PROPOSED PICKERING AIRPORT
 |
Environmental Meltdown...
Economic Messiah or the next Mirabel?Marian Martin
The Focus is on environmental concerns of the proposed Pickering Airport including the proposed airport's proximity to the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, Rouge Park and Toronto Zoo. Information is provided to show how the proposed Pickering Airport can cause an environmental meltdown, i.e. decreased nuclear safety at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, impairment of Rouge Park as a functioning wildlife park, increase in bird strikes with aircraft, avoidance of the Greenbelt Plan (2004), increase in all forms of pollution (air, water, noise), alteration of existing waterways, increased health risks, global warming, etc. The Federal Government's environmental assessment will probably work backwards i.e. beginning with specific results sought - the construction of a new airport - while ignoring many environmental concerns.
This is a concerned citizen's environmental assessment. Many people believe the environment should take priority to the proposed airport for the following reasons.
Background Rouge Park Greenbelt Plan Water Pollution Nuclear risks Birds/Wildlife Wildlife Strikes Air Pollution Health risks Disasters Global warming Noise Pollution
The Pickering Airport project was first announced in 1972 by the Government of Canada around which time about 18,600 acres of land was expropriated.
Within a few years, the proposed Pickering Airport was cancelled due to strong public opposition in 1975, especially from local community and grassroots environmental groups (notably People or Planes). Another major reason was because the federal airport lands became a provincial election issue.
"Protesters were able to kill the airport because it became a provincial election issue in 1975. While the federal government had every intention of building an international airport to replace Toronto's Pearson International, then premier Bill Davis said his government wouldn't build the roads or sewers to serve it."Protest greets proposed airport - Pickering plan enrages
residents -$2B project to ease Pearson pressure
Toronto Star, Keven McGran, November 18, 2004The airport's cancellation was two decades before the creation of Rouge Park in 1995 in which the Federal Government was instrumental in creating - to protect the Rouge Valley from harmful influences. The proposed Pickering Airport is a harmful influence.
In 2001, federal lands in Pickering, Markham and Uxbridge were declared an airport site. The environmental assessment will be completed within a couple of years and GTAA will submit a final report to the Federal Government in 2006/2007. Design of the airport could start as early as 2007 and construction by 2010.
Plan sees Pickering airport by 2012
GTAA to release draft next weekIn the latest move to bring an airport to Pickering, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority will release a draft plan Nov. 17... The full cost would be about $2.1 billion and the airport could ultimately handle about 9.7 million passengers by 2032... The authority, a private, not-for-profit corporation that runs Toronto Pearson International, would pay for and build the regional airport, which would take smaller planes on shorter hops and ultimately replace airports in Buttonville and Oshawa. The new airport (at Pickering) could become the 10th busiest in Canada... An economic development study published by the authority in January concluded a new airport in Pickering by 2012 would generate 1,000 jobs, representing $65.7 million in payroll and $131.9 million in economic impact in Durham and York regions. (Toronto Star, Kevin McGran, November 9, 2004)
The Pickering Airport could be in operation by year 2012 - especially with the strong support of the local and regional politicians:
Mayor DAVE RYAN ( Pickering)"I support development of a regional reliever airport..."
Annual Address - AJAX-PICKERING
BOARD OF TRADE February 24, 2004"Durham Region chair Roger Anderson can't wait
for shovels to get in the ground... The Region
has been very supportive of the airport..."Airport plan may struggle to take flight
Toronto Star, Kevin McGran, November 17, 2004Today, the same government is proposing to undo what it has already done - building a large airport next to Rouge Park - an airport which could be the size of Calgary International Airport and become the tenth busiest airport in Canada.
"In vast farm fields taken decades ago by the federal government in Markham and Pickering, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority sees a new airport that would, one day, be the size of Calgary International. The GTAA, non-profit operators of Pearson International Airport and partners in Markham's private Buttonville Airport, would send 20 per cent of GTA air traffic to Pickering, forecasting close to 12 million passengers a year there by 2032.... A first stage costing $213 million and opening in 2012 or later could handle all aircraft movements at Buttonville, which would close when Pickering opens, plus those at the smaller Markham Airport on Hwy. 48 and Oshawa Municipal Airport, both of which would also close..."
Airport would mirror size of Calgary's
Markham Economist and Sun, Mike Adler, November 25, 2004As a "Reliever Airport", the proposed Pickering Airport is expect to provide general aviation, international and domestic charters, commercial operations, air cargo/courier, specialty air carriers and traffic that does not benefit from access to Pearson or traffic Pearson can not handle. Eventually, the proposed Pickering Airport could even see 11 million passengers a year.
CPR Railway runs across the Pickering airport lands and offers what Pearson Airport is not able to provide - direct rail/airport connection for cargo and commercial operations (imports and exports). Unexpected effects will include greatly increased non-passenger traffic (incl. expansion of connecting railway lines and trucking) which could exceed Pearson.
Map of Pickering Airport Lands
(airport lands outlined in blue)A series of public meetings conducted by GTAA during the last week of November, 2004 indicate a strong opposition to the proposed Pickering Airport from local residents:
"Residents at an open house in Claremont Tuesday evening sent a clear message to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority - they don't want an airport in their backyard. More than 200 people packed the room... the flood of questions and comments from the standing-room only crowd could not be contained, forcing Mr. Shaw to rush through the end of his presentation. Michael Robertson wanted to know if there was a contingency plan if the airport doesn't go ahead (saying): "All these plans area all well and good but you know plans for a wedding aren't very good if you don't want to get married...In the event that we don't get married, what sort of contingency is there if we back out of this?" Mr. Robertson has lived on the proposed airport lands for 33 years... Not only is he concerned about losing his home and business, but Mr. Robertson said he is concerned about the effect an airport would have on the abundance of wildlife in the area, especially the birds."
Claremount Crowd voices Concerns
The GTA already has two international airports and the proposed Pickering Airport is not needed. Hamilton's international airport is already underutilized. The airport system in southern Ontario is currently operating at about 35 per cent of its total capacity. Quebec had two airports but recently closed Mirabel after spending billions of dollars only to finally realize two airports were not needed, despite what "experts" had claimed earlier.
Pickering News Advertiser, Danielle Milley, November 26, 2004"Mr. Speaker, I call on the government today to ... halt the unnecessary Pickering airport proposal. There is no need for a new regional airport east of Toronto when Hamilton International is operating under capacity and provides a more economical and competitive option. The Pickering airport proposal was first announced in 1972, but it was wisely cancelled in 1975. Why is the government allowing a bad idea to be resurrected? ... The infrastructure for a thriving airport in Hamilton is already in place. A new highway in Hamilton leading to the airport has just been opened... Resources should be put into Hamilton International where a positive difference can be made, and not into an expensive boondoggle that makes no sense."
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC) 38th Parliament
Ontario Legislature, Hansard Index December 10, 2004"Hamilton leaders are vowing to fight a proposed $2 billion airport in Pickering that threatens to take business from our local airport and economy. Everyone from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to Hamilton East-Stoney Creek MP-Tony Valeri and Mayor Larry DiIanni are questioning the need for an eastern regional airport when Hamilton's airport is operating under capacity. "It's a mistake" says DiIanni. "The federal government has invested millions of dollars in the Hamilton airport and it should be the airport alternative to Pearson airport...Pearson International, which is undergoing massive redevelopment, currently handles about 50 million passengers a year. John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport handled 1 million last year."
Pickering proposal a mistake, Hamilton mayor warns
Toronto Star, November 17, 2004"...The future of Durham Regions economy is not airport centric. The fact of the matter is that the major rationalization for an airport here is that it serves General Motors. For the record GM flys in less than 50 planes of parts a year. Check with Transport Canada or GM. This total of course will fall further in the future as GM moves from 8 shifts to 5 by 2008 as they have announced, and are currrently working towards. Forget for the moment that GM has never ever said they want or need an airport. This economic rationalization for an airport is defunct. Airports are not natural economic generators. The experience in Oshawa, Hamilton, Markham Airport, and Toronto City Centre, Peterborough, and many other areas clearly indicate this simple fact. Where is the wide ranging industry surrounding these airports. The fact is services and industry cluster around the principle airport in major centers. O'hare versus Midland airports in Chicago, Kennedy versus LaGuardia in NY and Pearson versus Hamilton here... Airlines and major airline industry associations such as IATA and ACTA oppose expansion of the GTAA ... The airlines and associated industry have clearly indicated they do not support a Pickering Airport proposal as they have no interest in duplicating the overhead costs of there companies over a 29 km range (Pearson to Pickering)... It is unneeded as a business case for an airport in Pickering does not exist. Why waste millions of dollars on studying a project that even by the proponents admission will not be needed in a commercial capacity until 2032 if then? The land is protected via airport zoning regulations. In 20 years it will be exactly as it is today and ready for use, if it is ever needed. What is needed is to revamp the governance of airport authorites in Southern Ontario..."
Stephen Frederick, President V.O.C.A.L.
Voters Organized to Cancel the Airport Lands, January 9, 2006
Many landowners in the area may be surprised to find that
Airport Zoning Regulations have already been registered
against 80,000 separate parcels of land
Canadian Nuclear Association, 1996Pickering Airport and Pickering Nuclear Station
... potentially, a deadly combination
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
The Federal Government has conflicted interests
which are NOT independently regulated
(as Canada's airport and nuclear regulator)
Location. Pickering Airport lands are due north of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station - both situated along Brock Road within a bird's eye view of each other.
"In this day and age, I don't think it's a wise idea to build a major airport
close to a major nuclear facility. Pearson's already close enough."Eric McCharles, Oshawa
Toronto Star, November 16, 2004United States is Canada's closest neighbour. After 9/11, the American Government tightened security around their nuclear stations. The U.S. Government is not building new airports as potential targets close to its nuclear stations.
If the situation were reversed,
would a new nuclear station be built
next to a busy airport ?In the event of a potential disaster at Pickering Nuclear, with the right wind conditions, the people in New York and other States could also be directly affected.
