, with respect to the tunnel option which relate to our operations. it was
stated, at the September 29 Committee meeting, that fire apparatus would be unable to negotiate a tunnel because of
turning radii, and this is untrue. Since we operate in a predominantly urban environment, with many narrow residential
streets and tight corners, Toronto Fire Service is fully aware of the performance characteristics of each piece of apparatus
which we operate, including turning radius, and it would be a simple matter of not assigning the vehicles in question to a
response through the tunnel.
There have also been statements made with respect to the severity of grade, and the impacts on fire apparatus. There is
some validity to this. The maximum grade which a fire truck may safely traverse is 8 percent, and this is written into the
Ontario Building Code. Because of the angle of departure on the back of fire trucks, and indeed, ambulance buses, any
steeper grade would result in an impact by the back of the fire truck with the road surface, at some point on the grade. But
it must be pointed out that the same restriction is true for bridges, and that to construct a bridge from the foot of Bathurst
Street, this restriction would certainly be a consideration.
In summary, both Divisions have concerns regarding the process of construction of the fixed link. Any construction
process which impeded or significantly altered the existing access to the Toronto City Centre Airport would constitute a
concern for both the Ambulance and Fire Services. The Divisions would require, at minimum, prior consultation with the
contractor and the Superintendent of Ferries, prior to initiation of any change. They would also require a minimum of two
weeks advance notice, prior to any change in access occurring, so that staff can be notified.
In order for the bridge option to receive our support, the following criteria must be met:
(1)The opening and closing of the lift or swing bridge mechanism should take no more time than a crossing on the
existing ferry service (three minutes).
(2)Any lift or swing bridge mechanism must be reversible in mid-cycle.
(3)Traffic flow onto the bridge must be controlled to eliminate any queuing on the bridge.
(4)Any lift or swing bridge be staffed by an operator twenty four hours per day.
(5)Direct telephone line access from the Toronto Ambulance Communications Centre and Toronto Fire Service
Communications Centre to the operator must be provided.
(6)The bridge operator must monitor Marine Channel 16 continuously, in order to be aware of any emergencies occurring
on the water, so that the bridge position can be adjusted accordingly.
(7)The airport=s crash alarm system should be extended to the bridge operator=s booth, and the operator instructed that an
activation of the crash alarm, the bridge is to be placed in the down position, and left there until advised that it is no longer
required.
(8)Vehicular traffic to Toronto City Centre Airport is to be actively discouraged.
(9)Both Divisions should be consulted prior to any construction activity which will alter or impede our access to the
Toronto City Centre Airport.
(10)Both Divisions will receive at least two weeks advance notice, prior to the implementation of any changes to airport
access which are contemplated.
(11)Alternatively, both Divisions would favour a conventional bridge which is high enough to permit the unrestricted
passage of both pleasure craft and the fireboat, and the permanent re-routing of all commercial traffic through the Eastern
Gap.
(12)In any case, the approaches to either a bridge or a tunnel must not exceed the 8% required to accommodate the
operation of large emergency vehicles.
In conclusion, both Toronto Fire Service and Toronto Ambulance believe that the current emergency response capability
to the Toronto City Centre Airport, and to the island communities could be improved with a fixed link of the appropriate
design. It is our position that a fixed link to the Toronto Islands, via the Toronto City Centre Airport, would benefit the
community through improved airport safety and better emergency response.@
The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (May6, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To inform City Council of the findings of the Federal Environmental Assessment concerning the fixed link (bridge) to the
City Centre Airport (airport) and recommend, provided the Environmental Assessment is approved by federal authorities,
design and operational requirements for both the bridge and Bathurst Street, new terms and conditions which should be
added to the Tripartite Agreement as a condition of City Council agreeing to the construction of the bridge and to an
exchange of land between the City and the federal government which will result in additional park space.
Source of Funds:
There are no funding requirements arising from the recommendations of this report.
Recommendations:
(1)That City Council authorize amendments to the Tripartite Agreement, including those set out in Recommendation No.
