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

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'd argue that extending Airport Trail over Nose Creek to Harvest Hills Blvd would serve way more people, both now and in the future, and alleviate lots of pressure off CHB, but that soesnt make that a good idea either.

Construction may have started already on that project. It's starting this summer.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Table 5

That whole area isn't just about commuting. Airports tend to have pretty big commercial entities built around them (warehouses, shipping etc) that like to be close to the airport. A stunted road network will stall the entire economic development of that area.

Ya, there are plenty of businesses on Barlow that use it to get to the airport, car rentals, vacation businesses and hotels. Access between 16th and McKnight is a pain if your coming off of Deerfoot, so that will increase their costs. Could really hurt the hotels...if you are going down Deerfoot anyway, why not find something closer to the core? The guys that own the new hotels at McKnight and Barlow must be pulling their hair out at this point.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Stoney Trail. 85th street. Are you sure you can see just exactly where this tunnel is proposed? It's not doing anything for you southies.

Right, and then where do you get off Stoney Trail? I would take McKnight to 36th to Airport Trail and through the tunnel.

Otherwise I'm looking at Stoney to Deerfoot to Airport Trail; because CHB would be a clusterfata of trucks due to there not being a tunnel.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Right, and then where do you get off Stoney Trail? I would take McKnight to 36th to Airport Trail and through the tunnel.

Wouldn't even have to and take Stoney all the way to Airport Trail, since the interchange is done already and just waiting for the road to extend to it. Thus avoiding 36th and McKnight altogether.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Ya, there are plenty of businesses on Barlow that use it to get to the airport, car rentals, vacation businesses and hotels. Access between 16th and McKnight is a pain if your coming off of Deerfoot, so that will increase their costs. Could really hurt the hotels...if you are going down Deerfoot anyway, why not find something closer to the core? The guys that own the new hotels at McKnight and Barlow must be pulling their hair out at this point.

I sometimes think, that for some of those hotels, when McKnight is backed up, it'll be quicker to get from the Airport to Deerfoot Meadows or somewhere like that than to get to McKnight/Barlow. Keep in mind that McKnight/Barlow is pretty much on Airport land. The new Marriot Hotel being built there probably shares a property line with the Airport. When Barlow trail closes, it'll take 15 minutes or more to get there from the terminal.

[4X4]

It really feels weird being on the side that's against more roads, but like I said, looking at this map of CoC, it looks pretty frivolous to me. I mean, this tunnel doesn't even cut through the meat of the airport, it merely lops off one little tiny portion of the very NE corner of it. Maybe if it came through at 64th ave, I could see the huge benefit you guys see, but where it is, it just doesn't do much.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by 4X4

It really feels weird being on the side that's against more roads, but like I said, looking at this map of CoC, it looks pretty frivolous to me. I mean, this tunnel doesn't even cut through the meat of the airport, it merely lops off one little tiny portion of the very NE corner of it. Maybe if it came through at 64th ave, I could see the huge benefit you guys see, but where it is, it just doesn't do much.

It's more about an area that is going to be developed that will generate a lot of traffic. There are two main roads planned to service the area, one is a major road (multiple lights, 60km/h speed limits, etc), and one is an expressway (fewer lights, faster speed limit, interchanges in the future). What happens when that area is built out, but the expressway was never built? A major road isn't going to be able to handle the traffic. The traffic lights will turn it into a nightmare.

64th Ave going through would make be better for some crosstown routes, but there's no place for it to come up out of the ground to save cost, plus the terminal isn't oriented to that side, so it really couldn't connect to the terminal.

Like someone else said above, the distance between McKnight and CHB is the same distance between Glenmore and Canyon Meadows. Think of Airport Trail as Anderson. What would traffic be like in that area if everything else was the same but Anderson wasn't there? It wouldn't be very pretty. Now think that to be more accurate, the situation in the NE would be like if Southland and Heritage didn't reach Deerfoot as well.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It's more about an area that is going to be developed that will generate a lot of traffic. There are two main roads planned to service the area, one is a major road (multiple lights, 60km/h speed limits, etc), and one is an expressway (fewer lights, faster speed limit, interchanges in the future). What happens when that area isn't built out, but the expressway was never built? A major road isn't going to be able to handle the traffic. The traffic lights will turn it into a nightmare.

64th Ave going through would make be better for some crosstown routes, but there's no place for it to come up out of the ground to save cost, plus the terminal isn't oriented to that side, so it really couldn't connect to the terminal.

Like someone else said above, the distance between McKnight and CHB is the same distance between Glenmore and Canyon Meadows. Think of Airport Trail as Anderson. What would traffic be like in that area if everything else was the same but Anderson wasn't there? It wouldn't be very pretty.

I know it's not feasible for it to be on 64th, I'm saying that it would be reasonable and obvious to build if it were.
The CMD/Anderson/Glenmore comparison is only accurate because they are physically about the same distances apart. But in reality, those three orads handle most of the E/W traffic in the south side of the city. That's a far cry from the tiny little upper third of the NE (including what will be eventually built).

I guess at the end of the day, I certainly don't mind the idea of the tunnel. It's great to have more roads and better/faster access to everything. What I think is outrageous is $150 million. And that doesn't include the road. For, IMO, a shortcut.

