Community Development - Blatchford

[240glt]

Jealousy & envy ? puh-lease. It's humourous that this is always the foregone conclusion that is drawn when anyone speaks leass than fawningly about Calgary.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on who's behind EE, the AEG, their interests in YXD and the campaign of misinformation that is being waged from beyond (and yes, partially from within) our city limits. You'd then have a better idea where all the vitriol is coming from.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Please do not put words in my mouth. If you were not mentioning Calgary prior to my post then I clearly was not referring to you. I never said every one was guilty of my complaints. I was speaking to the two or three posters that were replying to Policy Wonk by trying to turn the issue into some kind of nefarious attack by Calgary against their city. In doing so they were making irrational points and yes, some jealousy definitely was apparent. Your six points in favour of closing YXD make sense and generally match my views on the subject but if you think that was where this discussion was at prior to my entry than you were not paying attention.

Please note the words. It's not all or most Calgarians, but many Calgarians. There has been several folks from Calgary who have stepped into the issue for keeping the airport open, mostly MLAs and oil executives and giving the majority of funding to the campaigns for ECCA proponents. We know there are many Calgarians who would prefer that airport closed and most who are indifferent.

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Please do not put words in my mouth. If you were not mentioning Calgary prior to my post then I clearly was not referring to you.

You weren't 'clearly' referring to anyone except RTA, who in my opinion, has had the most level-headed responses in this thread. Other than that you just made vague references to '[a] number of people'.

Your six points in favour of closing YXD make sense and generally match my views on the subject but if you think that was where this discussion was at prior to my entry than you were not paying attention.

Again, that's where the discussion was at 15 years ago, and we're all a little weary of continuously repeating our points.

[Daveography]

It amazes me how the Calgarians in this thread are completely oblivious to how condescending and self-absorbed they are coming across. Jealousy? Get over yourself. I like Calgary a lot - I honestly do - but please, there are better cities to model ourselves after.

Mainly though, it's this assumption that Edmonton (particularly the vocally pro-closure Edmontonians like us) somehow haven't thought through the pros and cons of closure or consolidation. That we are somehow missing the big picture, haven't educated ourselves on the matter, or just don't understand it. That's just downright insulting, and with an attitude like that coming from outside our city, it shouldn't surprise anyone how ferociously we're going to lash back.

[MalcolmTucker]

Personally I am for keeping the muni open, and I will give you a couple reasons:

1. As Toronto has seen, you can turn a downtown airport into an asset rather than a liability. With newer aircraft there could be direct service to most of the continent (contingent on weight limitations, etc). The airport only looses money because flights that could make it money are banned from flying there. A vibrant downtown airport could act as a catalyst to new commercial development in the core, especially with the soon to be even better transit connections.

One could even offer exclusive rights to a new operators so they could not transfer onto another flight as just a feeder - this has been held up in court as allowed - that is what the Toronto Island Airport did.

2. You can limit connection problems into Calgary by slot limiting and making the airport successful enough that flying connecting passengers from the muni through Calgary to beyond makes little sense economically. You may be able to reduce the height restrictions by type limiting the airport aswell and changing the approach.

3. While a huge brownfield site might seem to be optimal for development and provide opportunities for urbanist planning, I doubt there is enough demand to build out the community within a reasonable time frame that will not leave politicians leery of urbanist development. Look at the slow example of Century Park, or even the General Hospital redevelopment site in Calgary which still has empty lots a decade and a half later.

4. It won't generate any extra tax revenue for the city. Development cannot be created out of thin air - the only development that happens there will be displaced from other urban locations in Edmonton. I doubt in the final plan that land sales revenue would even cover the subsidies developments like these usually consume (like the east village in Calgary)

5. There isn't a lack of developable land in urban Edmonton. The problem seems to be lack of political will rather than economics in approving development.

6. Height restrictions seem to be more of an excuse than a real reason. A building doesn't become more economic as you build up in most cases. If there was demand for lots of residential midrises that are restricted closer to the airport - where are they in the rest of city? Demand once again doesn't materialize out of no where.

[240glt]

^ Counterpoint:

2. You can limit connection problems into Calgary by slot limiting and making the airport successful enough that flying connecting passengers from the muni through Calgary to beyond makes little sense economically. You may be able to reduce the height restrictions by type limiting the airport aswell and changing the approach.