(2), to permit a bridge to the airport, subject to the approval of the Environmental Assessment and subject to TheToronto
Harbour Commissioners completing the following to ensure that they are included in the design and construction program
of the bridge:
(a)the bridge contain only two lanes of vehicular traffic each having a width of no more than 3.5 metres;
(b)sidewalks, having a width of 2.0 metres, be provided on both sides of the bridge structure and on the approaches to the
bridge;
(c)the design of the bridge permit free and clear continuity of the water=s edge promenade below the bridge in a safe and
accessible manner, having a minimum width of seven metres and a clearance of not less than 2.5 metres;
(d)the slope of the grade of the Bathurst Street approach to the bridge structure be designed to minimize its overall length
and height above the existing grade of Bathurst Quay at the water=s edge and to ensure that it does not exceed an
eightpercent grade in order to accommodate emergency vehicles;
(e)the change in grade associated with the approach to the bridge on the east side be designed to permit access to the
Canada Malting site at both current driveway locations, and on the west side be designed to accommodate contemplated
park space design and improvements;
(f)the filling-in of the ferry slips on either side of the Western Channel and the construction of the concrete dockwalls be
completed in connection with the construction of the bridge;
(g)consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to ensure that fireboat access requirements
through the Western Gap are maintained during construction of the bridge and after the bridge is operational;
(h)public input into the design of the bridge by holding public meetings and/or workshops; and
(i)the final design of the bridge be submitted to City Council for review for consistency with established urban design
objectives along the waterfront;
(2)that the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement include the following as new terms and conditions:
(a)that The Toronto Harbour Commissioners develop a strategy for encouraging the use of public transit to access the
City Centre Airport including:
(i)the operation of a shuttle bus service operating between Union Station and the major hotels in the downtown area and
the airport until such time as the off-site terminal is operational; and
(ii)discouraging passenger pick-ups by private automobile and taxis;
(b) that the total number of parking spaces on the airport lands be limited to 400 spaces and that building and landscaping
plans associated with the construction of a parking facility, at grade or in a structure, be submitted to the City for review
and approval prior to any construction;
(c)that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners agree to construct and operate an off-site (remote) terminal building:
(i)once a sustained annual passenger volume of 600,000 passengers per annum, or less if the City determines it is
necessary before this level of passenger traffic, is reached; and
(ii)when airport-bound vehicular traffic reaches a peak volume of 100 vehicles per hour as measured along Bathurst
Street south of Queen's Quay;
(d)that The Toronto Harbour Commissioners be required to monitor the effects of the bridge operation, as requested by
the City, on:
-traffic volumes inbound and outbound on the bridge;
-use of the parking facility;
-extent of the queues on Bathurst Street;
-traffic operations at the Bathurst Street/Queen's Quay intersection;
-access to the abutting properties;
-the effectiveness of any traffic-calming measures implemented; and
-conflicts between airport-related traffic and other vehicular and pedestrian activity on Bathurst; and
(e)that, as a result of the monitoring exercise, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, after advising the City, make
appropriate changes to the bridge operations or access control to mitigate the impact of this facility on traffic operations;
(3)that City Council authorize the alteration of Bathurst Street in connection with the construction of a bridge to the
airport, subject to The Toronto Harbour Commissioners completing the following:
(a)seeking the input of the community and staff on the various design options to the Bathurst Street alterations;
(b)consideration of traffic-calming measures in the detailed design of Bathurst Street;
(c)provision of landscaping and streetscaping within the Bathurst Street road allowance and along the perimeter of the
parking facility at the airport satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;
(d)ensuring that the final design includes public art;
(e)submission of the detailed design of the altered Bathurst Street, including road pavement design, sidewalks,
traffic-calming measures, and landscaping, to the City for approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services prior to any construction;
(f)conveyance, at no cost to the City, of the land south of the existing Bathurst Street road allowance, required for the
bridge to the City, to be dedicated as a public highway;
(4)that the City be released and discharged from any obligations to The Toronto Harbour Commissioners to provide
parking facilities in relation to airport parking on Bathurst Quay, as required by the agreements entered into between the
City and The Toronto Harbour Commissioners and any license agreement arising out of same, including the interim
parking arrangements on Bathurst Quay 5;
(5)that all rights to land held by the Federal Government, and currently used for public parking at the end of Bathurst
Street and the ferry slip and access road leading to it, be conveyed to the City at nominal cost for public park and public
highway purposes;
(6)that the 100 foot wide access easement located immediately adjacent to the Bathurst Street road allowance, granted in
favour of the Federal Government for the purposes of ensuring future access to the airport, be released from title at the
time the Tripartite Agreement is amended to permit the use of the bridge; and
(7)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, together with other appropriate City officials,
report on other measures which should be included as conditions in the Tripartite Agreement that address the cumulative
impacts resulting from the introduction of a bridge and all Stage 3 turbo-prop aircraft at the airport, when appropriate.
