Here we go again...Edmntn City Center

[Youngback]

Wow....AGAIN another non reader. I said that no one could be empirically proven to be saved by the fact that the flight landed at YXD vs YEG and using other facilities. It was a comparison.

Considering the Womens Unit and the ER of the Royal Alex are less than 4 minutes from YXD, I'd bet there's quite a few people who've made it vs dying on Gateway Blvd. Ever performed CPR on someone? In the back of an Ambulance? I've had a few patients heading to the U of A from YXD that have been diverted to the Alex because of the patients heart stopping. So far all but one have made it. 4 minutes of CPR is long enough. I can't imagine an extra 10. Or the mom whose placenta had ruptured just before landing. Those minutes make the difference. I don't know where the CH got their statistics from but I know there weren't any administrators taking notes or polling us in the ambulance on those trips.

I really don't care if YXD stays open or not but I know there's a few extra people walking around and a few babies that are getting close who are here because YXD was open.

[Main Gear]

I don't get it. Why not leave the airport and try to utilize it more, making the core easily accessible and convenient for the business traveler.....would probably attract more investment and give an edge over other cities. This is not Hong Kong...Alberta has lots of land not too far from the core for residential development...much nicer than the airport area. The city is a mess to navigate anyway. If the airport was closed, it would only line the pockets of some developer and any proceeds would probably be pissed away by the city. I think if managed properly, YXD could be an asset to the city, not a money grab. I thought the city wanted to be progressive, accommodating, unique.....

[bmc]

I hate to read about airport closures. The Muni is a pain for airlines that fly into the international as well. Duplicate staff, equipment, etc.

Sadly, if it's not being utilized how can the airport authority make good money with it by offering incentives to aircraft owners? Better managing an airport focusses on cost and revenue. Either raise the rates or cut costs. Pretty simple.

[tellyourkidstogetarealjob]

No, it isn't. Gee, I get to KILL TWO stupid posts from one author in one day.

With your lovely tone I thought you might be another abusive poster who gets on here. Then I realized he's far more intelligent.

Strathcona is simply NOT ZONED for commercial tower development. Never has been, never ever ever ever will be. Strathcona has been and always will be zoned for more residential and academic developments, and over the past 20 years as the Whyte/Fringe district. Several developers have gone into the area to get the zoning changed to offer even a 12 story hotel, and 100% of them have been viciously fought by the district and 100% of them killed.

The point I was making is a lot of factors go into height restrictions. Airports are only one. Thanks for supporting me.

PLUS, the recent (early 2008) EPCOR tower announcement has CEO Don Lowry mentioning how they wanted to build taller, and had the economics to justify it, but the APO prevented that so they picked a location where a wider, shorter, squat tower was to be built. You want empirical proof that the APO limits development, there you go!

Thanks again for the support. If it was economically not viable to build in Edmonton, then why did they? The original point was height restrictions make building in Edmonton prohibitively expensive. I don't agree.

There are a lot of factors involved in development costs. Tax, land price, cost to bring in service (distance from existing service, type of soil, etc), all play a role. That's why comparisons with Calgary are inevitable. If they could do it, why couldn't Edmonton?

After all, they gave Dell Computers a heck of a deal on the southside that Dell walked away from because Edmonton was too stupid to put a clause in locking them into using the building for a guaranteed period.

The point you missed is that Edmonton's problems are due to bad government, not YXD.

Gee, maybe you should really get current as well as study this issue a bit...

Thanks, let's f*ck!

[tellyourkidstogetarealjob]

Iet me kill your garbage quickly.

40 years of "stiffling" is not 2 ~5,800 small runways that can't handle a 737-3. That is physics. ...but then who would expect on a pilot's forum that someone would know about aircraft performance? The Feds built YEG because they COULDN'T PHYSICALLY EXPAND YXD.

You need to get out more. How do you think densely packed Europe solves such problems? With money.

I don't recall saying the airport shouldn't be closed. I'm saying it was handled badly. Not only did Edmonton not want to spend money solving the problems of YXD, it didn't want to have YEG built and properly support that either. In other words, there was no solution cheapskate enough Edmonton voters and council would get behind.

Flatten the eastern half of downtown?

Isn't this the same area you claimed was full of, "smut shops and hookers"?

With your personality I can understand you want to keep those.

The biggest impediment to Edmonton was local politicians who felt entitled to provincial money.

Agreed.

