Over on Mastermaq’s blog, there’s been a big debate about the closure of the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA). The Envision Edmonton side has mobilized its forces to try and force the issue in the upcoming civic election. Envision would like a vote on whether or not to close the airport, despite city council already having made the decision last year to close the airport.
Last year I supported closing the airport and I still support it. Exactly what happens at ECCA, how and when, is something I am interested in.
It’s not often a city has a chance to redevelop such a large parcel of land so close to its downtown. It needs to be done right.
So, to summarize, here are the messages Envision Edmonton and its supporters are sending out:
- We’re worried about what will happen to existing jobs at the City Centre Airport
- There may be family upheaval
- People will die because medevac patients may take longer to get to the hospital
- The “average” person wants the airport to stay open
So, Mack, you know what your opposition to the airport is going to do? It’s going to kill people and force them out of work (not necessarily in that order)! (I am kidding of course, but this is the undertone of the opposition.)
How valid any of Envision Edmonton’s points are, is up for debate. I haven’t extensively researched what has been done to make the case for the closure yet, but I have some questions that I believe are important.
I would like to see an analysis of the business case for closing the airport, from the city’s perspective, and have some questions:
- How much does the city currently net from the airport? Does the city make anything on it in terms of property tax?
- Has the city done an estimate of how much it would net if the City Centre Airport were to be fully developed? How does that compare to what it currently nets? How much will the city make from the sale of City Centre Airport land?
- If an environmental cleanup is required on the site, how much will it cost and who will pay? And, if an environmental cleanup is required, why hasn’t it already been done if people are aware of that need?
- What will be done to ease the transition for the businesses affected? How about for medevac flights? For helicopter flights, can they land directly at local hospitals? It would make sense if they could.
- Has there been a realistic assessment of how the businesses at the City Centre Airport will transition? Which ones are likely to close? How many jobs are likely to be lost? What will it cost the city to break leases, etc?
- How many jobs are likely to be created during a reconstruction of the City Centre Airport lands?
From the city’s perspective, I suspect the business case is strongly in favour of the current course of action. It’s not like this kind of thing hasn’t happened before. Vancouver’s gone through redevelopments like Granville Island, Yaletown and the Expo lands. Any other examples?
Development that made sense in the past may not make sense in the future. Sometimes tough decisions have to be made and it’s not always the case that nobody will suffer.
Related posts:
49 comments
Mark F says:
Jul 4, 2010
I get baffled by why so many people with little knowledge of the business city center airport brings in are so quick to support getting rid of it. Closing Edmonton’s airport would give Edmonton the dubious distinction of having the worst air access of any city in North America. The closure is supported by those without knowledge of air access or its value.
To try to make it simple, try using Google earth to measure the distance from any city (say population 1/2 million or more) downtown core to the closest airport to in North America. I haven’t found any city yet worse than Edmonton proposes to be. Perhaps if you search long enough you might find one. I would appreciate it if you could name that city so I could verify it.
While the expanse of airport land appears quite large from the observer on the ground ( I find it a breath of fresh to see the openness of it in the city) it is actually a very tiny percentage of the total land area in the city. This becomes very obvious why I struggle to pick out the airport visually when flying in at night.
I keep finding the assumption that other jobs like more retail stores and construction of housing are somehow more important than jobs servicing aircraft . Servicing aircraft jobs are important too. Aircraft are part of the transportation infrastructure that bring money in from outside. That extra money can than be circulated into the city economy resulting in more construction projects and shopping districts, but it is best to leave the airport land alone.
It is an entirely separate argument to keep the airport for medevacs. Last night five medevacs landed in close succession. I was involved in a true lifesaving one where every minute counted, however we in that business are not allowed to ever discuss any details so it is impossible for us to debate it. I might say though that if you were on the plane I was last night to witness what happens first hand you would consider insane to close the airport.
We keep hearing people talk about helicopter medevacs and I’m sure that makes the Stars helicopter people very happy but they only do something in the ballpark of 10 percent of air medevacs. When you talk about helicopters think about going half as fast with half the fuel range at many times the cost. They are not part of the picture as far as most air medevacs ( the longer ones) go. For those of us in the industry the erroneous public perception generated ( heavily supported by Stars huge PR fund raising department) is very frustrating. We just do our job. We have no PR department.
I hope this letter helps explain that there are multiple facets to support keeping the airport. Business, jobs saving lives, and pleasure for those that just like to watch the airplanes. The airport is not an unused piece of land.
Mark F says:
Jul 5, 2010
Alain :
I just got back from another middle of the night medevac. I’ll try to defend the job when I’m more awake.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 4, 2010
Mark, thanks for commenting.
I raised the questions I did because I have questions about the economic value generated by the airport versus the economic value that might be generated by redeveloping the airport lands.
I think that it’s important to discuss all aspects of the issue in an open and honest way, which is what should be happening now. Does any one value trump another? Nobody is denying it’s important to save lives. Because I’m not fully familiar with the intricacies of medevac flights, I think it’s fair to discuss the alternatives.
