Edmonton Construction 9 (2008-08) - Page 314

Coldrsx · #**6261** Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by etown

^ CP Bridge

Are they building a completely new bridge or did they save the old one? There is a new building proposed there as well between Assoc. Eng and 110 st isn't there?

the original (old) one (it is in storage).

yup, 'azure' but the right of way is still there.

Daveography · #**6262** Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 4:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

That's it. My capacity to deal with the ridiculous folly that is connect2stupid has reached zero.

Where did all these 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 morons come from ?

I don't know what it is, but since you posted this, C2E has done nothing but piss me right the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 off today. Between more pro-Muni morons, continued griping abut "unsafe" neighborhoods, and comparing the moderators to mullahs in Iran...wow is this putting me in a bad mood. I think I should close that tab for the remainder of the day.

240glt · #**6263** Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 5:45 PM**

^ I'm under a lot of stress right now. My capacity to deal with stupidity in general is very low. I should probably just stay away from the internet for a while.

Shodan · #**6264** Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 6:02 PM**

Just arrived from a week in Ft. Lauderdale & the Bahamas; it's great to come back to more weirdness:

Airport talks take strange turn

By FRANK LANDRY, CITY HALL BUREAU

Last Updated: 24th June 2009, 10:54am

A public hearing into the future of the City Centre Airport hit some turbulence today when a councillor requested presenters take an oath before speaking.

Coun. Linda Sloan argued that because of the "gravity of the decision" before council, those speaking at a three-day hearing should swear to tell the truth.

While council has the authority to ask speakers to take an oath, it's rarely, if ever, enacted.

The proposal was quickly shot down, with Mayor Stephen Mandel arguing it would take "forever" to get through the list of 70 people signed up to speak, and it just wasn't necessary.

Sloan said not everyone would have to swear an oath, suggesting it just apply to those speaking on legal and medevac issues.

Sloan said she worried about a "bias" towards closing the gateway.

"I think it would have enabled the committee to have some assurance from all presenters that what was presented before it was factual and that the bias was removed," Sloan said.

Coun. Karen Leibovici said the idea wouldn't fly.

"It's unfair to indicate there's bias because I think if you look at everyone that will be speaking to us, there are those who are for and those that are against," said Leibovici.

"We could assume that those who are for are biased and that those against are biased."

A city report released last week suggested the City Centre Airport could be transformed into a vibrant, "transit-oriented" community that's home to over 24,000 people.

The city could make anywhere from $91 million to $230 million from the sale of the land, based on current economic conditions, the document stated.

That's down, however, from an earlier estimate of $486 million — which came at a time when real estate prices were higher.

Opponents have warned against the closure, arguing moving medevac services to the International Airport could put lives at risk.

They've also said having an airport close to downtown is a boost for the business community.

"Save Your Airport" billboards and signs have gone up across the city.

A pro-airport group conducted a survey in March and April that found 75% of respondents want to keep the airport open.

[email protected]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/06/24/9912351.html

Shodan · #**6265** Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 6:04 PM**

Muni airport hardwired into Edmonton's civic consciousness
But new generation looks ahead and sees 600 acres of opportunity

Scott Mckeen
Edmonton Journal

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The Muni airport is steeped in civic legend and lore, romance and adventure.

Personal memories of the Muni are potent: Of joy and tears, reunions and farewells, first flights and doomed flights.

The Muni is hardwired into our civic consciousness, along with things like our weird traffic circles, our nuts-and-bolts High Level Bridge and our glass pyramid fetish.

The Muni is integral to countless personal histories; central to many Edmontonians' sense of community.

No wonder, then, the outcry. How dare city council consider closing the Muni?How dare media pundits encourage it?

They dare, I suppose, because times change. So do values. Romance, like youth, is fleeting. The new generation is not the Muni generation.

The new generation, with fewer memories, looks ahead and sees 600 acres of opportunity. It sees high-density, environmentally sustainable urban development and an antidote to urban sprawl.

At 9:30 this morning, public hearings on the future of the City Centre Airport begin in council chambers. A crowd will come. Temporary seating and closed-circuit television will handle the overflow from council chambers.

Council will hear from speaker after speaker who with fear, fury and tears will demand the Muni be saved. It will not be easy to watch.

But neither rage nor grief make for good policy. Facts are the thing. But as I've said before, facts are up for grabs. Facts collide. Facts argue with other facts.

A fact will flourish, or not, depending on how it resonates with the adjudicator. For example, some people accept as fact that the Muni is our true gateway to the north.

They accept as fact that northerners rely on the Muni for medical, business and leisure travel into Edmonton.

Is that a fact?Or a myth?

A report released last week revealed that medevacs from the north can be safely relocated to the International Airport. Yes, delays might occur.