"Whether we like it or not, the vulnerability of the Great Lakes
puts Canada on the front lines of the war on terrorism... "Stephen Handelman, Time Canada Columnist (2004)
"Nuclear-safety critics say the stations are huge sitting ducks for terrorist attacks because any strike that disables a station's emergency shut-down system could lead to a reactor meltdown. If the meltdown caused radioactivity to escape, it could render huge areas uninhabitable for decades, causing a major economic catastrophe..."
U.S. nuclear reactors vulnerable, panel says
Globe and Mail - Martin Mittelstaedt - September 26/2001
Even with the increased flight ceiling height over it, the Toronto Zoo inhabitants will also be negatively impacted by the proposed Pickering Airport.
"Since it came into service... on February 25, 1971, Pickering has been the largest nuclear power station under one roof in the world."Shut them down... for good - Greenpeace
one and a half million people within 30 km.""No other nuclear plant in the world is surrounded by as large a population ... over
Nuclear Awareness Project (1997)
Older nuclear plants are more vulnerable
Despite billions $$$ being spent to upgrade and improve, the plant cannot be made completely new again i.e.original exterior concrete reactor domes.
"This is the oldest commercial nuclear plant in the country: Wear and tear is still an issue even though they are putting $1 billion (now $3 billion+) into this plant. It's not going to make it new..."
CBC NEWS - Power company wants to restart
aging nuclear plant - Irene Kock - December 15, 2000No expert can say for certainty what would happen in the event of a plane strike. Nuclear stations built in the late 1960's and 1970's were not built to withstand terrorist strikes like 9/11.
"Nuclear plants were designed to withstand
tornadoes and earthquakes, but not jetliners"Roger Hannah, spokesman for the NRC
(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission)Engineering experts are divided over whether concrete containment shields around nuclear power stations could withstand a direct hit from a large passenger aircraft, especially
one carrying 200,000 lb. of fuel. Before 9/11, the World Trade Center as a target was unimaginable and immeasurable except in the movies. Today, we know the threat is real."The NRC, the U.S. atomic watchdog agency, issued a statement ... nuclear generating plants are designed to withstand extreme events, such as earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, but not terrorist strikes of the kind the United States experienced on Sept. 11."
U.S. nuclear reactors vulnerable, panel says
Globe and Mail - Martin Mittelstaedt - September 26/2001"A Boeing 757 or 767 such as those used in the New York and Washington attacks on Sept. 11 weighs 272,500 to 450,000 pounds. The planes used in those attacks traveled at speeds of 350 mph to 537 mph when they struck..."
Jet Could Wreck TMI, NRC Admits
Designers didn't anticipate size, speed of today's plane
Attack on America - Brett Lieberman -March 28, 2002"Detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed... aircraft crashes may result in multiple-failure initiating events, and that non-safety system malfunctions could contribute to such events."
NRC press release September 21, 2001
Around the Pickering Nuclear Station sits
all kind of equipment critical to the operation
of the station itself and accutely vulnerable
to malicious or accidental impact
"Plans to double Pickering Nuclear's dry storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel ... if finally approved, the two additional buildings, each the size of a football field will be licensed and in operation by 2007... to last as long as Pickering is supposed to be in operation - 40 years."
Pickering Nuclear Plans 40-year waste storage
Bluffs Monitor - April, 2003"Nuclear safety watchdogs say that for many years they have pointed out the dangers of spent-fuel pools, but that the NRC told them the terrorism threat was too remote to make it a major concern... A severe pool fire could render about 188 square miles uninhabitable and cause as many as 28,800 cancer fatalities and $59 billion in damage, Brookhaven National Laboratory said in a 1997 report for the NRC.Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute... doesn't know what would happen... if a large jet struck either the containment building or the fuel pools. "We've said since Sept. 11 that we can't guarantee we're impervious to every scenario one might envision," Kerekes says. Lochbaum says that many spent-fuel pools are in the open, and if a plane made a direct hit, the back-up cooling system could fail. Spent-fuel pools hold five to 10 times more "long-lived radioactivity" than a radioactive core inside the reactor of an operating plant, says STAR Foundation executive director Robert Alvarez, a former Department of Energy adviser. At some nuclear plants, some of the spent fuel has been removed from the pool and stored in lead-lined concrete casks. These casks, says Lochbaum, could be split open in a crash but are probably less vulnerable than the spent fuel in the pools. The amount of spent fuel stored at nuclear plants is growing, making accidents even more dangerous in the future. .. "I don't think anyone can accurately predict what would happen," says Hyde, the Millstone spokesman. He says the spent-fuel pools, composed of "industrial steel frames with concrete around them," are designed to withstand an earthquake but not the impact of a large jet..."
Could Nuclear Plants Be Terrorists' Next Target?
USA Today12/13/2001U.S. nuclear reactors vulnerable, panel says
Planes tend to crash near airports. The closer the distance between the airport and nuclear station - the greater the risk of a potential crash - accidental or otherwise. Near the proposed Pickering Airport site, PNGS includes eight nuclear reactor domes (Pickering "A" and "B"), vulnerable "soft spots" around the reactor domes, and potentially lethal nuclear storage facilities (the size of a football field). The "soft spots" include all kinds of equipment critical to the operation of the nuclear station (including exterior services essential to the safe operation of the nuclear plant) which are acutely vulnerable to malicious or accidental impact.
To date, there has been no air attack on a nuclear power station.
"An air attack on a nuclear power plant could result
in one of the greatest environmental disasters
to ever affect civilization"Nathan Naylor
Most crashes occur during take-offs and landings
at distances similar to the distance between
the Pickering Nuclear Station and proposed AirportCauses of crashes can include mid-air collisions, engine failures, weather related conditions including air turbulance, on board fires, structural and mechanical failures, navigational and pilot error, bird strikes, etc.
The list is extensive, but some examples of crashes near airports include:
Date Place Flight Airline Reason for crash 12/11/2001 Belle Harbour, New York Airbus A300 American Airlines Crashed on take-off 11/27/2001 Zurich-Kloten, Switzerland BAe-146 Crossair Crashed on landing 11/12/2001 Queens, New York City Flight 587 American Airlines Crashed on take-off 07/25/2000 Paris Concorde Air France Crashed on take-off Most Recent Fatal Airline Events
The proposed Pickering Airport is immediately adjacent to Rouge Park, the largest urban wilderness park in North America. Bird strikes are one of the causes of crashes near airports.
Date Place Flight Airline Reason for crash 09/11/2001 New York, USA Boeing 767 American Airlines Terrorist Attack 09/11/2001 New York, USA Boeing 767 United Airlines Terrorist Attack 09/11/2001 Somerset, PA, USA Boeing 757 United Airlines Terrorist Attack 09/11/2001 Washington, DC, USA Boeing 757 American Airlines Terrorist Attack 12/21/1998 Lockerbie, Scotland Boeing 747 Pan Am terrorist bombing 06/23/1985 Coast of Ireland Boeing 747 Air India terrorist bombing In the event of an act of terrorism, Canada's nearest military fighter jets from Trenton would need a minimum of 15 minutes to reach Pickering to intercept - with their launch and arrival window well after the event.
"The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says atomic power stations in the United States could be vulnerable to attacks by airliners used as missiles, but Canadian nuclear authorities are refusing to comment on whether domestic reactors are similarly at risk... Canadian nuclear authorities are refusing to comment on whether the thick concrete and steel containment domes around domestic reactors are any more secure against attack than the similar structures used in U.S. stations. "What we're saying is the units are designed with earthquakes and impact considerations," said John Earl, spokesman for Ontario Power Generation, the country's biggest nuclear operator. But he refused to comment on how a reactor would fare if struck by a big plane. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, this country's atomic industry watchdog, refused to comment on whether stations could handle an airplane strike..."
Globe and Mail - Martin Mittelstaedt - September 26/2001
"In 2002 the UK House of Commons Defence Committee requested a report on the risks of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities... New Scientist has seen a copy of the report and can reveal that it says that a large plane crashing into a reactor could release as much radioactivity as the Chernobyl accident in 1986, while a crash into waste tanks at Sellafield in Cumbria could cause at worst, "several million fatalities". The report acknowledges that the risks are difficult to assess because so much information - including operators' estimates of the health impacts of radiation releases - is kept secret. But it concludes that it would be possible for terrorists to cause a radioactive release - and that the UK's current emergency arrangements may not be sufficient to cope. "It is totally unacceptable that the information we need to judge the risks is kept confidential, and that we have to take so much on trust," says Llew Smith, a Welsh MP who has been investigating the risks of nuclear attacks by terrorists..."The consequences of deliberately crashing an aircraft into a nuclear plant would be horrific."
Nuclear jet crash 'could kill millions'
New Scientist, U.K. - Rob Edwards - May 26, 2004Most people tend to trust in luck...
but luck is
notoriously untrustworthy
"All reactors are designed to withstand impact by a light plane. Experts say it is unclear whether a larger modern jet loaded with fuel, deliberately flown at high speed, could break open the reactor vessel. The resultant fire could, however, cause enough damage to allow radioactive material into the air..."
NUCLEAR MYSTERY: Crashed plane's target may have been reactor
Sunday Times (London) 21 October 2001
Nicholas Rufford, David Leppard and Paul Eddy
The Federal Goverment loves to subsidize airports
(like Mirabel and Pickering which don't make any sense)
The Federal Government also loves to build its CanDU Nuclear
Reactors (like the ones found in Pickering).
Airports and Nuclear Stations
should not be Neighbors
Could nuclear plants be terrorists' next target?
USA TODAY By Gary Stoller - 12/13/2001
http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2001-12-14-bcovfri.htm#morehttp://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20011214141122.asp
Report: Nuke plant can take plane hit; some analysts disagree
http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2002/12/25/2002122533572.htm
Unless 100% risk-free, the Pickering Airport
should be cancelled in
the interest of public safety
The proposed
Pickering Airport and Rouge Park
side-by-side are absolutely not compatible -
each potentially hazardous to the other
The proposed Pickering Airport lands will be situated beside Rouge Park - the largest urban wilderness park in North America. A wilderness park should contain wildlife, including birds, but not the man-made kind.