What do other cities do for plane medevacs for their airports outside of city limits? Do they helicopter patients in from there? How would that compare to flying someone in to ECCA by plane and having to drive them to a hospital? I don’t know, which is why I’m asking. Who does know? Have we got time data on all the different options?
Vancouver’s international airport is in Richmond. How do they get medevac patients from there to VGH or UBC hospital? Drive or helicopter? Could the same be done here?
Could those same jobs servicing aircraft be moved to other airports? As I understand it, there was a large railyard north of downtown and south of the airport. Why is that no longer there? Changing land use priorities? Edmonton is still an important rail hub. Moving those yards didn’t kill the rail industry here.
I’m not normally one to defend city council, as anyone who knows me can attest, but city council’s job is to look at the big picture and determine the best course of action for the city’s future. It involves making tough decisions that may not make everyone happy, but hopefully will be best for the city overall.
Paul Turnbull says:
Jul 5, 2010
Alain: Richmond is only about five kilometres from downtown Vancouver. The Vancouver International Airport is positioned about as far from downtown Vancouver as Erminskin is from downtown Edmonton, about half the distance as EIA is.
The reality for Edmonton is that closing the ECCA will impact medivac services. What I haven’t seen is any real quantification of that impact nor any analysis of what can be done to mitigate that impact.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 5, 2010
Paul, if you look on Google Maps, it’s much further than you think to go from YVR to downtown Vancouver. VGH (which is not downtown), driving, is 11.7 km from YVR. According to Google Maps, the distance from YEG to the Stollery would be 28.4 km driving.
I’m suggesting that it would make sense to have helicopter flights from YEG to take medevac patients to the appropriate hospital. If Stars flights come in then they could go directly to hospitals.
I suppose we could turn the moral/ethical argument around. I guess those other cities without a municipal airport close to hospitals are, in fact, immoral or unethical in not allowing the redevelopment of neighbourhoods to put in an airport that would allow medevac flights. Or perhaps the provincial government is immoral or unethical in limiting health spending in cities outside of Edmonton and Calgary so that patients in dire need of lifesaving medical care are forced to fly to major centres for that care, increasing the odds of a “negative patient outcome.”
The fact is that financial issues do come into play and we don’t have an unlimited budget for health care. And trying to paint those who would like to close ECCA is immoral or unethical is absurd.
Paul Turnbull says:
Jul 5, 2010
Teach me to eyeball distances. :)
However I think my original point still stands, the EIA is substantially farther away from the U of A than YVR is from the Van General. Closing the ECCA will degrade medevac services. That includes if we run Stars from the EIA to other hospitals. The bottom line is it’s still longer trip with increased complexity.
Please note I’m not trying to make an ethical or moral argument for keeping the ECCA open, in fact I’m generally in favour of closing it, however everything is a matter of compromises. There are things we gain from closing the ECCA and their are things we lose. Extremely good medevac service is one of the things we lose. We will likely replace it with acceptable but more costly medevac service out of the EIA.
Mark F says:
Jul 6, 2010
While we are on the subject of Vancouver, we should note that Vancouver allows scheduled float plane service directly to the downtown core docks. You can go from downtown Vancouver to downtown Victoria harbor or Nanaimo many times a day.
Edmonton could be in the same league by allowing similar sized commuter planes into its city airport. Vancouver also has an international airport sandwiched between Vancouver and Richmond which provides both airline and general aviation areas much closer to all parts of the cities and their hospitals.
Alain, you still have not addressed my main question. Why is it such a good idea for Edmonton to have the worst air access in North America, especially when it has so much potential to act as a gateway to the North?
Mark F says:
Jul 6, 2010
“Could those same jobs servicing aircraft be moved to other airports?”
If you move to another town you may find a job there but its not the same job. You go and compete with the people at that town for the jobs they have there. Shutting down the airport in Edmonton does not make equivalent new jobs somewhere else. The basis for such jobs in Edmonton is the convenience of the close in city airport. This industry needs to be able to have the closest access possible to the largest centers. Shut that down and most jobs associated simply vanish.
That doesn’t mean the same people will become unemployed. They will be competing elsewhere for jobs in an industry that has reduced its size by one very well located airport. Right now I believe Yellowknife or Calgary would be the options I might have to chase. Calgary is expanding its international airport which is located in Calgary. It is not comparable to Edmonton International and is adding a runway. I could buy a house in Calgary and walk to work at its international airport. I already checked it out.
What you may achieve is disturbing some lives, by moving them out of Edmonton. I don’t really know how to argue the point with those that simply want us out of town. They want us to leave. We want to stay. What else can we say.
Jason says:
Jul 8, 2010
Good day Alain. I dont usually give my opinion on blog because I feel blogs gie power to people with little information on the topic being discussed. I do work at the airport as a pilot and understand the it quite well. First of all as others have stated, pretty much all major metropolises in North America (and elsewhere) have an international airport with secondary domestic airports (Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, Los Angeles, Miami, New York-with 3, London, etc). These airports deal with two different market and relieves congestion of airspace, especially during poor weather (which Edmonton has a lot of during winter). Having an airport near downtown does not limit its growth (eg. New York, Montreal, Toronto, London, Miami). There is no real need for additional sky-rises either since there are still many vacant offices within the current ones downtown.
