I’ve been asked several times to explain the “research” I’ve done regarding the airport project. The following are speaking notes from a document I prepared for a council meeting in October 2008. I was interested in asking questions, clarifying information and generating discussion, however, I received few answers, nothing was clarified for me and no discussion was generated. As a result, my questions remained largely unanswered and my vote remained no.
I have consistently maintained that this township doesn’t have the financial or human resources to undertake a project of this magnitude. Maybe it will one day, but that day isn’t now.
Remember, these notes are from 2008 and some things may have changed since then, such as access to high-speed around the airport.
1. A 2006 economic impact study done for the Stanhope airport was produced by Inside Canadian Airports . It’s one of the documents used to promote the potential economic development associated with the new runway and states that the Stanhope Airport has the potential to generate $40 million. I was told by several development people that this EIS is “boilerplate” and that it’s based on a variety of static premises that don’t speak to individual variables.
COMMENT: Is this true? Can someone clarify this or tell me more about the marketing firm that did the study? If this is an accurate description of this EIS, we should undertake an economic impact study that suits our needs and regional identity, and addresses the unique aspects of our demographics.
2. The 2006 economic impact assessment used a model created by the Transport Institute of the University of Manitoba. In digging down into their website I found the following disclaimer about the studies they provide:
“Economic impact assessments (EIA) investigate benefits to society from a specific activity, but address neither economic efficiency, nor the feasibility of a capital investment project. Investment decision-making on a risk-return basis requires a comprehensive benefit-cost study.”
COMMENT: We have not discussed economic efficiency or the feasibility of the capital investment, nor have we done a comprehensive benefit-cost study to determine our risk-return ratio.
3. Another study done by the Transport Institute contains this:
“Total economic impact includes direct, indirect and induced effects. The direct effects are a consequence of construction. Firms predominantly contributing to the direct impact are visibly involved with the project. Indirect effects follow from increased (or decreased) demand on suppliers of directly impacted firms. Induced effects refer to a change in consumer spending resulting from the project. Economic multipliers are used to estimate the induced impact.”
COMMENT: The argument for the funding is that the project will create local employment. However, the above means that the direct economic impact of this project is probably a local logger hired to cut the trees but the overall contract is likely to be awarded to a larger company from out of town that employs no local people, and specialty suppliers such as GPS aren’t going to be local either.
The indirect impact is to the contractor’s suppliers such as an asphalt supplier but there are no asphalt suppliers in Haliburton County so the “stimulus” money will leave the community.
So the best the township can hope for is induced effects but only if we can see a change in consumer spending – and yet we have no marketing (or other) plan to try to change that consumer spending or to capture that data so we can even try to influence a change in consumer spending.
As an aside, it can (and has) been argued that if the funding is both provincial and federal then the “local community” is the province and, indeed, the entire country.
4. The Inside Canadian Airports website offers a book called Airports Benchmark Data: A Summary of Canadian Airport Operations. No one’s ever said if our airport participates in this annual survey, if the results are worth knowing, if we receive the book or how we compare to other municipal airports. In fact, other than monthly landing and fuel stats council receives very little ongoing information about activities at the airport. Why don’t we know about, and do, more at our airport?
5. A September 2008 COPA flight article about the benefits of airports says it is “encouraging municipalities to undertake EIS to assess the true value of their airports” and “Transport Canada does agree that data must be gathered in order to build an economic footprint of (general aviation) and personal aviation“.
COMMENT: It’s been suggested that the current EIS is questionable. We collect very little data with which to produce a proper economic footprint. The most commonly reiterated evaluation of the Stanhope Airport comes from a 1999 study commissioned by the county called The Randolph Report wherein the airport is noted as a valuable commodity – which it is.
6. However, the Randolph Report also states that:
“fundamental industrial/economic development marketing (in the County) is lacking”;
that “The Stanhope industrial area adjacent the airport has the potential to develop into a key opportunity for outsider investors looking at the County” ; but that
“These opportunities for growth require a marketing package.”
The report mentions in several places that the key to industrial growth, including Stanhope Airport, must include zoning amendments and reiterates that “Airport uses can, over time, be increased with increased promotion and planning.”
COMMENT: We don’t have, nor have we suitably discussed or planned to discuss, any sort of increased marketing plan for the current airport or any sort of integrated growth marketing for the expansion and related potential costs for the future. It also states that the County should, “Support the efforts of Stanhope to market the airport for the growth of aviation related uses” and this isn’t happening either.
Further to this, the airport lands may well be suitable for growth but there’s no 3-phase power, no water, no sewer, and no high speed internet. Please explain how this is desirable land.
7. Canada has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing and light industrial jobs in the last 4 years. It’s unreasonable to think that a longer runway at a small airport in a sparsely populated area will do anything to attract enough employers offering good jobs to justify the cost and effort of this project.
8. The current economy means less disposable income and less business investment. Why and how is this project going to beat the economic odds?
9. On May 7th 2007 the Vision Plan was accepted by council at a special meeting. At that meeting aeronautical consultant/expert Charles Cormier said at that both a Marketing Plan and a Business Plan were good ideas – yet we don’t have either of these and have had very few discussions about them.
10. At the same meeting the same expert said a project like this hasn’t been attempted in Ontario since 1995 and when I asked him why, he couldn’t answer me and when he looked to his colleagues for help, they just shrugged.
