Closing the City Centre Airport

[davidnorwoodink]

I'm soliciting the views of C2E members about closing the City Centre Airport. As many of you know, I write a monthly column, 'Civic Buzz', for Edmontonians. I plan to devote a column to the reasons why that airport should be closed, in as logically and straightforward a manner as possible. I'll be honest - I won't write about reasons it should stay open, because I want it closed. But at the same time I want to be cognizant of the businesses that will be affected and how best they can adjust to the closure.

I would very much appreciate input from C2E members on this subject, and ideally I'd like to be able to attribute input from members by name. But I'm also willing to use the attribution "C2E members" if necessary. My deadline is about ten days away, so if you are willing to speak up, I'd like to hear from you.

Thanks.

[RichardS]

you know my answer here...

[mi6_]

Close it already. I can't believe the debate is still ongoing in the city....

[SteveB]

I'm from Sherwood Park so not sure I qualify.

Close it to all commercial traffic with immediate effect, the International has proven itself and is 25 mins from downtown. If it has to remain open use it for private/air ambulance only, close one runway, allow downtown to grow upwards and close it completely when we get the world fair.

[ED1]

Closing/reducing service at the City Centre will be more of a benefit to the city as a whole (potential land use, height restrictions lifted, etc). Opening it up again to full commercial air traffic will probably undo all the progress the International Airport has made in the last 13 years.

The energy/passion used on the pro-City Centre Airport side should instead be used on encouraging the mayors/reeves of Greater Edmonton to work together to improve access to the International Airport (free-flow traffic to/from downtown, LRT, commuter/high-speed rail...)

(If you would like to use my quote, please private message me and I will provide my real name. thx. )

[lux]

Keep it going!

The things it does are not replicated at the international, or any of the small regional airports. It puts us ahead just as it is.

[MJLanglands]

"The things it does are not replicated at the international, or any of the small regional airports. It puts us ahead just as it is".

The argument may have had some validity 10 years ago - not today. What the Muni provides today can easily be replicated at either YEG or any one of the regional airports. At the end of the day the Muni provides Edmonton with no tactical advantage - we can overcome any advantages with any other of the local airports. If for no other reason, the Muni needs to close to put an end to this mindless debate. I accept that you may see some value in the GA oportunities however as long as this airport is open there will be a small minority that want services expanded. This minority has proved this out time after time in the last 10 years. End the debate - blow the damn thing up! In 10 years we are still going to be talking about it. There is not a single city of our size that successfully maintains 2 airports. The pro-Muni forces will trot out Kansas City as their shining example however this doesn't hold any water because no clear benefit has been proven. All they have to sell is a sack full of hope - with no clear grounding.

I am not arguing that we ignore general aviation however the Muni is not the right location. As a city, we have an opportunity to take our lot to the next level. Yet people with their heads either firmly entrenched in the 1970's or, with some vested interests in the Calgary Economic Development Authority or the Calgary Regional Airports Authority, continue to argue for an expanded role for the Muni. If you are a true Edmonton supporter please ask yourself why the single biggest financial contributors to the "Save the Muni" were the Calgary Airports Authority and the Calgary Economic Development Authority. Ask yourself why Rod Love wants the HSR to have a stop at the Calgary but not at YEG. Paranoid - I think not. Instead I am a realist. Close this damn thing and end the counter productive debate. Most people on this site care about Edmonton, want what is best for the city, and want the Muni closed.....

[lux]

Originally Posted by MJLanglands

What the Muni provides today can easily be replicated at either YEG or any one of the regional airports. At the end of the day the Muni provides Edmonton with no tactical advantage - we can overcome any advantages with any other of the local airports.

The main problem is that the services provided by the Muni have not been easily replicated at any other airport. You make it sound so easy. I would be in favour of closing City Centre Airport if someone was willing to step up and build a new General Aviation facility at the International and put an LRT to the door. Absolutely nothing less.

I've said it before: the muni can be closed, for a cost, and the cost is high.

I also want to know what to use it for. A permanent racetrack would just be pathetic. Industrial is out. NAIT expansion at YXD is also pointless. (remember, with the accursed muni gone, NAIT can build UP can't it?) So apart from a World's Fair, what do we put there? That area of Edmonton is well below its quota of high-end housing, so maybe a grand boulevard with mansions? Meh...

Also, getting rid of an airport to stop a debate is kind of biting off the nose, wouldn't you say? Just because some people long for scheduled service to return doesn't mean we have to go along with them.

[mark]

My biggest peeve is the airport protection overlays (or whatever they're called) that limit building heights. I want an iconic tower for Edmonton, and it'll never happen with the airport open.

Another reason to close it is the LRT leg that'll be right next door at NAIT in no time. TOD is a no brainer for the site.

Considering Centurk Park will house 5000 new residents, and its footprint is ~1/15th the area of the airport (rough guess), the development potential is nearly unlimited. The benefit of an operating airport in the city centre is now far outweighed by the potential benefits of redevelopment.

Some interesting sidebar info, if you havent already seen it, is this design competition for an airport space in Reykjavik. Some of the entries are excellent! Have a look.

Change Reykjavik to Edmonton and Vatnsmyri to City Centre Airport, and this is spot on.

Originally Posted by http://www.vatnsmyri.is/

Most everyone living in Reykjavík would no doubt agree that Vatnsmýri is one of our dear city’s key areas. Whether we are of the opinion that this area should continue serving as an airport or not, we can all agree that this important tract of land, situated so centrally, ought to be shown special consideration and must be planned as a whole that can contribute even further to the community. This principal has indeed guided the competition for ideas for Vatnsmýri on which this book is focussed. Another principle was that planning Vatnsmýri provides a unique opportunity in developing Reykjavík – an opportunity which is unavailable to other capitals and which coincides with other challenges facing residents at the outset of the new century.

[mark]

just an afterthought, and maybe it should be in a separate thread...

But wouldn't it be great to host a design competition for the city centre airport? Solicit entries from all over the world, get the average Edmontonian to see the potential in the site, etc. It might get the ball rolling...

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Reasons for closing the Muni:
- height restrictions for downtown development
- restricted downtown development = lost businesses and head offices leaving town
- it served as a feeder to YYC, hence why consolidation had to happen
- airfield is too small for any expansion
- airfield is too small for today's jets
- the land is needed for infill development
- the land is needed for LRT extension
- the land is needed to improve road access (e.g. Yellowhead Trail)
- the land is needed to accomodate growth of NAIT
- currently serves as a race track for the Grand Prix
- could potentially serve as Expo land
- reduced noise from overhead planes
- a city our size cannot support two airports
- YEG services and benefits all of the Greater Edmonton area and northern Alberta, not just Leduc (unlike what some pro-Muni people would say)
- YXD will only serve the Grande Prairies and Fort Macs, YEG can also serve them plus the Londons and Hong Kongs.
- past lack of YEG services due to Muni being a YYC feeder = lost business, cultural and tourism opportunities


If the Muni closes permanently, the parties most affected are:
- Calgary
- MLAs representing the Progressive Calgary party
- PC MLAs' friends in the small-town lobby groups
- a small handful of average-class hotels on Kingsway


Even before the Muni is closed, access to YEG and service at YEG must improve:
- public transit to YEG (bus, LRT) in conjunction with city-wide LRT expansion and ETS scheduling improvements
- a unified taxi service (the current situation with the Airport taxi vs Edmonton taxi services is stupid)
- street lighting on QE2
- a free-flow Anthony Henday Drive (no traffic lights)
- a freer-flowing Gateway Blvd c/w new bridge and eliminated hairpin
- inner ring road needs to be done
- more trans-border and international flights out of YEG
- improved parking at YEG
- more retail and food services (pre and post security) at YEG


Did I miss anything?

[mick]

I second the design competition idea. Edmontonians may be surprised at cities potential.

[lux]

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

Did I miss anything?

You did:
The muni where it is represents one of the few "lifestyle amenities" we already have here.

Calgary offers weekend skiing in the mountains. Vancouver offers weekends boating on the ocean. London offers weekends of arts and culture among other things.

Edmonton doesn't offer enough to people who have the choice to move somewhere else, found a company somewhere else, or just be and do things somewhere else.

One thing the muni does really well as it is is allow people to fly directly to obscure places.

To compete with Calgary and Vancouver, we can offer weekends flying to northern lakes, or weekends just flying around. General Aviation is a hidden strength and great potential in a region of few geographical opportunities to dazzle people, and few cultural opportunities. Show me a British Museum and then we'll talk about the Muni. The Province is ignoring the so-called "Royal" Alberta Museum.

The Muni needs to be a critical part of the way we sell our city, and closing it isn't all sunshine and opportunity as you paint it to be. I don't want the muni so we can be beholden to Calgary, I want it so we can compete with them. The scheduled service is where it needs to be, but only the Muni is functional as an "amenity" for general aviation. It could be replaced at the International, but nobody's really talking about that; they just get all excited at the prospect of annoying Tony Caterina and they forget to actually make concrete commitments about general aviation at the International.