Medical transfer times can be shortened at the front end. And if need be, helicopters can transfer the sickest patients from the International to an Edmonton hospital.

But the gateway is more than just about medevacs, right?Northerners fly into the Muni. They use the Muni to fly back home.

Yes, they do. But not in numbers you'd expect. First off, almost three out of every four Muni flights in 2008 were unrelated in any way to the north.

Out-and-back training flights by student pilots are the most common trip, making up 41 per cent of air traffic at the Muni.

Yes, the next most common outbound flight was to Fort McMurray. But close behind was Calgary.

But the fact is, all those numbers represent a fraction of the air traffic between Edmonton and northern towns and cities.

In 2008, only 15 per cent of all the passenger seats on inbound northern flights landed at the Muni. The balance, 85 per cent, landed at the International.

Those figures are roughly the same for flights to the north from each of the airports. Simply put, the International is the north's preferred airport.

The 1995 referendum and consolidation of scheduled service to the International will be blamed for the Muni's paltry amount of northern air traffic.

But consolidation is no longer up for debate. It is a fact, bound in legal contracts and potential liabilities.

Yet it is also a fact that some aviation businesses will be harmed by the Muni's closure.

It is a fact that some private plane owners will have to relocate to other airports. It is a fact that student pilots will have to drive out of town for flying lessons.

Those facts must be heard and considered, as well. The facts and arguments brought by the pro-Muni forces in coming days will stimulate the debate.

At the same time, they will make council's decision that much more difficult.

That this council has dared to rule on the future of Muni is a sign of generations rising and falling. Previous councils dared not. But it is a new day. A new council. And in truth, there is a new gateway to the north.

It's called the Edmonton International Airport.
© The Edmonton Journal 2009

Copyright © 2009 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=3d5a7394-1e47-4f77-b08c-7bc7f09f4a86&sponsor=

Shodan · #**6266** Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 6:05 PM**

City centre facility's closure cost pegged at $180 million
Consultant's report cites convenience, connectivity

Ryan Cormier
Edmonton Journal

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

In the last of duelling reports on the fate of the City Centre Airport, one commissioned by the Alberta Enterprise Group estimates a possible closure will cost current users $180 million in time and other costs over the next decade.

The report on the airport's economic viability projects a $26-million loss this year that creeps up annually until reaching nearly $35 million by 2018.

Roughly two-thirds of those losses are in terms of the time it takes to reach the Edmonton International Airport over the city centre location. The Alberta Enterprise Group has lobbied city council to keep the airport open.

The key benefits to keeping the City Centre Airport operating are convenience and connectivity, said Peter Morris, chief economist of Ascend Aviation Insight, the London-based author of the report.

"You have got one of the best-connected airports to the city centre anywhere in North America," Morris said. "Why would you want to lose that?"

The calculation of a dollar figure on lost time equals roughly$100 an hour for an average business person, which he said was a conservative estimate, Morris said.

The City Centre Airport has a level of demand he has rarely seen. "The interesting thing is that limiting flights to nine seats would have ruined most airports in the world, but it didn't ruin this one. It kept on going. To me, that shows a huge demand."

The document comes on the heels of a number of city hall reports in the last week that looked at possible closure of the airport and potential developments after.

"City hall released 400 pages of analysis on the airport issue," said Tim Shipton, president of the Alberta Enterprise Group.

"Not one of those pages was about what the land was worth as an airport. We felt there was a glaring omission in balancing this issue to see what is the best use for these lands. Is it the airport or is it to develop?"

Coun. Karen Leibovici hadn't seen the report, but said she hasn't heard an economic argument that would convince her to keep the airport open.

Reports released to council last week found that varied development --including residential, commercial and a NAIT expansion--on the airport lands would give Edmonton a $335-million profit and $23.5 million in annual taxes. A similar development valued at $486 million last August is now valued at $230 million.

If the airport closes, about 25,000 people could move there over the next several decades.

The Alberta Enterprise Group's report is focused solely on the future prospects of the airport, not other factors such as potential land development, vice-president David MacLean said.

City Hall hearings on the issue, expected to take at least three days, begin today.

The Ascend report will be one of the main pillars of the Alberta Enterprise Group's argument in those hearings, MacLean said.

[email protected]
© The Edmonton Journal 2009

Copyright © 2009 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=96b9dda2-39ec-43bb-81e4-8a0faa129861&sponsor=

Mikemike · #**6267** Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

the original (old) one (it is in storage).

yup, 'azure' but the right of way is still there.

Wasn't there a plan to use that old bridge at the whitemud creek for an expansion of the streetcar route (or steam train, I don't remember) from Fort Edmonton Park?

Has a new ROW been retained? the old ROW was between Associated and the recently demo'd 2story building, but the Azure plan shows the new building built right up against Asociated, with a landscaped area and multiuse trail to the west.