GTAA's Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report (2004) omitted specific discussion of Rouge Park. The well-detailed maps on display at GTAA's public meetings also omitted mention of Rouge Park, which should have been an important consideration.
However, interpretation of one map found inside GTAA's Draft Plan Report (2004) reveals the following areas of concern (5 lines have been inserted to show primary flight paths over greenspace corridor):The proposed "Beheading" of Rouge Park:
Rouge Park's northern limit will become the Airport's southern boundary - where Rouge Park will terminate (Figure 1-2, p. 1:5).
Greenspace lands dedicated by Federal Government along western portion of airport lands (2,000 acres) are directly in the primary flight paths of the proposed Pickering Airport (Figure 4-9, p. 4:49, Pickering Draft Plan Report);
Rouge Park as a functioning wildlife park will no longer be connected to the Oak Ridges Moraine - but only through a corridor inside airport lands where all wildlife are considered potential hazards to aircraft safety. Greenspace corridor on airport lands will primarily serve as a multi-flightpath corridor.
The dedicated green space preserve remains part of the Federal Airport lands and could create a "bottleneck" to wildlife and birds which will avoid or be driven away (or worse) from the corridor on airport lands between Rouge Park and the Oak Ridges Moraine;
The goal of airport wildlife management programs is
to eliminate or minimize the carrying capacity
of habitat for species hazardous to aviation
All wildlife are potential hazards to airports, including the wildlife in Rouge Park:
Transport Canada’s policy is to regard all wildlife on airports as potential hazards to airport and aircraft safety." Transport Canada - Wildlife Control
Aerodrome Safety Branch, 04-10-2003
Wildlife and birds in Rouge Park will either not use the only greenspace corridor to the Oak Ridges Moraine because of noise and other deterrent factors, or they will be driven away, or worse - killed.
On airport lands beside Rouge Park, the priority will be
the "taking" of wildlife including:
pursuing,hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping,
capturing, or collecting any wild animal
All wildlife "are regarded as potential hazards to airport and aircraft safety" according to Transport Canada. The paradox is the proposed Pickering Airport and associated aircraft are absolutely hazardous to the wildlife of Rouge Park!
Hazardous wildlife to airports are "all species of wildlife
Designated greenspace area on airport lands could represent a potential death sentence for birds and wildlife. They will not be able to read the "No Trepassing" signs or recognize the limits of the park/greenspace boundaries - fence or no fence!
(birds, mammals, reptiles) that are associated with
aircraft strike problems... or act as attractants to
other wildlife that pose a strike hazard"
"Collisions between wildlife and aircraft have resulted in the loss of over 400 aircraft since 1950, and over 100 human lives since 1995. Furthermore, it is estimated that collisions between aircraft and birds cost the aviation industry over $1.2 billion per year. In Canada annually, over 800 bird strike incidents are reported to Transport Canada.... the majority of bird strike incidents occur with the airport environment during takeoff, climb, final approach, landing and taxi phases of flight." Transport Canada - Wildlife Control
Aerodrome Safety Branch, 04-10-2003
With a busy airport placed next to Rouge Park, at an ever increasing rate, wildlife numbers will dwindle overall and some wildlife species will disappear altogether. In addition, resources will be haphazardly expended and opportunities to protect,
restore, and/or enhance the natural ecosystem of Rouge Park will be permanently lost - leading to things like species extinction within the park.
"If present trends and mechanisms continue without alteration,
then things like species extinction are a certainty within 20 years."Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
The Globe and Mail, November 2, 2000
Rouge Park's northern terminus at the airport lands and the airport's flight path over the only greenspace corridor to the Oak Ridges moraine defies ecological criteria and the Rouge Park North Management Plan:
"The Park boundary be delineated within the non-urbanized areas
through a defensible approach using ecological criteria".Rouge Park North Management Plan, 1997
adopted on October 4, 1999
In 1995, the Federal Goverment was directly instrumental in the creation of Rouge Park - the largest urban wilderness park in North America. Today, the same government is proposing the Pickering Airport be built next to Rouge Park - each potentially hazardous to the other. The environmental impacts of an airport placed next to Rouge Park have not been adequately addressed.
"The environmental impacts of activities outside the park should be addressed in relation to the park ecosystem... the corridors linking natural areas beyond the park boundaries should be planned as part of a regional natural heritage system ... towards the Oak Ridges Moraine" Ecological Survey of the Rouge Valley Park, Varga-Jalava-Riley,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1991
The conditions associated with a "busy airport", especially size, will overpower the park and only serve to further harm the park's already fragile environment.
The airport lands are equivalent in size
to all of Rouge Park
The proposed Pickering Airport placed next to Rouge Park is the worst possible adjacent land use for any park and at the opposite ends of the land use spectrum:
OPPOSING LAND USES
Rouge Park promotes: Pickering Airport: - more greenspace - paving greenspace - cleaner air - more air pollution (smog) - cleaner waterways - increased water pollution - natural waterways - waterways altered/removed - improved wildlife habitat - diminished wildlife habitat - quiet place for people/wildlife - increased noise - few roads - building more new roads - reduced traffic - tremendous increase in traffic - least possible surrounding development - maximum industrial, commercial residential development adjacent lands - more wildlife - NO wildlife "It is essential that a comprehensive and integrated system of green open spaces, links and parks be established and maintained through the GTA. To the maximum extent possible, infrastructure systems should avoid those areas, or be designed in such a manner as not to degrade their environmental quality, habitat suitability and recreational diversity".
The GTA 2021 Infrastructure - Greenland Strategy
and Watershed ReportRouge Park plays a vital role in improving the quality of air and water for millions of people - without any noise pollution. The proposed Airport will do exactly the opposite. In 1995, the Federal Government was directly instrumental in the creation of Rouge Park and provided more than $10 Million toward its establishment. The Federal Government should NOT reverse it's earlier commitment to protect the Rouge Valley by now proposing adjacent lands be used for a busy airport.
The vision for Rouge Park called for the creation of a 20,000 acre park - the largest urban wilderness park in the world (at present Rouge Park is around 13,000 acres, including 2,000 acres from the Federal Government).
ROUGE PARK should be declared a NATIONAL PARK under the Federal Government, including most if not all of the airport lands. This is the final opportunity to realize the Rouge Park vision... or to destroy it.
The proposed Pickering Airport (Federal) Plan
could virtually TORPEDO
the Greenbelt and Rouge Park (Provincial) Plans
224 bird species have been observed
within Rouge Park, many of which are
extremely significant and considered
nationally and provincially rare,
threatened, or endangered.*Ecological Survey of the Rouge Valley Park (1991)
Varga, Jalava, and Riley
Hazardous Bird Species to Aircraft
Prioritization and classification of species
at the Pickering Airport Site*(THESE SPECIES ARE FOUND IN ROUGE PARK):
Level 1 Canada Goose Level 2 Great Blue Heron
Turkey Vulture
Bald Eagle
Mallard
Black Duck
Great Black-backed Gull
Herring GullLevel 3 Red-tailed Hawk
Ring-billed Gull
Rock Dove
American CrowLevel 4 Cooper's Hawk
Northern Harrier
Mourning Dove
European Starling
Red-winged Blackbird
Common Grackle
Brown-headed CowbirdLevel 5 Sharp-shinned Hawk
American Kestrel
Killdeer
Eastern Meadowlark
Snow Bunting
House Sparrow
Migrating SparrowsLevel 6 Many passerine specie *The bird species most hazardous to aircraft can be determined by average weight of a species and their flocking characteristics and flight behavior. According to one recent report, bird hazards/risks are classified from Levels 1 to 6, in which level-1 birds present the greatest risk to aircraft. Level-1 birds are categorized as large flocking birds that weigh 1.8 kg or more; level-6 birds are small and solitary, presenting minimal risk to aircraft.
LGL Ltd. - Bird Use, Bird Hazard Risk Assessment, and Design
of Appropriate Bird Hazard Zoning Criteria for Lands
Surrounding the Pickering Airport Site. May 2002As seen above, Canada Geese are a significant flight safety hazard to aircraft, weighing on average 3.6 kilogrammes. In the Pickering area, many flocks of these birds move from Lake Ontario to feeding sites the north each day. Flightlines of the birds will also present a serious hazard to aircraft approaching or leaving the proposed airport. Even a small songbird or sparrow can become a projectile under certain conditions and do major damage to aircraft.
Mammals
28 species of mammals are found
within Rouge Park, 11 of which are
regionally rare.
The greenspace corridor through airport lands will be the only connection from Rouge Park to the Oak Ridges Moraine. A primary flight paths area, it will not adequately function as a wildlife corridor.If a new airport is built next to the park, some species will die out, numbers will be reduced and many species will disappear.
SPECIES MOST HAZARDOUS TO AIRPORTS
"Species must be ranked according to the severity of the threat they pose. Bulletin #26, Most Hazardous Species, dealt with the need for lists that assign relative hazard scores for each species. The following list applies to most Canadian airports:
- Deer (all species)
- Geese (all species)
- Gulls (all species)
- Hawks (all species)
- Ducks (all species)
- Coyotes
- Owls (all species)
- Rock Doves (pigeon)
- Eagles (bald and golden)
- Sandhill Cranes
- Sparrows/Snow Buntings
- Shorebirds
- Blackbirds/Starlings
- Crows/Ravens
- Swallows
- Mourning Doves
- Herons (all species)
- Vultures (turkey)
- American Kestrels"
Transport Canada - Airport Wildlife Management
Airport Wildlife Management and Planning (Part 1)
Bulletin no 31 - Summer, 2002Canada should be promoting and enhancing Rouge Park because of its rich natural heritage - instead of building a new airport beside it which will cause environmental harm. Park values will be greatly diminished with an busy airport beside it. The founding document of Rouge Park, the Rouge Park Management Plan, can be shredded if the airport proceeds:
"The objectives of the Rouge Park Management Plan are to protect, restore and enhance the natural, scenic and cultural values of the park in an ecosystem context by ensuring the health and diversity of its native species, habitats, landscapes and ecological processes...The biological and physical functions of the park are important to the long term integrity of the park ecosystem. Linkages and connections to, and within the Rouge valley system must be maintained and enhanced and where possible, linked with other parks, greenways and natural features." Rouge Park Management Plan, 1994
With the Pickering Airport, degradation of water quality in Rouge River and adjacent water courses, fuel dumping (accidental or otherwise) and collisions with birds will be a certainty.