It is not a terrific idea to fly a small 4-seater out of a runway used by major jets on their way to international destinations. First, the issue of separation due to wake turbulence means delays. Second, we're all hoping for an international airport with lots of traffic, so the delays are harder to take. So do we get a dedicated (or "available") new runway for General Aviation at the International? Who pays for that?

Also, the Reykjavik redevelopment plans looked really good! The plans said high speed rail may be developed to connect to Keflavik when the old airport is redeveloped. May be. May. Maybe not! That is where the whole plan falls apart.

Not good enough.

So, yes, you forgot the High Speed Rail to the newly built airport GA and main terminal. NOT a bus. Firm commitment; shovels in the ground. Then we're talking.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

If the Muni closes permanently, the parties most affected are:
- Calgary
- MLAs representing the Progressive Calgary party
- PC MLAs' friends in the small-town lobby groups
- a small handful of average-class hotels on Kingsway

Did I miss anything?

You sure did. The most important party of all: General aviation.

[Hilman]

Originally Posted by lux

One thing the muni does really well as it is is allow people to fly directly to obscure places.

Let's keep the Muni open so people can fly to obscure places, that is a great reason. A million people in the city and we are holding the Muni open for the Lloydminsters, Fort Chips, etc?? The runways are too short to land anything useful other than small feeder planes to Calgary. That helps us/YEG how? It is time for the Muni to be closed and used for something productive which many Edmontonians can enjoy.

[MJLanglands]

The main problem is that the services provided by the Muni have not been easily replicated at any other airport. You make it sound so easy. I would be in favour of closing City Centre Airport if someone was willing to step up and build a new General Aviation facility at the International and put an LRT to the door.

I would submit that it would not be difficult offer GA facilities / services at YEG. Clearly there has been no prevailing requirements until now. Please don't insult people that are suggesting a permanent closure of YXD by suggesting that anyone is proposing a permanent race track on the site as the be all and end all. This sort of reasoning defies logic. There are many potential uses - all of which represent better uses. The report is due in June. This is a terrific location with unbelievable potential. Don't insult people by suggesting otherwse.

[MJLanglands]

The muni where it is represents one of the few "lifestyle amenities" we already have here.


Edmonton doesn't offer enough to people who have the choice to move somewhere else, found a company somewhere else, or just be and do things somewhere else.

One thing the muni does really well as it is is allow people to fly directly to obscure places.

To compete with Calgary and Vancouver, we can offer weekends flying to northern lakes, or weekends just flying around. General Aviation is a hidden strength and great potential in a region of few geographical opportunities to dazzle people, and few cultural opportunities. Show me a British Museum and then we'll talk about the Muni. The Province is ignoring the so-called "Royal" Alberta Museum.

The Muni needs to be a critical part of the way we sell our city, and closing it isn't all sunshine and opportunity as you paint it to be. I don't want the muni so we can be beholden to Calgary, I want it so we can compete with them. The scheduled service is where it needs to be, but only the Muni is functional as an "amenity" for general aviation. It could be replaced at the International, but nobody's really talking about that; they just get all excited at the prospect of annoying Tony Caterina and they forget to actually make concrete commitments about general aviation at the International.


You are selling the city short by suggesting that YXD represents" one of the few lifestyle amenities" we have. There were a number of cities that I could have chosen but I chose Edmonton - not at all because of YXD. Please do not belittle the cultural/sporting attractions or the overall general spirit of the city. It would be naive to suggest this is all that Edmonton has going for it.

People that advocate closing the Muni are not advocating a position based on emotion. We believe that the facility has hurt the city. General Aviation can occur in any number of facilities. YXD is not the be all and end all of GA in Edmonton. As for Tony Caterina - I could give a tinkers damn about him. Please don't demean my position by suggesting otherwise. Tony Caterina is an insignificant boil in the buttocks of society and he will be finished and out of the game after the next municipal election.

At the end of the day the Muni needs to be shut down - anybody with a lick of sense can see this.

I am not ignoring GA. The GA interests can be served well at YEG.

[MylesC]

But therein lies the rub.

I think there are a LOT of the "anti" muni camp that would have been extremely happy and willing to keep it open in a way that lux has outlined.

However, the pro camp and their ridiculous demands have dug their own grave.

[The_Cat]

Since the 1920s, the Edmonton City Centre Airport has served Edmonton in at least two or three different capacities. From the time it started out as Blatchford Field, pilots like Wop May became folk heroes flying tuberculosis vaccine to Fort Vermilion on a perilous flight in bitter cold temperatures. During World War II, the Airport served as a strategic location for the military, where pilots trained and as a major staging point for American supply routes to the North. It survived and thrived during the Oil Boom, even after the International Airport was built. Even after consolidation of scheduled air service at the International Airport, the airport still offered general and private aviation. Up until recently, air traffic and downtown development have coexisted quite peacefully. The City Centre Airport will always have its place in 20th Century Edmonton.

While the City Centre Airport has a great past, it is becoming harder to justify aviation of any kind. Since consolidation of scheduled air traffic at the International Airport in 1996, the International Airport has seen its air traffic grow to over six million passengers annually, Edmonton has had one of Canada's strongest growing economies, and downtown Edmonton could be on the verge of a development boom much like the seventies, particularly if a downtown multi-purpose arena housing the Edmonton Oilers, major attractions, and other events is built. It would seem like the sky could the limit for development, but wait...

Since the sixties, the development of Edmonton's downtown has been dictated by NAV Canada. Edmonton's development of downtown towers has been limited by the height restrictions to allow for air service to continue at the City Centre Airport. The tallest buildings (Telus House, Manulife, Bell and Toronto Dominion) are about 35 storeys, or about 450 feet tall. Other locations of downtown have much more lower allowable height limits because of the proximity to the airport, or flight path. Developments are limited because of these restrictions.

For many years, particularly during recessionary times, these restrictions were irrelevant. With office rental rates jumping form $10/square foot to over $40/square foot since 2000, there is a greater demand for office space downtown, and the possibility of more downtown construction. With EPCOR moving to a new tower on the north side of downtown by 2012, how many developers are ready to follow suit?

For the City of Edmonton, it begs the following questions:

(1) Would developers build higher if the City Centre Airport were closed? A permanent closure would mean the possiblity of taller commercial and residential buildings, both in downtown and in Oliver. Of course, the tax base for the city would expand.

(2) What kinds of developments would be allowed if a new downtown arena was approved? We might have more flexibility in surrounding developments if height restrictions on buildings were lifted.

(3) With the transportation improvements coming to Anthony Henday Drive, and possibly Gateway Boulevard, it would take about 30 minutes to get from get from most the city and other parts of Metro Edmonton to the International Airport. What would become of the City Centre Airport as a result of improved transportation and expanded LRT?

(4) If Edmonton wins the bid for the 2017 Expo, what will become of the Airport? Will the land be used for the Expo site, followed by rezoning? I'm sure that NAIT would be most interested in adding to its campus, and a major new road and LRT could be built out to Yellowhead Trail.

As we can see, Edmonton is changing. Edmonton's City Centre Airport does have a historical element to it, and perhaps some of the heritage could be preserved. However, I'm sure if Wop May were alive today, he himself would probably not support keeping the Airport open, given all of Edmonton's growth. We probably have a 3-5 year time frame to decide the fate of the airport, and we can plan for impact of these changes.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

My own personal answer to the general aviation thing is, "who cares?" - move it to YEG or Villeneuve or whatever. As long as the Muni stays open for any purpose, the debate over it will be like the proverbial cockroach.

[m0nkyman]

None of the other airports have taken on the general aviation role of the city centre airport because it's still there! Close the City Centre, and the other airports will pick up the slack. Heck, I'd support spending some of the money made from selling off parts of City Centre towards buying up land around Villeneuve for expansion...

[lux]

Originally Posted by Hilman

Let's keep the Muni open so people can fly to obscure places, that is a great reason. A million people in the city and we are holding the Muni open for the Lloydminsters, Fort Chips, etc?? The runways are too short to land anything useful other than small feeder planes to Calgary.

No. Not Fort Chip or Lloydminster, the airport is there to allow people like Max Ward to fly to vacation homes in places like Red Rock Lake, in the northwest territories. The runways are long enough to get him there, as well as any other business people and economic leaders who may want to enjoy a fun weekend of flying. We're trying to make our city attractive to business people and economic leaders as a good place to enjoy life while they grow their Edmonton-based economic empires. General Aviation is an interesting way to do that.

Originally Posted by MJLanglands

I would submit that it would not be difficult offer GA facilities / services at YEG. Clearly there has been no prevailing requirements until now.

I agree, except I don't think it would necessarily be easy or people would be demanding it as easily as they demand the removal of YXD. This is one of those situations where I can only quote myself:

Originally Posted by lux

I would be in favour of closing City Centre Airport if someone was willing to step up and build a new General Aviation facility at the International and put an LRT to the door. Absolutely nothing less.