The issue is still the impact on EIA. No doubt flights out of the muni can be economically viable but then we're back to loosing flights at EIA due to lower demand. THE EIA is poised to be able to serve 9 million by 2015, which should see us getting a lot of new flights due to the consolidated demand

3. While a huge brownfield site might seem to be optimal for development and provide opportunities for urbanist planning, I doubt there is enough demand to build out the community within a reasonable time frame that will not leave politicians leery of urbanist development.

CP slowdown was a victim of the bust more than anything, and I wouldn't be suprised to see another building there soon. It was always going to be at least a decade long buildout. Remember, they're not closing the airport tomorrow. That too could take a decade or more. It's not like they're going to start building on the land tomorrow

4. It won't generate any extra tax revenue for the city.

Again, today. 20 years from now if could be the smartest decision ever made in this city.

A vibrant downtown airport could act as a catalyst to new commercial development in the core, especially with the soon to be even better transit connections.

This in the one I have the biggest problem with: What the muni has really done is allow people working from companies from outside the city parachute it, do their work, then leave. In most cases, the people & companies have no vested interest in the city, and their work and expertise is sub-par. By cutting off that link, companies may be forced to look at local companies to do betterwork, and for other companies in other cities to actually hire in Edmonton and set up offices in Edmonton. Downtown will continue to be revitalized, but it won't be by YXD passengers.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Again, today. 20 years from now if could be the smartest decision ever made in this city.

I think you may have missed my point. That it will generate more tax revenue than the current use, does not mean that the development will create net tax revenue for the city. There is no reason to believe that the redevelopment would create new development that wouldn't in the case of not having redevelopment at the muni be somewhere else in the city. Unless you believe that because of a lack of developable land in the city development is currently being displaced beyond city boundaries, my argument holds.

Originally Posted by 240glt

This in the one I have the biggest problem with: What the muni has really done is allow people working from companies from outside the city parachute it, do their work, then leave. In most cases, the people & companies have no vested interest in the city, and their work and expertise is sub-par. By cutting off that link, companies may be forced to look at local companies to do betterwork, and for other companies in other cities to actually hire in Edmonton and set up offices in Edmonton. Downtown will continue to be revitalized, but it won't be by YXD passengers.

If you follow this argument to its logical end, YEG should be closed as well, and the QEII. Is this really a problem right now, people coming in on corporate jets and stealing jobs from Edmontonians? Give me a break.

Access to good transportation links improves the business environment. I don't know how you can argue against that.

The issue is still the impact on EIA. No doubt flights out of the muni can be economically viable but then we're back to loosing flights at EIA due to lower demand. THE EIA is poised to be able to serve 9 million by 2015, which should see us getting a lot of new flights due to the consolidated demand

Toronto Pearson has added passengers concurrently with Porter entering the market. More competition could mean better flights, with them being cheaper causing more to fly.You can avoid 'connection leakage' by restricting which airlines fly out of the airport, types of aircraft permitted, or limiting slots. Or all three.

With the right restrictions, the muni could spur more direct flights, not less, as demand for convenience combined with the anti feeder restrictions prompts direct flights to destinations Edmontonians would previously connect to get to.

[240glt]

If you follow this argument to its logical end, YEG should be closed as well, and the QEII. Is this really a problem right now, people coming in on corporate jets and stealing jobs from Edmontonians? Give me a break.

Don't be obtuse. I've worked in industry here for six years, I know exactly what I am talking about. No one is "stealing" jobs, but the parachute phenomina is very much real. Closing the muni will help local firms and force more companiees that want to do business to invest a little here.

Access to good transportation links improves the business environment. I don't know how you can argue against that.

What happens whan you make it too easy ? Riddle me that.

Unless you believe that because of a lack of developable land in the city development is currently being displaced beyond city boundaries, my argument holds.

Not really, we in competition with municipalities all around us with vast swaths of land to develop. Yes there are other developable parcels in the city but nothing as large, central and accessible as the muni. Again, this is decades down the raod, when land in town may not bee so abundant given our population projections

[MalcolmTucker]

What happens whan you make it too easy ? Riddle me that.

Economies will produce the goods which they have the greatest comparative advantage in producing, and trade those goods for goods which they do not have the greatest advantage.

Not really, we in competition with municipalities all around us with vast swaths of land to develop. Yes there are other developable parcels in the city but nothing as large, central and accessible as the muni. Again, this is decades down the raod, when land in town may not bee so abundant given our population projections

Why does size have anything to do with it? Land is land, a building of footprint X is the same no matter what land it is built on. And I don't think Edmonton is going to be building an arcology anytime soon... Are you saying development is held back because available parcels are too small?