Calgary got the C-Train due to the Olympic bid, and Edmonton expected it to simultaneously fall from the sky...debate for another time.

Actually, debate for this time. If Calgary used it's natural geographic advantage to get the Olympics and subsequently the 'C'-train, why couldn't Edmonton use it's natural advantages (closer to oilfields, UofA) to get funding for the LRT? It wasn't until last decade the LRT finally made it to the UofA, even though it's a stones' throw to downtown. The answer is Edmonton council and the voters who don't hold them accountable.

If you bothered to take a simple look at the infrastructure builds for Edmonton, you'd see that the Henday is now on stream, the revised Terwillegar/170 will be an expressway to YEG, and there are other re-alignments happening due to the rapid expansion south. This puts the Misericordia squarely on the accessibility map and is why Capital Health is utilizing that facility. The seniors desperate to recover from Carbon Monoxide poisoning were sent where? Oh that's right, THE MISERICORDIA!!!!!! Get current already.

Are you kidding? Comparing CO poisoning with some of the trauma cases that get referred to University hospital? I have worked at a Medevac company, they don't transfer CO poisoning cases.

And I didn't say that the U of A was INACCESSIBLE from YXD. That is typical of the bull crap that permeates this debate. I said that they were time wise equidistant. I've done it, unfortunately. But hey, don't let careful reading try to get in the way of a debate littered with garbage.

Go back and read your post. You were either not putting the Royal Alex or the University in your inclusion of what is accessible to YXD. You CLEARLY said, "one", hospital accessible. You'll make yourself look less stupid that way.

Oh, and Devon actually has an excellent hospital...put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I've spent a lot of time in Devon, I'm well aware of what's there. Where do you think patients come from? Most are from equally competent hospitals as Devon and Leduc. They don't shuffle them like cards. They send to UofA to access specialized skills or equipment. Which is why you can't include smaller hospitals in the list of what is available. More below.

The mention of Leduc and I guess I could INCLUDE Devon was immediate access for patient stabilization if needed...which is rare but mentioned in the Capital Health assessment. You know, the people IN the health care business!

I find it hard to believe an MD would write something that stupid.

Youngback's post is spot on.

Most doctors are too busy to write that kind of assessment. They are normally written by hospital administrators (not always doctors) or outside consultants. If you think a "professional" never writes dumb stuff about their own profession you should...never mind.

Now for the crap about a lack of private investment in YEG over the years until the 1990's? When did an independent authority take over and get YEG out of the hands of a sulking Federal Government who had ignored the field? Could that coincide with the spur in development and aggressive push if YEG? NAAAAAAAAHHHHH

Again, you need to get out more. The federal government didn't put a lot of money into many airport expansions. After they went independent, a lot of airports expanded terminals, etc. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of one that hasn't.

During the same decades when almost nothing got built at YEG a lot got built at YYC and YVR. All with private money. If YEG was such a gem, why not there?

Anyway, as far as the rest of your rant, I'll skip it for now.

You improvements you mention in south Edmonton are very recent and aren't completed even now. They came despite the airport, not because of it.

Edmonton has tried to avoid biting the bullet and properly support YEG.

The mandate you keep referring to allowed YXD to keep operating as a GA airport until 2051, I believe. That's what people voted 77% in favour of, not closing the airport.

If the mandate question was worded: "Should we completely close City Centre Airport and increase property taxes by $100 or so per year to put an LRT line to YEG. Giving the downtown a lovely night's sleep so that developers can make a killing from the land?" I would speculate the result might have been different.

[87Strat]

I can't pretend to know the history and complexity of this issue compared to others here, so I won't pretend, but I just want to put forward a question.

What effect will oil at $250/barrel have on a population that will be forced to migrate closer to jobs, conveniences, etc, etc? Some analysts are predicting this. I think the writing is on the wall, and it doesn't matter how much you dislike land developers. That airport land could be very quickly brought up to speed should that happen. You want to see a future white elephant, look at south common, and the money being spent/wasted to fast track vehicles through there, but I digress.

Hell, even though I currently do my flying from YXD, I would certainly consider moving downtown if it costs me $200 to fill 'er up while living in the burbs!!

Just a thought.

[x-wind]

I say close it and do something progressive with the land. CZVL could help out with the smaller operations Im sure.

[CD]

Recent arguments to save Muni frankly dumb
Was there a competition to say silliest thing?

