Airport Tunnel Rejected Again? **UPDATE** It's built!

[ken0042]

I know this has been touched upon in other threads, but I think this deserves it's own thread.

City council has rejected an 11th-hour proposal to build part of an airport tunnel within the next few years, since that project would have sucked up funds that were devoted to other city road expansion.

Yesterday I emailed the mayor, and CC'd my Alderman. Last night I got a call from Ric McIver thanking me for writing the mayor. I encourage each of you to do the same.

Mayor's email can be found here: http://www.calgarymayor.ca/tools/contact.cfm
Your Alderman's email can be found by clicking on their name here.

I persoanlly can't see how anybody thinks it's a better idea to spend 3-4 times as much to build this tunnel after the runway gets built. I love the fact that we have our airport within city limits (unlike Leduc International to the north of us)- I just cannot see why city council would want to cut off access to the airport.

[algernon]

Maybe they're attempting to extort the Hotels that are building up on Barlow?
"you want access? Fine, 14% airport zone tunnel tax, bitches!"

I think this a prime example of the City ignoring established communities in favour of Bronco's suburban developer buddies.

[Bigtime]

I saw McIver on CFCN last night with his quote for a 250m tunnel, instead of the longer 600m version. My question is how can 250m be enough?

The new runway will be at least 60m wide, plus spacing on at least one side (probably two) before a standard size taxiway, leaving space on either side of all of this for safety reasons can this tunnel really only be done at 250m? Or is this just another grandstanding show by McIver to make people think we could get it for cheaper?

[ken0042]

I don't think that the end product will be a 250m tunnel. What is being discussed is build "a" tunnel now so the runway can be built overtop. Once the runway is done the 250m tunnel could be extended if needed without impacting the runway overtop.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I persoanlly can't see how anybody thinks it's a better idea to spend 3-4 times as much to build this tunnel after the runway gets built.

I don't want to spend twice as much (the alarmist number normally being thrown around) any more than the next guy, but pulling money from other CURRENT critical problems is not the answer.

The Bowfort Road interchange has been needed for over a decade, and is a hard won civic project. The area has waited a long, long, long time for this.

And nobody gets to question the need for Glenmore upgrades until the drive the length of it every day for a month. Glenmore should have been beefed up 15+ years ago (tied up in the T'suu Tina ring road fiasco, I know) but has finally hit a point of critical mass.....something needs to be done.

If the city can find a responsible way to pay for the construction, I'll be 100% on board. Stealing from Paul to pay Peter is not appropriate.

[Bigtime]

Yeah that is what I'm looking for clarification on, is that 250m quote just for a rough in that would still need substantial work after to make it actually usable? I just can't trust McIver, especially with the election coming up. They way he made it sound in that report was:

City Plan: ~$500 million
My Plan: $40 million

[fredr123]

For a bit of background on the Calgary Airport Authority's version of events, the public letter to Mayor Bronconnier from May 2009 is quite telling: http://www.calgaryairport.com/data//.../51_Letter.pdf

Other information is also available here: http://www.calgaryairport.com/Defaul...d=634&pre=view

Point being, there is no way we're not going to look back on this in 10 years when taxpayers are told to empty their pockets to pay for a $1 billion dollar tunnel that could have cost substantially less if the City had been on top of this from the start. There was no need for this to go to an emergency marathon debate in Council. The Airport Trail closure has been known for years and the deadline for putting the tunnel plan in place (which has already passed) was known years in advance too. To scramble at the last minute and shuffle funds from one project to another only highlights the poor planning and lack of foresight the City has shown in recent years.

[Bigtime]

Exactly, the parallel runway has been in the airports master plan since 1992, and even before that the city and airport knew that land would be used for a parallel. I'm talking like 30 years ago (as the letter fredr123 has linked to)!

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by algernon

Maybe they're attempting to extort the Hotels that are building up on Barlow?
"you want access? Fine, 14% airport zone tunnel tax, bitches!"

I think this a prime example of the City ignoring established communities in favour of Bronco's suburban developer buddies.

In this specific case, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Every community along Glenmore Trail is being favored (as are vast amounts of commercial traffic in the SE) by not stealing money from other projects. Work that has been eyed for longer than many NE communities have existed.

Bowness and Greenbriar are both the primary beneficiaries of the Bowfort Road interchange.....hard to call them anything put 'established neighborhoods'.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

If the city can find a responsible way to pay for the construction, I'll be 100% on board. Stealing from Paul to pay Peter is not appropriate.

Just to clarify one point for me- I don't live in the NE; nor do I use the airport more than 3-4 times per year. For me it isn't that there aren't other projects that have been needed longer; because I understand that point. It's about looking further down the road; so that 5-10 years from now there is money available for a different project because we saved money today.

Imagine you want to put in an in-ground sprinkler system at your house; but the issue is the driveway is in your way. You put the sprinkler plan on the 2-5 year plan down the road and start work on your basement instead. Tomorrow you get a notice from the city that they need to do work and will be ripping up and replacing your driveway. Would you not fast-track your sprinklers?