In the future it might make sense - but right now, and for the foreseeable future it just seems to me you are trading an asset for something that adds little, except focusing high density development in one spot instead of letting it spread throughout the city.

[240glt]

Economies will produce the goods which they have the greatest comparative advantage in producing, and trade those goods for goods which they do not have the greatest advantage.

You missed the point entirely, and you probably won't get it as I don't think you understand how the impact of having the ability to drop people in and out affects many different aspects of the type of work that's done up here.

In the future it might make sense - but right now, and for the foreseeable future it just seems to me you are trading an asset for something that adds little, except focusing high density development in one spot instead of letting it spread throughout the city.

Problem is, you can't just close an airport at the time when it makes sense to develop the land. There are years, nay decades of prep work required. Since the Muni is no longer required no seems as good a time as any to start the process

The value of the existing asset is debatable at best to Edmontonians

And I don't think Edmonton is going to be building an arcology anytime soon... Are you saying development is held back because available parcels are too small?

I'm confused why you'd call the potential development an arcology, trying to muddy the waters perhaps. Anyways, we know that at least a portion of the land will be taken by NAIT, and the other large swaths of land can definitely be used for all kinds of smart developments, due to the strategic location of the land

[Coldrsx]

Envision Edmonton stops paying for petition signatures

Campaign to save City Centre Airport ends later this mont

BY KAREN KLEISS, EDMONTONJOURNAL.COM AUGUST 17, 2010 11:03 AM


STORYPHOTOS ( 9 )



More Images »

A barricade blocks runway 16-34 at Edmonton City Centre Airport after its closure on August 3, 2010.
Photograph by: Brian Gavriloff, edmontonjournal.com
EDMONTON — The group fighting to keep Edmonton’s City Centre Airport open has withdrawn its offer to pay for signatures on its petition.

In a news release issued on the Envision Edmonton website Tuesday morning, chairman Chuck Allard said the idea was to give community leagues a chance to raise money while helping his group gather the 78,000 signatures it needs to force a plebiscite on whether to close the City Centre Airport and redevelop the land.



Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...#ixzz0wss8URbg

[240glt]

Some indesputable facts about the Muni as put forth by flyeiaPR on connect2edmonton, unlike the propoganda and fear being peddled by Envision and AEG:

Edmonton City Centre Airport information available online

August 19, 2010 (Edmonton, Alta.)-Edmonton Airports has updated several of the ECCA briefing notes used during last year's public consultation process and has made these available online.

To download the complete briefing notes package, click here.

These briefing notes provide a range of background information on various aspects of ECCA operations and economic impact and the phased transition of the airport lands. The notes also address alternate arrangements for general aviation and air ambulance services.

For your convenience, outlined below are the key messages for each of the primary issues related to the phased closure of ECCA:


1. Consolidation was required and has worked; we are investing $1B at EIA based on consolidation.
a. Also investing $20M at EIA for GA
b. Also investing up to $3M at Villeneuve for GA

2. Scheduled service concludes at ECCA in 2012.
a. Even now, the limited schedule service allowed at ECCA is not used to near its capacity; for example, in June 2010 only 7.8% of allowable scheduled seats were used.
b. As of August 1, scheduled traffic from Grande Prairie and Peace River was operating at ECCA. High Level and Fort McMurray, which are both permitted scheduled service, had no such service.

3. ECCA provides services to a small number of specific users; it does not provide significant service to the North.
a. 41% of flight movements were flight training, for example.
b Flights from and to Calgary International Airport rank as the third-highest user of ECCA, after ECCA itself (flights originating from and returning to ECCA - primarily the flying school) and Fort McMurray.
c. Access to and from the North is excellent at EIA, which is the region's primary airport serving the North. Passengers currently using ECCA can be easily accommodated at EIA. In addition, driving to key business areas from EIA can differ by as little as 10 minutes compared to ECCA.

4. One runway is closed at ECCA. This does NOT mean closure or change in use of ECCA. The airport remains fully operational. Many airports around the world operate with one runway; Kelowna and Gatwick, for example. Additionally, many of the airports where flights to ECCA originate only have one runway and quite a few have no navigational aids.


5. The City continues developing its vision for development of the airport lands. Currently, five international firms have been selected to develop their vision for a redeveloped green site.