Regarding cost, the airport was not operated like a volunteer UNICEF organization. The airport makes its profits like any other- by charging user and landing fees. It generates approx $1million dollars annually for the city. There are also 800 jobs at the airport, many of which are specialized. The salaries of those people gets redirected to the local economy. Unlike a salesperson, a pilot can not just “change jobs”. They need to more to where they can find one, hence those salaries and the houses they bought will be redirected to another economy.
The other argument is that the business can just pick up and move to International. There is no infrastructure in place there, Apron 2 has no additional space at all. Regarding the medevacs, having a triage located at EIA is not a practical solution. Those burn victims from Mildred Lake were able (like so many others) to get almost immediate care due to the proximity between ECCA and hospitals. There is only hwy 2 that connects EIA to the city. If the highway gets clogged (like last week or during winter), then those people who need immediate care will not get it. I am sure a 3rd degree burn victim would rather be receiving specialized treatment rather than a triage. Using helicopters is not viable because of their quite high operating costs, short range, slow speed and inability to operated in adverse weather.
Regarding building housing on the land. The land has been an airport since the 20′s. This is long before any consideration for the environment. When they use to de-ice a 737 during the 60′s, all that de-ice fluid/ glycol was allowed to seep into the ground along with oil and fuel. The clean up bill will not be negligible and no one has actually said who will pay for it.
One more thing, a lease was signed after the last plebiscite between the operators @ ECCA, EAA and the city of Edmonton. the lease was valid until 2056 and had no exit clauses. The least council and the EAA could have done was to have a vote rather than unilaterally deciding to close it.
By closing the one runway that has a precision approach (what gets you down in low ceilings/ visibility) and keeping the other runway open that does not have one make the airport virtually useless in poor weather. By doing so, the airport can no longer be used as an alternate for those planes going to EIA (quite a few jetliners used ECCA when EIA was fogged in during February). That means Calgary has to be the alternate and more fuel will need to be carried for less passengers (its one or the other). The added costs will be passed on to the passengers.
Sorry for the long letter. I had a few points to make and I do appreciate the forum you have given to the topic. Have a great day.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 9, 2010
Jason, it’s unfortunate you feel that bloggers tend to be people spouting off on topics they know little about.
My question is: so what? There are plenty of examples of actual and so-called experts making stupid, uninformed and myopic decisions, so why should those who are, according to the “experts,” uneducated in a topic not contribute?
I could write a book about stupid decisions that experts make, so I’m not going to dwell on it. An outsider perspective can actually be quite useful, if you have an open mind.
I think what I’ll call the “medevac crowd” fail to see is that there are other values and considerations at play that they tend to flippantly acknowledge, quickly reverting to to examples of how great the current operation works for medevac.
Envision Edmonton is quickly becoming a one trick pony and is failing to acknowledge that there are other important considerations.
I like Chris Labossiere’s point about the Villeneuve airport being a good option for a training airport and apparently it’s got a lot of space for expansion (an excellent post overall, actually):
http://www.chrislabossiere.com/chrislabossiere/2010/7/5/nostalgia-does-not-a-business-model-make.html
I don’t see any reason why fixed wing medevac flights couldn’t land at YEG and helicopter in. Our provincial government sees no problem in subsidizing oil companies so I don’t see why a few helicopters would be a problem. I suspect the ambulance vs helicopter times will be similar.
If helicopters are able to land directly at local hospitals, STARS helicopter flights (from that 160 km radius someone quoted) will actually be quicker, by bypassing the ECCA and being able to hit the hospital directly.
Mack D. Male says:
Aug 2, 2010
Jason: No infrastructure or additional space at Apron 2? The empty, 120,000 square foot Spar hangar begs to differ. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mastermaq/4846292739/
You can learn more about Apron 2 here: http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2010/08/02/photo-tour-of-apron-2-at-the-edmonton-international-airport/
Matt O says:
Jul 8, 2010
Interesting discussion – I’ve worked in flight ops most of my professional life.
The charge I hear in the media (from our mayor) that Envision is scare mongering is a bit over the top. He quickly dispensed with the medevac question by stating that rotary wing from EIA was the same time as ground ambulance from the muni – which is not correct, and ignores the added costs (just who will pay for those added helicopter flights?) It also ignores the truly critical care cases where minutes are crucial and the fewer times you have to do patient transfer the better.
Another aspect of the medevac question is the access to trauma care for those outside the cities. We expect an 8 minute ambulance ride to the nearest trauma centre as our right. Those in northern Alberta rely on that medevac link (which is almost all fixed wing medevac) as their only path to a similar level of care.
My office overlooks one of the precision approaches to the muni, and it amazes me how many business jets land in the course of a day. How many of those companies have located business in Edmonton because we have the muni? How many will relocate to other centres (like the north end of Calgary) to have similar easy access to an airfield? Has anyone asked how many companies might leave?