1.Introduction and Background
The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting held on October 16 and 17, 1995, endorsed building a fixed link to the
City Centre Airport subject to the completion of an Environmental Assessment. At its meeting held on August 21, 1997,
City Council requested the Minister of Transport to undertake a full Environmental Assessment for the fixed link proposal
to the City Centre Airport because of public concerns and significant adverse environmental effects despite proposed
mitigation measures. In addition, City Council requested a report on the then Draft Environmental Assessment document.
In two previous reports dated February 27, 1997 and June 12, 1997, it was recommended that, further to the former City
Council=s October 15 and 16, 1995 motion to support a fixed link, Council support a moveable, two lane bridge option
subject to several conditions which ensure the design takes into account City objectives for this part of the waterfront. In
addition, staff recommended that other related matters such as selecting a new parking location, limiting the amount of
parking, encouraging the use of public transit, regulating vehicle access to the City Centre Airport, and studying and
constructing a remote (off-site) terminal concept, be secured through amendments to the Tripartite Agreement as a
condition of City Council=s acceptance of the bridge. The Tripartite Agreement is a lease agreement between the City, the
Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the federal government, entered into 1983, whereby the City has agreed to lease a
finger-shaped portion of land in the middle of the airport for airport purposes subject to certain terms and conditions
governing the operation of the airport.
Recently, the Environmental Assessment of the fixed link proposal was submitted to federal authorities. The EA report
concludes that it is unlikely that the proposed construction and operation of a moveable bridge at the foot of Bathurst
Street will cause any significant adverse environmental effects. Copies of the document were place in the Toronto
Harbour Commissioners archives and at the Harbourfront Community Centre. Notifications indicating the availability of
the document went to all individuals and organizations on the mailing list.
If members of the public are of the view that the proposed project will cause significant adverse environmental effects
despite the mitigation measures proposed by the EA document, they may request the Minister of Transport to refer the
matter to Panel Review which involves a second and usually more arduous examination of the proposal.
This report is not recommending such action because for a bridge to be constructed to the airport will require an
amendment to the Tripartite Agreement. In amending the Tripartite Agreement to permit the proposed bridge, the City can
secure provisions which would mitigate the concerns resulting from the construction of the bridge.
The Environmental Assessment report was circulated for comments to appropriate staff in Works and Emergency
Services, Corporate Services, including the City Solicitor, and Community Services.
2.The Environmental Assessment Report
2.1Content of Report
The conclusions found in the Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport Environmental Assessment report remain the same as
have been presented to the former City Council in previous reports with the exception of Appendix A. Appendix A, titled
Additional Matters, discusses the potential impacts associated with an increase in air traffic. The Additional Matters
contained in Appendix A do not form part of the Environmental Assessment and consequently are not subject to review
through that process. However, the City can recommend the addition of new terms and conditions to the Tripartite
Agreement to the City=s concerns related to overall impact of any increased air traffic resulting from the construction of
the bridge. For this reason, it recommended that staff report further on possible measures for mitigating potential impacts
resulting from increased air traffic.
The remainder of this section examines the key issues arising from the conclusions of the Environmental Assessment
report and outlines the requirements of City Council related to bridge design, road improvements and other matters should
the Environmental Assessment for the Fixed Link be approved.
2.2Project Definition
Previous reports and documents had not specified the scope of the project insofar as construction activities were
concerned. The draft Environmental Assessment report lists the activities associated with the construction of the bridge as
including:
-constructing the piers and control tower (if needed);
-assembling the bridge superstructure;
-demolishing two hangars (1 and 2) at the airport;
-constructing the roadway approaches to the bridge including alterations to Bathurst Street;
-constructing the parking lot at the airport;
-filling in the ferry slips; and
-landscaping along all edges of the project area.
The construction of the parking facility is a significant feature of the project. The Environmental Assessment report
indicates that 173 surface parking spaces are proposed on the airport site in the location of hangars 1 and 2. This is a
prominent location along the City=s waterfront and appropriate landscaping is important. The detailed landscaping plans
should be reviewed by City staff prior to implementation.