Originally Posted by MJLanglands

Please don't insult people that are suggesting a permanent closure of YXD by suggesting that anyone is proposing a permanent race track on the site as the be all and end all. This sort of reasoning defies logic. There are many potential uses - all of which represent better uses. The report is due in June. This is a terrific location with unbelievable potential. Don't insult people by suggesting otherwse.
...
You are selling the city short by suggesting that YXD represents" one of the few lifestyle amenities" we have. There were a number of cities that I could have chosen but I chose Edmonton - not at all because of YXD. Please do not belittle the cultural/sporting attractions or the overall general spirit of the city. It would be naive to suggest this is all that Edmonton has going for it.

Please don't demean my position by suggesting otherwise. Tony Caterina is an insignificant boil in the buttocks of society and he will be finished and out of the game after the next municipal election.

At the end of the day the Muni needs to be shut down - anybody with a lick of sense can see this.

I am not ignoring GA. The GA interests can be served well at YEG.

I'm not selling the city short. YXD had nothing to do with why I chose Edmonton either. But once I got here, I used it, and loved it, and on a rational level, I saw its potential (and I don't mean "scheduled service").

I'm not belittling the city's other amenities, I am however going to point out that General Aviation is one of them, and we need far more than we have.

Also, nobody is getting insulted by me! Please don't belittle my argument by claiming to feel insulted, or by implying that anyone who might agree with my position lacks even "a lick of sense." I speak enthusiastically about the airport in the same way that others speak enthusiastically about shutting it down, and I don't feel insulted, not at least by a viewpoint that differs from mine.

As for the report due in June, I don't know why I should have to hold my tongue while anyone in favour of airport removal is free to speculate. I will be looking for the report to acknowledge the actual benefits of the muni as it stands, to acknowledge that the site does have great potential for reuse, and to acknowledge that it has a very good potential as an airport. If it had been a swamp for the last 100 years that had miraculously drained just last summer, one smart thing might be to recommend building an airport on it. Luckily we already have it! If the report does all those things, but ultimately ends up recommending something else other than an airport with better potential, I would accept that, provided alternate provisions are made in advance of closure. It isn't a foregone conclusion that a change of use is best, particularly when considering the cost of preparing alternatives.

Originally Posted by MylesC

But therein lies the rub.

I think there are a LOT of the "anti" muni camp that would have been extremely happy and willing to keep it open in a way that lux has outlined.

However, the pro camp and their ridiculous demands have dug their own grave.

Well, the only grave-digging has been for the career of Tony Caterina in politics. I'm not a part of any camp, and I stand by my comments about biting off the nose to spite the face being a bad way to plan Edmonton's future. So if we could see a way to agree on keeping it open in a way that will be a strength for the city, then lets just do that and ignore the extremists on either side indefinitely.

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

My own personal answer to the general aviation thing is, "who cares?" - move it to YEG or Villeneuve or whatever.

This is what gets me so worked up about suggestions to eliminate YXD before an alternative is in place! My own personal answer to the needs of sports teams or a desire for iconic (read: "taller than calgary) buildings downtown is "Who cares?" I really don't care about either of them. But I'm still willing to see those things happen here if it results in a wider variety of interesting things to see and do here. General Aviation is an interesting thing to see and do here, and I expect the plan to be in place first. I don't think Katz is planning on demolishing the existing arena before the Oilers have a new home...

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

None of the other airports have taken on the general aviation role of the city centre airport because it's still there! Close the City Centre, and the other airports will pick up the slack. Heck, I'd support spending some of the money made from selling off parts of City Centre towards buying up land around Villeneuve for expansion...

Again, see above. We can't just close it and hope for the best. And, in many respects Villneuve is not the answer. It is a great airport but it is an extra 10 km further out, not exactly direct to get there, and not a good approximation of the convenience of YXD, and without any realistic hope of ever having an LRT connection.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

None of the other airports have taken on the general aviation role of the city centre airport because it's still there! Close the City Centre, and the other airports will pick up the slack. Heck, I'd support spending some of the money made from selling off parts of City Centre towards buying up land around Villeneuve for expansion...

I was going to respond to Adam, but you beat me to it.

Seriously Adam, we've had this discussion before. GA will be just fine. If not, then all cities should be biulding a GLORIOUS GA facility downtown...

Yes, I know Adam, we already have one. However, this one, like Megis, is getting to the point where it is a toy for the few. The times have changed significantly, and as much as I want to see a compromise that allows one runway to stay open and for the museum to have the ability to have flying displays, NAIT to have an expanded aviation program in conjunction with the EFC, etc, but others have pushed their agendas to the point where there is no more room for a compromise.

So, while I agree that GA will take a bit of a hit initially, it will be more than served by the gaggle of other airports around, and others will expand to make up for the void.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by lux

Again, see above. We can't just close it and hope for the best. And, in many respects Villneuve is not the answer. It is a great airport but it is an extra 10 km further out, not exactly direct to get there, and not a good approximation of the convenience of YXD, and without any realistic hope of ever having an LRT connection.

And Springbank does?

Paine Field?

Arlington?

Pitt Meadows?

Boundary Bay? (probably one of the busiest GA fields I see in Canada)

All of these quite "far out" from the downtowns, quite "inconvenient" for students and make the "rich flyer" drive a ways to get on his little Caravan or even a jet. Yet, like Boundary Bay, they flourish.

When I mentioned that a plebiscite would have to include the plans for the future, I was including GA - a community I am rather fond of. However, like Megis, this argument has become one that is no longer compromise, it is closure. As sad as it is, the GA folks here, like Illinois, have a cross to bear for bringing it to this conclusion. ...and I must say GA is still thriving in Chicago.

Shall I continue?

[mark]

Lux, you almost had me convinced that the muni should stay open for GA... until you mentioned Villeneuve is only 10km away.

[kona]

Originally Posted by lux

No. Not Fort Chip or Lloydminster, the airport is there to allow people like Max Ward to fly to vacation homes in places like Red Rock Lake, in the northwest territories. The runways are long enough to get him there, as well as any other business people and economic leaders who may want to enjoy a fun weekend of flying. We're trying to make our city attractive to business people and economic leaders as a good place to enjoy life while they grow their Edmonton-based economic empires. General Aviation is an interesting way to do that.

So are you saying it should stay open so a few priveleged people that own expensive planes can have their fun? Why would we castrate the growth of our city just for a few? Perhaps if we allowed for development we would attract more that are willing to fly out of YEG or Villenueve.

As for YEG and Villenueve not stepping up to the plate to respond to GA, I bet they will when City Centre closure is announced. There are new hanagrs for GA going up at both airports in recent years, take a drive one day and check it out.

[glasshead]

IMO, the net utility to the city of Edmonton is greater with the Muni closed than open.

[lux]

Originally Posted by mark

Lux, you almost had me convinced that the muni should stay open for GA... until you mentioned Villeneuve is only 10km away.

ahh. 10 km further away...with LRT being unrealistic.

2.5 kilometres from downtown to City Centre Airport
30 km from downtown to the International Airport
40 km from downtown to Villeneuve via assorted back roads
0 km from NAIT campus and its pilots' and aviation mechanical programs to Edmonton City Centre....in a province where 90% of companies hiring pilots report difficulty finding enough people to do the job. Let's not become a centre of expertise or anything...

Originally Posted by kona

So are you saying it should stay open so a few priveleged people that own expensive planes can have their fun? Why would we castrate the growth of our city just for a few? Perhaps if we allowed for development we would attract more that are willing to fly out of YEG or Villenueve.

As for YEG and Villenueve not stepping up to the plate to respond to GA, I bet they will when City Centre closure is announced. There are new hanagrs for GA going up at both airports in recent years, take a drive one day and check it out.

Yes. That's what I am saying. I'm a Calgary Airports Authority plant who doesn't want Edmonton to grow. Aaaaaaagh.

I am saying that the growth of our city depends not just on tall buildings and new arenas, but on having other interesting things to do. I am saying that keeping the Muni open and even improving it as a general aviation facility might not actually castrate civic growth, it might actually promote civic growth!

How else can I say that if we throw out the bath water we should retain the baby firmly by the heel? The airport is not a blight, uselessly sucking all the goodness and promise out of Edmonton; it actually does something good for the city. How else can I say it is okay to close it as long as something equal or better is in place first!

If we're just going to close things and hope for the best, and hope that someone else picks up the slack, lets close the Coliseum now. It could be converted into a desperately needed TOD starting tomorrow! Someone is bound to build a new arena somewhere, aren't they?

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Originally Posted by lux

40 km from downtown to Villeneuve via assorted back roads

Getting to Villeneuve, one can easily go down Yellowhead west, take the Hwy 44 exit and drive 5 minutes north. Or go to St. Albert and turn at Villeneuve Road. Hardly what I call "assorted back roads".

0 km from NAIT campus and its pilots' and aviation mechanical programs to Edmonton City Centre....in a province where 90% of companies hiring pilots report difficulty finding enough people to do the job. Let's not become a centre of expertise or anything...

