Community Development - Blatchford

[Policy Wonk]

If that was really an issue runway 12/30, which was redundant until 34/16 was closed this summer and far more invasive airspace wise and lacking ILS would have been removed years ago. You can probably count in hours how long the absence of 12/30 would have prevented operations at YXD in its entire history.

This was another fit of stupidity or more likely sheer ignorance regardless of your opinion. So even if there were enough demand to justify such construction the actions taken to date will do nothing to expedite such efforts. Throw in the fact that Edmonton Airports completely cut their own throat in their negotiations with Sturgeon County by going down this road without first having an agreement on servicing Villeneuve you could be in for a very long wait.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

If that was really an issue runway 12/30, which was redundant until 34/16 was closed this summer and far more invasive airspace wise and lacking ILS would have been removed years ago. You can probably count in hours how long the absence of 12/30p would have prevented operations at YXD in its entire history.

This was another fit of stupidity or more likely sheer ignorance regardless of your opinion. So even if there were enough demand to justify such construction the actions taken to date will do nothing to expedite such efforts. Throw in the fact that Edmonton Airports completely cut their own throat in their negotiations with Sturgeon County by going down this road without first having an agreement on servicing Villeneuve you could be in for a very long wait.

it's not me that's waiting, it's the city if edmonton. and as i noted earlier even if "the wait" takes a few years for everything to come together it sure beats waiting another 45 years that the city will never get back before even starting the process.

[Policy Wonk]

The wait is going to be quite a while yet, Edmonton has only begun the baby steps of the effort - they just put the cart before the horse and now have to proceed from a greatly diminished bargaining position.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The wait is going to be quite a while yet, Edmonton has only begun the baby steps of the effort - they just put the cart before the horse and now have to proceed from a greatly diminished bargaining position.

i'll gladly wait for something to be finished instead of continuing to wait for it to even get started. for perspective, the first modern high rise building in edmonton was completed in 1963. which means that every single mid/tall building completed in edmonton's downtown core was built since eia was completed and ecca should have been wound down. and that's nothing compared to what will be completed in the next 45 years. clearly the citizens of edmonton wanted the status quo for those 45 years for downtown as well as for the airport site itself to be much different than the last 45. is where we are at perfect in terms of what remains to be done? probably not and there's lots of blame to go around for that. but it's still far and away better than where we were at a year ago. that's not cart before the horse. that's finally hitching the cart to a horse and pointing it in the right direction.

[Policy Wonk]

If the height restrictions are so burdensome to what would otherwise be the natural development pattern of the area why doesn't the area outside of the restrictions look like Dubai?

The actual corridor where the height restrictions related to runway 34/16 are harshest are roughly between 105th and 109th street. And that is 232 feet south of Jasper Ave, 210 feet south of 104th ave and 135 feet south of 107th ave. These could be revisited with a modern 5.5 degree approach procedure like those used at other urban airports... but I don't think it would make a tremendous difference.

And the cart is before the horse because Edmonton and Edmonton Airports have no particular leverage. I spent most of last year trying to bring a project from hell to some sort of conclusion. The only leverage we had with our "partners" was threatening to cancel the entire project. Edmonton and Edmonton Airports now has a dozen battles to fight and they can't change their course. When Sturgeon County says "build your own damn watermains for Villeneuve" Edmonton Airports can't say "fine, we will just keep the Muni open and close Villeneuve instead."

At the end of the day they might have to close Villeneuve anyways if they can't reach an agreement and that certainly won't hasten the demise of the Muni.

[Airboy]

When Sturgeon County says "build your own damn watermains for Villeneuve" Edmonton Airports can't say "fine, we will just keep the Muni open and close Villeneuve instead."

At the end of the day they might have to close Villeneuve anyways if they can't reach an agreement and that certainly won't hasten the demise of the Muni.[/QUOTE]

http://www.vaooa.com/

NEWS AND UPCOMING EVENTS

AUGUST 19, 2010

The construction is now well under way. There have been some delays due to weather but we should have some building starts before the snow flies.

I have been told by EIA that half the new lots are now leased and awating buildings.

EIA will have an info booth at the Thompson Hanger for your information.

http://www.stalbertgazette.com/artic...09089970/0/SAG

http://www.sturgeoncounty.ab.ca/SERV...8/Default.aspx

This dead airport seems to be Alive

[240glt]

I did a lot off work for EA at Villeneuve, including to their potable water system. PW doesn't know what he's talking about

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

If the height restrictions are so burdensome to what would otherwise be the natural development pattern of the area why doesn't the area outside of the restrictions look like Dubai?

The actual corridor where the height restrictions related to runway 34/16 are harshest are roughly between 105th and 109th street. And that is 232 feet south of Jasper Ave, 210 feet south of 104th ave and 135 feet south of 107th ave. These could be revisited with a modern 5.5 degree approach procedure like those used at other urban airports... but I don't think it would make a tremendous difference.