One other aspect not yet mentioned is the number of military flights (mostly rotary wing, but some fixed as well) that use the precision approach at the muni for pilot proficiency training. Those type of flights can not be relocated to the EIA. The training bill will have to be paid somehow.
The previous comment about environmental issues is huge, and it is close to negligent that city council did not commission a survey before making a decision. If I recall, the mayor’s comment was they would have to clean it up anyway, so the cost wasn’t relevant. I suspect there is a high level of soil contamination from hydrocarbons and glycol across large areas. To add to Jason’s comment, the common practice dealing with small fuel spills not too long ago (as recently as the early 80′s in my experience) was to wash the jet fuel off the ramp onto the infield grass. Old airfields can be an environmental nightmare.
Also from my office window, I can see five surface parking lots of prime development land right on Jasper. Do we need an airfield worth of development land in additional to the acres presently available?
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 9, 2010
I think the environmental costs should be borne by the companies and organizations operating out of the airport, similar to what happens with decommissioned gas stations.
Why the cleanup hasn’t started already is puzzling indeed. If people know about fuel and other hazardous substances being dumped in the past and not being cleaned up now, the courts might decide that’s negligence.
Perhaps by closing the airport we can get a handle on the environmental problem before our groundwater is further contaminated.
Thinking that we should keep the airport open so we don’t have to deal with the problem is ludicrous.
Mark F says:
Jul 10, 2010
There is no clean-up required if the airport remains. The spills talked about happened in the distant past. You can’t possibly assign specific blame for them now. Ground water leaching from those 50 year old spills would have ground to a tiny trickle by now unless of course you dig up the land.
Medevacs are complex. You can’t actually classify which ones are critical or not. Sometimes a routine transfer becomes a critical medevac when the patients health deteriorates enroute. Sometimes a critical medevac becomes a routine hospital transfer when the patients health dramatically improves. There is no simple line to draw. It would be very difficult to add another level of decision making as to which patients warranted helicopter service from the international and which would go by ground. Right now all patients get the quick service without the added level of complexity. Even those who used a helicopter would still be delayed. According to my observations, the time it takes to transfer a patient to a helicopter which must then run through the start and pre takeoff checklists, is longer then the time it takes to drive a patient to the Royal Alex or U of A hospitals from the City Center Airport. An efficient helicopter service in this regard exists only in peoples imaginations.
Alain you still have not responded to my main concern. I thought you wanted open discussion.
If the City Center Airport issue is closed Edmonton gets the worst air accessibility of cities in North America. In studying major cities in Canada and northwestern US, I was not able to find one that came even close to distancing itself from all aircraft access as Edmonton would be without the city center airport.
Right now Edmonton is tied with Regina with an airport only 3.5 km from the downtown core. Only Vancouver and Victoria beat it with regular scheduled floatplane service aerodromes within 1 km of the downtown core. Toronto has its Island airport 3 km from the middle of downtown.
I sampled 14 cities in Canada and Northwestern US. General aviation airports or aerodromes averaged 5.7 km from city cores. At 26 km to the closest airport without the City Center Airport, Edmonton will not only be last, but a distant last.
It is fortunate that Envision Edmonton is trying to show the reality of the issue. We have seen so much pretending. Some pretend that it is used only for private planes. Some pretend that there are not really critical medevacs in which time is a factor. Some pretend that the airport is costing money rather than bringing money in. Do they understand a billion dollars is quietly being spent on the International Airport? That is Billion with a B, a thousand million.
Now we find a reporter casually mentioning that runway 34 will be bulldozed. Bulldozing is usually for flattening things. Runway 34 is already that flattest place in Edmonton, built to a higher grade than Edmonton’s roads and absolutely pothole free. There is no practical reason to bulldoze the runway. It is on the clean area of the Airport so it is not environmental. No reason that is unless of course the reason is to inflict damage that would cost several hundred million dollars to repair. They want that done before Edmonton’s population wakes up to see what they have done to the city. Do enough damage and maybe Edmonton won’t have the will to fix it. I hope reality, logic, and care will help keep our airport.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 11, 2010
Sorry Mark, but the old way of doing things where we bury a problem and assume it’s gone away don’t work anymore. We know from experience that these types of environmental problems don’t just go away. This is why active measures need to be taken because it doesn’t take much of the types of contaminants likely present at the ECCA site to damage an aquifer.
I don’t operate on the assumption that if we ignore a problem it will go away.
What I see as being really unfortunate with the arguments presented by Envision Edmonton and its supporters is a lack of any will to entertain options other than keeping ECCA open.
I prefer a can-do, problem-solving approach to ensure that medevac services are transitioned smoothly and, in fact, improved. Mark, you speak of a highly specialized, coordinated service that medevac provides. When a medevac flight is initiated, why couldn’t a helicopter crew be on stand-by with the helicopter pre-flight check timed so that when the medevac flight arrived at YEG, the helicopter is ready to load and depart?
