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.
Nenshi plan is to build it now and eat the 50mil in associated interest costs for borrowing the money. No idea what McIvor's idea is.
Nenshi's assumption is that once the city puts the money forward that the Feds and Province will contribute money once they see the city is serious (that is the part of the plan I think is more pie in the sky).
__________________
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%
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
What was McIver's plan that was so much cheaper? McIver or Nenshi, cant remember which one.
From the links on the 1st page; they were going to make the tunnel shorter for now. Basically long enough to go under the runway so the runway can be built over top; then they can make the tunnel bigger without having to dig under the runway.
The Following User Says Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
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.
Not sure who put that forward but the "shell" is the only thing you really need right now. The associated road costs are what will cost the most money which could theoretically be put off. Its the cheap way to do this which doesnt appease the users in the NE currently but does appease to the rest of Calgary who like 4x4 probably thinks why build this now for just a few communities in the NE (probably rightly so at the moment).
__________________
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%
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.
Right now they can trench and then cover. If they wait until the runway is built and in use, they have to "tunnel".
The Following User Says Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
Not sure who put that forward but the "shell" is the only thing you really need right now. The associated road costs are what will cost the most money which could theoretically be put off. Its the cheap way to do this which doesnt appease the users in the NE currently but does appease to the rest of Calgary who like 4x4 probably thinks why build this now for just a few communities in the NE (probably rightly so at the moment).
I'm guessing the associated road roads are around 5-10% of the entire project, and I would think closer to the 5% side. We are only talking about approx 1 mile of roadway here. The rest of Airport Trail will be there eventually whether the tunnel is built or not, so you can't include that in a cost comparison.
Right now they can trench and then cover. If they wait until the runway is built and in use, they have to "tunnel".
I completely understand this. However, the structure, or shell, whatever you want to call it, will still take up the majority of the cost of the project. Leaving the roads out does not save any significant funds to make it suddenly plausible.
I completely understand this. However, the structure, or shell, whatever you want to call it, will still take up the majority of the cost of the project. Leaving the roads out does not save any significant funds to make it suddenly plausible.
Agreed. If we're going to build it, might as well build it. It's not like leaving a right of way to widen a road. I understand why they don't go building 4 lane roads when two are necessary now, and the other two can be built later. This is different. If you're going to build it, build it so that it can be used instead of stared at for 10 years.
I'm guessing the associated road roads are around 5-10% of the entire project, and I would think closer to the 5% side. We are only talking about approx 1 mile of roadway here. The rest of Airport Trail will be there eventually whether the tunnel is built or not, so you can't include that in a cost comparison.
I cant say for sure how long the trenching would be but even the airport letter mentions that the actual "tunnel" is only roughly half the cost of the total project. Maybe the airport is making them tunnel under all the whole airfield now which wouldnt be cheap. I can only assume that its only under the runway/taxiway and a buffer to the east and west.
But what I have heard is the costs being thrown around today and for the past year also include upgrades to 44 street so that can replace Barlow as a north/south corridor which is the reason for the whole discussion in the first place.
If they dont tunnel/trench now then the undertaking of tunneling in the future would be a massive undertaking because there is no way the airport would close operations of the runway for future construction which means they need to tunnel C Train style under the runway and need to do so with enough strength so that if a fully loaded A380 ever comes to Calgary (cant see that ever happening except maybe Emerates) then the tunnel needs to be able to support its full weight and not just that of the overhead ground.
I honestly dont see the wait and do it later option as a legit option. It would be cheaper to put the CTrain underground downtown then tunnel a 4/6 lane highway under an existing heavy runway and at no time would council fund a program to build an airport tunnel instead of tunneling the CTrain downtown.
__________________
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%
Here's a question... How is it that the airport owns the portion of Barlow that's being demoed? Did they build it, or did the CoC build it on leased land, or what?
But what I have heard is the costs being thrown around today and for the past year also include upgrades to 44 street so that can replace Barlow as a north/south corridor which is the reason for the whole discussion in the first place.
Which doesn't make sense, as that's needed either way. In fact, the road would need to be bigger in the future without the tunnel.
It is (Metis Trail) actually out for tender, and should be open at least two lanes all the way through from where it ends now at 80th Ave to CHB by the end of November. The city put incentives into the tender so that it partially opens by then.
4x4:
The land is owned by the federal government, I doubt the city built the road in the first place. Either way, it was always known that the road was likely temporary.
The Following User Says Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
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'.
I... erm,*cough*...er, ... I agree.
I don't know what I'm talking about. No sarcasm.
First, I thought the tunnel was to replace Barlow as we know it today, from McKnight to the terminal.
Is that link of 4x's correct? only a tunnel to the North?
Second, I was making a general jab at the $100 million interchanges on the outskirts of town, rather than smaler, more effective investments in the inner-city. I would consider Bowness inner-city for sure.
If the tunnel was never going to connect Barlow (at McKnight) to the Airport, then why did those Hotels build up so fast? Are they still the closest game in town to the Airport even without a tunnel? Did they think the Airport Authority would change their minds on the new runway?
Thanks to everyone's contribution to this thread, Im learning a lot.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by algernon
If the tunnel was never going to connect Barlow (at McKnight) to the Airport, then why did those Hotels build up so fast? Are they still the closest game in town to the Airport even without a tunnel? Did they think the Airport Authority would change their minds on the new runway?
I would say hotels were built based on the plans available; that when they were going to close Barlow that the tunnel would be in place.
The Following User Says Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
First, I thought the tunnel was to replace Barlow as we know it today, from McKnight to the terminal.
Is that link of 4x's correct? only a tunnel to the North?
Correct. The tunnel would go under the Northern part of the new runway, running West to East. It would then hook up to 36th ST and Metis Trail. These two roads would be what replaces Barlow.
__________________
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%
Note: this is the plan on the assumption that the airport tunnel is not in place, if it is in place, route 100 shifts to use the tunnel rather than Country Hills Blvd.
- Barlow Trail connection to airport is slated to close April 3rd
- McCall Way is currently being being re-aligned to converge with the (new) end of Barlow Trail at a new traffic circle just north of McKnight Blvd. There will still be no terminal access, just to the airport services area south of the terminal. Should all be done by the April 3rd Barlow closing, or have a delayed opening not long after that.
- The other road change currently being worked on in the area is the 36th Street connector. This will extend 48th Ave. eastward, then curve north, on the east side of the golf course and connect with 36th Street. This will open in the spring/summer as well. The map below roughly shows the alignment of this new road.
What bad planning by the city!
Why ever let these neighbourhoods develop in this geographic location. Previously cheap land for developers is now costing tax payers from across the city of Calgary.
Honestly, if you had a citywide referendum on this now there would be no tunnel.
