Could somebody please explain what I think is that missing element in all the above arguments to me? Everybody’s condemning A bridge; but nobody’s addressing THE bridge, if you see what I mean.

Everybody’s got a point to make about airlines, etc., and nobody has addressed the bridge as an issue per se.

What exactly is the problem with having a bridge from the mainland to the city’s internal airport?

Obviously, there isn’t any room for parking over there on the island, or room for arrival and drop-off traffic, so such a bridge would not be used or available for public traffic. But surely an airline passenger tansporter running across a bridge is a more convenient, faster (and, during the winter, warmer) way for passengers to get there before their flights than waiting for a ferry to arrive. (Even walking across might be faster!) It would also be a way to transport multiple emergency patients and additional fire fighting equipment from and to the airport in case of, G-d forbid, a dire emergency, rather than depending upon myriads of emergency helicopters (even if we had that many) to rush them to local hospitals.

I know there just have to be plenty of negatives about the establishment of a bridge, because I’ve already seen negatives about having the airport altogether, and tons of negatives about having airplanes arriving and departing from it. And I understand that, by comparison, the negatives about having a bridge at least potentially must outweigh the potential positives, or so many people would not have opposed it.

But OK, we’ve got the airport now. It doesn’t seem to be going away. Despite the fact that the bridge was part of its original concept, and in spite of the best efforts of those who opposed it, we’ve got the air traffic; and we’ve even got yet another ferry to get the folks who are flying on and off the island. So, please explain to me what the bridge represents in terms of negative impact on the citizens and goings-on in the city of Toronto. Is the bridge still an evil idea?

I’d like to know. I can imagine its logical potential advantages without anybody telling me, but not its disadvantages; so I’m asking for an explanation. Why has the Federal Government banned the establishment of one? Is there a precious ecological area where the base of the proposed bridge structure might be, for example? Is it a security risk? What?

It’s difficult to write this without sounding like I’m in favour of such a bridge; but I am only in favour of it so far as I am not aware of the negatives. I have an open mind on this.