2.3Bridge Design
The Environmental Assessment report describes the project as a double bascule (draw) bridge at the foot of Bathurst
Street. The underside of the bridge would be 5 metres above the average high water level and the moveable spans of the
bridge would provide an opening of 50 metres in width located in the centre of the Western Channel. There are two
options proposed for the bridge deck. One alternative proposes at 13 metre wide structure providing for two lanes of
traffic at 3.75 metres in width, two shoulders 0.5 metres wide and two sidewalks each 2.25 metres wide. The second
alternative design proposes a deck 14.5 metres wide consisting of two vehicular lanes 3.5 metres wide, two bike lanes at
1.5 metres in width and two sidewalks at 2.25 metres in width each. At previous Committee meetings of the former City
Council, concerns were raised with respect to the overall size of the structure. In order to minimize the width of the bridge
deck, staff are recommending that the maximum vehicular lanes widths be 3.5 metres. However, two sidewalks should be
provided for safety reasons at a minimum 2.0 metres. It also recommended that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners seek
the input of the community and staff on various optional designs prior to selecting a final design.
In a report dated June 12, 1997, staff recommended that bicycle lanes be introduced along Bathurst Street and over the
bridge. At the Executive Committee meeting of the former City, held on August15, 1997, comments from Committee
members and the public questioned the need for bicycle lanes to the airport, especially in relation to another objective
which is to reduce the width of the road pavement south of Queens Quay given the predominance of park and recreation
uses in the area. The Environmental Assessment report proposed the bicycle lanes as an option which can be
accommodated into the design. However, given the concern with the road pavement width, bicycle lanes should not be
required.
The width of the water=s edge promenade running beneath the bridge is proposed at a width of 6 metres. However, the
current width of the water=s edge promenade throughout Harbourfront is 7 metres. A consistent width of 7 metres should
be maintained.
The Canada Malting site has two existing driveways. However, the most southerly driveway has been the historical main
entrance to the site and should be retained. City Works staff believe it is possible to retain access at this location although
the vertical alignment of the driveway would have to modified as a result of the grade or bridge approaches. The
Environmental Assessment document does indicate two entrances can be accommodated.
2.4Bridge Operating Procedures
The Environmental Assessment report proposes a fixed operating schedule whereby the bridge would open twice an hour.
The length of time the bridge would remain open will be entirely dependent on the time of day. Consequently, the bridge
may remain open as long as 16 minutes during airport non peak hours and during peak periods the bridge would remain
open for 7 minutes. According to the report, peak periods would occur for a two and a half hour period in the morning, a
two hour period at noon, and a two and a half hour period in the evening. The bridge cycle time would consist of:
traffic control0.75 minutes
bridge unlocking0.5 minutes
bridge opening1.0 minutes
boat passage 7.0 minutes - 16 minutes
bridge closure1.0 minutes
locking 0.5 minutes
traffic control0.25 minutes
Total11.0 minutes - 20 minutes
The effect of the operation of the bridge in terms of its cycles of opening and closing on traffic along Bathurst Street has
been studied by the consultant. A Transportation Evaluation is included in Appendix B of the Environmental Assessment
report. Works and Emergency Services staff have reviewed the evaluation and concur with the consultant=s conclusion that
the traffic generated by this proposal can be safely and effectively accommodated on Bathurst Street and the abutting
intersections with the proposed modifications to the facilities. However, when airport bound traffic reaches a level of more
than 100 vehicles an hour and the bridge is opened, the Environmental Assessment report indicates that Aeither a
southbound queuing lane will need to be constructed, or passengers will have to be handled through a remote terminal.@
This level of traffic is expected to occur in the late afternoon rush hour during the busiest of weekdays. Bathurst Street can
accommodate approximately 20 queued vehicles without hindering other traffic.
Initially, it was suggested that an additional southbound lane be added to Bathurst Street to permit the queuing of vehicles
during peak periods. However, in an earlier report dated June 12, 1997, it was recommended that the queuing lane be
eliminated in favour of strategies to reduce the number of vehicles travelling to the airport (discussed further in Section 3
of this report). These strategies might include more shuttle bus service or public transit use and the development of a
remote (off-site) terminal sooner. It is recommended that the development of these strategies be incorporated as
requirements within the Tripartite Agreement.