Having a downtown airport is hardly a requirement for a good NAIT pilot school when:
- aspiring pilots can be bussed out to an airfield, just as students in various trades are bussed out to oil fields and construction sites
- a satellite campus can be built at YEG or Villeneuve

Originally Posted by lux

The airport is not a blight, uselessly sucking all the goodness and promise out of Edmonton; it actually does something good for the city.

Yes because it benefits the small handful of people who have their own planes, and nobody else. Sorry, but the detriments to keeping the Muni open for any purpose heavily outweigh any benefits.

Originally Posted by lux

If we're just going to close things and hope for the best, and hope that someone else picks up the slack, lets close the Coliseum now. It could be converted into a desperately needed TOD starting tomorrow! Someone is bound to build a new arena somewhere, aren't they?

Difference is, there are already other airfields that can accommodate general aviation. It's not like they'd have to buy up a few farms and build a new airport.

[Medwards]

What's so important about having general aviation so close to the core of this city? Why does it need LRT service? Are there currently people that take the bus or other methods besides driving now for the purposes of General aviation.

There's absolutely no reason that this airport needs to stay open. Even as a medical landing area is getting stupid, as you still have to go to the university hospital for anything of that emergency that you're flying in.

The benefits of closing this airport far out weigh any possible benefit it would have to keeping it open.

YEG is a great airport, closer in terms of time of travel to many areas of Edmonton then YXD due to the Henday and QEII

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by lux

ahh. 10 km further away...with LRT being unrealistic.

Do you honestly believe that LRT and GA are even remotely related? How many people are going to hop on an LRT to go fly their cessna? Come on.

[Hilman]

If you can afford to fly airplanes leisurely, you are not penny pinching and taking the bus/LRT to get there. So GA and LRT have no use being in the same sentence.

[Chump]

I've changed opinions three times on this issue in the last 10 years. After having lived in Fort Collins CO for 2 years, and having experienced Centennial Airport first hand (KAPA), I only see what the muni could become. Cenennial is smack in the middle of (south) Denver and one of the most successful examples of a secondary airport in the middle of city in North America. The ramp is full of Gulfstreams Lears (and 172s). This, despite (or regardless) of multilple existing GA fields near the city. GA traffic isn't even allowed into DIA.

However, a major difference is it is still far enough away from downtown not to inhibit highrise growth as far as I know.

So, I'm still with lux on this one. At least for now. Or maybe going down to 1 runway, as RichardS has suggested previously.

Originally Posted by Hilman

If you can afford to fly airplanes leisurely, you are not penny pinching and taking the bus/LRT to get there. So GA and LRT have no use being in the same sentence.

That generalization is simply incorrect. Flying can be very expensive, but it doesn't have to be and certainly is not only a rich person's hobby. In fact, most pilots I know are major penny pinchers

[Chump]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

Do you honestly believe that LRT and GA are even remotely related? How many people are going to hop on an LRT to go fly their cessna? Come on.

You mean their $35K 1961 refurbished 172? Well, I could name a few pilots that would, if the LRT would take them there...

But sure, there are those that "don't need" the LRT, no question.

[kona]

Sonic Death Monkey can you edit your post #29, the last two quotes you are attributing to me (kona) that I did not make and would never make.

Thanks.

kona

[kona]

Originally Posted by lux

How else can I say that if we throw out the bath water we should retain the baby firmly by the heel? The airport is not a blight, uselessly sucking all the goodness and promise out of Edmonton; it actually does something good for the city. How else can I say it is okay to close it as long as something equal or better is in place first!

If we're just going to close things and hope for the best, and hope that someone else picks up the slack, lets close the Coliseum now. It could be converted into a desperately needed TOD starting tomorrow! Someone is bound to build a new arena somewhere, aren't they?

lux, if, I mean when, the City closes the city centerer airport, they will not make the decision one day and then the airport is closed the next day. They will very likely take a few years to allow for an orderly transition and for the businesses and activities to relocate elsewhere. This would good sufficient time for other airports to improve their airfields to be able to accommodate the new activity.

The argument that something has to be in place first is not rational, no one is going to build something and hope, they will build it (more GA facilities) when they know the airport is closing, so the decision to close comes first.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Originally Posted by kona

Sonic Death Monkey can you edit your post #29, the last two quotes you are attributing to me (kona) that I did not make and would never make.

Thanks.

kona

Oops, sorry about that. Unfortunately I missed the window for editing, so double sorry!
But all quotes are addressing lux.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

Oops, sorry about that. Unfortunately I missed the window for editing, so double sorry!
But all quotes are addressing lux.

I can fix that - just tell me which post - and I'll fix it up - maybe PM me so not to waste more space in this thread

[YYC>yeg]

We feel it's the best, most viable option for your city. Shutdown any air service to that facility as fast as you can. We are sure that within 'years', one of your levels of government will build a tall, token skyscraper for you.

As for the airport lands, don't develop anything! As Mayor Mundil said last week, "there couldn't ever be anything more exciting than the 'car race' to hit our city". Yup, sounds like Edmonton to me. Only the 'cult of Edmonton' would prefer a car race over, oh lets say, the Terra Cotta Warriors, Cirque du Soleil, a Cannes type festival, the Olympics. Let me know when you're finished evolving up to the rest of the world.

Oh, and I love your idea for a World's Fair surrounded by highways, skid row, and former aircraft hangers. Sorry, it's now two minutes later and I'm still cleaning up after a bout of uncontrollable laughter. Best luck to you. It sounds like any of you supporting this idea has never actually been to a 'Worlds Fair'.

[DanC]

Originally Posted by YYC>yeg

We feel it's the best, most viable option for your city. Shutdown any air service to that facility as fast as you can. We are sure that within 'years', one of your levels of government will build a tall, token skyscraper for you.

As for the airport lands, don't develop anything! As Mayor Mundil said last week, "there couldn't ever be anything more exciting than the 'car race' to hit our city". Yup, sounds like Edmonton to me. Only the 'cult of Edmonton' would prefer a car race over, oh lets say, the Terra Cotta Warriors, Cirque du Soleil, a Cannes type festival, the Olympics. Let me know when you're finished evolving up to the rest of the world.

Oh, and I love your idea for a World's Fair surrounded by highways, skid row, and former aircraft hangers. Sorry, it's now two minutes later and I'm still cleaning up after a bout of uncontrollable laughter. Best luck to you. It sounds like any of you supporting this idea has never actually been to a 'Worlds Fair'.

Wow, it took a couple years for this to happen. Anyways, good for a laugh in the morning.

[RichardS]

Yeah, considering he/she/it is posting from an EDMONTON IP address... ...and if this person ever had seen a World's Fair, they often DO redevelop lands...*cough* False Creek *cough*

[DanC]

Originally Posted by RichardS

Yeah, considering he/she/it is posting from and EDMONTON IP address... ...and if this person ever had seen a World's Fair, they often DO redevelop lands...*cough* False Creek *cough*

Nah, I heard the World's Fair wasn't a catalyst for change in Vancouver. You shouldn't spread such falsities.

[The_Cat]

We have more than one reason to suggest permanent closure of the City Centre airport. I think that, win or lose, going for the Expo will be worth the risk. Bidding for Expo will unite people in Edmonton, and the Expo vision will take Edmonton in that direction.

Like most of us on this forum, I have no time to argue with people who continuously seem to shoot down any idea to improve our city. In fact, I feel sorry for these people, because it seems these kinds of people generally have little or no interest in participating in the many wonderful activities that Edmonton offers.

[davidnorwoodink]

Thanks for all of you who have posted to this thread. You've given me some good, sound reasons and opinions that I can use in the column. The debate is productive, too, and I hope you keep the comments coming.

[DanC]

I was told that the NAIT student association was involved in some manner with lobbying for closure so the Campus could remain and expand where it is, instead of the split to a dual campus model (Ralph Klein Campus).
I was told a Councilor was also involved in the discussions, but this is all second hand.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by YYC>yeg

We feel it's the best, most viable option for your city. Shutdown any air service to that facility as fast as you can. We are sure that within 'years', one of your levels of government will build a tall, token skyscraper for you.

As for the airport lands, don't develop anything! As Mayor Mundil said last week, "there couldn't ever be anything more exciting than the 'car race' to hit our city". Yup, sounds like Edmonton to me. Only the 'cult of Edmonton' would prefer a car race over, oh lets say, the Terra Cotta Warriors, Cirque du Soleil, a Cannes type festival, the Olympics. Let me know when you're finished evolving up to the rest of the world.

Oh, and I love your idea for a World's Fair surrounded by highways, skid row, and former aircraft hangers. Sorry, it's now two minutes later and I'm still cleaning up after a bout of uncontrollable laughter. Best luck to you. It sounds like any of you supporting this idea has never actually been to a 'Worlds Fair'.