Can’t the decisions be made in the air as to which patients are going to require a helicopter transport and which will not? I’m assuming our medevac crews are trained to make those decisions.
As for open and honest discussion, that is exactly what I’m doing here. Your suggestion otherwise is ridiculous.
It would seem that Edmontonians made the decision years ago to consolidate passenger service at YEG. Are you suggesting we move passenger service from there to ECCA now? Edmonton seems to have done quite well with moving the majority of its air traffic to the international airport. ECCA was made irrelevant years ago.
In terms of ECCA costing the city money, it is, but it’s an opportunity cost. I read a figure of $1 million that the city brings in from ECCA (not sure how accurate). This is referring to tax revenue of course. So how much would the city bring in in tax revenue if ECCA were to be redeveloped, not to mention the net proceeds of the sale of those lands?
If the city were to bring in, just for example, $101 million in tax revenue, the city of Edmonton’s annual opportunity cost for keeping ECCA would be $100 million. Over 10 years that would cost the city $1 billion. Of course, nobody complains because there’s no realized loss there. This is why I refer to what the highest and best use of that land is.
I’ve seen the arguments, the few that are being made lately in the comments, on Mack’s blog to the effect that if these businesses are forced to move, they’ll either just pack it in or move to other places. I don’t think that’s giving much credit to the businesspeople who may be affected by having to move from ECCA. As a businessperson myself, I’ve faced adversity and I can’t sit and bitch about it forever, I must adapt. It hasn’t been easy at times either.
I am sympathetic to the businesspeople who will be affected by the closure of ECCA. I think that efforts need to be made to ease the transition of those businesses to other airports in the area. Perhaps there will be new opportunities for growth for them in moving to new areas where they might have more room to expand their businesses.
If this industry is as critical as you say, I’m sure the province would be interested in perhaps creating a program to assist those businesses in moving. Perhaps it could offer low interest loans to assist those businesses in moving and building new facilities. Alberta already subsidizes the petroleum industry in a major way in Alberta, so why not other critical industries? The City of Edmonton is already subsidizing ECCA via the opportunity cost of lost tax revenue, so if the province transitions those businesses to areas around Edmonton, it will be an improvement for Edmonton.
Sorry, but your discussion about tearing up the runway is a red herring. Keeping it after the airport is closed would be ludicrous. I thought the city was trying to get away from massive roads? :)
Sirthinks says:
Jul 22, 2010
So long as the “can do attitude” has nothing to do with keeping the airport open?
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 24, 2010
There’s no real work-around for a large parcel of developable land close to downtown in Edmonton, so a “can-do” attitude is not going to do much.
I’m referring to making the transition from an open airport to a closed airport as smooth as possible. If the businesses relying on ECCA can’t deal with the closure, then they’re not trying very hard. I think the key to a smooth transition is to have everyone at the table to try to make that transition as smooth as possible: city, EIA, ECCA businesses, etc.
Mark F says:
Jul 31, 2010
Developable land?
I take it you believe a parcel of land with a runway built into it is not developed but a parcel of land with buildings on is developed.
In my opinion a well developed city has both buildings and transportation infrastructure like roads, rail, and airports to provide diverse types of access.
From my point of view, replacing a runway with a building is similar to replacing a major roadway with buildings.
I believe a can do approach should include both buildings and integration with the transportation infrastucture. This can provide the diversity in which we thrive.
Alain Saffel says:
Aug 3, 2010
Nobody’s said that cities don’t need airports. What we’re talking about is how we organize the ones we have now and what happens to them in the future.
I did some quick calculations and lets look at the “tax density” of the airport. I’ve heard that it’s 600 acres and the city collects $1 million in taxes from the businesses there. Hey, that seems like a lot, but how would that compare to a residential area?
If an acre is 43,560 square feet and you figure in the older neighbourhoods that 50 x 120 lots were the norm, that’s 6,000 square feet. That would give you 7.26 lots per acre, but because of roads, etc, let’s say 50% of that acre isn’t taxable. What’s the average tax bill per property? Maybe $2,000? Keeping it simple, let’s say that there are 3.5 lots per acre, at $2,000 per year in tax so $7,000 per acre. The airport brings in about $1700 an acre now.
If the city were to redevelop 600 acres at the airport they’d pull in $4.2 million per year in tax versus $1 million now. With increasing density and commercial development, I’m sure the city can pull in far more than only $4.2 million per year in taxes. [These days a 6,000 square foot lot is a luxury! Glad to have one. :) ]
You had been wondering about cities without airports close to downtown and alternative airports? How about Victoria, BC? Its airport is 24 km from downtown and I can’t see any nearby alternatives, unlike Edmonton.
Mark F says:
Aug 3, 2010
All those tax calculations have to assume that those houses wouldn’t be built elsewhere in the city.Tthere certainly does not appear to be a land shortage. I am saying that the airport brings in extra money into the city. Land in itself does not do that. Extra money causes extra land to be developed and of course taxed. You must also remember that extra tax simply goes to service the extra land. There is no profit nor should there be.