Works and Emergency Services staff indicate that, given the importance of the bridge operation on traffic in the area, a
key component of impact assessment is ongoing monitoring of bridge operation. Once the bridge is operational, the
Toronto Harbour Commissioners should be required to monitor:
-traffic volumes inbound and outbound on the bridge;
-use of the parking facility;
-extent of the queues on Bathurst Street;
-operations at the Bathurst Street/Queens Quay intersection;
-impact on access to the abutting properties;
-effectiveness of any traffic calming measures implemented; and
-conflicts between airport-related traffic and other vehicular and pedestrian activity on Bathurst Street.
The results of the monitoring exercise should be reviewed to determine the need for change to the timing of the bridge
operations or the access control.
It is recommended that the requirements for monitoring and review of the results be secured through conditions in the
Tripartite Agreement.
2.5Bathurst Street Alterations
The Environmental Assessment report illustrates possible alterations to Bathurst Street in the form of pavement widening,
the construction of sidewalks, line painting, the installation of gates and signals and the installation of Atraffic calming@
devices form part of the project work. In Figure 2.1 of the Environmental Assessment report, Bathurst Street is depicted as
a two lane road, each lane being 3.5 metres wide, and centre turn lane also 3.5 metres wide. Two bicycle lanes, each 1.5
metres in width, are shown together with two sidewalks each 1.5 metres wide. The total width of the road pavement under
this proposal would be 13.5 metres.
As mentioned above, comments made at the Executive Committee meeting of the former City, held on August 15, 1997
questioned the need for bicycle lanes along Bathurst Street to the airport especially when considering the objective of
reducing the overall pavement proposed for the altered Bathurst Street. As a result, alternative designs should be presented
by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners that would reduce pavement width of Bathurst Street.
In addition, the west side of Bathurst, the sidewalk should be 3 metres wide, in keeping with Harbourfront sidewalk
widths, and a landscape zone 2 metres wide. On the east side of Bathurst Street a 2 metre wide sidewalk is under
construction and should be extended together with a 2.5 metre landscape zone. The detailed design of Bathurst Street, as
altered, together with road pavement layout, sidewalks, landscaping, and traffic calming measures should be submitted to
the City prior to any construction.
In addition to physical improvements to Bathurst Street, the City Solicitor indicates that the area of land south of the
existing Bathurst Street road allowance would have to be dedicated as a public highway. Currently the road allowance
ends at the entrance to the ferry area.
3.Amendments to the Tripartite Agreement
City Council=s endorsement of the construction of the fixed link proposal in October 1995 was conditional upon
amendments to the Tripartite Agreement being enacted to ensure that any adverse effects arising from introduction of a
fixed link in combination with the introduction of Stage 3 turbo-prop aircraft could be controlled to a level acceptable to
the City. Below are described the mitigating measures which could be introduced as conditions in the Tripartite
Agreement. The Tripartite Agreement is used in this manner because airports are regulated by federal legislation and the
City has no control over matters of federal jurisdiction. The City of Toronto is the only city in Canada with such an
agreement.
(a)Develop strategies encouraging public transit access to the airport:
With increased use of the airport by passenger aircraft, vehicle movements to the airport would likely also increase. The
Environmental Assessment consultant predicts that when the airport reaches 600,000 passengers per annum there will be a
need for an additional traffic lane to accommodate vehicles forming a queue when the bridge is raised during peak hour,
likely sometime between the hours of 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday or Friday afternoons in the summer months.
Encouraging the use of a regular shuttle bus service between the downtown (Union Station) and the airport would assist in
reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport. Private automobiles pick-ups should also be discouraged at
all times, especially since a shuttle bus service could connect passengers with the City=s transit system and taxi service and
major hotels in the downtown area.
(b)Remove all parking spaces associated with the airport on Bathurst Quay:
By moving the existing parking found on Bathurst Quay to the airport lands, approximately one and half acres could be
made available for park purposes on Bathurst Quay.
