what is the estimated cost difference between the proposed airport tunnel and the cost of upgrading the surrounding infrastructure if the tunnel does not get built?
The official report going to council lists the total cost of not building the tunnel as $325-$425 million dollars (the variation comes from two interchanges being only likely needed).
Compare that to the $295 million to build the tunnel now. However, $24 million of that is for roads that would be required in the future anyway, so the real number to compare it to would be $271 million.
Both numbers are in 2011 dollars, so prices may escalate for the don't-build-the-tunnel-now number.
Also, the remaining $271 million includes a contingency of 30% or so (most often contingencys are just 10%)
For short term pain in the delays of a few other projects, we will have long term gain, as well as other benefits to the community as a whole. Other projects may be delayed for a bit, but 20 years from now, we will have more other projects built because we built the tunnel now.
That was never my argument and is a false dilemma. "All other" projects will not be put on hold.
However, to respond to the spirit of your argument, the two are not directly comparable.
Delaying the airport tunnel has direct, permanent and significant cost increases due to the impending construction of the parallel runway which will be in operation thereafter.
Delaying the subway construction did have associated cost and complexity increases, but nothing nearly to the scale of the airport tunnel, and they could (and have been) mitigated somewhat by ongoing preparations such as utility relocation and setbacks for new construction along 8th Avenue.
Also, the need for the subway had to be proven since the success of LRT was an unknown. Building the subway in the late 70s ran the risk of overbuilding for what could be needed. The need for the airport tunnel is easier to foresee due to the growth plans in the surrounding area being known and due to automobile traffic patterns being easier to predict.
Firstly I just want to note that the "all the other projects" is something that I've already asked and questioned. That is from Gord Lowe, and really no one has refuted it other than to say "its not all the other projects". I get that there is still some money somewhere to put a new sidewalk in here and there, but lets not kid ourselves; the city has many needed infrastructure projects that have amassed over the past decade or so. I say that while not even considering the airport tunnel, and most calgarians would probably agree with that?
As far as the tunnel vs. subway part of me wants to just leave it alone in this thread. I see your point though that the increased costs as a result of a functioning runway don't add to the issues with an LRT tunnel. I still think its basically the exact same argument though. The only major difference is that with the airport you have a deadline imposed upon you to take action before costs skyrocket, but the end results and core issue remain the same.
just build the tunnel now. if you look at relative costs, it's a slam dunk.
if it costs 300* million to build the tunnel or 150* million to upgrade country hills and surrounding roads to handle the additional traffic, the net cost of the tunnel is only 150 million + the value added of future lrt connection . i just can't believe how some people just don't see why we need this tunnel.
The official report going to council lists the total cost of not building the tunnel as $325-$425 million dollars (the variation comes from two interchanges being only likely needed).
Compare that to the $295 million to build the tunnel now. However, $24 million of that is for roads that would be required in the future anyway, so the real number to compare it to would be $271 million.
Both numbers are in 2011 dollars, so prices may escalate for the don't-build-the-tunnel-now number.
Also, the remaining $271 million includes a contingency of 30% or so (most often contingencys are just 10%)
For short term pain in the delays of a few other projects, we will have long term gain, as well as other benefits to the community as a whole. Other projects may be delayed for a bit, but 20 years from now, we will have more other projects built because we built the tunnel now.
thanks ynat.
so relatively speaking, there is no additional cost of building the tunnel over upgrading country hills, which would be required if there is no tunnel. so we build the tunnel, it becomes a 3rd way to get top the airport and we get a row for a future lrt at no extra cost over a beefed up chb. if this is accurate, why the hell are people against it?
so relatively speaking, there is no additional cost of building the tunnel over upgrading country hills, which would be required if there is no tunnel. so we build the tunnel, it becomes a 3rd way to get top the airport and we get a row for a future lrt at no extra cost over a beefed up chb. if this is accurate, why the hell are people against it?
Not only is there no cost, but it saves a significant amount of money, enough to build a couple of interchanges elsewhere. And, like the city says in its report, it works better with the future NE road network, it allows CHB to remain the "urban boulevard" that it is planned to be, plus it maintains the future LRT connection. Plus it can act as a backup to Deerfoot, plus it creates a decent east/west connector that doesn't exist North of Glenmore Trail and south of Stoney Trail.
People are against it because $500 million dollars sounds like a lot of money, and for many of them, they won't use it. I still think more people will use it than they know (It will be the quickest way to the airport from anywhere just North of the 22x, or anywhere south of the 22x, anywhere south of Calgary, and anywhere east of Calgary).
so relatively speaking, there is no additional cost of building the tunnel over upgrading country hills, which would be required if there is no tunnel. so we build the tunnel, it becomes a 3rd way to get top the airport and we get a row for a future lrt at no extra cost over a beefed up chb. if this is accurate, why the hell are people against it?
Because everyone is afraid it will take funding away from other project which are personally more important to them.
Because there were no hard estimates on the actual costs of all the options.
Because it looked like a "nice to have" as opposed to a critical piece of redundancy.
Because certain municiple politicians campaigned against it to increase political capital.
