Airport Tunnel Rejected Again? **UPDATE** It's built! - Page 22 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

mykalberta · 05-10-2011, 03:37 PM

They own the land the "tunnel" is to be built on/below.

If it seems like they are being huge dickenzians on the whole issue, its because they are.

Council and its previous lack of leadership is also to blame.

FlameOn · 05-10-2011, 03:40 PM

Isn't airport authority supposed to report to council?
I remember Nenshi saying something about replacing the whole rotten lot if necessary

mykalberta · 05-10-2011, 03:46 PM

Other than the airport being within city limits I dont think the City itself has any say on how they conduct business.

From what I understand all International airports act as independent operators paying rent to the Feds who own the land. Their only mandate is to serve as an airport for residents of all of Southern Alberta, the airport believes that Deerfoot and Barlow via Country Hills are good enough for access points to and from the Airport.

The City with its long term plans for NE expansion disagrees. The Airport doesnt care about the City's expansion plans.

ken0042 · 05-10-2011, 03:50 PM

Just to expand upon what Frequitude was asking; isn't the tunnel in the airport's best interests? In so much that if the airport wants interchanges (I'm guessing to improve access)- isn't it better to have some better access?

Seems like me arguing with my wife about buying a car. I say we can afford to buy a Cavalier, she says she wants a BMW or nothing. Is having no car better than having a lesser car?

mykalberta · 05-10-2011, 03:54 PM

Logically thinking that is probably correct. I am sure another thing that plays into this that the easier access to the NE to the airport, the less the airport can charge for buisnesses to rent its land instead of land from the city for warehouses etc.

Table 5 · 05-10-2011, 04:03 PM

Who knew those old grandmas in cowboy hats were such jerks.

MRCboicgy · 05-10-2011, 06:15 PM

Nenshi should threaten a noise bylaw or something. No flights between 10pm and 7:30 am (which would be idiotic in practice).

BlackArcher101 · 05-10-2011, 06:47 PM

Quote:

A few minor issues remain, but the pivotal disagreement is the airport’s longstanding request that Calgary commit to build three interchanges on Airport Trail — at 19th Street N.E., Barlow Trail and 36th Street N.E. — once traffic volumes surpass an agreed level.

They aren't demanding they be built immediately, but when traffic levels make them a requirement. Wouldn't the city do this anyways if intersections were overloaded with traffic?

Feels like the Airport Authority just wants to have something in writing that the city won't back down from keeping it flowing properly in the future; a build it and forget it attitude. Otherwise it starts to look bad on the airports image if that happens (and eventually the authority).

On the other hand, interchanges at 19th and 36th will greatly benefit the airports planned business park areas or commercial aviation companies.

All said and done though, at what traffic level are they demanding these changes to occur?

SebC · 05-10-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Feels like the Airport Authority just wants to have something in writing that the city won't back down from keeping it flowing properly in the future; a build it and forget it attitude. Otherwise it starts to look bad on the airports image if that happens (and eventually the authority).

As opposed to not having the tunnel? I'm sure that would look great on them.

BlackArcher101 · 05-10-2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

As opposed to not having the tunnel? I'm sure that would look great on them.

I'm assuming you mean the Airport Authority when you say 'them'. Don't forget there are still two parties in these negotiations. It won't look good on anyone if there is no tunnel.

If this fails, I have a feeling the media will try to turn this into a SW ring road type fiasco... Fed/Muni government is nice and not doing anything wrong, and evil people won't let them have the land to do what they want.

SebC · 05-10-2011, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I'm assuming you mean the Airport Authority when you say 'them'. Don't forget there are still two parties in these negotiations. It won't look good on anyone if there is no tunnel.

If this fails, I have a feeling the media will try to turn this into a SW ring road type fiasco... Fed/Muni government is nice and not doing anything wrong, and evil people won't let them have the land to do what they want.

Nice analogy... in both situations, the government parties are trying to get something done with another party that would be mutually beneficial. In both situations, the other party is turning down a deal that would benefit them, because they'd rather try to extort the government party more.

Addick · 05-10-2011, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

Nice analogy... in both situations, the government parties are trying to get something done with another party that would be mutually beneficial. In both situations, the other party is turning down a deal that would benefit them, because they'd rather try to extort the government party more.

To be fair to the AA, the last time they just went along with the programme and did not get concrete agreements put them into the position they are in today. Fair play to them for using the City's stupidity to try and prevent it from harming them once more in the future.

Joborule · 05-10-2011, 10:13 PM

^ That's why I don't have too much sympathy for city hall here. Just get this done one way or another now and lets resolve one of the idiotic mistakes previous councils have taken. This should've been done a long time ago and can't blame the AA not effing around and ensure things get built when they should be. It's a mindset city hall needs hammered in for all projects now and down the road.

taco.vidal · 05-10-2011, 10:17 PM

Hope it gets rejected. We dont need it.

billybob123 · 05-10-2011, 10:35 PM

I've had to drive twice to the airport for 6 pm flights in the last month, where once I stopped at the White Spot on Barlow, the other time coming from NW near Foothills Hospital. Both times getting to the airport was a real disaster. Once because a stalled truck at 32 on Deerfoot caused gridlock everywhere, and the other time (coming from White Spot) took me 28 minutes when it used to take less than 10. Going home to avoid the gridlock, I went up Barlow to CHB, then across to 36th. I don't really see how building the tunnel will really improve this access. If CHB was widened (and it looks like they're doing that) and 36 wasn't the disaster it is, how much time would this tunnel save?