(c)Limit the total number of parking spaces on the airport lands to 400 spaces:
There currently exists 208 parking spaces associated with the airport on Bathurst Quay. There are an additional 100 spaces
located on the airport lands. The Harbourfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law permits 400 spaces to be located on
Bathurst Quay, south of Queens Quay. It is recommended that the 400 parking spaces permitted by the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law be transferred to the airport lands. This amount of 400 spaces is 92 spaces more than currently exists. This
is a reasonable figure given that there will likely be an increase in use by air passengers. However, since the long term
objective is to construct a remote terminal somewhere in the downtown area, the demand for parking at the airport could
decrease. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners should also develop a strategy to encourage public transit use. In addition,
building and landscaping plans associated with the construction of a parking facility, at grade or in a structure, should be
submitted to the City for review prior to any construction.
(d)Require the construction of a remote terminal:
Construction of a remote (off-site) terminal will likely only occur when passenger loads warrant the cost involved. The
Toronto Harbour Commissioners should study this concept now and construct such a terminal when sustained passenger
loads warrant. The Tripartite Agreement should be amended to require that a remote terminal must be operational at a
sustained annual passenger volume to be agreed upon with the City but at no greater an amount than 600,000 annual
passengers or if airport bound traffic begins to exceed a rate of 100 vehicles an hour.
4.Transfer of Lands on Bathurst Quay to the City:
There are several parcels of land on Bathurst Quay which are associated with airport use (see Map1). The existing parking
lot at the end of Bathurst Street and the access area around the ferry slip is owned by the federal government. This land
should be transferred to the City. The Aorange lands@, located on the east side of Bathurst Street, are owned by the City but
are referenced in certain agreements as a potential permanent parking site for the airport. These arrangements should also
be rescinded. To the west of the Bathurst Street road allowance is a one hundred foot wide right-of-way in favour of the
Crown held for the purposes of securing a access route to the airport should Bathurst Street be closed. This federal
easement should be released once the Tripartite Agreement has been approved.
Contact Name:
Mr. Joe D=Abramo, 392-7616, Fax 416 392-1330, e-mail: jdabramo@city.toronto.on.ca.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 16, 1998) from
the City Clerk:
The Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998, during consideration of various reports and
communications regarding the Environmental Assessment for the proposed fixed link to the City Centre Airport, among
other things, deferred consideration of the following motions:
>Moved by Councillor McConnell:
AThat no amendments to the Tripartite Agreement be considered until the design phase is completed, all the environmental
concerns are addressed, and the cost implications are known.";
Moved by Councillor Moscoe, on behalf of Councillor Chow:
A(a)That Recommendation No. (1)(i) be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:
>(1)(i)the final design of the bridge be submitted to City Council for review and approval for consistency with established
urban design objectives along the waterfront; and, further, in accordance with the former Metro policy, an artist be
included in the design team at the beginning stage;'
(b)that Recommendation No. (2) (c)(i) be amended by striking out the word "and" and inserting in lieu thereof the word
"or"; so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
'(2)(c)(i)once a sustained annual passenger volume of 600,000 passengers per annum, or less if the City determines it is
necessary before this level of passenger traffic, is reached; or';
(c)that Recommendation No. (2)(d) be amended by adding the words "and report annually to the Urban Environment and
Development Committee on" after the words "to monitor"; so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
'(2)(d)that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be required to monitor, and report annually to the Urban Environment
and Development Committee on, the effects of the bridge operation, as requested by the City on ....';
(d)that Recommendation No. (3) be amended to provide that prior to the authorization of the alteration of Bathurst Street,
the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report on the cost of such alteration and
the source of the funding;
(e)that Recommendation No. (5) be amended by adding the words "prior to the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement,"
after the word "that"; so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
>(5)that, prior to the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement, all rights to land held by the Federal Government, and
currently used for public parking at the end of Bathurst Street and the ferry slip and access road leading to it, be conveyed
to the City at nominal cost for public park and public highway purposes;=;
(f)that no amendment to the Tripartite Agreement be made until:
(i)the role of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) regarding
the management and operation of the Toronto City Centre Airport (TCCA) is clarified. In the event that the Canada
Marine Act, Bill C-9, becomes law, no amendments to the Tripartite Agreement should occur before the new Port
Authority issues its letters patent; and
(ii)a private sector proponent provides a comprehensive business plan to operate the Fixed Link without public subsidy;