By Scott McKeen, The Edmonton Journal
March 23, 2009


Children watch an airplane get ready to depart form the City Center airport from the Shell Aerocentre.
Photograph by: Candace Elliott, Edmonton JournalNew research suggests Edmonton's airport debate kills brain cells.

The research is mine. The study subjects are mostly, but not exclusively, bipedal human politicians. All were observed in recent weeks saying and doing dumb things to save the City Centre Airport.

Vying for the dumbest airport arguments so far are Coun. Tony Caterina, the Kingsway Business Association and Edmonton-Calder Tory MLA Doug Elniski.

Caterina was seen at a recent council meeting berating civil servants for reporting that the airport land, if redeveloped, might earn city coffers $500 million in profit.

Caterina accused bureaucrats of pulling numbers out of thin air, misleading the public and generally being obnoxious.

Caterina, you might remember, is the guy who argued the contaminated airport lands might cost as much as $1 billion to clean up.

He also argued that relocating the Muni's aviation business will cost city hall "in the billions" to settle lawsuits and leases.

Where did Caterina acquire such grossly inflated numbers? Thin air?

According to one of his council colleagues, Caterina "pulled them right out of his (censored)." In doing so, Caterina sounded hypocritical and dumb.

LIKE APPLES AND FERRARIS

The Kingsway Business Association hosted an intelligence-insulting propaganda forum last week on the merits of the Muni, featuring a former airport manager at Page Field in Florida. Coleen Baker came to sell Edmonton a message: The Muni is a gem and must never be closed.

Except it was near impossible to determine from Baker's presentation if her airport is comparable to the Muni in any way. Without serious study, it's a bit like saying NHL franchises in Edmonton and Tampa Bay have the same economic potential.

Then, during a question-and-answer session after her speech, Baker was asked to comment on the malicious, myth-making media, who lampoon the Muni as an enclave for rich guys with private planes.

Baker pooh-poohed the notion. She said a lot of pilots using airports like the Muni are hobbyists. Such people invest in private aircraft, she said, when others might buy nice boats, or "Ferraris." That's right, Ferraris.

Now to Elniski, whose provincial riding encompasses the Muni lands. Elniski hosted the Kingsway Business Association forum and expressed concern about losing medevac flights into the Muni.

DON'T SCARE PEOPLE

Elniski said an end to medevacs at the Muni might reduce the number of out-of-town patients transferred to the Royal Alexandra Hospital.

If that happens, the Royal Alex might cut service. If that happens, people in his constituency might lose some access to timely health care.

Excuse me? First of all, no government MLA should point fingers about hospital delays right now. No MLA should talk such nonsense, period. Medevac flights into Edmonton will continue even if the Muni closes. The Royal Alex will continue to accept patients. And those patients will continue to vie for the same services as Elniski's constituents.

Raising public fears without grounds to do so is beyond dumb. It's irresponsible. Frankly, I lost some respect for Elniski. He's a hard-working, affable politician. But all by himself, he proved why provincial politicians should stay the hell out of Edmonton's airport debate.

AND THE WINNAH IS ...

Yet I'm not prepared to give Elniski the award for Dumbest Argument to Date on the Muni Airport. The award goes to former Grande Prairie mayor Wayne Ayling, chairman of the alleged public interest group, the Commuter Air Access Network of Alberta.

Ayling showed up at the Kingsway Business Association forum last week to argue for a return to scheduled flights at the Muni. The Muni, he argues, is an Alberta asset. All Albertans should have a say in its future. His group wants 19-seat aircraft using the Muni to ferry passengers to and from spots all over Alberta, including Calgary.

Other Muni boosters -- Caterina excepted -- aren't asking for an increase in scheduled service at the Muni. They are smart enough to realize such a move would ultimately doom Edmonton's International Airport.

The old downward spiral would begin again, as major airlines relocated long-haul service out of Edmonton and into Calgary. The Muni would again become the spoke to Calgary's hub.

So yes, Ayling wins the prize. His argument is stupidly arrogant and strategically dumb. It only serves to remind Edmonton that as long as the runways remain open at the Muni, the threat to our air service will continue.

There will always be some community, business lobby or Ferrari driver who demands more convenient access to air service than Edmontonians enjoy themselves.

Giving in would make them look smart, by comparison.

Full article here...

[BibleMonkey]

The Royal Alec hospital, with a big fancy er is right there. You could climb out of the airplane with the leg you broke way up North, crawl down the curb to the hospital in five, ten minutes, dragging your broken leg.