Methods used to control wildlife and birds at airports (including Toronto's Pearson), include Rafters, Falcons and other species, sound blasters, dogs, traps and elimination of attractive habitat to wildlife.
"While birds, mammals and airplanes may seem to peacefully share the space at and around airports, their co-existence is burdened with extreme risk. In the case of a collision with an aircraft, a single animal has the potential to cause severe damage, leading in some cases to the loss of the aircraft, its crew and passengers."
Sharing the Skies - Transport Canada - 2003
Species will disappear and wildlife numbers will drastically be reduced in the Rouge Park area. The proposed Pickering Airport should be regarded as the worst possible environmental threat to Rouge Park of all time.
All species of wildlife will be
seriously impacted by an airport"Losing a species has an unknown effect
on all other species.
When you start ripping one string
in the web of life, and
you keep doing it again and again,
things fall apart.
And you don't know how it's going
to fall apart, or when
it's going to fall apart.''Sheila Larsen,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Greenbelt Plan, 2004
The proposed Pickering Airport will destroy valuable greenspace, increase pollution and reduce quality of life for residents of the most populated area of Canada.
The services which nature provides has a price tag which should be recognized before it is too late. A report entitled "The Value of Natural Capital in Settled Areas of Canada" (2004) by Dr. Nancy Olewiler suggests preservation or restoration of natural areas within settled parts of Canada will create substantial benefits to society while destruction of these areas will require man-made substitutes in the future which are extremely expensive. The report further states when nature is destroyed, society loses the following benefits:
good quality surface and groundwater;
the ability to reduce water and waste treatment costs;
aesthetic and recreational opportunities;
protecting agricultural production on lands threatened;
the ability to decrease net greenhouse gas emissions;
the ability to improve air quality by protecting forests and reducing urban sprawl;
protecting and enhancing habits and ecological services of all kinds.
Protecting natural capital (proposed airport lands) will save society
hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in the futureThe Federal Government should not ignore Ontario's Greenbelt Plan (2004):
"Where geographic specific park or public land management plans exist, such as the Rouge Park and Rouge North Management Plans, municipalities, agencies and other levels of government must consider such plans when making decisions on land use or infrastructure proposals." Draft Greenbelt Plan, October 2004
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and HousingOntarians need more greenspace
"Ontarians need greenspace because it improves quality of life... The proposed Greenbelt is about quality of life for people living and working in the Golden Horseshoe. It would have some obvious benefits – trails to hike and parks to enjoy. Protecting agricultural land means we’ll have fresh produce to eat, and a secure food supply in an era when getting food across borders from other countries isn’t always a given.The proposed Greenbelt is also about air and water quality – it’s about health. Forests, meadows and wetlands in the Golden Horseshoe help filter water. Water is absorbed by these natural features, filtered through the ground and deposited in the aquifers that provide clean, fresh water for about 7.5 million Ontarians. Protected areas would also benefit our air quality. The Ontario Medical Association estimates that over 1,900 deaths each year in Ontario are due to poor air quality. An average hectare of corn absorbs about 22 tonnes of carbon dioxide, while cutting down a hectare of trees has the same effect on the environment as emitting 350 tonnes of carbon dioxide."
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
October 28, 2004
WITH GREENSPACE
ON AIRPORT LANDS:A hectare of trees absorbs about 350 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
5,000 hectares planted in trees today could absorb
1.75 MILLION TONNES of carbon dioxide in the future(Farmland is also beneficial to the environment as shown above)
WITH AIRPORT
ON PICKERING LANDS:In addition to 1.75 MILLION TONNES of carbon dioxide not removed from the air in the future (above), countless more MILLIONS of tonnes of carbon dioxide (combined with about 200 other toxic chemicals) will be added to our air resulting in LOST OPPORTUNITY for cleaner air and ever increasing health care costs
Federal Airport lands should be included
in the Provincial Greenbelt Plan
Bird and wildlife Strikes cause major damage
Wildlife management at Toronto's airport is for the birds
"Canada has a serious problem when it comes to managing wildlife on airport runways. In fact, according to a previous study completed by Bruce MacKinnon, Transport Canada's wildlife specialist, of all reported and documented global run-ins with wildlife, Canada accounts for 93 per cent of them. That's a pretty staggering portion of the documented pie. Toronto's Pearson International Airport is worst hit by this problem. According to the latest study, between 1991 and 1997, in Canada, close to 1,300 gulls alone were documented as struck while in the path of an airplane travelling several hundred kilometres an hour. Gulls are the most common species involved in strikes, but planes rarely distinguish bird species. Almost always happening during landing and take-off, damage from these kinds of strikes cost airlines millions and, in some cases, lives. "Pearson is like an oasis for birds travelling through the area", says Bob Metcalfe, wildlife officer for Falcon Environmental Services who monitor the wildlife at Pearson. "There is the huge band of green space in the middle of an urban sprawl along some key regional migration routes. What bird wouldn't want to stop for a while?" asks Metcalfe..."
Wildlife management at Toronto's airport is for the birds
By Emma Reid, September 25, 2000 - Discovery Channel CA
"Bird strikes have become an increasingly serious problem in both civil and military aviation, with many thousands of strikes occurring every year... Since 1912, available data shows that more than 223 people have been killed worldwide in at least 37 bird-strike related civil-aircraft accidents. In addition, a minimum of 63 civil aircraft have been lost as a result of bird-strike related accidents. In military aviation, the number of documented serious accidents since 1950 exceeds 353, including a minimum of 165 fatalities. Experts are convinced that bird-strike statistics are vastly under-reported, and that the true numbers of accidents and fatalities are much higher." Sharing the Skies
- Transport Canada - 2003
2001 Canada Bird Strike Statistics
- 972 strikes were reported; 886 or (91%) occurred at Canadian sites The number of strike and incident reports (these include near misses) has increased progressively over the past four years as has the number of incidents involving damage to aircraft...
- 83 or (8.5%) of reported strikes resulted in damage to aircraft; other effects on flight included 51 precautionary landings, 29 aborted takeoffs, and six engine shutdowns. Turbofan aircraft accounted for 493 or (62%) of strikes with a reported engine type; 9% of these strikes were to the engine, of which 43% resulted in engine damage....
- Gulls were the most frequently struck species, accounting for 29% of all reported strikes where the species was identified (158 strikes). In descending order, the next most frequently struck birds were: raptors (64); sparrows (61); blackbirds (51); swallows (48); waterfowl (45); shorebirds (39)... It is worth noting that although waterfowl (geese, ducks, etc.) were not among the top five types of birds struck, they were the second most hazardous (after gulls) in terms of damage to aircraft...
- most strikes occurred on airport property (77%); of those, a large number took place at ground level (38%)...The fact that a large percentage of strikes occurred in and around airport property highlights the need for airport operators to develop a wildlife management plan as specified in the new regulations..."
Transport Canada - AIRPORT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Information Update 2002 - Bulletin No. 30 - Spring, 2002
The range of costs incurred by wildlife strikes
"At this time, it is not possible to accurately determine the annual cost of bird and mammal strikes to the aviation industry in any major jurisdiction. The required data are either not available or have not been assembled. Several attempts have been made to determine costs in various jurisdictions, but each attempt has shortcomings due to a lack of critical data... a conservative estimate of the annual cost to the North American aviation industry exceeds $500 million."
Sharing the Skies Manual - Transport Canada - 2003
An airport next to a known wildlife preserve (Rouge Park)
may raise serious legal liability issues in the future
(damage to aircraft caused by wildlife).
"Damage associated with wildlife strikes costs millions of dollars each year. Courts in several jurisdictions have indicated that failure to exercise due diligence in managing wildlife hazards will result in both civil and criminal liability judgments. (Note that a number of other cases have resulted in settlements protected by non-disclosure agreements. To the best of our knowledge, no settlement or judgment has been made in favour of the defendant.)" Sharing the Skies Manual - Transport Canada - 2003
Because of the proposed airport's location and proximity to migratory routes and to Rouge Park (and other environmentally sensitive greenspace areas including Duffin's watershed), the risk of wildlife and bird strikes with aircraft is considered high.
Bird Collisions with Airport Towers
Communications towers that are lit at night for aviation safety may reduce the direct collisions under clear conditions, but when migrating birds lose their stellar cues on cloudy nights, they can be attracted to the lit towers.
In low visibility conditions, especially during migrating season, birds fly directly into structures because they simply don’t see the obstacle in time to avoid the collision. Mortality will occur when they run into the structure or even other birds as more and more birds are attracted to the same structure. www.towerkill.com
Buildings that are lit at night can also pose a serious threat to migrating birds. On cloudy nights the bird can be attracted to the lit buildings just like they are to the communications towers, with deadly results. During the day, the reflective nature of glass can also make airport windows invisible killers to birds.
“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) estimates that at least 4 million to 5 million birds are killed annually in communication tower collisions in the United States… Add this to the estimated 98 million birds killed annually by collisions with glass windows..." Ogden, Leslie Evans "A Deadly Obstacle Course",
Defenders of Wildlife, Fall 2000
Airports are a major source of air, noise and water pollution
Airports contaminate waterways
The chemicals in contaminated run-offs associated with the proposed Pickering Airport will enter creeks and waterways and end up in Lake Ontario, the water supply source of millions of people in the GTA.