(g)that City Council request the Federal Minister of the Environment to require that a full panel Environmental Review of
the Fixed Link (especially as relates to safety of boaters) be undertaken prior to the proposed amendments to the Tripartite
Agreements;
(h)that, as part of the new Official Plan, City Council form a Work Group to develop a comprehensive Waterfront Policy;
such Work Group to be composed of representatives of all the stakeholders on the Waterfront including area residents, the
Federal and Provincial Governments, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority; and,
further, that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development be requested to submit a report to the Urban
Environment and Development Committee on the terms of reference and composition of such Work Group;
(i)that any agreement by the new Port Authority, the Federal Government or the Greater Toronto Airports Authority
(GTAA) be structured in such a way that the City of Toronto would be refunded for subsidies (if any) provided, directly or
indirectly, by the City to the Port Authority for the functioning and the programming (bothoperating and capital cost)
associated with the Toronto City Centre Airport; and
(j)that the City Solicitor be requested to ensure that all conditions placed on TheToronto Harbour Commissioners
regarding the Fixed Link and the Tripartite Agreement are applied to the new Port Authority, the Federal Government or
the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.@; and
Moved by Councillor Moscoe:
AThat the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend that Council not support the construction of a
bridge to the Toronto Islands and, further, agree that the existing ferry service adequately serves the present and future
needs of the Toronto Island Airport."=
The Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee, at their joint meeting
on September 29, 1998, deferred consideration of the following motions by Councillor Kelly to the November 30, 1998
meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:
A(2)that the concept of a fixed link be forwarded to Council for approval at its meeting scheduled to be held on October
28, 1998; and
(3)that the concept of a Asignature@ bridge be referred to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services
with a request that she consult with relevant stakeholders and submit a report thereon to a joint meeting of the Urban
Environment and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee to be convened in November,
1998.@.
The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 26, 1998) from
the General Manager, Toronto Ambulance Service, the Fire Chief and the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To respond to a request for information from Councillor Blake Kinahan, Lakeshore-Queensway regarding issues of
liability for Council members.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no known financial implications at this time.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background History:
Toronto Fire Services plays a key role in emergency response to the harbour area. While fire suppression and rescue are
the primary role, Toronto Fire Services works closely with Toronto Ambulance and Toronto Police Services in providing
medical first response and marine transportation of the sick and injured from the harbour and the Toronto Islands.
Procedures have been enacted to deliver their services to the area (Appendices A and B) and these guidelines work with
current transportation realities in the harbour.
Toronto Ambulance provides Paramedic coverage to the Island and harbour area from an Island-side seasonal ambulance
station, the City Centre Airport and from land-side stations. Off season Island coverage is assisted by a partnership with
the Ministry of Health helicopter/paramedic base at the airport, which is also equipped with a land ambulance.
Patients receive first response care from Firefighters at the Island station, prior to the arrival of an ambulance. In 1997,
only six stretcher patients out of more than 100 did not receive Aon Island@ Paramedic care. In these cases Toronto
Ambulance intervened on the mainland, when patients arrived by fire and police boat.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
While the emergency access to Toronto City Centre Airport is less than ideal, neither Toronto Ambulance nor Toronto
Fire Service would describe it as dangerous. The airport does meet the safety standards set down by Transport Canada.
The fire apparatus which would provide first response to the airport is currently located at the airport fire station.
Additional apparatus is readily available from the Toronto Island Fire Station, and the fireboat provides additional
response capability. If needed, fire apparatus and ambulances can be moved from the mainland to the island using the
ferries Ongiara and Maple City. This provides an acceptable level of response for the airport=s current operations.
In addition, Fire Services is constructing a new Harbourfront Fire Station which will create a combined land and marine
based fire station. This will provide additional fire fighting resources in close vicinity to the Toronto City Centre Airport.
Toronto Police Services, in conjunction with the Fire Services and Ambulance Services, through the Marine Unit, provide
emergency response to the Islands and the Island Airport.
Conclusions:
There is no evidence to support any statement that an unsafe situation currently exists, regarding emergency response to
Toronto City Centre Airport. This is not, however, to say that emergency response could not be substantially improved. In
the meantime, we see no reason why Toronto City Centre Airport operations should not continue. Toronto Police has
concurred with the conclusion drawn in this report.
Contact Names:
Mr. Ron Kelusky, 397-9240, Fax: 392-2002.
Mr. Alan Speed, 397-4300, Fax: 397-4325.