6. Air ambulance service is NOT required to transition from ECCA UNTIL full transition plans and infrastructure are completed, by the Province of Alberta.
a. Therefore air ambulance services continue operating out of ECCA.
b. Alberta Health Services is responsible for air ambulance services throughout Alberta and continues to work with EA and other health stakeholders to develop appropriate plans for the eventual transition of air ambulance from ECCA to EIA.
i. When the transition occurs, EIA - like other airports including Calgary International - will support a safe, efficient air ambulance system. For example, for the very small subset of air ambulance patients who are time sensitive, rotary transfers to hospital will be used instead of ground transfers, as they are at other airports.
ii. U of A Hospital is the primary trauma hospital in Edmonton - approximately 8 minutes further by ground ambulance. Helicopter transport time from EIA to U of A hospital is just 12 minutes; from EIA to Royal Alexandra Hospital is 13 minutes.
iii. Majority of red cases are flown directly by STARS, who have bases in Grande Prairie, Calgary and Edmonton. Example, August 7 weekend, automobile crash in Grande Prairie - person flown directly to U of A Hospital by STARS.
iv. Use of jets versus turbo props will significantly impact time: actual transportation time for fixed wing air ambulance is a small portion of total decision making and patient stabilization time.


http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...124#post310124

[Policy Wonk]

Indeed the organization that has done more to sabotage YXD than all others combined is an impartial source of information on the matter.

Naturally neither are impartial, but Edmonton Airports has dedicated much of their twenty year history to undermining YXD. You can't let the hitman be the judge at his own trial.

While Envision Edmonton is trying to save a piece of vital infrastructure from real estate hucksters.

[feepa]

"vital" is certainly debatable.

I don't consider it vital at all, and neither does Alberta health services.

So just how vital is it?

[Policy Wonk]

It is vital for providing effective air service to central Edmonton - something the airport in Leduc is incapable of and something you have already very clearly indicated you don't care about.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

It is vital for providing effective air service to central Edmonton

How does central Calgary get effective air service?

[Policy Wonk]

Before Edmonton Airports screwed over Quikair and Peaceair they served YXD from the FBO's at the S.W. corner of YYC.

It is about a ten minute drive, most of it on Deerfoot Trail. It is actually a shorter drive to downtown Calgary from there than the main terminal.

[feepa]

Google maps determines that distance as 18-20 mins. That's with no traffic conditions. Try again.

As the ECCA's own stats show - less than 8 per cent of the available scheduled airline slots are utilized because no one cares. You would think if this was such a vital airport, these slots would be filled up with traffic

And outside of a few oil and pipeline cowboys in Calgary, nobody there cares either.

You've already admitted GA is as dead issue

And medevac has been proven time and time again to be a non-issue.

So... What's so vital?

Your squabbling over 10-15 mins extra in a car to get downtown versus better land use management?

[Policy Wonk]

The routes Google spat out for me nobody in their right mind would take, which are via either Centre Street or Edmonton Trail rather than Deerfoot to Memorial - which takes about ten minutes from the ex-Quikair \ PeaceAir facility, I drive it regularly.

It is patently dishonest to say that the current slot utilization reflects on the potential of YXD when Edmonton Airports has banned virtually all the service that once operated from there. YXD didn't fail in the market place it was starved to death by Edmonton Airports. It isn't that nobody cares - everyone I deal with in Edmonton has been bitching about this for the last five years straight.

And the "few oil and pipeline cowboys" are the people who keep the lights on in Edmonton, their interests shouldn't be taken lightly. Without them both Calgary and Edmonton are Saskatoon.

[vid]

Have you guys ever heard of these:


Source

We've had them for 33 years now. They work great! Virtually every emergency hospital and large clinic in this region has a helipad. You can skip the airport completely. The same company also has planes for long distance transfers to Winnipeg or London (next closest large centres by air in Canada), though those happen pretty infrequently. London and Winnipeg's airports are pretty far from their main hospitals, so when you look at it that way, Edmonton City Centre is really more of a luxury than a vital facility. Grey Nuns Hospital in Southeast Edmonton is 6 minutes closer to EIA than ECCA according to Google Maps, so ECCA isn't even benefiting all hospitals.

If the issue is that hospitals there don't have helipads, then build helipads. We don't use land ambulance for long distance patient transfer services at all here, with the exception of the mass relocation of patients in 2004 when the new hospital opened. (It has an even more convenient helipad placement, right beside the emergency ward.)