Toronto's Pearson International Airport has set a clear example for what is likely to happen with the proposed airport at Pickering and its effects on the Rouge Watershed.
Comments of Members made in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario highlight the known environmental risks:
"Pearson International Airport is discharging oxygen-demanding effluents hundreds of times in excess of the federal guidelines, particularly during the winter deicing months. These discharges end up in Mimico and Etobicoke creeks and they later end up in Lake Ontario. These pollutants are similar to the effect of untreated sewage from a city of 35,000 to 40,000 people... Staff-level reports from both Transport Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment recognize that the present discharge of glycol-based deicing fluids at Pearson International Airport greatly exceeds environmental guidelines and that water quality impairment similar to that caused by sewage from a small city is resulting in Etobicoke and Mimico creeks as well as in the surrounding shoreline of Lake Ontario. This adds to the already overburdened aquatic environment problems in this area...
Transport Canada, which operates Pearson International Airport, is fully aware of the extent of river and lake contamination from using deicing compounds at its facilities...When discharged into the receiving waters these deicers, like other organic materials such as sewage, degrade -- in other words, use up -- available oxygen in the aquatic ecosystems... By 1996, Transport Canada predicts that from 1,517,000 to 1,890,000 litres will be used during the winter and spring when aircraft deicing is done...
We already have strong evidence showing that spilled aviation fuel has been entering sewers at the airport and entering nearby creeks. A recent incident involving an accidental discharge of firefighting foam in a hangar area also led to contamination of a nearby creek. During the winter months, a very substantial amount of deicing fluids has been entering both the Etobicoke and Mimico creeks...
All of those contaminants that flow into the Mimico and Etobicoke creeks end up in Lake Ontario and many of them remain in the sediments that are at the mouths of those creeks. If you drive along Lakeshore Boulevard, you see the silt that is built up in the mouth of Mimico Creek. When the conservation authority attempted to dredge that silt and remove it, it was told it was hazardous waste and that there was no acceptable disposal area for that sediment. All of that sediment is on a shoreline that is going to be very heavily developed in the near future. It is on a shoreline where there has been excessive landfilling to create parks, but also creating embayment so that the sediments build up..."
Legislative Assembly of Ontario - Hansard Index - May 29, 1990
http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/34_parl/session2/L037.htmRun-offs carrying contaminants from the air and land could flow into the nearby waterways, surrounding creeks and even into our water supply (caused by paved over runways, roads, buildings and other associated hardstandings).
"Runway construction can impact significantly on the aquatic milieu. The diversion of streams and draining alters morphology and destroys aquatic habitats. Expansion of asphalt surfaces increases runoff toward water bodies, increasing suspended matter and sedimentation and disturbing fish habitats, especially during critical spawning periods. Chemical water pollution is caused by products used for plane and runway de-icing and for runway cleaning... " Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment -
Airport construction, expansion and operation,
Health Canada (2003)Water pollution from airport runoff is
only minimally addressed
under current water pollution laws.In addition, Airports are known to dump toxic chemicals--used to de-ice airplanes during winter storms--into waterways. In U.S., more than 4 million gallons of glycols were used for aircraft de-icing at 93 airports during 1989-1991, according to a survey by the FAA. Glycols are the most voluminous water pollutants from airports.
"Wing de-icing is necessary in the winter, particularly under freezing rain conditions, and as a preventive measure to prevent ice build-up on the wings when increasing altitude. A hot solution of ethylene glycol or propylene glycol is sprayed on the wings. The solution may also contain phosphate-based anti-corrosives and wetting or thickening agents to facilitate adhesion... More than half of the de-icing solution runs off the wings and into the local sewer system or open drainage ditches. Glycol solutions are the most significant aquatic airport pollutant. They impact harmfully on aquatic fauna, since glycol is a major organic pollutant with a high biological oxygen demand (BOD); it stimulates bacterial growth, reducing the quantity of oxygen dissolved in the water. Fish suffocate for lack of dissolved oxygen and unpleasant odours are created through excessive bacteria proliferation. The phosphates contained in certain de-icing solutions stimulate the growth of aquatic vegetation, especially algae, and cause eutrophication in receiving waters, creating conditions unfit for aquatic life and degrading recreational zones." Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment -
Airport construction, expansion and operation,
Health Canada (2003)Glycols and other chemicals used to de-ice planes
during storms can be toxic to animals and humans
and represent hazards to water tables, streams
and waste water treatment plantsGlycols receive the most attention. Ethylene glycol is both more effective and more toxic than propylene glycol. The lethal dose for humans of ethylene glycol is a little over three ounces, according to a report prepared for the EPA. Less can damage kidneys.
Propylene glycol is relatively innocuous. However, both ethylene glycol and propylene glycol consume high levels of oxygen during decomposition, according to the Airports Council International, a trade group in Washington, DC. This can deplete waterways of oxygen and kill fish.
Spillages can occur from aircraft, equipment
or operational problems or
through occasional accidents
Runway de-icing is necessary to ensure safe take-off and landing. Most airports use sand as an abrasive and urea as an ice-melter. Pearson uses an average of 7 tons of abrasive and melters per de-icing operation, a dozen times a year... The abrasive helps prevent skidding, particularly at very low temperatures where ice melters are less effective. Abrasives increase the level of suspended solids (SS) in water, disturbing aquatic life, increasing turbidity and silting up watercourses... A urea solution is used rather than traditional ice melters like sodium chloride (NaCl) and calcium chloride (CaCl2), which are too corrosive and could cause operating problems. The problem here, however, is that urea transforms into ammonia (NH3), and into nitrites and nitrates... Nitrites (NO2 ion) are highly toxic and can form methemoglobin, which prevents the transportation of oxygen in the blood... The main environmental impact is eutrophication. Ingesting water containing more than 10 mg/L of nitrates can in the long term cause methemoglobin formation." Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment -
Airport construction, expansion and operation,
Health Canada (2003)Runway deicers can load receiving waters with nitrogen
and other chemicals which, at high levels,
is toxic to aquatic life
"During landing, the weight and speed of the plane exert enormous wheel pressure and rubber is left on runways, which must be degummed once or twice a year to maintain friction and prevent skidding. Pearson sprays a solution of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium metabisulfite (Na2O5S2) on the runway to swell and soak off the rubber, which is then removed with powerful water jets. The solution and rubber particles are washed off the runway, and no particular measures are employed for their collection... NaOH in solution is highly corrosive..." Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment -
Airport construction, expansion and operation,
Health Canada (2003)
Aviation & Airports are the single most polluting industry in the world (air - water - noise)
Alteration of Existing Waterways
If the proposed Pickering Airport proceeds, existing watercourses may be altered to accommodate the airport. Expansion at the Toronto International Airport set a dangerous precedent for future airports, including Pickering:
"The construction of a new 10,000-foot runway at the airport required the excavation of a new valley and the relocation of 4,600 feet of the Etobicoke Creek. The project took many years to permit, construct, monitor, and relocate the creek. This was the first major stream realignment in Canada that fully followed the integrated natural channel design process. The success of the stream realignment project helped make it possible for the addition of three new runways at the airport and the $4.4 billion air terminal expansion program. These two programs essentially allowed the airport to double its capacity."
Greater Toronto Airports Authority—
Toronto Pearson International Airport:
Fish Habitat Improvement (2004)
Airports contribute to smog
Airport related activities are major contributors to air pollution and smog. Smog causes damages to vegetation and human health issues. The Greater Toronto Area has a smog problem, particularly during summer months. Air pollution is already registering 10 times the tolerable level of carcinogens in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
Air quality near an Airport poses more cancer risks
than a toxic waste dumpSmog is a mixture of solid and liquid fog and smoke particles formed through the accumulation of carbon monoxide, ozone, HC/VOC, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxide, water, particulates, and other chemical pollutants, as follows:
Carbon monoxides (CO) Carbon monoxides are very dangerous to humans and damaging to the environment. It is a poisonous constituent of combustion engine exhaust fumes, forming a stable compound with haemoglobin in the blood, thus preventing the haemoglobin from transporting oxygen to the body tissues. Most of the pollution with carbon monoxide takes place in idle during engine tests, at runways and in waiting positions. By adding an oxide (O), Carbon dioxide (CO2)is formed.
Aircrafts are the most polluting form of transportion
SulphurDioxid (SO2) is colourless gas which contributes to the formation of acid rain and acid soil. SulphurDioxid is dangerous if inhaled. Furthermore emissions from jet engines contain soot and dust particles which are dangerous if inhaled. Dust particles is carriers for dangerous particles and causes irritation of eyes and lungs. Soot can also cause cancer.
The effect on local air quality of hundreds of airplanes idling, taxiing, taking off and landing is virtually uncontrolled
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) are gasses which are very poisoning for humans and contributes to acid rain. Nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide contribute to air pollution. Nitrogen monoxide (NO), (or nitric oxide), is a colourless gas released when metallic copper reacts with concentrated nitric acid. It is also produced when nitrogen and oxygen combine at high temperature. On contact with air it is oxidized to nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a brown acid and pungent gas that is harmful if inhaled and contributes to the formation of acid rain, as it dissolves in water to form nitric acid.
Major airports have NOX emissions that are
greater than refineries and power plantsHydrocarbons (HC) - Chemical compounds containing only hydrogen and carbon. Hydrocarbons are reobtained industrially mainly from petroleum and coal tar. Hydrocarbons and especially benzene are cancerous. Furthermore, a number of radical hydrocarbons contribute to the formation of ozone.
There is a significant difference in the degree of pollution with carbon monoxides from different aircraft
... as high as 88 timesAircraft in idle ("taxiing" in waiting positions at runways) pollute several hundreds times more with Hydrocarbons than during normal operations.