Victoria’s main airport is just as far as Edmonton’s International, however they do have a downtown harbor aerodrome that provides regular scheduled floatplane air service to downtown Vancouver and other places.
They use Twin Otters on floats which take up to 18 passengers.
In spite of being a much smaller city Victoria has better air access then Edmonton even now, The floatplanes can also make the transition to land airports if they are amphibious. It all comes down to supply and demand based on the cities location and where people want to go. In this case they usually wants to walk on a plane at downtown Victoria dock then step off at Vancouver’s downtown dock, in both cases a short walk. I wish everybody could see the value in commuter air service here too. Commuter air service would not destroy the international airport as it’s opponents always say. It is smaller planes going shorter distances with higher convenience.
Keith says:
Aug 27, 2010
It’s funny you mention supply and demand. I’d be VERY interested to see what the ACTUAL demand is for keeping the muni open. Let’s leave the conjecture out of it. Who would actually use the muni regularly? And on a per-user basis is it cost-effective to keep it open? Are we really deriving the kind of benefits you seem to think we’d get?
What’s the advantage to the average citizen of keeping it open? Yeah the overpaid corporate bigwigs and politicians would be slightly inconvenienced by a drive from the international – I’m not too broken up about that. As for Medivac services… there are always ways to work with that. Be it STARS from the international or… doesn’t Leduc have a hospital? Why can’t they be sent there from the international to be stabilized before moving on to Edmonton? And to be honest, it might be cold but I can’t see development of this magnitude being held up by the needs of a handful of people a year.
I believe that more Edmontonians would benefit from closing the muni than keeping it open. I honestly don’t care about the northern communities that would have to fly into the international. Their convenience is no concern of mine. Nor is that of corporate jets. Don’t care. For the tens of them that use the muni regularly that parcel of land could service THOUSANDS of Edmontonians and if designed well could be a real gem for our city. We have a fantastic international airport… we’re getting bus service to it (much to the cabbie’s chagrin I’m sure) and I see very little reason why all air travel shouldn’t consolidate there.
Mark F says:
Jul 13, 2010
I’m don’t know why you suggested I was trying to bury anything. Not digging up is not the same as burying. I will try to clarify the point by using an extreme example.
The Athabasca tar sands have been buried for millions of years. Left alone they constantly leach petroleum contaminants into the Athabasca river. However, now we are digging them up. This does not reduce contamination regardless of how careful the industry is. Digging them up causes more contamination, not less. I am using an extreme example to try to provide clarity. My point was not about burying anything. It was about not digging up ground that has stabilized maybe 50 years ago.
If you are interested in reducing ground water contamination it would be far more efficient to go after recent spills all over the city whose location is known. It is likely that a least a liter a day is spilled at gas stations in Edmonton a few splashes at a time. If you multiply that by 400 stations 365 days a year you get 146,000 liters a year. I don’t know what may have been spilled at the airport in WW 2 but I’m sure it pales in comparison to what has gone on all over the city since then.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 13, 2010
So now you’re an environmental expert and are quite sure that any spills at ECCA are stabilized? And the spills at ECCA only occurred during World War II?
I am certainly not an environmental expert, but just ignoring the problem won’t make it go away.
It was Matt O who said: “To add to Jason’s comment, the common practice dealing with small fuel spills not too long ago (as recently as the early 80’s in my experience) was to wash the jet fuel off the ramp onto the infield grass. Old airfields can be an environmental nightmare.”
So it would seem that it’s a more recent problem than you’d like to believe (or are acknowledging). So the question is, just how bad is the environmental problem at ECCA? Another question is, what other contaminants are in the ground at ECCA that are even more harmful than jet fuel? I understand that aviation fuel contains lead, still. I wonder if anyone’s done a study on lead emissions in the area of ECCA.
I don’t believe in grandfathering any industry or waste site, ever. Making new industries the only ones who have to live by new environmental guidelines is absurd. It’s like saying I can’t drive down the road and throw my household garbage out the window, but it’s okay for my grandfather to throw his garbage out the window. The rules should apply to everyone and if ECCA has an environmental problem, it should be cleaned up.
Sirthinks says:
Jul 22, 2010
You must recall the practice in wartime of planes being emptied when they landed in case of bombings.
All that diesel and avgas is in the soil, stabilized for sure, but there nontheless. Even the ERAA ECCA information page completely skirts the issue of cleanup by quoting the cleanup costs from 2 relatively new airports, not used during wartime, and never having housed military aircraft. They don’t even quote any studies done on the soil at ECCA.
Alain has a point, the land needs to be cleaned up someday. Alain is also over-simplifying the problem of paying for this cleanup. Someone mentioned that most of the environmental damage was done decades ago when current tennants had nothing to do with the airport. Passing on cleanup costs to them would end up in court challenges that would be won. The cost of cleanup is going to be passed to the taxpayer. The cost of the court challenges is also going to be paid by the tax payer.
The scads of developers, currently 0, are not going to foot the bill. Indeed, it is more likely there won’t be any developers even looking at the land until it is cleaned and legal assurances can be made there is zero chance of illness rising from use of the land.