So many projects in this city were done as cheap as they could. Look at the NE LRT- back in the 80's it was going to cost something like $50M to elevate the line. Now that an elevated line is needed it is going to cost 10 times that amount. Factor in inflation and you are looking at 2-3 times the original cost.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Exactly, the parallel runway has been in the airports master plan since 1992, and even before that the city and airport knew that land would be used for a parallel. I'm talking like 30 years ago (as the letter fredr123 has linked to)!

It's interesting info for sure, but I don't think we should be particularly surprised at the massive difference between planning and execution.

If 'The City' was really committed to serving the needs of the population, we'd see higher density neighborhoods filled with mass transit. There has been some lip-service quality planning around this idea, but like everything else, no action will be actively pursued until ignoring it (for the cause de jour) is no longer possible.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Bowness and Greenbriar are both the primary beneficiaries of the Bowfort Road interchange.....hard to call them anything put 'established neighborhoods'.

Not to mention that the Barlow tunnel would benefit primarily the new industrial area being built north of the Airport.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not to mention that the Barlow tunnel would benefit primarily the new industrial area being built north of the Airport.

Of all the areas potentially affected by the Barlow closure I think the business' up there will be pretty lucky. They still have quick access to Airport trail to Deerfoot, or up to Country Hills via Barlow (which is quite beefy in that section) and the Ring road from there.

Now those guys building a hotel right now at the corner of McKnight and Barlow could be royally screwed, as is the existing hotel there (Sandman I think).

[Byrns]

And yet we had no problem finding $50 million for a pair of bridges...

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Just to clarify one point for me- I don't live in the NE; nor do I use the airport more than 3-4 times per year. For me it isn't that there aren't other projects that have been needed longer; because I understand that point. It's about looking further down the road; so that 5-10 years from now there is money available for a different project because we saved money today.

Imagine you want to put in an in-ground sprinkler system at your house; but the issue is the driveway is in your way. You put the sprinkler plan on the 2-5 year plan down the road and start work on your basement instead. Tomorrow you get a notice from the city that they need to do work and will be ripping up and replacing your driveway. Would you not fast-track your sprinklers?

I know where you're coming from, and like I said, I 100% support the early building of the tunnel (or parts of).

My only issue is WHAT they intended to cut in order to accomplish the build. The jobs being specifically targeted are more important today than the tunnel may be in 10 years. If they can find money by cancelling "fireworks and street festivals", I'm all for it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

My only issue is WHAT they intended to cut in order to accomplish the build.

Then I will be an "IMBY" here- cut the 52nd street SE widening project and put it back in 2012. They have slated to build at least one bridge; if not two and tear down the existing "bottom out trap" one.

I'd rather put up with trains and the usual drunk drivers there on my weekly drive to hockey than find ourselves in another infrastructure deficet.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Then I will be an "IMBY" here- cut the 52nd street SE widening project and put it back in 2012. They have slated to build at least one bridge; if not two and tear down the existing "bottom out trap" one.

I'd rather put up with trains and the usual drunk drivers there on my weekly drive to hockey than find ourselves in another infrastructure deficet.

LOL......The 52nd St SE widening is a project I would give up as well. The amount of commercial traffic, the constant tie up with trains and the shear volume of commuters is a massive headache for sure, but its not like the area is going to collapse in the next 2 to 3 years without the work being finished.

One last "Planning vs Execution" comment.......several years ago, the railway offered to pay a huge chunk of money (upwards of half iirc) to put a bridge over that 'bottom out trap'. City declined the offer and is now paying the full pop. Just thought that was interesting, given the topic!

[valo403]

[QUOTE=WilsonFourTwo;2603300]I know where you're coming from, and like I said, I 100% support the early building of the tunnel (or parts of).

My only issue is WHAT they intended to cut in order to accomplish the build. The jobs being specifically targeted are more important today than the tunnel may be in 10 years. If they can find money by cancelling "fireworks and street festivals", I'm all for it.[/QUOTE]

Are the jobs that may lose funding more important than having the entire infrastructure budget in 10 years tied up with a tunnel that could have been built for a fraction of the cost. The driveway analogy is a perfect one, you triage development based not only on need but also on ability to do so inb a cost effective manner. Building the tunnel now versus 10 years from now saves a mass amount of money. Undertaking those other projects in a couple years doesn't have a significant cost impact. Inconvenience? Sure, but that's just one small factor in the big picture.

And access that benefits industrial development is just as, if not more, important than access that benefits residents or commuters. Economies aren't built solely around residential development, something that draws in increased industrial development or utilization of existing development pays for itself in the long run.

[mykalberta]

In my 6 years living in Calgary I have seen Bronco hold the province hostage for funds and for the most part win.

I think this is one time he thought he would be able to hold them hostage again but with the economic downturn public opinion turned against him and for the province and neither the province nor the feds would budge.

Its hard to fault the airport authority, 5 years + should be plenty of time for the city to get its ducks in a row.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Byrns

And yet we had no problem finding $50 million for a pair of bridges...

Hey man we need culture.