Originally Posted by Yahoo
Re: the airport tunnel. I don't think another debate is necessary because it's already been discussed a lot, but to answer some people's questions who seem baffled why people are still upset...
I actually supported it originally. It would cost more to do later, would be easier to do now, it would provide alternate access to the airport etc. All true.
But then some things changed my mind. And it's not just me after all. Like people note - a lot of people are still upset.
- excessive cost It's expensive, but excessive? Probably not. Either way, city has already shown that building the tunnel is the least expensive alternative.
- there is no access now and has it hurt anything? Access to what? The Airport? That's not what the project is about, though it is a side benefit. Metis and CHB are very congested now.
- I was flying a lot at the time and noticed that lots of big cities only have 1 access to their airports. Often due to things like lakes or oceans, but sometimes mountains or just houses prevented more access Airport Access is not the main reason for the tunnel. But that's not to say that access from multiple directions isn't a good thing.
- I looked at maps to discover the routes to the airport if the tunnel wasn't built. They seemed reasonable. They certainly wouldn't be reasonable when the area is built out. That's the point. It would cost more than the cost of the tunnel to give high enough capacity access to Deerfoot along CHB/Metis in the future.
- I feel it would be money better spent to upgrade the access roads we have now rather than spend more on another access point. Upgrades to Deerfoot and surrounding roads have more benefits than just airport access. City has already shown that upgrading access roads to a high enough capacity would be more expensive than the tunnel. Downgrading of Metis Trail, which is complete, and made possible by the construction of the tunnel, already has saved the city over $200 million itself in future road building costs.
- Potential LRT access to the airport is 1 benefit, but it's not like there aren't other ways to do this. In any case it's not something that will happen soon anyway. Distance from future NC line and from current NE line is about the same, however, NE line is already there, rail transit doesn't have to wait for NC line to be done.
- Excessive ongoing insurance costs are required since a problem with the tunnel could be disastrous to the airport. Valid concern, but tunnel is built with all that in mind. Insurance costs shouldn't be terrible.
- I don't really think it's a big concern (or even a valid concern) but some have mentioned the security risk as a terrorist target if Calgary was ever in the spot light. (G8 meeting, Olympics etc) There are probably easier targets that would cause more problems.
- I checked into congestion around the airport - there wasn't any - especially compared to the rest of our main roads. There is no evidence it will be needed anytime within the next hundred years. Is the congestion as bad as some other roads? no. Is there some congestion on CHB and Metis now? Absolutely. Also, note that these are roads driving through empty fields on either side for the most part. Those fields aren't going to be empty in 5-10 years. Stonegate Landing, Jacksonport, Cityscape, Skyview Ranch, Redstone, Saddleridge - all of these are going to be filling up 5 -10 years from now. Without the Airport Tunnel, CHB may have had the worst congestion in the city 5-10 years from now, hence the reason why rebuilding it to handle all the traffic would cost more than the tunnel costs. All those developments listed, that doesn't even fill up the entire NE area INSIDE the ring road. And the densest portions of the developments that are already there haven't even started yet. The corner of CHB/60th St is zoned for high density, up to 80 metre (~20 story) tall buildings, I think. Plus 6-8 story buildings surrounding that. The whole area is roughly 10% developed, and the existing roads are struggling.
But my biggest issue is that it used up pretty much the entire road budget for Calgary. If you're going to prevent other projects then you better be sure it's the best use of your money. Mayor Dave mentioned something like 40 unfunded interchanges were needed in Calgary (ideally of course). I don't think 1 of them has been built under Mayor N. Mayor N ran away from Crowchild (although I think he would like it fixed if we had the money), stopped Bowfort and 16th yet again, and due to economic reasons (which I support) quit a lot of the road resurfacing projects - but that resulted in a lot more than usual wavy bumpy roads. The money saved by building the tunnel now will help the city catch up in infrastructure needs in the future. It didn't use up any portion of the roads budget. It was built with capital money. When the city signs the city charter that is coming, it will have the source for the capital funding that it wants.
I don't hate the idea of the tunnel and can think of several reasons to support it. But in the end it just isn't worth the cost/benefit. How many people go to the airport every day compared to use Crowchild or McLeod for example? Again, tunnel was not built solely for airport access, it was not even the main reason. It is a good reason, though, as the Airport lands are one of the biggest employment areas in the city. Also, comparing cost benefit between it and other projects isn't really the issue here. The cost benefit calculation was done between the tunnel option and what it would have cost to solve the same problem in a different way. The tunnel was shown to be both cheaper and the best option - really making it a no brainer.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