And the cart is before the horse because Edmonton and Edmonton Airports have no particular leverage. I spent most of last year trying to bring a project from hell to some sort of conclusion. The only leverage we had with our "partners" was threatening to cancel the entire project. Edmonton and Edmonton Airports now has a dozen battles to fight and they can't change their course. When Sturgeon County says "build your own damn watermains for Villeneuve" Edmonton Airports can't say "fine, we will just keep the Muni open and close Villeneuve instead."

At the end of the day they might have to close Villeneuve anyways if they can't reach an agreement and that certainly won't hasten the demise of the Muni.

not that this is either the forum or the thread, but how hard were you and your "partners" pushing for this "project from hell" and/or villeneuve improvements prior to last years decision or was the status quo perfectly acceptable up until then? how many of those "partners" were prepared to - even if they were able to - seriously participate in those discussions under that status quo? perhaps if the same efforts and resources that were wasted on all sides attempting to keep an airport open that shouldn't be there were devoted to getting the improvements we all know are needed at villeneuve, you wouldn't be stuck in pergatory. regardless, i still contend that committing to close the muni was finally hitching the horse to the cart, not getting it backwards.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I did a lot off work for EA at Villeneuve, including to their potable water system. PW doesn't know what he's talking about

PW does seem to have some good talking points, but unfortunately, he's many years behind in the game. He's still living in 1992 reality. Wake up dude. Its 2010.

[RTD]

Originally Posted by feepa

PW does seem to have some good talking points, but unfortunately, he's many years behind in the game. He's still living in 1992 reality. Wake up dude. Its 2010.

(Two Thousand and Eleven) 2011

[feepa]

I'm a year behind myself...

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by RTD

(Two Thousand and Eleven) 2011

errr... technically it's pronounced 'Twenty Eleven' (link)

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I did a lot off work for EA at Villeneuve, including to their potable water system. PW doesn't know what he's talking about

Villeneuve is also expanding there pump house & reservoir.

[RTD]

Originally Posted by onishenko

errr... technically it's pronounced 'Twenty Eleven' (link)

Meh; potaeto - potato

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Airboy

When Sturgeon County says "build your own damn watermains for Villeneuve" Edmonton Airports can't say "fine, we will just keep the Muni open and close Villeneuve instead."

At the end of the day they might have to close Villeneuve anyways if they can't reach an agreement and that certainly won't hasten the demise of the Muni.

And the bottom of the page you link to says "Another attempt at an area structure plan is in the works. Without this plan we will not get the new water line into the airport. We can continue to operate, but will be limited in future expansion until this and other issues are resolved at the county and regional government levels. "

Sturgeon County rejected the plan that was "in the works" when that website was last updated.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I did a lot off work for EA at Villeneuve, including to their potable water system. PW doesn't know what he's talking about

So it is your position that Edmonton Airports has not made further development at Villeneuve conditional on the site being serviced by Sturgeon County? The water system has been improved and thank you for your efforts - but is still completely insufficient for expanding Villeneuve to the scope required in the absence of the Muni. Edmonton Airports is not going to invest in extending the runways and installing ILS without commitments that actually enable intense development there.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by cdnklc

not that this is either the forum or the thread, but how hard were you and your "partners" pushing for this "project from hell" and/or villeneuve improvements prior to last years decision or was the status quo perfectly acceptable up until then? how many of those "partners" were prepared to - even if they were able to - seriously participate in those discussions under that status quo? perhaps if the same efforts and resources that were wasted on all sides attempting to keep an airport open that shouldn't be there were devoted to getting the improvements we all know are needed at villeneuve, you wouldn't be stuck in pergatory. regardless, i still contend that committing to close the muni was finally hitching the horse to the cart, not getting it backwards.

The project was in Calgary and had nothing to do with any airport anywhere, but the users of Villeneuve have been complaining about the infrastructure there from day one and Edmonton Airports management of the facility since their creation.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by feepa

PW does seem to have some good talking points, but unfortunately, he's many years behind in the game. He's still living in 1992 reality. Wake up dude. Its 2010.

Yes, "2010" when urban airports are flourishing as regional hubs all over the world - in 1992 most were being left for dead having been pounded by a wave of airline bankruptcies after the recession.

[vid]

Originally Posted by RTD

Meh; potaeto - potato

More like "potato - solanum tuberosum".

[feepa]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Yes, "2010" when urban airports are flourishing as regional hubs all over the world - in 1992 most were being left for dead having been pounded by a wave of airline bankruptcies after the recession.

Can you provide some examples of urban airports within the same context of the muni with approaches overlays that put height restrictions on their CBD?

no?

ok. Didn't think so. Fort Lauderdale doesn't count... in case you were going to use that one.