I see your post as evidence that Edmonton is passing Calgary on the outside of the corner, and you're jealous. If you weren't jealous, you wouldn't be here with an offensive nick, and this post wouldn't exist.

Keep your jealousy in check, I'm sure there's something that Calgarians can be proud of... oh wait, yes, we all remember the 88 Olympics like they were yesterday...

Thanks for coming to C2E, I look forward to many more posts from your type

[kona]

{mod note: thread split}


So here is the actual question from 1995 (Source: City of Edmonton)

1. CITY COUNCIL WISHES TO RESOLVE THE AIRPORT ISSUE

Do you direct City Council to repeal “The Edmonton Municipal Airport referendum bylaw” (No. 10,205)? That bylaw requires the City to operate the Municipal Airport and promote that airport’s air passenger service.

A “YES” vote means that the City will promote MOVING scheduled air passenger service to the Edmonton International Airport.

A “NO” vote means that the City will promote MAINTAINING scheduled air passenger service at the Edmonton Municipal Airport.

Under both options the City will continue to own and offer general air services (e.g. private planes, small charters, air ambulance) at the Municipal Airport.

YES: 166,404 (76.81%)
NO: 50,253 (23.19%)

For interest sake you will notice a 1 next to the question. Do any of you remember what question 2 was? (no peaking)

[LindseyT]

keillor related replies were moved to this thread http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...7684#post87684

[lux]

Thanks Lindsey, Kona for the info about Keillor.

It should be a separate thread, but it also serves as an example useful in this thread. In that case we closed a road, and those who objected were told "Oh, this closure makes sense because other roads will be upgraded. Don't worry." Then the upgrades never happened.

So for those of you who think closing the Muni is okay because other infrastructure will just somehow take up the slack, I just don't buy it. Would there be sufficient notice before the Muni shuts down? Well of course it wouldn't just close overnight. That isn't the point.

Does it make sense to actually have everything ready to go before shutting anything at the Muni? Yes; that just a sign of a well-planned and orderly transition - the way they do things in Hong Kong, like closing one international airport overnight and opening a brand new one the next morning with no loss in service.

Don't just "hope for the best." Let's plan a closure to be an improvement to all users, including General Aviation. If that sounds too complicated or too expensive, it means that closure isn't economically worth it. If we will get enough money from selling the land and redeveloping, then bring it on, but don't leave GA to chance.

[kona]

Originally Posted by lux

Thanks Lindsey, Kona for the info about Keillor.

It should be a separate thread, but it also serves as an example useful in this thread. In that case we closed a road, and those who objected were told "Oh, this closure makes sense because other roads will be upgraded. Don't worry." Then the upgrades never happened.

So for those of you who think closing the Muni is okay because other infrastructure will just somehow take up the slack, I just don't buy it. Would there be sufficient notice before the Muni shuts down? Well of course it wouldn't just close overnight. That isn't the point.

Does it make sense to actually have everything ready to go before shutting anything at the Muni? Yes; that just a sign of a well-planned and orderly transition - the way they do things in Hong Kong, like closing one international airport overnight and opening a brand new one the next morning with no loss in service.

Don't just "hope for the best." Let's plan a closure to be an improvement to all users, including General Aviation. If that sounds too complicated or too expensive, it means that closure isn't economically worth it. If we will get enough money from selling the land and redeveloping, then bring it on, but don't leave GA to chance.

If I am interpreting your correctly I believe we agree. If the City decides to close the City Centre Airport, that is fine, but make sure the airports are improved to make for an orderly transition when it is closed. That would take a few years, but the other airports won't make improvements unless they know what will be happening.

[soycd]

DT airport: close it

EXCEPT keep the race track intact and allow rotary aircraft continued use.

[McBoo]

Lux: I would be in favour of closing City Centre Airport if someone was willing to step up and build a new General Aviation facility at the International and put an LRT to the door. Absolutely nothing less.

Mois: There's LRT to the Muni? Why didn't you tell me?

Double standard - double speak - double-cross.

Bring out the bulldozers at midnight.

[RichardS]

Folks, please don't compare the Keillor debate to YXD. They served different interests completely and Keillor didn't ignite the same city-wide passion in 1995.

The point of having a firm transition plan is valid, and as mentioned before, needs to be a part of the discussion. However, Keillor did have a follow on plan that was executed and CONTINUES to be executed. Namely, 114th improvments, the bus lanes and the sLRT. For those who weren't here at the time, that was part and parcel of the debate on this little shortcut road. Streetcars and other fanciful things were talked about, but in more of a starry-eyed vein. LRT was the death knell to Keillor, and from what I see, they're delivering.

Don't fret folks. I know for a fact that there are at least 3 solid plans for post YXD. Given the lenght of this debate, I'd put money that there is a lot more gathering dust somewhere. ...and yes, this includes you GA folks.

[LO 044]

Originally Posted by lux

To compete with Calgary and Vancouver, we can offer weekends flying to northern lakes, or weekends just flying around. General Aviation is a hidden strength and great potential in a region of few geographical opportunities to dazzle people, and few cultural opportunities. Show me a British Museum and then we'll talk about the Muni. The Province is ignoring the so-called "Royal" Alberta Museum.

It is not a terrific idea to fly a small 4-seater out of a runway used by major jets on their way to international destinations. First, the issue of separation due to wake turbulence means delays. Second, we're all hoping for an international airport with lots of traffic, so the delays are harder to take. So do we get a dedicated (or "available") new runway for General Aviation at the International? Who pays for that?

Please stop bringing wake turbulence into the arguement. Do you know how few flights YEG actually has relative to it's 2 mammoth runways? Even if your 2 runway argument would be true, YEG will build a 3rd runway. There isn't enough traffic from YEG AND YXD combined to cause congestion issues at YEG. Gate availability is an issue at YEG and i highly doubt i will ever see a Cessna parked at Gate 54 to cause delays to AC or WJ.

Then there's your constant complaining about not having an LRT line to YEG. Get over it, it won't happen in our lifetimes. Do we have an LRT line to YXD? And even if we did, do you think that general aviation people or PC MLA's will be hopping on to the LRT line to get to downtown?

IMO the muni could be closed within a specified period of time and general aviation could prosper and enhance at YEG. Why do people harp so much about YEG's location. It really isn't that far from downtown relative to major airports around the world. YXD's proximity to downtown benefits a small amount of people compared to all the YEG passengers.

[MikeK]

With YEG not expected to have serious runway congestion issues for perhaps decades, I have wondered why on earth would the ERAA think about planning for a 3rd runway in its latest plans. Is this simply a concealed way of planning for GA traffic when YXD finally gets shut down for good, whether that'll happen in 2012 or 2052? Also, some draft plans for YEG do show a lot of setting aside of land for airside development - maybe more than can be accounted for just non-GA traffic, but I don't know for sure.

There's also something I find interesting, and maybe a bit odd about the 3rd runway plan compared to earlier draft plans - it's been shifted a bit to the northwest so that the southeast end of it sits right on the north runway. I wonder why that is so. To reduce the danger of midair collision and/or wake turbulence?

See PDF file below for YEG maps.
http://www.alberta.ca/home/CapRegion...appendix_C.pdf

As for why so many people (esp. those from outside of Metro Edmonton) complain about YEG's distance from downtown Edmonton when it's not much different from many other cities worldwide - I think it's more or less psychological. There's still plenty of open farmland between the built-up parts of Edmonton and Nisku/Leduc. But this is becoming less and less so as Edmonton keeps expanding to the south and that there will be industrial/commercial development east and north of YEG perhaps on a massive scale over the next 15-25 years.

[RichardS]

MikeK, there is a reason for the third runway, and it has something to do with GA, and also something to do with increased flow and capacity. While it is true that the current runways could accomodate an almost twofold increase in traffic, the addition of the third runway will give the prevailing wind direction 2 available runways as in today. This leaves 02/20 as an alternate.

GA also gets into the game by having 02/20 and 12L/30R right there - even less taxi time. Add any cargo growth if it comes, and the layout makes even more sense.

As for who funds it, the EAA out of its revenue.

Also note that the "attachment" to 02/20 is really a displaced threshold. The touchdown zone is further NW. This is not to avoid midair collisions as 30R will be a departures runway most likely (30L arrivals and a fast taxi to Apron 1), and only become a landing runway if it is CATIII and the minimums are really that bad.

Also, the third runway allows 12R/30L or 02/20 to be upgraded at any time.

LO 044, wake turbulence is something to consider, although it is not that bad right now at YEG. The SID could be modified to give the seperation required as most GA aircraft can take off in a much shorter distance and turn rather quickly off the departure path to avoid the wake further downwind. However, there is something to congestion that lux does touch on, although I don't think he means to. Ever sat either holding short or on the runway on 02 some mornings? That is not because of traffic coming to YEG, but apporaches to YXD! So, any argument that YXD alleviates delays is only partially true. It affects arrivals on 20 and departures on 02.

As for LRT to YEG....expand the thought. It is NOT solely for YEG passengers...