I am a medevac supporter, but I am also a realist. The environmental costs are going to be way more than the city is currently anticipating. The taxpayers are going to have a field day when they find out how much Heir Mandel’s dream of NOT having an airport is going to cost. The cost of Daryl “The Hun” Katz arena is going to pale in comparison.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 24, 2010
Sorry John, but I highly doubt that the fuel and other contaminants in the soil at ECCA are stabilized. From what I understand, it continues to migrate. I’m sure there are some contaminants that just don’t break down or stabilize either. Hard to know what the problem is unless there’s been some drilling at the airport to check on what is happening below ground.
It would be interesting to see what happened if this were all to go to court. Who would be liable for cleanup costs? No doubt the city’s going to pay but it still needs to be done. The key will be to determine who else should pay. I tend to doubt that the businesses there are completely blameless. Anyone using aviation gas there is contributing to ongoing lead emissions as well.
Of course the developers will want their assurances of clean property and those cleanup costs will ultimately be passed on to them and to anyone building there.
On the developer issue, I’m not so sure that the city should go the route of selling the whole thing off to a single developer. I think there should be an overall development plan with the opportunity for a number of developers to come in.
In the long run, a redeveloped ECCA will be more beneficial to the city.
Keith says:
Aug 27, 2010
To give a more recent example – do you know why the old Esso location on Whyte hasn’t been developed yet? Yes it’s because the site is contaminated. But it’s not just that… the contamination is spreading. As of now any new developer would have to not only clean up the site itself but the land under whyte ave and across the street as well. And the longer they wait the worse it’ll get. This will not stabilize. That’s why nobody wants to touch what might be the most coveted retail location in the city with a 10 foot pole.
Mark F says:
Jul 15, 2010
OK
dmoar says:
Jul 16, 2010
Alain,
I think Mark’s point is that by digging up the ECCA to develop it, you might be inadvertantly making the environmental problem worse.
One of the problems I have with this situation is the way the mayor and city council handled public involvement. They suggest that by having a few poorly run and managed “public consultations” and a day or so of hearings in council chambers that they have “listened” to the people. This is not true. Given that there was no reason (at least none given to the public) to push this through council with such speed, that this was not an issue in the previous election, and that it had the potential to overturn a previous plebiscite this should have gone back to the public during the upcoming election.
Mayor Mandel says he was unbiased and open-minded, but all you have to do is look at his recent ignorant and ill-informed comments about the people who support the ECCA to see that is not the case. In some cases, the mayor and city council have out-right lied to the public over this. I’m referring to their insistance that NAIT is busting at the seems and desperately needs the airport land when the president of NAIT came out and said this was not the case.
Mayor Mandel and the councilors who support him have not addressed any of the concerns that have been raised by the public. Who’s going to buy the land? What are they going to put there? When can we expect to see the loss of the revenue that the ECCA brings in compensated for by the development? Who’s going to be responsible for the clean-up? What about an alternate airport for the EIA? What about medevac? What are the alternatives to closing the ECCA? Since there are no federal regulations regarding height restrictions near an airport (outside of the approach paths) and since we have an exception for the Downtown Development Area, what would be involved in changing our by-laws? Lots of questions. No answers. I would expect a public official who is not operating on his or her own agenda to at least answer a few of these questions before proceeding with closure. Instead, all we get is Mayor Mandel and his “super city of the future” double-speak.
Let me put it another way. Without any confirmed buyers and a confirmed price, we don’t know how much money we will get by selling the ECCA land. Maybe we’ll get a lot, maybe we’ll get a lot less if we have to pay for the clean-up. Therefore, by closing the ECCA we’re taking a gamble that by throwing away a significant economic driver in this city maybe one day we’ll make it up. In the meantime, the city will either have to raise taxes or cut services in order to compensate for the lost ECCA revenue. On top of that, unlike a condo complex which can go up pretty much anywhere in this city (including close to downtown), we cannot replace the ECCA once it’s gone.
In the end, I think it is terribly short-sighted and ignorant of our mayor and city council to close the ECCA under these circumstances and I hope the entire city votes them out of office in October.
Sirthinks says:
Jul 22, 2010
Hear Hear!
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 24, 2010
So that’s the new line? That trying to solve the ECCA’s environmental problems will make them worse? I’d love it if you shed some light on how that might be the case. It’s a ridiculous suggestion.
Using this logic we should just leave those gas stations alone that have been leaching gasoline for decades. There are proven techniques for treating this sort of waste and it does need to be done whether or not the airport is shutdown.
Too often it’s this kind of attitude that prevails in society. “Oh, if we ignore it, it’ll go away.”
I’m not going to sit and defend anyone on council for anything they’ve said or done. I have no alliances or allegiances on council and that will continue to be the case.
I’m neither defending nor attacking Mandel or anyone on council for whatever comments they’ve made. Just because I support the airport closure doesn’t mean I support any or every statement made supporting it, just like I’m sure those opposed to the closure don’t support the multitude of idiotic comments some have been making on Mack’s blog post about the airport closure.