Here's an idea... Why doesn the city swap land with the airport authority. The city owns the open land in the SE corner of the image. If the airport moved the runway down half a mile, Airport Trail could be built at grade.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/ph...ort-tunnel.jpg

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Here's an idea... Why doesn the city swap land with the airport authority. The city owns the open land in the SE corner of the image. If the airport moved the runway down half a mile, Airport Trail could be built at grade.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/ph...ort-tunnel.jpg

I believe that the reason there is such a gap is because of airplanes landing approach need clear space for runway visual and lighting. Plus even if that was done, the runway size may not be large enough, since they want the new runway to be able to handle any type of aircraft size.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Here's an idea... Why doesn the city swap land with the airport authority. The city owns the open land in the SE corner of the image. If the airport moved the runway down half a mile, Airport Trail could be built at grade.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/ph...ort-tunnel.jpg

To schooch down far enough they would have to get rid of the golf course they just built there, and possibly the little athletics park as well. Plus, some of the buildings to the South might be a little tall for a good approach.

[Bigtime]

Too late for that I believe, as Joborule has already pointed out. That empty space to the south is Silverwing golf course, kind of like the McCall lake course in front of the current 34/16 runway. Plus the recent buildup south of McKnight in that location may not meet the guidelines for height limitations as set out by Transport Canada.

Besides, the new runway location is also much better for reducing taxi times for departures and arrivals. Unlike the long taxi all the way down to 34 from the current terminal.

The YYC controllers are already working on the new procedures that will go into effect once 34R/16L is open for business.

[4X4]

Well I hope it's about buildings and not about a golf course, because rebuilding a golf course on the north side wouldn't cost 150 or 250 million.
And Airport trail doesn't have to be perfectly straight. The point is to have an expressway, isn't it? If the runway were "scootched" (thanks, kerplunk) down as far as possible, airport trail might only have to detour north a quarter mile, and then come back south and connect with the terminal. After all, this is Calgary. We don't build roads straight around here.
Tunnels are really cool and all, I'm just not entirely convinced that this one is necessary. There has to be a way to save a hundred million here. What's the final price tag? 250 million? Build a road with a couple of curves in it for 60 million. That other 200 mil would get the SE LRT going.

[You Need a Thneed]

Also, Silverwing Golf course is on Airport land, not city land. Moving the runway further south wouldn't allow space for the approach lighting, unless the Airport wants to buy up the Walmart warehouse assessed at $100 million.

[mykalberta]

Noise and the fact that they would have no buffer room for an overshot landing would be why they wouldnt do the land swap.

[Bigtime]

Yup, the airport has been formally planning for this runway since 1992. Things like noise assessments, soil testing, overrun and overshoot requirements, ILS system interference, approach lighting, operations with the other runways and many other things have been taken into account with where they have chosen to "plunk" it down.

[Mazrim]

A few things:
- There isn't the proper right-of-way available to expand CHB to be an expressway, let alone the freeway standard Airport Trail would have been with the tunnel. It would cost as much as the tunnel to buy up the appropriate land to make up for the lack of the Airport tunnel. The city just went through this discussion with the right of way on Metis Trail.
- A number of large residential communities are growing or exist on CHB on the east side of Deerfoot. You'd need interchanges for all those access points, more money spent compared to Airport Trail.
- A large industrial development is predicated on heavy goods movement. CHB is not designed for heavy goods movement. Again, all those communities probably don't want to pretend they live on 52nd Street in the SE all the time.

It's great that we all have these ideas for alternatives, but I can guarantee you they've been considered already. They aren't so stupid to not ask "why not just upgrade CHB?"

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Noise and the fact that they would have no buffer room for an overshot landing would be why they wouldnt do the land swap.

These are probably the biggest reasons why the runway couldn't be shifted down, that really have no workarounds.

Noise forecasting for the last 30 years has modelled development in the area, moving the runway would change those assumptions. To move the runway far enough south so that Airport Trail could go through, would mean that the south end would be very close to McKnight, which would mean that there's a $100 million warehouse inside the buffer area.

[4X4]

Well I'm glad we had this discussion. So if the tunnel is the only possible way to keep things running smoothly in the NE, and building the shell right now is obviously cheaper than tunneling after teh runway is built, are there any good reasons why this is being rejected over and over, besides money?
What was McIver's plan that was so much cheaper? McIver or Nenshi, cant remember which one.

[mykalberta]

Also remember that this runway is mainly there to attract flights to Asia and longer range Cargo flights. Those flights need alot of room for take off and cant be banking left to avoid a warehouse.

Just an aside, on my 2006/2007 MLS map from Sherlock Publishing that I have on my wall at work, there is a dotted line indicating a tunnel from Airport trail across the yellow airport area. I dont know where they get their info from but "back then" they assumed a tunnel would be built. They have the same dotted lines indicating Stoney Trail and the "East Highway".

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Well I'm glad we had this discussion. So if the tunnel is the only possible way to keep things running smoothly in the NE, and building the shell right now is obviously cheaper than tunneling after teh runway is built, are there any good reasons why this is being rejected over and over, besides money?

Just a thought...what makes building just the "shell" of the tunnel and not the roads with it any cheaper? The major expense of the whole thing comes from the tunnel itself (roads are pretty cheap in comparison), so not connecting the tunnel with a road that actually makes it useful is not going to save you a lot of money.