________
The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it
the following communications:
-(September 21, 1998) from Ms. Charlotte Sam, Child Care Manager, Harbourfront and St. Stephen=s Waterfront Child
Care Centres, advising that they have some concerns regarding the proposed fixed link to the Island Airport, particularly
with respect to the amount of traffic that will be brought into the area; that there is a pressing need for more effective
transit service to the area of Bathurst and Queen=s Quay; and stating that if a bridge is built, then there should be an offsite
passenger terminal with a shuttle bus for all passengers in order to prevent idling vehicular traffic along Bathurst Street,
south of Lake Shore Boulevard.
-(September 29, 1998) from Mr. Peter Murphy, Marine Operations Manager, Waterways Transportation Services
Corporation, expressing concern that the proposed fixed link to the City Centre Airport will affect his firm by deny it the
fast access to the open lake which is currently available for its high speed ferry service between Toronto and the Niagara
region.
-(October 5, 1998) from Mr. Marc Willoughby, Toronto, expressing concern regarding the proposed increase in the
facilities and use of the City Centre Airport.
-(November 20, 1998) from Mr. B. R. Holmes, President, City Centre Aviation Ltd. (CCAL), advising that CCAL is fully
supportive of the Dillon Environmental Impact Study for the proposed fixed Link to the Toronto City Centre Airport; and
stating that, specifically, CCAL is in full agreement with the report=s conclusion that a bridge should be built, and that the
location of that bridge should be at the foot of Bathurst Street.
-(November 25, 1998) from Mr. Wayne Canning, Chair, South East Area Industrial Advisory Committee (SEAIAC),
advising that SEAIAC is a strong supporter of the City Centre Airport and believes that it should be supported with a
fixed link in order to allow more convenient, speedier and safer access for travellers.
-(November 27, 1998) from Mr. Barry MacKinnon, Director, Airline Analysis - Americas, Bombardier Aerospace,
submitting printed material for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding the
Toronto City Centre Airport (TCCA); such material stating that the Dash8 aeroplane is key to the present and future of the
TCCA; and that Dash 8 operations at the TCCA create significant spin-off benefits for the Toronto economy.
-(November 19, 1998) from Mr. David Lane, President, Local 1869, International Longshoremen=s Association (ILA),
registering the support of ILA 1869 for a fixed link from the Island Airport to the mainland.
-(November 24, 1998) from Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough-Wexford, submitting a brief entitled ADecision Points
the Toronto City Centre Airport@.
-(September 28, 1998) from Mr. Steve Koslewski, Executive Board Member, Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local
416, expressing concern that Local 416 is pleased to advise that they support the proposal for a fixed link to the Toronto
City Centre Airport.
-(undated) Mr. William Brogan, Airport Manager, Merrill C. Meigs Field, submitting the history of Merrill C. Meigs
Field, an airfield operation Chicago, Illinois.
-(November 30, 1998) from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners submitting the response to City of Toronto Reports and
Directions to City Centre Airport.
The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the
foregoing matter:
-Mr. Gary Reid, General Manager, Toronto Harbour Commission; and also filed a written submission;
-Mr. Manfred Humphries, City Centre Airport Association;
-Mr. Fareed Khan, Toronto Real Estate Board;
-Mr. Andrew Pascoe, Vice-Chair, Air Services Committee, Toronto Board of Trade;
-Mr. Randy J. Butcher, President, D & R Aviation Inc.;
-Ms. Debra Williams, Air Ontario;
-Mr. Brian Holmes, Shell Aerocentre;
-Mr. D. Sinclair, Legal Counsel, Vaughan;
-Mr. Lonnie Sweet, Commutair;
-Mr. Eric McConachie, Air Capital;
-Ms. May Hay, Toronto Waterfront Coalition; and also filed a written submission;
-Ms. Elizabeth Quance, Niagara Neighbourhood Association;
-Mr. Roger D. Wilson, Toronto;
-Mr. John Bessai, Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association;
-Mr. Brent Rutherford, Professor, Environmental Studies, York University;
-Mr. Bill Freeman, Toronto;
-Mr. Peter Leiss, Executive Vice-President, CUPE Local 416;
-Ms. Adriana Collins, Airline Training Resources;
-Mr. Wilfred Walker, Transport 2000 Ontario;
-Councillor N. Kelly, Scarborough Wexford; and
-Councillor S. Bussin, East Toronto.
|