Airport mitigation measures are often ineffective
and increasingly outpaced by growthVOCs and NO x - Airports pump volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NO x ) into the atmosphere. These two classes of compounds are precursors of ground-level ozone, which can interfere with lung function. During the summer between 10% and 20% of all East Coast hospital admissions for respiratory problems may be ozone-related," said one NRDC report. A major airport's idling and taxiing planes can emit hundreds of tons of VOCs and NO x annually. Chicago's Midway Airport released more benzene and formaldehyde than most Chicago factories. (Focus - Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 105, Number 12, December 1997)
Airport air pollution is similar to that generated by local
power plants, incinerators, and refineries, yet is EXEMPT
from rules other industrial polluters must followIn fact, an O'Hare Airport Toxic Air Study discovered over 200 hazardous air toxic emissions emitted from airport property in the following "chemical cocktail".
Freon 11; Freon 12; Methyl Bromide; Dichloromethane; cis-l, 2-Dichloroethylene; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Carbon Tetrachloride; Benzene; Trichloroethylene; Toluene; Tetrachloroethene; Ethylbenzene; m,p-Xylene; o-Xylene; Styrene; 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene; 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene; o-Dichlorobenzene; Formaldehyde; Acetaldehyde; Acrolein; Acetone; Propinaldehyde; Crotonaldehyde; Isobutylaldehyde; Methyl Ethyl Ketone; Benzaldehyde; Veraldehyde; Hexanaldehyde; Ethyl Alcohol; Acetone; Isopropyl Alcohol; Methyl Ethyl Ketone; Butane; Isopentane; Pentane; Hexane; Butyl Alcohol; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone; n,n-Dimethyl Acetamide; Dimethyl Disulfide; m-Cresol; 4-Ethyl Toulene; n- Heptaldehyde; Octanal; 1,4-Dioxane; Methyl Phenyl Ketone; Vinyl Acetate; Heptane; Phenol; Octane; Anthracene; Dimethylnapthalene(isomers); Flouranthene; 1-methylnaphthalene; 2-methylnaphthalene; Naphthalene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene; Benzo(a)pyrene; 1-nitropyrene; 1,8-dinitropyrene; 1,3-Butadiene; sulfites; nitrites; nitrogen oxide; nitrogen monoxide; nitrogen dioxide; nitrogen trioxide; nitric acid; sulfur oxides; sulfur dioxide; sulfuric acid; urea; ammonia; carbon monoxide; ozone; particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5); and finally this compound; 3-nitrobenzanthrone, etc.
A busy airport in the GTA would likely produce similar results.
Level of air carrier emissions from a Study done on U.S. Airports (Flying Off Course Environmental Impacts of America's Airports - Natural Resources Defense Council, 1996) showed the following results:
Ground-Level Air Carrier Emissions
AIRPORT & STATE LANDING & TAKEOFF CYCLES (LTOs) per year(b) VOC (tons/yr) NOx (tons/yr) Chicago O'Hare (IL) 383,362 1,428 4,650 Newark (NJ) 140,109 914 1,916 LaGuardia (NY) 135,800 677 1,476 John F. Kennedy (NY) 80,337 1,027 1,879 Neither airports nor airlines are held accountable for the
aggregate impacts of their ground-level aircraft emissions.Emissions testing results at Canadian airports are not made readily available to the public.
EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT POLLUTION AT LESTER B. PEARSON"Aircraft pollution may affect many aspects of life under the flight-path... Based on the limited data... It is hard to dispute the fact that human lives are endangered, and in fact lost due to aircraft pollution under certain parts of the flight path. There are several studies made in the US to support this claim. At the time of writing, most airports, like the GTAA (which is considered one of the principal airports in Canada) do not perform dispersal analyses..."
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - Prof. Gabriel S. Timar
Focus - Environmental Health Perspectives
Volume 105, Number 12, December 1997As well, ground access vehicles, passenger cars and buses entering and leaving airports often exceed airplanes as the dominant sources of air pollution at airports.
"Construction/expansion machinery and normal operations (planes, buses and vehicles circulating on the terrain) create the usual atmospheric pollutants associated with fossil-fuel engines. The principal pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), particulates, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odourless gas that increases lethal carboxyhemoglobin. Carbon dioxide (CO2), is one of the main greenhouse effect gases. Particulates measure 0.005 to 100 micrometres (µm) in diameter and remain airborne; only those smaller than 10 µm are absorbed into the lungs. As well as causing respiratory problems, these particulates reduce visibility and pollute the natural and human environment. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) include nitric oxide (NO) which transforms rapidly into nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a brownish gas with a sharp, irritating odour that can oxidize cell membranes. This gas can decrease odour perception, alter pulmonary function and in cases of severe exposure, can lead to pulmonary edema. One of the most significant effects of chronic exposure is emphysema and a reduction in forced expiratory volume. NO2 reacts with VOCs to form photochemical smog. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are hydrocarbons that evaporate at ambient temperature and exist in vapour form in the atmosphere; they number in the thousands, and some are relatively toxic. The principal VOCs produced by combustion engines are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that form in almost all types of incomplete combustion and contain several carcinogenic components like benzo[a]pyrene (BaP); oxygenated hydrocarbons including aldehydes (e.g.: formaldehyde), cetones (acetone), alcohols (e.g.: methanol) and organic acids (formic acid) are all respiratory tract and mucous membrane irritants. Some VOCs, including benzene, chloroform and formaldehyde, are considered carcinogenic. The photochemical reaction of NOx with VOCs forms secondary pollutants collectively known as photochemical smog. This smog includes ozone (O3) on the ground (tropospheric), various free radicals, oxygenated hydrocarbons like aldehydes, and peroxyacetyl nitrates (PAN). All can be respiratory irritants, and some are mutagenic (PAN) or carcinogenic (formaldehyde). Smog is a concern because of the health problems it causes and because it is an urban atmospheric pollutant that is on the rise in Canada." Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment -
Airport construction, expansion and operation,
Health Canada (2003)
"Having conquered the skies, airports and airlines must now face the growing challenge of dealing with air and noise pollution... European airports have leaped ahead of their Canadian counterparts in responding to environmental concerns. That is largely due to stringent anti-pollution requirements and innovations in infrastructure."
Geology Professor Judith Patterson
(involved with environmental impact assessments of
runway expansion at Toronto International Airport and
emission inventories for European airports) 1999
While the government has effectively required cars
to undergo emissions inspections, airplanes
have not received the same scrutiny.
Did you know?
One 747 take-off lasting 2 minutes is equivalent to
two million (2,000,000) lawnmowers
running for 20 minutes
One DC-10 take-off is equivalent to 21,530 car engines
Amount of Carbon Dioxide emitted from these forms
of transportation in Canada:Bus: 69 grams per passenger kilometer
Diesel Train: 79 grams per passenger kilometer
Private Car: 197 grams per passenger kilometer
Aircraft: 853 grams per passenger kilometer
Toronto Star - June 18, 2001
Airports = NOISE pollution
"Jet aircraft are one of the most disturbing sources
of noise in our environment."Health Canada
Aircraft Noise in the Vicinity of Airports, 2003"Impacts from noise and the risk of plane crashes,
especially in urban zones, must also be considered."Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment
Airport construction, expansion and operation,
Health Canada (2003)Noise may harm health. People who live close to airports may have significant mental and physical health impacts including: increased stress, hypertension, sleep disturbances, work-related, learning and academic performance.
Increased noise levels at the airport on take-offs, landings and under flightpaths will affect the birds and wildlife living in the vicinity and in nearby Rouge Park. Increased noise levels may even drive them away.
In a 1997 study by Arline Bronzaft, Ph.D., et. al., a questionnaire was distributed to two groups in New York City, one living within the flight pattern of a major airport and the other in a quiet neighborhood. The researchers found that nearly 70% of the residents surveyed living within the flight corridors reported themselves bothered by aircraft noise, which also interfered with daily activities. Furthermore, they complained of sleep difficulties and perceived themselves to be in poorer health. (Focus - Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 105, Number 12, December 1997)
On the impact of aircraft noise on children's health, a study by Cohen, etal. in 1980 found higher systolic and diastolic pressure in children living near the Los Angeles airport when compared to children living further away.
Evans, et. al., in 1995 found a relationship between chronic noise exposure and elevated neuroendocrine and cardiovascular measures for children living near Munich's International Airport.
Studies have also linked exposure to aircraft noise with deficits in learning. A 1997 study by Gary Evans and Lorraine Maxwell found that first and second-grade schoolchildren chronically exposed to aircraft noise had poorer reading skills than children attending elementary school in a quiet neighborhood.
AIRPORT NOISE =
REDUCED QUALITY OF LIFE
FOR ALL RESIDENTS
NOW, APRIL 13-19, 2000, Nicholas GarisonAirport's quiet claims just a lot of noise
"West-enders tired of being awakened in the middle of the night by jets screaming overhead are taking little solace in airport officials' latest noise news. The Greater Toronto Airports Authority recently announced that "initiatives to reduce aircraft noise over Lester B. Pearson International Airport continue to yield positive results." They claim an eight per cent increase last year in the number of planes meeting stricter requirements for lower noise emissions. But Helen Armstrong of Bloor West Airport Watch isn't impressed. She says the newer aircraft are only 10 per cent quieter than the older ones, which doesn't make a lot of difference. Armstrong argues that the GTAA's announcement is little more than "damage control" in the wake of the Toronto board of health's Noise And Health Report, which links excessive and intrusive noise to increased stress, hearing loss and immune system deficiencies, among other things. High Park-Parkdale MPP Gerard Kennedy says some of his constituents complain of jets flying so low that residents can practically see the tread patterns on the planes' tires. As for the noise, he says it's "like having a next-door neighbour who uses a chainsaw 10 times a day."