Leave that old , still useful airfield alone. Screw developers. Money and politicians come and go.





Leave Blatchford Field alone.

[Prairie Chicken]

Gee Edmonchuck, how do you really feel?

The EAA didn’t want XD in the first place, but when forced to take it they did everything they could to make it loose its viability ... and once that happened, they had the arguments to support closing it down. So yes, the electorate voted to consolidate commercial service into YEG—but the well had already been poisoned for the Muni.

The Feds built YEG because they COULDN'T PHYSICALLY EXPAND YXD.

Fine, so go to CYED. Anyone else remember the travesty of closing down Namao? Why is it that all over the world countries & cities are crying for more airports and runways, except here in Canada where we keep closing them down? I’m thinking specifically of CYED & CYAW, but I’m sure there are others, and of course CYXD has been a target for years.

As far as business having to go to Calgary, has anyone else ever noticed that in all of our provinces business stays clear of government? Victoria is the government centre & capital; Vancouver is business. Edmonton is government, Calgary business. Regina & Saskatoon ... same thing. Etc., etc. except where population or geography is too small to support both. Business doesn’t want to be under the noses of their regulators. But yes, the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) for YXD does restrict the heights of buildings on approach to the runways and particularly for 34 which has an ILS.

[MUSKEG]

In my opinion they should have scrapped both the YXD and YEG and almagamated them at Namao. The military could have had their ops on one side and Edmonton would have a new facility. Instead they are trying to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear at YEG. Run a LRT line to Namao from Jasper Av and suddenly you have access and convinience. But old Axeworthy took care of that idea when 406 was moved to his riding and he allowed a huge building to be built on the button on 11. What an idiot. From an alternate landing site for the shuttle to a parade square in one summer. Fools.

[youngtimer]

It is a shame to look down at the endless pavement at Namao when circling to land YXD. Medevacs and such aside, the suits from YYC won't be coming up to Edmonton anymore with the jets, if it's important they'll just be making the QE2 traffic even worse. Mind you, these days, there are more excuses for parking the jet. My wager would be that 2009 is the last year YXD will exist, based on some interesting rumors and a few facts, which I'll just keep to myself...

[g5]

Edmonchuk

Whose interest is it to have skyscrapers built in a city? Are Edmontonians really so keen to have monstrous towers block out more light from the city centre? They should be glad the restrictions have been there to prevent more utilitarian architecture and stunt poor growth management.

Why do you insist on constantly using the word "empirically"? Who uses that word anyways?

Although it will certainly happen one day, it will be a shame when Blatchford's field succumbs to the bulldozer. Developers have been aching to get their hands on this property for years, but politicians have had too much red tape to hurdle to cash in on the deal.

So what's your stake in it?

[MrWings]

Edmonchuck's argument would have greater merit if he/she was named Edmonchuk.

[gabo]

Would it be possible to close just 1 of the runways? im sure that bulldozing 16-34 could be done and judging from the pictures about 1/3 of the airports land could be turned into commercial or residential property, thus giving both sides a little of what they wanted.

[Prairie Chicken]

16/34 is the instrument runway. You can't lose it or there would be no sense having the airport. I don't believe you could put an ILS on 12/30 due to the required OLS for an instrument runway. I don't think you'd save enough real estate to make it worth while just closing 12/30, not to mention the fact that developers wouldn't put housing next to a runway. Noise contours and all that.

[Sub-Space Canoodler]

When YEG was first being built, was it not mixed up in controversy as well? I thought I had heard that the land there belonged to the family of a local politician.

[Tube Driver]

The facilities at Cyxd are old, so you relocate them to the edge of 16/34. You leave the ILS for 34 alone and take all the land that remains around the area of 12/30 and redevelope it. This would serve a number of functions.
1) It allows for a two stage plan of land reclaimation if the airport fails to be viable with only one runway. It will take years and millions of dollars to do environmental assesments of the land so that it will be at an acceptable level for residendial development. The airport may as well function and generate revenue during this process.
2) You cannot dump all that land on this depressed market all at once or you will not get the development that you evisioned as it will be full of lower end housing and businesses.
3) If you scale back the airport you still have the bulk of the land available for the developers. You get a small single runway airport near downtown that if managed and promoted properly would be a huge revenue generator for the city. Just look at the small airports in the USA this is their model, and it works.

There is a future in this airport for the city if they would stop seeing it as an either or situation and compromise.