Because anything that costs money and can be cut to reduce taxes should be cut when there are already property tax increases and budget cuts.
Lots of reasons.
I'm in favour of the tunnel, but I do wonder if there wasn't a mayor in favour of it, if a mayor opposed had been in power, would the estimates would have come in different? But perhaps I'm jaded.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
I'm in favour of the tunnel, but I do wonder if there wasn't a mayor in favour of it, if a mayor opposed had been in power, would the estimates would have come in different? But perhaps I'm jaded.
Most likely the estimates would never have been done. I know that McIver and Higgins said they were for the tunnel as well, but I'm guessing that they wouldn't have pushed hard enough, and it would have been forgotten about long enough for everything to be too late.
Keep in mind the dreaded "property expropriation" would be happening along CHB if they didn't build the underpass. We all know how people feel about their properties being bought for roads! (See: 16th Avenue, SW Ring Road)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
I'm in favour of the tunnel, but I do wonder if there wasn't a mayor in favour of it, if a mayor opposed had been in power, would the estimates would have come in different? But perhaps I'm jaded.
The estimates were done by a third party...the mayor has no influence on it. I guess you're implying the mayor could have pushed to make sure the "expensive" option was recommended so it looked worse than it would be?
Keep in mind the dreaded "property expropriation" would be happening along CHB if they didn't build the underpass. We all know how people feel about their properties being bought for roads! (See: 16th Avenue, SW Ring Road)
I can close my eyes and picture the comments to articles online:
"Those crooks at silly hall, how many properties along the line does Nenshi own?"
The Following User Says Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
Keep in mind the dreaded "property expropriation" would be happening along CHB if they didn't build the underpass. We all know how people feel about their properties being bought for roads! (See: 16th Avenue, SW Ring Road)
The estimates were done by a third party...the mayor has no influence on it. I guess you're implying the mayor could have pushed to make sure the "expensive" option was recommended so it looked worse than it would be?
Yup, the do nothing option in the report includes $70 million of property acquisition along CHB. It's a lot of land that would be required.
The estimates were done by a third party...the mayor has no influence on it. I guess you're implying the mayor could have pushed to make sure the "expensive" option was recommended so it looked worse than it would be?
I just recall a lot of the opposition was saying it would be cheaper to expand the ancillary routes than build a tunnel.
It struck me that given the estimates on the options it is a no-brainer. But what has changed since the previous discussions when the tunnel was voted down, and today? Was the information back then the aldermen were using to base their decisions really that bad?
And yes, I am jaded by politics on all levels.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
Most likely the estimates would never have been done. I know that McIver and Higgins said they were for the tunnel as well, but I'm guessing that they wouldn't have pushed hard enough, and it would have been forgotten about long enough for everything to be too late.
Yeah, but Barb wanted to build an overpass.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Madman For This Useful Post:
I found this picture in Barb's campaign literature regarding airport tunnel alternatives. Apparently it'd be way cheaper, just drive on and fling yourself over the runways
I just recall a lot of the opposition was saying it would be cheaper to expand the ancillary routes than build a tunnel.
It struck me that given the estimates on the options it is a no-brainer. But what has changed since the previous discussions when the tunnel was voted down, and today? Was the information back then the aldermen were using to base their decisions really that bad?
And yes, I am jaded by politics on all levels.
I think the previous council was directed by a Mayor who wanted more rec centres and the West LRT as his legacy and didnt care about the airport Tunnel because he knew 1/2 the city currently would never use it.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
I thought the main problem with the project getting shelved by the previous council is that they had allocated roughly 1/3 of the total cost with the assumption that the federal and provincial governments would each contribute their 1/3 of the total cost.
Then, when they put forward their requests for funding to the other branches of government, they didn't put the underpass as a priority, then were surprised when the other branches didn't put up the funding.
Since then, it's been a scramble to try to scrape together the money. Then, Hawksworth saw it as a potenial rallying point of his campaign because he was the only one who was running who was opposed to the "Half Billion Dollar Tunnel", and that's what made it such a big issue.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
I guess I look at all of the other projects that were put off at the time; and those are the projects we are talking now as "being put off."
- Anderson/ Bow Bottom/ Deerfoot
- Glenmore/ Deerfoot (which as mentioned is provincial.) - Crowchild over the river.
Had these and other similar projects been done "right" in the first place; the Airport tunnel would be into its 2nd year of construction by now. What we are talking about is getting this one done right to start with, and moving forward from there..
Regarding this project, it was done right the first time, but it was done 50 years ago (IIRC) when the city was at a much smaller population, so with the growth over the last 5 decades, the time has long since passed for an upgrade.
From what I’ve seen, the upgrade of Crowchild between 24th ave NW and 17th ave SW is going to be delayed for many years regardless of the Airport Trail or now. The project is going to be a gongshow no matter when it is done because it's almost a complete overhaul. They have to build 2 new overpasses (at 24th and 5th NW), 2 flyovers (23rd and Kensington), and completely re-do the Bow Trail/Memorial Drive crossings to meet the current traffic needs.
If you think the GE5 was bad, just wait til some of the communities affected hear about this. NIMBY central...