There is significant disturbance of speech communication and sleep amongst a significant fraction of the residents, currently and for the next five years, resulting in a high degree of annoyance with aircraft noise for an estimated 40,000 residents in the vicinity of the Pearson International Airport..." Health Canada's Presentation at Panel Concerning The Lester B. Pearson International Airport Presentation by Dr. Stephen Bly, Health Canada Transcripts of January 19, 1992
Increased Health Risks
Airport and aircraft activities are major contributors to smog and air pollution. Studies show the proximity to an airport can be directly linked to a significant increase in cancer risk, asthma and other health issues.Increased air traffic to the Pickering Airport will result in increased emissions of noise and pollutants and have harmful implications for human health and the environment.
"The construction, expansion or operation of an airport
impacts on all environmental components and can have
consequences for health and the human environment..."Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment
Airport construction, expansion and operation,
Health Canada (2003)In year 2000, Toronto Public Health estimated smog-related pollution contributed to about 1,000 deaths and 5,500 hospitalizations per year.
"Smog kills 1,000 annually in Toronto, study shows.
Thousands more treated in hospital for illnesses
linked to pollutants"Toronto Star - Phinjo Gombu - May 18, 2000
Four years later, premature deaths in Toronto attributed to air pollution had risen by 40% according to the City's Health Dept.
"Air pollution shortens lifespan, Toronto study finds:
Air pollution leads to an estimated 1,700 premature deaths
each year in Toronto and causes 6,000 additional
hospital admissions, says a new study by the
city's Public Health Department."
Toronto Globe & Mail - July 11, 2004The proposed Pickering Airport will worsen these conditions and compound existing traffic gridlock on roads and highways which will lead increased stress
"Expanded airport activities would likely increase
the burden of illness related to smog."Fran Scott, Director Public Health Planning and Policy
March 24, 2002Various reports show higher cancer, respiratory, heart disease, infant mortality and other health risks directly associated with close proximity to airport.
EACH DAY - TONS of cancer producing chemicals,
carbon monoxide and lung damaging particles
result from aircraft emissions of one airportMany of the compounds from aircraft emissions are highly carcinogenic and cause CANCER. In U.S.,a Cancer Risk Pollution Study on O'Hare Airport has shown unacceptable cancer risks from airport operations and flights at O'Hare which affects 98 communities in about a 32 mile radius of the airport, including Chicago proper.
The following studies also show the link between cancer, other diseases and proximity to airports:
Also see:
Health Problems Related to Airport Pollution...
Toronto's Medical Officer of Health Speaks Out on the Dangers...
"The Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition believes that public policy makers should adhere to the precautionary principle when making decisions in the public interest. This means that, when an activity raises threats of harm to human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established. It is cheaper and more effective to prevent human health damage than to attempt to manage or cure it." Brian Hyndman, Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition
Steering Committee, Letter to Mayor or Toronto, November 7, 2001
Airports: Deadly Neighbors
by Charles MillerAs anyone living near an airport can attest, jet aircraft noise is a serious physiological and psychological health hazard. Less known are the health hazards posed by the release of airport chemicals. A Boeing physicist once described the pollution from the take-off of a single 747 as being like "setting the local gas station on fire and flying it over your head." The Natural Resources Defense Council and the US-Citizens Aviation Watch (US-CAW) have gathered troubling information about the massive amounts of hazardous and toxic emissions involved in the operation of airports. A partial list of chemicals associated with airport operations includes: methyl bromide, benzene, trichloroethylene, toluene, nitrogen monoxide, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, carbon monoxide and 3-nitrobenzanthrone. According to chemist Hitomi Suzuki of Kyoto University, 3- nitrobenzanthrone may be the most hazardous compound ever tested for carcinogenicity. Many of the other chemicals listed are cancer-causing compounds. Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, the world's busiest airport, is quite possibly the largest single point-source of man-made pollution in the world. In addition to pollution caused by aircraft, a vast amount of car and truck traffic is generated at or in the airport's vicinity. According to the Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (AReCO, a Chicago affiliate of US-CAW), "airports are under little or no regulation and need not report most emissions or adhere to most Clean Air Act standards." While truck and auto pollution is thought to be the primary source of air pollution in the Chicago metro area, AReCO reports that aircraft and airport emissions produce "twice the amount of volatile organic materials per year than all the on-road vehicles at or near O'Hare." ...Airport health impacts are usually hard to pin down, but in Seattle an entire affected neighborhood shares a single Zip Code (98108). This made it possible to check federal health records on an entire community of "downwinders." The results were chilling. The public health records showed: a 57 percent higher asthma rate; a 28 percent higher pneumonia/ influenza rate; a 26 percent higher respiratory disease rate; an 83 percent higher rate of pregnancy complications; statistically higher rates of genetic diseases; 50 percent more cases of infant mortality; 57 percent greater chance of heart disease; 36 percent higher rate for cancer death and a life expectancy of 70.4 - contrasted with 76 years for the average Seattle resident. "Airports do virtually no reporting of large volumes of de-icing fluids (which are comprised of several toxic chemicals), fuel spills, oils, greases and other pollutants that regularly flow into nearby streams," reports AReCO. De- icing fluids represent hazards to water tables, streams and waste-water treatment plants. The problem of airport pollution is not limited to the immediate vicinity of the airport. AReCO points out that the pollution "is shed over an enormous area surrounding a busy airport... in a radius of at least 24 miles and from an elevation of about 3,500 feet to the ground."
Charles R. Miller, AReCO, Earth Island Journal (former supervisor with a major airline - currently a director of the Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare (AReCO)
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Aircraft emissions are a contributor to smog and global warming. Aviation contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect. Aircraft emissions are responsible for one-half of the atmosphere's man-made Nitrogen Oxides burden.
"Aviation has so far been a sacred and untouchable cow which has not taken it’s fair share of the efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses. It is obvious that our politicians so far have turned the blind eye to the fact that airports and aviation are the single largest polluter, and that airports and aviation cause growing and tremendous environmental damage to the local area around an airport (dangerous emissions), to the region and world-wide (greenhouse gases)."The Environmental Organization,
Copenhagen
Emergencies and disasters
"Along with fire or explosion, plane crashes are a particular risk for passengers, flight personnel and nearby residents. The main risks in a crash are physical destruction and fire. If a plane crashes during take-off, the disaster is more severe because fuel tanks are full. Planes also carry flammable equipment made from synthetic materials that can generate toxic gases and pollute the soil or aquatic environment."
Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment -
Airport construction, expansion and operation,
Health Canada (2003)
- Land use intensification and development of area around airport lands including new roads, sewers and water supply;
- Loss of major historic, archaeological, and cultural resources known to exist on airport lands;
- Loss of prime farmland
"The ever-continuing sprawl and paving over of good agricultural lands is
going to stop... The only people who won't benefit from this,
in my opinion, are the speculators."
Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen, October 30, 2004
- Related long term construction impacts to airport site and surrounding lands;
- Ineffectual Stakesholder Meetings
Letter to the Editor - Pickering News Advertiser - November 10, 2004
What goes around comes around: It is with particular satisfaction that I read our city council has decided not to sit in on anymore meetings regarding the planning for Seaton. Council has finally figured out that even thought they are invited to the meetings, they are not part of the decision making process. My satisfaction stems from the realization that council now knows how many of its constituents feel after they, like the city, have been shuffled to ineffectual stakeholders meetings. These meetings listen to and then ignore input. Council now knows how frustrating it is to be locked out of the process. Mayor Ryan now realizes how it feels to be ignored by those who should be listening to citizens' concerns. Council should now know why the voting public is so hardened to the political process and would rather go to the dentist than vote. At least at the dentist you accomplish something. I represent Pickering on the Greater Toronto Airport Authorities Pickering Advisory Council. For 4 years I have been attending monthly meetings, and never have been called upon to report to council, even though I have offered to do so on several occasions. Why? Because the city, the GTAA, and I know that this is an exercise. At the end of the process, the GTAA will be able to say they held public meetings. The fact it didn't listen does not matter. Well council you got a dose of your own medicine and thankfully found it bitter. Hopefully they will reflect on this experience and adjust how it receives input into local issues. Perhaps this slap is what was needed to open its eyes and our system to true representative government..." Stephen Frederick, President, V.O.C.A.L. Voters Organized to Cancel the Airport Land
Economic considerations:
GTAA - a $6 BILLION debt load by an out-of-control agency
The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) acts on behalf of Transport Canada and is doing the planning work which is required before the federal government decides whether to proceed with a regional/reliever airport on the Pickering lands. GTAA has an astonishing history which speaks for itself:
Passengers pay for improvements
Pearson Airport passengers will be stuck with high user fees and climbing ticket prices if Ottawa approves a plan to build a new $2 billion airport in Pickering, critics say. The Greater Toronto Airports Authority, or GTAA, which is already $6 billion in debt to pay for redeveloping Pearson, would have to go back to the bond market to raise the money for Pickering. To repay the bondholders, the GTAA would have to rely on airport improvement fees, charged to passengers; and landing fees, charged to airlines. "(The improvement fee) will be there forever," said Cliff Mackay, president of the Air Transport Association of Canada, which represents Canadian airlines. "We don't see any justification for building Pickering at the moment, given the new facility in Pearson and what we're seeing on cost .... All the airlines have said emphatically that Pearson's costs are out of control and they are really worried about it." Pearson is under fire from the airline industry as one of the 10 most expensive airports to do business with, even though it's barely in the top 30 for passenger traffic. Airlines pass their landing fees off to passengers in the form of higher ticket prices. Some airlines have complained Toronto is so expensive, they do what they can to avoid it. This month, the airport improvement fee rose by $3 to $15 for departing passengers. Passengers using Pearson to connect to other flights have to pay $8. In January, it's expected Pearson will raise landing fees by 18 per cent, meaning the price of landing a 747 will go from $9,800 to more than $11,000, Mackay said. The cost of landing a 747 at the airport in 1999 was $2,500. "What kind of crocodile money-eating machine is this?" said Harry Gow, past-president of the lobby group Transport 2000. "Machines, like airports, should be efficient and make good use of scarce resources. What they're doing is blowing the family heritage on this Taj Mahal they're building." ..Mackay said Toronto will pay a heavy price economically if the GTAA's costs are not reined in. Airlines can drop off or pick up passengers in Montreal, Ottawa or Hamilton and use smaller, less costly aircraft carry Toronto-bound passengers. "If the system works well and is efficient and is a high-quality service at good prices, it spins off a huge number of benefits for other parts of the economy. It generates jobs and income and improves our standard of living," Mackay said. "If you don't have it right, you pay an enormous cost for it in the economy. "This isn't just a transportation problem, this is a problem for the economy as a whole if this problem doesn't get fixed." Adding Pickering, at a time when Pearson and Hamilton are under-utilized, would only exacerbate the problem, he said. "It's just not something we're going to need to worry about until quite some time in the future," Mackay said. "The issue of getting costs under control in the GTAA and focusing on building traffic are just so much more important that I'm surprised people are actually spending time on Pickering."