[richardW]

in english please

[Chump]

[QUOTE=LO 044;87767]

Originally Posted by lux

IMO the muni could be closed within a specified period of time and general aviation could prosper and enhance at YEG. Why do people harp so much about YEG's location. It really isn't that far from downtown relative to major airports around the world. YXD's proximity to downtown benefits a small amount of people compared to all the YEG passengers.

What makes you think the ERAA wants GA to prosper at YEG? I would think that's the last place they want to see become a major GA airport. In fact, at the moment its "preferred" if GA traffic uses the other airports in the area.

[lux]

[QUOTE=Chump;87841]

Originally Posted by LO 044

What makes you think the ERAA wants GA to prosper at YEG? I would think that's the last place they want to see become a major GA airport. In fact, at the moment its "preferred" if GA traffic uses the other airports in the area.

Wasn't too interested in what ERAA wanted to see for GA - I don't work for them.

[lux]

I'm going to suggest a new view of City Centre Airport.

It is the False Creek of Edmonton.

Currently used but apparently unloved, the Muni is ripe for renewal much like False Creek was before Granville Island was redeveloped.

False Creek was a reminder of industrial decline and economic lapses of judgement, and a victim of the times. Progress had lapped it and carried on. It had been partially filled in, and had been slated to be completely filled in decades ago. What a waste of space it was, they said. When space is at a premium, lets just ditch it and imagine what a great high-density TOD you could build there! A modern smart urban solution!

The way people spoke about False Creek is the way people are speaking about the Muni; a disposable inconvenient nuisance to be engineered out of existence for cleverer and more important needs. Like "density" and "Transport Canada Overlays."

Well, if you haven't been to Vancouver, that never happened to False Creek. It is a fantastic amenity, it is still False Creek from one end to the other, with an incredible waterfront and harbours filled with private boats from small dinghies to opulent yachts.

False Creek is to the Ocean as City Centre Airport is to the Air. It is a way for us to enjoy the skies in the same way that Vancouverites enjoy the water. It is part of enjoying the city, something we actually have now, already in place.

We're talking about filling it in. It is not without cost, and it is not without alternative futures apart from just scrapping it and pretending it never existed. There are also some strange ideas about the Muni and the people who use it. Who cares if some of them can afford their own airplanes? I thought Edmonton was getting over communism! Good for them if they can afford a private plane! I can't, not currently anyway. But neither can the thousands of Vancouverites who enjoy False Creek as they stand next to a dock with a dozen multi-million dollar private yachts. There are, and should be, lots of things for everyone at an airport like the Muni, and it is not as though we can offer an ocean as an alternative.

[Chump]

[QUOTE=lux;87847]

Originally Posted by Chump

Wasn't too interested in what ERAA wanted to see for GA - I don't work for them.

Sorry lux - I meant to Quote LO 044 there, not you - that statement is LO 044's. I can't edit the post anymore. The question was to LO 044.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Originally Posted by lux

I'm going to suggest a new view of City Centre Airport.

It is the False Creek of Edmonton.

yadda yadda yadda

False Creek served as the grounds for Expo 86 which sparked its redevelopment. A World's Fair at the Muni can potentially do likewise. In fact, it's one of the reasons why there's now a big push to get the Expo here.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by richardW

in english please

See the pdf MikeK put in the post before mine. The numbers are the magnetic orientation of the runways (02 = 020 degrees).

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by lux

We're talking about filling it in. It is not without cost, and it is not without alternative futures apart from just scrapping it and pretending it never existed. There are also some strange ideas about the Muni and the people who use it. Who cares if some of them can afford their own airplanes? I thought Edmonton was getting over communism! Good for them if they can afford a private plane! I can't, not currently anyway. But neither can the thousands of Vancouverites who enjoy False Creek as they stand next to a dock with a dozen multi-million dollar private yachts. There are, and should be, lots of things for everyone at an airport like the Muni, and it is not as though we can offer an ocean as an alternative.

That is one of the compromises that I've proposed for awhile. However, this gets rejected by the GA crowd over fears of a lack of a crosswind runway, and the pro-yxd folks that feel the death of 12/30 will mean that commercial scheduled aircraft will never ever return. Here's a hint, it won't. At best, we keep 16/34 and its ILS capabilities for NAIT and GA, make a cool condo AirPark, keep the aviation museum, do the world's fair, keep the race, etc...and all this is readily attainable and an area I'd happily buy into.

Too bad that the GA crowd and the Koziak's of the world just can't see past 1971...

[Chump]

Originally Posted by RichardS

However, this gets rejected by the GA crowd over fears of a lack of a crosswind runway.

Really?

What, they don't teach crosswind landings anymore?

One runway is all you need.

[LO 044]

Originally Posted by Chump

What makes you think the ERAA wants GA to prosper at YEG? I would think that's the last place they want to see become a major GA airport. In fact, at the moment its "preferred" if GA traffic uses the other airports in the area.

That's a fair point and i do not know specifically what ERAA wants to do. Anyone have any insight? But does ERAA want to deal with questions and policies made by politicians who have no idea about how much YEG has meant to the City of Edmonton let alone Leduc? I highly doubt Villeneuve would become a GA airport (correct me if i'm wrong) so it's either YEG or YXD. Coincidentally, would keeping one runway open only at YXD scuttle any plans for the rebirth of YXD to anything ovver GA? Of course the other runway would have to be demolished or used for some other purpose. If it stays then this debate will run to my death bed.

As for crosswinds, anyone see the LH 320 landing today? It was shown on the news. The pilot landed on a 2nd attempt.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sd2AoYtTcFg

[ThomasH]

For the most part I'm happy with the results of the election, but I was disappointed to find Conservative's election party headquarters being held at Chateau Louise Hotel near the Municipal Airport. I'm almost certain that Don Koziak used it to convince the conservatives help keep the Muni open.

[kona]

LO 044 is not Villeneuve already a GA airport? I can't think of any scheduled service going in there, so it must all be GA activity.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by Chump

Really?

What, they don't teach crosswind landings anymore?

One runway is all you need.

LOL!!!

That's what I say...most small gravel strips are just one runway...but they lament that 12/30 is the main runway for the prevailing winds. While that can be argued, it is really the longer of the two, and the one for noise abatement as it goes over East Jasper's pawn and XXX shops and North Edmonton industrial.

Like many arguements in this debate, the crosswind one is easily shot down too.

[LO 044]

Originally Posted by ThomasH

For the most part I'm happy with the results of the election, but I was disappointed to find Conservative's election party headquarters being held at Chateau Louise Hotel near the Municipal Airport. I'm almost certain that Don Koziak used it to convince the conservatives help keep the Muni open.

This is exactly what i was thinking after Stelmach arrived in Edmonton. Where was the party? I guess ThomasH answered my question. So again the Muni benefits the politicians. What else is new.

Kona i guess i'm putting business / corporate flights in with GA which might not be correct. In that sense, i couldn't see pliticians / business people flying in to Villeneuve airport. I dunno though, do not most GA people like having their aircraft parked in the city? Even the flights schools might think it advantageous flying out of the Muni rather than Villeneuve.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by ThomasH

For the most part I'm happy with the results of the election, but I was disappointed to find Conservative's election party headquarters being held at Chateau Louise Hotel near the Municipal Airport. I'm almost certain that Don Koziak used it to convince the conservatives help keep the Muni open.

No.

It was the closest spot to YXD where Ed's plane landed from Calgary, and Koziak is a long time Tory supporter IIRC.

The support from certain MLA's so doesn't need Don's prodding for support. If the Muni wasn't there, then they may have had the meeting at the YEG hotel, or just grabbed the car and had it anywhere in Edmonton.

No conspiracy, just logistics and opportunity.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by LO 044

As for crosswinds, anyone see the LH 320 landing today? It was shown on the news. The pilot landed on a 2nd attempt.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sd2AoYtTcFg

Hmmm, it looks like someone lost their concentration or hit a bit of shear. Look at the action of the control surfaces during flare...when the rudder kicks hard left watch the ailerons...oops...

[MylesC]

Originally Posted by lux

I'm going to suggest a new view of City Centre Airport.

It is the False Creek of Edmonton.

Bravo. That hits it right on the head!

[ThomasH]

"We saw once again that the generally pointless tribal animosity between Calgary and Edmonton continues unabated.
My advice? Just re-open the Muni and let’s move on."

- Rod Love

[MylesC]

I really don't know why anyone would listen to the ramblings in his blogs. It's awful, really. Any skilled blogger would tear him to shreads in seconds.

[RichardS]

But he's the architect of the Klein Revolution...

[MylesC]

And they had some good ideas back in the early 90s. The Klein Revolution is over and they can't figure it out, so now they ramble away with no point.

Also, back in the day, the architects knew they should keep in the background. Seems he doesn't feel like doing much incognito rambling nowadays.

[Chump]

I didn't mean to sound like the ERAA is anti-GA (on the contrary) - I just don't think they want a lot of GA traffic at YEG - the opposite in fact - GA traffic should really use other airports in the area.