I really like the idea.

ue · #**6268** Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^that was a schematic vision....nothing else.

do you think it's realistic for something like that to get built there? it would sure look beautiful. we need stuff like this in the quarters.

Coldrsx · #**6269** Posted **Jun 24, 2009, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

do you think it's realistic for something like that to get built there? it would sure look beautiful. we need stuff like this in the quarters.

realistic sure... in time.

0773|=\ · #**6270** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

...

Misses:

-dedicated bike lane
-diagonal crosswalks at 109, 105, 101

...

Was wondering if you could clarify on why these two ideas are misses for Jasper.

Wouldn't diagonal crosswalks promote more pedestrian traffic? Isn't a pedestrian-friendly environment exactly what Jasper needs as the city's 'main street'? Not so much as exclusive traffic, but on this route, I think a variety of modes of transportation need to be accommodated.

While on the topic of alternative modes of transportation, wouldn't a dedicated bike lane also be a good thing? I'm of the opinion that Edmonton needs to invest more in the infrastructure for commuter cyclists. The main routes leading into Downtown are a good place to start. I don't buy the "we can't use those lanes for 8 months of the year" argument. Many other Canadian cities (including Winnipeg--arguably colder than Edmonton) have year-round cyclists, and it seems that we have a culture for that as well, but simply lack the infrastructure.

There should be left-turn lanes @ 109 though. No argument there.

feepa · #**6271** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 1:06 AM**

I think Cold means lack of diagonal crosswalks...and lack of dedicated bike lanes

newfangled · #**6272** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 1:10 AM**

My favourite neglected schoolyard:

...is no more:

I remember the zoning change application, but seeing the result was a little surprising.

And, it's only 1 block away from the awesomeness of Paul Kane park.

And the Oliver community league are planning on some kind of revamp of Kitchener Park a few blocks east of there too.

ue · #**6273** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

realistic sure... in time.

well i'm hoping soon. quarters is the project i'm most excited about.

Coldrsx · #**6274** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 4:06 AM**

RE: Oliver Park - so awesome....

IKAN104 · #**6275** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 4:41 AM**

Just got back from 7 nights in Anaheim and Los Angeles. I love what the city of Anaheim has done around the theme parks with tons of trees, plants, shrubs and flowers right up to every curb and sidewalk. It's amazing how greenery within a city changes the way we feel when we drive through that city. Everything is beautiful.

Drive a few blocks away from the theme park area and you see the real Anaheim. Above ground power lines, plenty of thrift stores, empty lots, bad pavement, poverty and graffiti.

Drive into Los Angeles and you see homeless people sleeping in tents or cardboard boxes. Graffiti is everywhere, even on the the signs along the fast moving highways.

These are things we complain about in Edmonton but after what I saw in beautiful California, Edmonton has no homeless problem and Edmonton has no graffiti problem. (Also, the weather in Edmonton was better

)

I loved my trip to California but I am glad to be home!

rapid_business · #**6276** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 5:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfangled

My favourite neglected schoolyard:

...is no more:

I remember the zoning change application, but seeing the result was a little surprising.

And, it's only 1 block away from the awesomeness of Paul Kane park.

And the Oliver community league are planning on some kind of revamp of Kitchener Park a few blocks east of there too.

Awesome! Community garden? Kitchener Park needs some help... it's hurting bad....

espalorius · #**6277** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 6:53 AM**

ikan104, you're comparing the worst of socal with the best of edmonton imo.

S_B_Russell · #**6278** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 9:56 AM**

Thanks for posting those photos, Newfangled! It was such a shame that the school yard was one big piece of asphalt - it looks a million times better now!

Atlguy33 · #**6279** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 1:26 PM**

In regards to IKAN104's comment, everything's relative isn't it?

Whenever I visit Edmonton, nothing ever really looks that bad to me. Even when I try to look at things objectively and not from my biased E-town fanatic perspective. I have been in areas of the city my friends said were "ghetto" and they make the ghetto areas of Atlanta seem third-world by comparison. One thing you see in American cities is a wide disparity between rich and poor. From my observations, Edmonton doesn't seem to have the same wide disparity. Less extreme between rich and poor areas. The upscale areas of Edmonton are certainly very nice, but not to the outrageous extremes you see in say, Atlanta's Buckhead neighborhood. On the other hand, the poor areas don't look as bad as Atlanta's do either. Maybe this is true in all Canadian cities and maybe not, since my travels in Canada have been very limited.
Just an observation of mine. Does anyone agree?

Coldrsx · #**6280** Posted **Jun 25, 2009, 2:37 PM**

^i would concur in full. The spectrum of wealth or the lack thereof is significantly less overt or broad than in the US.