Toronto Star, Kevin McGran, November 21, 2004
Toronto Pearson International Airport has become the second most expensive airport in the world in which to land a plane - next to Japan. Struggling airlines obviously cannot absorb them.
"These soaring fees hurt the airlines and local tourist industry... Ironically, these industries were supposed to be big beneficiaries of the Pearson redevelopment, which paradoxically spawned the huge increase in fees... it must now find a way to make the airport viable without soaking the travelling public. And it should do that before spreading its wings with the development of a new airport at Pickering."
Editorial: Airport must curb skyrocketing costs
Toronto Star - November 24, 2004Ontario's Mirabel could well result in Pickering with the expenditure of Billions $$$ MORE under the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA).
"The GTAA, a private, not-for-profit company set up by Ottawa to run Pearson, would fund the $2 billion through bonds paid for by landing and airport improvement fees. That's the same method that is paying for the $4.4 billion redevelopment of Pearson that has resulted in Toronto being among the most expensive airports in the world for airlines... "The political leadership needs to put a leash on the Greater Toronto Airports Authority," said Harry Gow, former president of lobby group Transport 2000. "It's time for Ottawa to admit that the governance structure used by Canada's airports is fatally flawed."Protest greets proposed airport - Pickering plan enrages residents -
$2B project to ease Pearson pressure Toronto Star, Keven McGran, November 18, 2004
GTAA's LACK OF ACCOUNTABLILITY AND EXPERTISE
"What kind of crocodile money-eating machine is this?"
Harry Gow, past-president of the lobby group Transport 2000
in reference to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority
GTAA's Board of Directors is seemingly accountable to no one. GTAA's board of directors is composed of 15 members nominated by a level of government. As a group they are accountable to no one, except perhaps the bondholders of GTAA's $6 billion debt.
GTAA's Board lacks expertise in the travel industry, tourism and environment. Only one member on GTAA's Board has a background in the travel industry. The airline industry has no representation, the consumers have no representation, tourism has no representation and the environment has no representation on GTAA's Board.
The GTAA should be made fully accountable for its actions and have more balanced representation on its Board of Directors.
Oil Depletion and high fuel costs
"Air travel is the first aspect of modern living that will succumb to oil depletion... The depletion of cheap fossil fuels that make air traffic possible is well within the timeframe of the airport business model... It makes no economic sense to invest in infrastructure that will lie empty when fuel is too expensive."
Rose Kudlac, Toronto
Outpost Co-ordinator - Post Carbon Institute"The International Air Transport Association said it expects the global airline industry to post an overall loss of between $3 billion and $4 billion in 2004, as high fuel costs outweigh strong increases in international traffic."
Airlines' High Fuel Costs Expected to Push the Industry to Hefty Loss,
Wall Street Journal September 27, 2004
Reliever Airport at Pickering may become "Reliever Fees" Airport
The "Reliever" Airport in Pickering may become the "Reliever Landing Fees" Airport in the future, especially if some foreign airlines divert traffic away from Pearson.
"Foreign Airlines have jumpted into the debate about the high cost of the domestic aviation system, with some threatening to divert international traffic away from Canadian airports - Toronto's Pearson International Airport in particular - if fees aren't lowered... the airlines say the landing fee increases of 29 per cent last year and 27.7 percent this year aren't justifiable."
Foreign airlines balk at rising airport fees - some threatening to
divert traffic from Canadian runways, Simon Tuck
The Globe and Mail - November 8, 2004
"This is a land grab by the GTAA plain and simple. If they are allowed to build an airport, all of the land will be leased to them in a long term arrangement. Such a huge tract of land is unbelievably valuable and this is why the GTAA wants to build an small airport today so that they get control of the land for the long term. The GTAA want this land and they want it at a discount price to boot. What economic benefit is that to Durham Region or the Feds? We say none. If the land is transferred to the GTAA for an airport that is not needed we in Durham may loss an opportunity to do something that really is good for Durham and the country. This land and opportunity should not be wasted on some piddly little Cessna airport. Since they have unveiled the latest in a long list of plans for an unneeded airports many parties have stepped up to the plate to say this is a stupid idea. The list includes IATA, CATA two travel industry giants as well as Air Canada they think the GTAA is an out of control empire building enterprise that should focus on cost control rather than expansion. The Ontario Government stepped up at the unveiling and said they thought this airport is in the wrong place and it conflicts with the Greenbelt Legislation. Former property owners, columnists, and many others have all come together to say this is a premature and unneeded development."
Stephen Frederick, President, V.O.C.A.L.
Voters Organized to Cancel the Airport Land Email
Pickering International Airport?
"It'll be what it will be..."
Steve Shaw, Vice- Pres. - GTAA
There is absolutely no guarantee the Reliever Airport proposed for Pickering will not turn into Pickering International Airport in the future.
"Asked if a Pickering Airport would become international, Mr. Shaw said that depends on demand. "It'll be what it will be," he said to members of chambers of commerce from Markham, Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouffville."
Airport would mirror size of Calgary's
Markham Economist and Sun, Mike Adler, November 25, 2004
Given the site area of the proposed Pickering Airport is 2-1/2 larger than Pearson International Airport, it is very conceivable given the direction of major population growth (areas east of Toronto), the Pickering Airport could not only become the airport of choice and an international airport, it could even surpass Pearson's airport traffic in the future!
The Pickering "regional" airport site is 250% larger than
Pearson International Airport site.
There are no guarantees it won't become
Pickering International Airport in the future.
Pickering Airport should not force other airports to close down
The proposed Pickering Airport shouldnot become the substitute airport for the Toronto Island Airport - substituting one greenspace area for the other.
Airport may change green space to obscene place
Toronto Star -
October 12, 2003
Nor should the proposed Pickering Airport force other smaller airports like Buttonville, Markham or Oshawa to close down.
"Al Rubin says his airport won't roll over and play dead if the federal government decides to go ahead with a new airport in Pickering to serve the east end of the GTA. The owner of Markham Airport, one of three destined to close if the new one is built ..."Frankly they have no authority to close us... How do they close an airport they don't own?... We are a private business operating within the federal Aeronautical Act and we can stay here as long as we want."
Small airports wary of new
one - Buttonville,
Markham, Oshawa could be forced to close
Toronto Star, Stan Josey, November 18, 2004. 01:00 AM
REAL COST OF THE PROPOSED PICKERING AIRPORT :
Cost to expropriate land in 1970's: $7,500 a hectare
Cost to build proposed airport: $2.1 Billion+ (excl. land cost, infrastructure and cost of carrying airport)
Cost attributed to loss of human health and (air, water, noise pollution), increased demands on health care system, increased traffic congestion on highways and roads, diminished environmental health of Rouge Park and quality of life overall - PRICELESS.
Pickering - the next Mirabel?
"If James Cherry were to write its epitaph, he'd probably say this about Mirabel Airport:
"It was a project that was doomed to fail."
Cherry, president of Aéroports de Montréal, the non-profit authority that now runs both of this city's major landing strips, says Mirabel was likely destined to die an early death before it even opened its gates in 1975."
Requiem for an Airport
Montreal's Mirabel Airport was meant to take flying to new heights of luxury
and efficiency - Toronto Star - September 18, 2004Mirabel airport taxiing for final takeoff
The Globe and Mail - October 12, 2004
FINAL WORD...
"There's no intention of building an airport
that's not wanted and
there's no intention of building an airport
that's not viable..."Steve Shaw, Vice- Pres. - GTAA
Markham Economist and Sun , November 7, 2004
From an environmenal perspective - the Airport is NOT wanted (pollution, health risks, Rouge Park, Pickering Nuclear etc.)
From an economic perspective - Like Mirabel, the Airport is NOT viable (high construction costs, incl. infrastructure, economic loss to other existing airports, the public cost - increased health care costs associated with increased pollution, etc.)
Letters to Editor:
Should not happen
Airport at Pickering will contribute to species extinction
and reduction of wildlife in Rouge Park
Toronto Star, November 23, 2004Establish wind farm
Isn't that better idea than paving over farmland
to build an airport and ruin adjacent historic villages?
Toronto Star, November, 18, 2004Pickering would be another Mirabel
Markham Economist and Sun, November 25, 2004
SHARE YOUR CONCERNS...
YOUR LOCAL M.P. AND POLITICIANS
(In your own words, say you are opposed to the proposed Pickering Airport
and reasons why. Request a response to your letter)
The Right Honourable Steven Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0A2
Fax Number (613) 941-6900 Email: pm@pm.gc.caDalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building, Queen's Park Toronto ON M7A 1A1
Fax: (416) 325-3745 Dalton.McGuinty@premier.gov.on.ca
(note - the Province was instrumental in cancelling the airport the first time)Dan McTeague, MP - Pickering-Scarborough East
6758 Kingston Road, Suite 3, Toronto, Ontario M1B 1G8
Fax: (416)287-6160 E-Mail: mctead@parl.gc.ca
Voters Organized to Cancel the Airport LandsStephen Frederick, President
Tel.: 1- 800-267-1522
Email: vocal@sympatico.ca
Thank you visiting
This page has been published with permission of the Writer: Marian Martin