Villeneuve is a busy GA airport already, and most of the training traffic that departs YXD actually flies to Villeneuve to practice circuits (touch and go's) etc. It has a control tower. However, it would need quite a major upgrade if it were to become another "Springbank" (Calgary’s other airport). The one runway suggestion has merit for YXD (doesn't even have to be one of the existing runways, could be a new one that doesn't impact downtown high rise development, say east-west, prevailing winds notwithstanding...)

Airport property is always going to be worth more developed - that's true of practically any airport (or any huge swath of land with nothing but a concrete runway on it). The key is deciding what unique (and not so unique) economic and non-economic benefits the airport provides, and deciding if those benefits are worth it. I would bet that most people jumping on the muni-debate bandwagon (whatever side you're on, myself included) really don’t have a good grasp of the economic and non-economic impact the airport has on the city – direct and indirect. Perhaps that needs to be calculated (accurately – in a nonbiased way) in today’s economy and dollars.

My basic underlying opinion is that a thriving, busy secondary airport is a necessity in a city this size, and does much more to enhance and stimulate business and economic development and diversity than hinder it. That’s where I start from because I’ve seen examples of it. If this is really going to be discussed (threads like this just won't go away, so I don't think the issue will ) then it should be discussed with all the information on the table, starting with an accurate assessment of the airport's impact.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by ThomasH

"We saw once again that the generally pointless tribal animosity between Calgary and Edmonton continues unabated.
My advice? Just re-open the Muni and let’s move on."

- Rod Love

My advice?

No. Get used to it. Period.

[RichardS]

[COLOR=black]

Originally Posted by Chump

[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]Airport property is always going to be worth more developed - that's true of practically any airport (or any huge swath of land with nothing but a concrete runway on it). The key is deciding what unique (and not so unique) economic and non-economic benefits the airport provides, and deciding if those benefits are worth it. (...)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]If this is really going to be discussed (threads like this just won't go away, so I don't think the issue will ) then it should be discussed with all the information on the table, starting with an accurate assessment of the airport's impact.

[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]J Mac did an excellent write up on airports and the development conundrum in FLYING a couple months back. I'll try to see if I can get it scanned in so we can see it. The same argument that you make here is what he made, with an exception that he wanted more pavement as that is the way to alleviate congestion. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]I know that there are studies on what happens to GA sans YXD. It is not like this hasn't been studied to death. I also get annoyed at the assumptions that if Villenuve was a good GA option it would be developed already. Malarky. There is no impetus for it to develop with YXD still alive. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that if YXD was seriously on the chopping block, and I mean SERIOUSLY, then there would be immediate dusting off of plans to expand the other GA facilities city wide. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]So, if people are worried that there are not post YXD plans in place, don't. After 50 years, you bet there are more than enough plans and ideas to go around.[/COLOR]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]

[kona]

Poking around the Edmonton Airprots website there is a plan there for developing land at Villeneuve, so it looks like something will happen there regardless of city centre.

[RichardS]

They've had a recent business plan...now imagine a reduced or removed YXD.

[JimR]

Just a note, Villeneuve was constructed in anticipation of ECCA's closure back in the early years of EIA.

[davidnorwoodink]

Thanks for the clarification, Jim.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by JimR

Just a note, Villeneuve was constructed in anticipation of ECCA's closure back in the early years of EIA.

SSSSSHHHHHH, you're tellling secrets.

[kona]

Originally Posted by RichardS

SSSSSHHHHHH, you're tellling secrets.

I thought that was what Josephburg was for

[lux]

Jim R,
There is a disconnect between where Edmonton has built its airports and where it would be convenient for them to be located. Was Villeneuve built around the same time as Mirabel in Montreal? Comparisons to other cities further afield which "prove" that our airports are of average distance, ours are not as close or as convenient as other cities in our economic universe:

vancouver international to downtown vancouver: 11 km / 14 min
winnipeg international to downtown winnipeg: 8km / 17 min
calgary international to downtown calgary: 14 km / 20 min
edmonton international to downtown edmonton: 31 km / 36 min

springbank to downtown calgary: 26 km / 29 min
st. andrews to downtown winnipeg: 22 km / 32 min
boundary bay to downtown vancouver: 28 km / 32 min
villeneuve to downtown edmonton: 38 km / 46 min
cooking lake to downtown edmonton: 37 km / 48 min
josephburg to downtown edmonton: 44 km / 1 hour

Edmonton City Centre airport to downtown Edmonton: 4.5 km / 7 min
Time advantage over other international airports: 100% to 500%
Time advantage over other cities' GA airports: 400% to 450%
Time advantage over our city's other GA alternatives: 650% to 850%

This is why if we are going to ditch the status quo and insist on total closure of the muni just because one city councillor and one mayor are causing a rucus, I will insist on at least an LRT to the international with exciting new GA facilities there. Cause I don't think anybody's going to build connections to Villeneuve, no matter what people were thinking when Villeneuve was built.

If we're serious about giving Edmonton a truly integrated transportation network. then we take care of General Aviation. There is no reason to deprive GA users of an accessible, connected, convenient facility, part and parcel of the transit networks in the city, particularly not for the silliest of preconceptions like "GA users are an elite wealthy minority that can safely be ignored." And especially not when this closure mostly serves an elite wealthy condo-dwelling curtain-wall-loving minority with a fetish for tall buildings.

Has anyone ever thought of promoting the city on those advantages shown above?

I think I'm going to start calling Villeneuve "Mini-Mirabel."

[ThomasH]

Compared with other international cities, Edmonton does well with city to airport travel times.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by RichardS

They've had a recent business plan...now imagine a reduced or removed YXD.

How recent?

Originally Posted by ThomasH

Compared with other international cities, Edmonton does well with city to airport travel times.

Also not to mention that a number of recently built and proposed major airports worldwide are having to be built at least as far from their cities' downtown cores as YEG is from downtown Edmonton. This is due to various reasons such as land availability, concerns over aircraft noise, etc.

[kona]

Originally Posted by lux

Jim R,
There is a disconnect between where Edmonton has built its airports and where it would be convenient for them to be located. Was Villeneuve built around the same time as Mirabel in Montreal? Comparisons to other cities further afield which "prove" that our airports are of average distance, ours are not as close or as convenient as other cities in our economic universe:

vancouver international to downtown vancouver: 11 km / 14 min
winnipeg international to downtown winnipeg: 8km / 17 min
calgary international to downtown calgary: 14 km / 20 min
edmonton international to downtown edmonton: 31 km / 36 min

springbank to downtown calgary: 26 km / 29 min
st. andrews to downtown winnipeg: 22 km / 32 min
boundary bay to downtown vancouver: 28 km / 32 min
villeneuve to downtown edmonton: 38 km / 46 min
cooking lake to downtown edmonton: 37 km / 48 min
josephburg to downtown edmonton: 44 km / 1 hour

Edmonton City Centre airport to downtown Edmonton: 4.5 km / 7 min
Time advantage over other international airports: 100% to 500%
Time advantage over other cities' GA airports: 400% to 450%
Time advantage over our city's other GA alternatives: 650% to 850%

This is why if we are going to ditch the status quo and insist on total closure of the muni just because one city councillor and one mayor are causing a rucus, I will insist on at least an LRT to the international with exciting new GA facilities there. Cause I don't think anybody's going to build connections to Villeneuve, no matter what people were thinking when Villeneuve was built.

If we're serious about giving Edmonton a truly integrated transportation network. then we take care of General Aviation. There is no reason to deprive GA users of an accessible, connected, convenient facility, part and parcel of the transit networks in the city, particularly not for the silliest of preconceptions like "GA users are an elite wealthy minority that can safely be ignored." And especially not when this closure mostly serves an elite wealthy condo-dwelling curtain-wall-loving minority with a fetish for tall buildings.

Has anyone ever thought of promoting the city on those advantages shown above?

I think I'm going to start calling Villeneuve "Mini-Mirabel."

Not sure how you figured out your travel times but I really would like to see you get from YVR to Downtown Vancouver in 14 minutes! I do this often and 30 minutes is a good day it is often longer. Calgary donwtown to YYC in 20 minutes! maybe ten years ago. Now this is easily a 40-50 minutes trip, and it can be longer.

The other times are for the most part just as unreasonable.

One thing to keep in mind our aiprorts were built around 40 years ago or more in some cases. It is very expesnive to move them so lets drop this distance thing as it really is not an issue. YEG is as close to downtown as just about all the major airports.

As I have said before the decision to close YXD willhave to come before any significant improvements are made at the other airports for GA, but new GA development is occuring just take a look at the international and villeneuve - there are new hangars.

Calling Villeneuve a mini-mirabel just shows a locak of knowledge about why mirabel was constructed and why it failed.

