Big Day: CCA Vote - Page 3

ue · #41 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 1:24 AM**

I think it would be cool if indy could be taken to the streets.

CanadianCentaur · #42 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 1:25 AM**

Great to see the vote pass by a wider margin than I thought!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edmonchuck

to be clear. Removing a runway does not immediately remove height restrictions.

What would it take to remove height restrictions?? I hope not years and years of negotiations with NavCan or Transport Canada or whoever the Powers That Be which imposes those height restrictions!

And if Runway 16/34 should be rendered unusable or removed altogether, it's abso-fricking-lutely not going to make sense to still have a height restriction in place.

IKAN104 · #43 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 1:26 AM**

I know the debate is over but I like this quote:

"It seems to be lost in this whole process that we aren't responsible for providing medical services. Medevac is not ours, it's theirs...We want to help, but it's not our citizens' responsibility to provide 600 acres for medevacs."

Mandel, putting it bluntly.

EdmTrekker · #44 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 1:56 AM**

OK lots of issues arising. And today is all about salivating over the decision of council. I guess I should be downtown celebrating somewhere!! About the Indy - what other locations would be suitable for 2010?

1. Northlands own it so is there a benefit for Northlands to host this at Northlands site somehow? LRT is there (Northlands want to redevelop the LRT station), some or most of it is paved and there are all sorts of buildings with amenities etc. Northlands wants to expand the site. Seems to me Northlands must be doing an overlay of a possible track right about now.
2. River Valley Road and Groat Road (stands on the sides?)
3. Downtown - Jasper Ave (oh yeah!!)
4. ??

Simon Speichert · #45 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 2:01 AM**

Sorry folks, I doubt any streets in Edmonton would be suitable for IndyCars unless the entire route was to be repaved. Crowning, grooving and gaps just won't work. They look like they have a lot of suspension travel, but our streets would be murder. The drivers sit less than 6 inches off the ground and the bumps would kill their spines.

In order for us to keep this race after the airport closes, we'll need a suitable permanent road course. I'm not sure what grade Stratotech is, but IndyCars need an FIA Grade 2 circuit - just one grade below Formula 1.

Xelebes · #46 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 2:35 AM**

Streetcourse at the CCA site.

But as for the news regarding closure all I have to say is ggnextmap.

ue · #47 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 3:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

As colossally stupid as closing the Muni is and unlikely to lead to the creation of anything of remotely equal value, at least be decisive about screwing up.

Another fifteenth years of flailing ambiguity doesn't help anyone.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...62&postcount=3

facepalm.

0773|=\ · #48 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 5:22 AM**

Wonderful news! This vote is a major step to renewed investment in our city centre. The height restriction details will work themselves out in time (and hopefully not too long...). This is still the most important leverage in that process. Way to go, city council!

EdmTrekker · #49 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 7:45 AM**

I am confused about the runway that will be closed. Conflicting people describing it (elsewhere) - I wish we had a sketch of what is likely to be closed. Is it the one closest to NAIT running more or less North to South or the one from NWest to S East in front of the old Terminal Building?

S_B_Russell · #50 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 10:25 AM**

Reaction to airport vote from one of its biggest supporters
1030 pm
Click here to email Robin Wilson
7/8/2009

Many of our city's neighbors are not going to be happy about the decision to close the City Centre Airport.

City Council decided the fate by a vote of 10 to 3.

Cal Nichols with AEG was one of the biggest supporters in keeping the airport open.

He says it's a kick in the shins to residents outside of Edmonton, especially those to the north.

"I think that's a total shunning of our friends and neighbors, particularly in northern Alberta," Nichols said. "They needed, depended and used the airport for their businesses and their safety so I think that was violated."

The expansion of NAIT will be discussed, along with some options for transit oriented housing.

The staged closure means it could take up to 15 years before the airport is completely closed. (rw)

http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg...spx?ID=1113216

lubicon · #51 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 2:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

I am confused about the runway that will be closed. Conflicting people describing it (elsewhere) - I wish we had a sketch of what is likely to be closed. Is it the one closest to NAIT running more or less North to South or the one from NWest to S East in front of the old Terminal Building?

If 16/34 is the one that will be closed first, it is the N/S runway on the east side of the airport, nearest NAIT.

Not sure about removing the height restrictions any time soon, at least not in the DT core. The remaining runway (12/31) has the approach path over DT so I'm thinking those restrictions will remain in place until the entire airport is closed.

I'll also be very interested in seeing how the closing of 16/34 affects the operation of the airport in general. To my knowledge the only instrument approaches are to this runway, and 12/31 is visual approaches only. If 16/34 is closed earlier than 12/31 then that effectively closes the airport when the weather is poor as no approach would be available. This severely limits the usefullness of the airport for corporate aviation. You may as well shut the whole thing down all at once.

IKAN104 · #52 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 2:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S_B_Russell

Reaction to airport vote from one of its biggest supporters
1030 pm
Click here to email Robin Wilson
7/8/2009

Many of our city's neighbors are not going to be happy about the decision to close the City Centre Airport.

City Council decided the fate by a vote of 10 to 3.

Cal Nichols with AEG was one of the biggest supporters in keeping the airport open.

He says it's a kick in the shins to residents outside of Edmonton, especially those to the north.

"I think that's a total shunning of our friends and neighbors, particularly in northern Alberta," Nichols said. "They needed, depended and used the airport for their businesses and their safety so I think that was violated."

The expansion of NAIT will be discussed, along with some options for transit oriented housing.