11. The Sypher report of 2006 encourages an ongoing capital plan – yet council hasn’t discussed this and the project doesn’t have one.
12. I was told repeatedly by township administration that the new runway will not create ongoing costs for this township other than perhaps snow plowing. This is completely unrealistic and even if that weren’t unrealistic, it would still an incremental cost we would have to account for. There have been no discussions about the ongoing maintenance or upgrading of lighting, GPS, fencing, wildlife management, signage, website, marketing & advertising or BR&E.
13. The Building Canada Fund application says under the Local and Regional Airports section: “Improvement projects must be financially supported by provincial/local/regional governments, and generate regional economic benefits and be sustainable on a long- term basis, as demonstrated by a sound business plan.”
COMMENT: We don’t have a business plan that predicts regional economic benefits or demonstrates long-term sustainability.
14. In an email reply to my questions the manager of Iroquois Falls Municipal Airport wrote:
“Our business plan was developed in August of 2006. We are currently in the process of finalizing a land use development plan that we are putting together internally. We expect to be in a position to start marketing the plan by mid-October. I would be glad to send you a copy once finalized. In the meantime here is the business plan and the terms of reference that we used to obtain proposals”
COMMENT: We don’t have a business plan, a land use development plan or a marketing plan associated with this project. I don’t believe people will come here because of a runway. They might come because of a solid business and tourism development plan that includes other municipalities and the county’s economic development office but we don’t have those relationships in place.
15. In 2006 the Oshawa Airport did an Economic Development Impact Study; Muskoka Airport did a Strategic Business Plan; and both the Iroquois Falls and Tillsonburg Airports did Business Plans. In 2007 Kingston did an economic study and in 2008 the Region of Waterloo did an Airport Master Plan.
COMMENT: Why aren’t we doing any studies or plans when other municipal airports are doing them as standard business practice?
16. The argument can easily be made that the new runway will assist in fixed-wing, non-urgent patient transport and help take the pressure off our land ambulance system. If this county has a serious issue with healthcare and its related services then both the county and the province should be part of the planning and should be contributing financially – but they are not.
17. The argument is being made that air ambulance needs the bigger runway for improved med-evac purposes.
In October of 2008 I spoke at length to the Manager of Aviation Safety at ORNGE, the provincial air ambulance service provider (I don’t feel it’s appropriate to print his name). At that time, he said that I was the only person – citizen or politician – who had contacted ORNGE on the issue of the Stanhope Airport. His exact words were, “No one has approached ORNGE on this…“.
This man is a pilot and has been involved with air ambulance service in Ontario since its inception. He has friends on Beech Lake, so he is familiar with the Stanhope Airport and its current layout. Here’s what he told me:
The provincial rule for determining whether a helicopter or a plane is used is 240 km. That is, if the patient is less than 240km away, a land transfer is used. Beyond 240 km a chopper is used. Yes, there are exceptions, such as when Advanced Care is needed, and a plane provides more space for paramedics to work in.
The planes used for air ambulance have traditionally been Caravans, which aren’t being used anymore. Instead, ORNGE is/will be using Pilatus turbo prop planes for which 2000′ is a comfortable landing length (Stanhope is currently 2500′).
An October 2008 press release on the ORNGE website says that the new planes “will provide medical services for patients requiring advanced and critical care during transport”. Non-urgent transfers are not mentioned.
While the gentleman did concede that these planes could only land at Stanhope on a clear, dry day and that an instrument approach would be helpful, he said that crosswinds are not an issue for them, therefore the crosswind argument related to emergency services isn’t valid.
He also said:
- the new runway didn’t make sense for “med-evac” because both hospitals have new helipads and we are well served by both;
- that ambulances wouldn’t take people to a hospital for triage, then drive past the helipad to take them back to an airport for a fixed-wing evacuation;
- there’s a summer chopper base at Muskoka Airport from May 24 – Labour Day;
- to justify the new runway using “need” or “accessibility” is a chicken-and-egg argument that can’t be won because both sides are right;
- that he could see the point of the bigger runway only if we had a larger, regional hospital (like Huntsville) from which it could be assumed there would be sufficient, regular transfers to warrant bigger air service;
- further to the above, ORNGE uses helicopters here and has no plans to increase fixed wing service here;
- between May 2007 and October 2008 the air ambulance had been called to Stanhope Airport only 17X, twice with a Caravan fixed wing for non-urgent transfers and 15X for the chopper, all of which were non-urgent (because the urgent ones used the helipads at the hospitals);
- there are no stats for how many times a patient was denied air transport due to the runway’s current length or weather conditions;
- there are no stats to indicate than anyone has died or suffered life-altering complications because of the limitations of Stanhope Airport.
He agreed that if the idea of the new runway is to take the pressure off the County’s ambulance system for non-urgent land transfers (which is a valid need), then the County should be contributing money or lobbying the Ministry of Health for funding.
His final comments were, “If you’re going to extend the runway, you don’t need to do it for us…“.
And this is the highlights of the research I did two years ago and part of the reason why I have voted no on this project. We need an overall plan for our community’s future and to see where (and if) this project, along with many others, fits into that plan.
I couldn’t have said it better myself!
It’s this kind of attention to the important questions that we need…
Thank you.
Thank you for your diligence and demand for the truth!