[RichardS]

[COLOR=black]

Originally Posted by lux

Jim R,

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by lux

[COLOR=black]There is a disconnect between where Edmonton has built its airports and where it would be convenient for them to be located. Was Villeneuve built around the same time as Mirabel in Montreal? (...)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]This is why if we are going to ditch the status quo and insist on total closure of the muni just because one city councillor and one mayor are causing a rucus, I will insist on at least an LRT to the international with exciting new GA facilities there. Cause I don't think anybody's going to build connections to Villeneuve, no matter what people were thinking when Villeneuve was built. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]If we're serious about giving Edmonton a truly integrated transportation network. then we take care of General Aviation. There is no reason to deprive GA users of an accessible, connected, convenient facility, part and parcel of the transit networks in the city, particularly not for the silliest of preconceptions like "GA users are an elite wealthy minority that can safely be ignored." And especially not when this closure mostly serves an elite wealthy condo-dwelling curtain-wall-loving minority with a fetish for tall buildings.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]Has anyone ever thought of promoting the city on those advantages shown above?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]I think I'm going to start calling Villeneuve "Mini-Mirabel."[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]I'm with knoa on the poor comparison of Villeneuve to Mirabel. That simply doesn't make sense.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]As well, the GA community has always been considered in the wholesale transportation network, but seriously lux, do you fly? Do you have any idea on how much it takes to own and maintain a plane? Like boats where you have a hole in the water you throw money into, planes are a big fan/shredder in the sky that you throw your money into. It is not the "wealthy elite" as many of us who are GA advocates look at the bigger picture. Aircraft ownership has its costs, and the privilege has its costs too. The same alternator for your 350 Chev may fit on a Merc Marine, but add the word "marine" and add 300%, add "Certified for Flight", add another 300%. All that testing you know... Your parking stall at work is expensive enough, try tie-downs or hanger space! You are complaining about your auto insurance – try aviation. Oh, and when did you have to submit a medical just to drive your car?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]So, I do take a bit of an exception when you say the wholesale closure is just to satisfy the phallic glass statue lovers around the city. It isn't. It is starting to come into the realm of best use for the parcel of land given its location. As much as I love my second home (and YXD is really my second home), even I can see that when you put the full equation into play, GA loses. It isn't about the towers...that is more an offshoot than the compelling event. As we start maturing into a city and sprawl (such as it is) and a desire to remain within our own footprint becomes paramount, having an airport in the middle of town that by the every nature of the costs of acquisition, operation, licensing, regulation, and maintenance drives the exclusivity (everyone has access, you just need to pay in the time and $$$), the overall economic and social value of a downtown airfield becomes easily sluffed off as "for the elite", while the real reason is benefit to the city overall.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]Villeneuve was built where is was for the very reasons YXD became so restricted. It was to contain flight training and remove excess noise. The air corridor of YEG/YXD and CFB Namao was quite busy, so just take a quick look at Villeneuve's aerodrome and where the flight training area is on the latest flight supplements...out north & west. Hmmmmm, could it be that placement was to get it the heck out of the way? It never was about transportation by LRT, and it never ever ever ever ever ever ever will be. The corporate mucky mucks are not going to sit with Suzy Creamcheese on the A-Line as she drones on and on to her "crew" about how "like, her mom is so like a beatch and like you know like makes her clean and stuff". No. If you own a plane, you own a car. In the vast majority of cities in the world, if you own your piper, your airfield is a ways away, unless you buy into an airpark (hint hint ERAA), or live far out from the city and have your own grass strip. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]So, don't correlate the two. They don't mix.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]...and remember, it isn't a mayor vs a councilor here. This is 50+ years of a multitude of issues and failed compromises that have exhausted most everybody, including hardcore GA advocates like me. It has unfortunately become this argument - to finally and completely remove this discussion, one must remove the source of it. ...and that makes me sad.[/COLOR]

[davidnorwoodink]

For those interested, the May Edmontonians has my column about closing the City Centre Airport. I want to thank all of the C2E members who posted their thoughts - unfortunately I couldn't print them all. But I hope I caught the spirit of the discussion.

You can read it here if you want.

[booster]

I like the article David. I did notice however on page 10 an advertisement for the "Open Skies Save Lives" which appears to be a thinly disguised attempt at showing the positive side of the airport from the medical transportation side of it. Funny how none of the sponsors are health care related, even STARS is not a sponsor. Do you think this mini campaign was inserted to counter your article? Kind of disappointed that Edmontonians is a sponsor of the campaign though. Does that mean the paper as a whole supports the continued operation of the Muni?

[ThomasH]

It looks like this "Open Skies Save Lives" campaign is desparate attempt to find a worthwhile arguement for keeping the Municipal Airport open. Good luck with that.

The sponsors are:
Air Mikisew - Obviously
Chateau Louise Hltel & Confrence Centre - Obviously
The Edmontonians - Why?
Rexall Edmonton Indy - Why?
Ramada - Obviously
The Bay - Why?
Metro - Why?


No sponsorship from Stars, the Royal Alexandra Hospaital, etc. says alot.

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Edmontonians - probably related to the debacle with their paper getting banned from YEG
Indy - if YXD is closed and redeveloped then there's no more race track

[ThomasH]

The Indy could have a permenant racetrack there if they wanted.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by ThomasH

The Indy could have a permenant racetrack there if they wanted.

That's what I thought too. Any use could be made on the condition that roads or similar be designed to be converted into a permanent track. We could actually create something superior for the Indy.

[davidnorwoodink]

I thought I would post an e-mail I was copied on from a Don Peterson. He sent this e-mail to two or three dozen people, so it's hardly private. But I thought C2E members might be interested in what he wrote. Everyone has a right to their opinion - he didn't like mine, obviously (and he questioned my ability to gather facts). That's OK - a columnist doesn't write to be liked; rather he hopes to generate discussion and debate.

Here's the e-mail, exactly as I received it:

[COLOR=#1f497d]I talked with Lou Grimble a few minutes ago then went out and picked up the May copy of the Edmontonian. It has an article by David Norwood on YXD: To Be or Not To Be. The article refers to C2E debate which has about 25 close to identical statements to close the airport.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#1f497d]A look around the world shows the reasons to develop the ECCA as our commuter air terminal. It is ridiculous to claim it reduces use of the International airport (EIA), rather it increases reasonable use of the EIA with the commuter advantage of getting to Edmonton for longer range service [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#1f497d]Examination of the flight paths of the ECCA show very limited restriction to tall downtown buildings. Quite imaginative but no factual basis.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#1f497d]Mayor Mandel recently used a very descriptive and accurate term to describe City LRT planning. That term applies to ECCA consideration more accurately.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#1f497d]I wonder whether or not information should be produced for the Edmontonian that would be more correct ! By whatever means should the article be shown wrong ?[/COLOR] [

[COLOR=#1f497d]Don.[/COLOR]

>[COLOR=#1f497d] "that the City Manager work with the Edmonton Airports Authority to[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#1f497d]> determine if passenger traffic at the City Centre Airport should be [/COLOR]
[COLOR=#1f497d]> increased, and report back to Council about the pros and cons of [/COLOR]
[COLOR=#1f497d]passenger traffic at that airport."[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#1f497d]It was defeated by a 7 to 4 count. [/COLOR]

[Medwards]

Don, Welcome to C2E -

These 25 nearly identical statements come from... 25 different individuals. I'm not saying that C2E makes a consensus on how Edmonton as a community feels, but certainly, it reflects that a majority of Edmontonians do not see any benefit outside of GA to keep YXD open. The fact that Edmonton International Airport is closer to the majority of Edmontonians should be reason enough. Clearly, downtown development has been stiffled by the the airport, and approach to the runways. One only needs to look at downtown skyline from the north, and then look at the Overlay of the approach - you can make out that approach from just looking at the skyline.

It would be nice if we could hear WHY THE AIRPORT should remain open - your welcome to sign up and comment here, but I'm guessing you wont- cause you have no just cause in keeping this airport open, outside your own business interests.

We here at C2E are interested in the greater cause - and the betterment of Edmonton.

I doubt you'll read this - but if you do - please - come tell us, why should this airport remain open? why does Edmonton need 2 Airports? Be open and honest - we want to hear from you.

I really don't see how commuters are benefitting from the YXD airport - Especially when many of the commuters come from Oilfield related services - where most of the offices are on the southside, nisku, leduc, and the east end of the city - all more accessible by the wonderful freeway Anthony Henday

DN - feel free to copy me to Don Peterson in part or full - invite him to the debate here... if he feels so strongly in his conviction

We want whats best for Edmonton, not his personal wallet.

[RTA]

[COLOR=#1f497d]"A look around the world shows the reasons to develop the ECCA as our commuter air terminal."

[/COLOR]What are those reasons, and where in the world are they?[COLOR=#1f497d]

"It is ridiculous to claim it reduces use of the International airport (EIA), rather it increases reasonable use of the EIA with the commuter advantage of getting to Edmonton for longer range service"

[/COLOR]If those commuters are connecting into Edmonton for longer range service, isn't it more convenient for them if that connection is within YEG, without the cab ride between the two airports?

I give this email a FAIL out of 5 stars.