The staged closure means it could take up to 15 years before the airport is completely closed. (rw)

http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg...spx?ID=1113216

Wow. He actually cares more about Edmonton's neighbours than Edmonton itself. I just don't understand that attitude.

IKAN104 · #53 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 2:44 PM**

All this talk about taking 10 to 15 years to close the airport better not be accurate. I don't see why it should take more than 1 or 2 years at the most. As far as I can see the only thing delaying closure is planning for changes to medivac flights and giving some time to current tenants to move operations. Is there something else that I'm missing?

kcantor · #54 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon

If 16/34 is the one that will be closed first, it is the N/S runway on the east side of the airport, nearest NAIT.

Not sure about removing the height restrictions any time soon, at least not in the DT core. The remaining runway (12/31) has the approach path over DT so I'm thinking those restrictions will remain in place until the entire airport is closed.

I'll also be very interested in seeing how the closing of 16/34 affects the operation of the airport in general. To my knowledge the only instrument approaches are to this runway, and 12/31 is visual approaches only. If 16/34 is closed earlier than 12/31 then that effectively closes the airport when the weather is poor as no approach would be available. This severely limits the usefullness of the airport for corporate aviation. You may as well shut the whole thing down all at once.

i don't think it's that much of an issue to relocate the existing ils from 12/31 to 16/34. as for "weather so poor that no approach would be available", it's my understanding that's actually a pretty rare occurance. although i don't have actual numbers of days a year handy i'm pretty sure it's less than half a dozen in a typical year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IKAN104

All this talk about taking 10 to 15 years to close the airport better not be accurate. I don't see why it should take more than 1 or 2 years at the most. As far as I can see the only thing delaying closure is planning for changes to medivac flights and giving some time to current tenants to move operations. Is there something else that I'm missing?

even those tenants that are going to move their operations to other fields in the edmonton region need something to move into which means new hangars and other facilities, potential runway and equipment upgrades etc. nothing "earthshattering" - or particularly expensive for that matter - but things that won't be there quite as quickly as snapping your fingers. having said that, i would certainly hope it will end up being a lot closer to 1 or 2 years than 10 or 15.

lubicon · #55 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdnklc

i don't think it's that much of an issue to relocate the existing ils from 12/31 to 16/34. as for "weather so poor that no approach would be available", it's my understanding that's actually a pretty rare occurance. although i don't have actual numbers of days a year handy i'm pretty sure it's less than half a dozen in a typical year.

Actually I don't know how feasable it would be to re-do the approach to 12/31. They would need to relocate the navigational aids from where they presently are (16/34) to the new runway. That may prove to be technically impossible as it is quite likely this would have been done already if it was so easy. Plus, Navcan is probably not willing to do this (it costs a lot of $$$) if the entire airport will shut down in a few years anyway. Why bother?

That leaves only a visual approach to 12/31. The weather would not have to be that poor to effectively shut the airport down. With no precision navaids, aircraft would be unable to even begin an approach if ceiling are low enough. That included most rainy days, and even a lot of cloudy days when there are isolated showers etc. That occurs on a lot more days than you might think.

I will stand by my statement that the airport effectively will become a VFR only field when 16/34 is closed.

Oliver Klozov · #56 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdnklc

....even those tenants that are going to move their operations to other fields in the edmonton region need something to move into which means new hangars and other facilities, potential runway and equipment upgrades etc. nothing "earthshattering" - or particularly expensive for that matter - but things that won't be there quite as quickly as snapping your fingers.....

not particularly expensive? Well just as we see in any other expropriation, isn't the City going to have to fund that? I would think so. Which makes me think that there are years of negotiations yet to come.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IKAN104

....... Is there something else that I'm missing?

Lawsuits!

See above plus probably a few other reasons as well.

MrOilers · #57 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S_B_Russell

"I think that's a total shunning of our friends and neighbors, particularly in northern Alberta," Nichols said. "They needed, depended and used the airport for their businesses and their safety so I think that was violated."

Why exactly do they NEED it, Cal?

It's not the only airport we have.

canucklehead2 · #58 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 4:24 PM**

I'm not to pleased with the vote. Personally I think this is a matter that should be decided by the public via a municipal plebiscite as was the case with consolidating flights at EIA...

Coldrsx · #59 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Speichert

Sorry folks, I doubt any streets in Edmonton would be suitable for IndyCars unless the entire route was to be repaved. Crowning, grooving and gaps just won't work. They look like they have a lot of suspension travel, but our streets would be murder. The drivers sit less than 6 inches off the ground and the bumps would kill their spines.

In order for us to keep this race after the airport closes, we'll need a suitable permanent road course. I'm not sure what grade Stratotech is, but IndyCars need an FIA Grade 2 circuit - just one grade below Formula 1.

stratotech is my home course but it is only 1.3km and very narrow... not to mention no where near the level of venue for something like this.

the best bet would be a road course or if castrol raceway did their track.

i suspect neither will happen

Edmonchuck · #60 Posted **Jul 9, 2009, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdmTrekker

Why not? Is it not the North South runway being closed? Can not the City and the Airport Authority work with Transport Canada to refine this?

What will happen to the Indy next year?

That's the point. You have to work WITH Transport Canada. Closing the runway alone means nothing.

Indy will be fine for 2009 and probably 2010. It is after that where one gets concerned, or will have to have the alternate plan in stone. It may be hard to completely close the airport for that week or so. If you can close it for that week, than so be it.