I'm not quite sure how this tunnel would improve access to the airport. If it's for NE residents, then that makes sense, but the city should sell it like that. This tunnel is going to hardly help access to the airport. I've said all along, they should widen McCall and make a tunnel underneath the new tarmac to the airport. Would immensely improve access since it would be like "the old days" where Barlow helped people heading to Castleridge and the NE neighbourhoods plus the airport. Maybe I'm missing something significant here.

frinkprof · 05-10-2011, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybob123

I've had to drive twice to the airport for 6 pm flights in the last month, where once I stopped at the White Spot on Barlow, the other time coming from NW near Foothills Hospital. Both times getting to the airport was a real disaster. Once because a stalled truck at 32 on Deerfoot caused gridlock everywhere, and the other time (coming from White Spot) took me 28 minutes when it used to take less than 10. Going home to avoid the gridlock, I went up Barlow to CHB, then across to 36th. I don't really see how building the tunnel will really improve this access. If CHB was widened (and it looks like they're doing that) and 36 wasn't the disaster it is, how much time would this tunnel save?

I'm not quite sure how this tunnel would improve access to the airport. If it's for NE residents, then that makes sense, but the city should sell it like that. This tunnel is going to hardly help access to the airport. I've said all along, they should widen McCall and make a tunnel underneath the new tarmac to the airport. Would immensely improve access since it would be like "the old days" where Barlow helped people heading to Castleridge and the NE neighbourhoods plus the airport. Maybe I'm missing something significant here.

You've got to think 4th dimensionally.

Really though, I think all your points have been brought up and subsequently addressed in this thread, so read the thread.

Joborule · 05-10-2011, 10:51 PM

Airport Trail isn't just a road made for airport commute alone. It's an important E-W expressway for the now expanding NE region of the city. Country Hills isn't intended to be that type road and doesn't have the right of way spacing to support it. If that were to change, it would likely cost more money to upgrade Country Hills then it would be to fully build Airport Trail. At least that what I believe was to be the case when we last discussed this on the forums.

Besides that though, obviously it would be a great benefit to NE commuters, but it will really help for southern commuters once SE Stoney opens up. Because airport trail will be built all the way to Stoney. (Interchange is already built) Rather than putting pressure on Deerfoot all alone, Deerfoot and Stoney Trail as N-S routes options will help commuters and relieve congestion on Deerfoot as well.

4X4 · 05-10-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joborule

^ That's why I don't have too much sympathy for city hall here. Just get this done one way or another now and lets resolve one of the idiotic mistakes previous councils have taken. This should've been done a long time ago and can't blame the AA not effing around and ensure things get built when they should be. It's a mindset city hall needs hammered in for all projects now and down the road.

I still don't think it's as cut and dried as some say. Going around the airport will tack on 2 miles the commutes to people in the E/NE. I agree it sucks for them, and I don't mean to throw them under the bus because "it's just the NE", but I also don't care for the way the AA is playing hardball with something that probably benefits them as much as it benefits the CoC as a corporation.

Simply put, the airport tunnel does two things:

1. It makes commerce, via YYC, easier for private companies, and likely increases traffic to and through the YYC and the CoC

2. It makes getting to the airport easier for 30% of Calgary

I don't understand why it *seems* so important for the CoC, and so *whatever* for the YYC, when they will BOTH benefit (substantially, according to some) by the existence of the tunnel. I'm not up to speed on my federal expropriation rules, so I have no idea if the YYC can just decide to expand at will, but assuming they don't have that luxury, why should the CoC feel like they're backed into a corner?

It's not that hard to expand Country Hills, and doing so ensures complete control (no future negotiations) over CoC roads. And please don't tell me I'm picking on the NE. TBQH, I'm pretty much at a similar conclusion for the SW RR. The TsuuTina want to pass on this deal? OK. It's just as well for the CoC and the province if the SW RR goes through Lakeview (sorry Lakeview) and then an outer road uses the 22/22x.

I know the CoC has wasted decades. I know that. But saddling us with a debt like that for something that can be (lol) thought out in a more timely fashion seems just as stupid as wasting decades NOT thinking at all.

I personally don't care one way or the other. I'm as much a business fan as I am a construction fan.

frinkprof · 05-10-2011, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4X4

It's not that hard to expand Country Hills

Actually, it kind of is. In a no-tunnel scenario, Country Hills would need to be expanded beyond what is currently planned and beyond what its currently-reserved right-of-way can fit, because it would have to handle extra traffic that wouldn't be taking the tunnel. The right of way would thus need to be expanded which means land acquisition costs either through buyouts or expropriation.

You Need a Thneed · 05-10-2011, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybob123

I'm not quite sure how this tunnel would improve access to the airport. If it's for NE residents, then that makes sense, but the city should sell it like that. This tunnel is going to hardly help access to the airport. I've said all along, they should widen McCall and make a tunnel underneath the new tarmac to the airport. Would immensely improve access since it would be like "the old days" where Barlow helped people heading to Castleridge and the NE neighbourhoods plus the airport. Maybe I'm missing something significant here.

McCall Way cannot be made into an airport terminal access because there isn't any room for a public road between the runway and the terminal expansion that is also going ahead.

And again, there will also be a public tunnel on McCall way, to go under a new taxiway. This is being paid for by the airport.