I don’t think anyone who relies on the ECCA will ever think there’s ever been enough consultation if the result still ends up that it’s going to close. They could spend millions fighting pointless court cases to drag it out, or put the resources into moving and making their businesses successful elsewhere. Obviously there should be some compensation for them.
If you’ve got links or specific examples of lies, idiotic comments, etc, please quote them and share the links. I would like to see them.
You say there are no federal regulations re: ECCA, but there seem to be for many other airports. Perhaps the feds didn’t see the necessity for any ECCA specific ones due to the City of Edmonton already having some?
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts-1985ca-2.htm
I agree that the city should be getting the information about the cleanup costs, settlement costs with existing businesses and potential proceeds from the sale of airport lands. In the long run though, the city will take in more in taxes with a redeveloped airport than with what is there.
dmoar says:
Jul 26, 2010
Alain,
I am not a civil or environmental engineer. I was not attempting to confirm Mark’s point, only to clear up what appeared to me to be some confusion. On that point, don’t you think it would have been appropriate for the city to have an environmental assessment done BEFORE deciding to close the ECCA? Fore-warned, is fore-armed as they say. If you agree, then one has to ask why they didn’t since it seems so obvious.
I’ll see if I can dig up those links and I will post a follow-up.
I didn’t look at all the cities on that Transport Canada site, but the ones I did look at appear to be municipal by-laws (as far as I can tell) except when it comes to the approach paths. To my knowledge, approach paths are the only Federal regulations. So, in Edmonton’s case you have a blanket height restriction within something like a 5 mile radius of the airport, except for downtown which is significantly higher and not on the approach paths. It seems to me that if height restrictions are the problem, an easier solution would be to alter air traffic around the airport and look to get additional exceptions. Again, don’t you wonder why city council didn’t investigate this alternative?
When you’re talking long-run, how long are you talking? 20 years? 50? In the meantime, we’re going to have to suffer with higher taxes or reduced services to make up for the lost revenue that the ECCA brings in. Don’t you find it odd that council wouldn’t have figured this out before making the decision to close the airport?
At the end of the day, I guess I expect better from my elected officials and since I don’t think they’re stupid, what does that leave?
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 29, 2010
I agree, the city should do an environmental assessment either way. What I’m saying is that the issues there should be solved no matter what happens.
The other party that would likely bear a great deal of responsibility in terms of paying for the cleanup is actually the federal government.
I think the idea of altering air traffic around the airport would be problematic. Perhaps @MarkF can shed some light on that. I get the impression that pilots prefer a nice straight run into an airport and not have to bank at the last minute and level off before a landing. Edmonton’s a windy place and I bet that kind of thing would cause a few heart attacks.
One thing I caught did concern me that the mayor said recently. I didn’t catch the whole statement on the radio, but it sounded like he had suggested that we’ll get to developing ECCA land when appropriate.
This is something I would not agree with. If we’re going to close ECCA, the development should begin immediately. I don’t agree with shutting it down, with all the costs and loss of revenue, simply to use it as a reserve of developable land. That’s something I would not agree with at all.
Mark F says:
Jul 24, 2010
dmoar
Thank-you for the intelligent remarks. I don’t think the naysayers that need something to attack can hold their own in an informed debate. In this case they claim to be positive and for Edmonton but in substance are simply shouting loudly to close the airport. You won’t hear from them trying to do anything truly positive. There already are extensive surface parking lot and one story building lands that are closer to the city core.
It’s funny that you don’t hear anything from these people on the potential of these areas closer in.
I would love to see those areas developed. I would love to see the average building height at least doubled. All this is is totally compatible with keeping and enhancing the access by air through the City Center Airport to the city core.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 24, 2010
Who’s “shouting loudly” here? I think we’re having a civil debate. I don’t have any axes to grind and no political ties. I’m relatively new to Edmonton, but I don’t think that diminishes the value of what I think should happen with ECCA. Sometimes a different perspective is a good thing. I’ve certainly made plenty of observations about Edmonton as a new resident.
I think the city has an incredible amount of value in the 600 acre property at ECCA. The airport now doesn’t have scheduled air service, by a previous plebiscite but it does have VIA train service, a major freeway beside it and I understand Greyhound is eventually looking at relocating its passenger facility there. Also, the city is looking at creating an LRT route through it.
It’s close to downtown also. There aren’t many properties like this available in North America, let alone North America’s energy capital.
http://www.eccalandspublicinvolvement.ca/document/show/41
There will be environmental cleanup costs and no doubt some settlements to be paid to existing tenants (it’s a fair thing to do). I think the project will be beneficial for Edmonton in the long run, particularly from the perspective of ongoing tax revenue.
I’ve seen the issue of alternative airports come up a couple times. I’m sure in an emergency where YEG could not be used that Namao, apparently with a 15,000 foot runway, could be used. How frequently do alternative airports need to be used? Not sure, but I’m sure it’s not often!
Runway lengths
YVR (Vancouver) – 11,000 feet
YEG (Edmonton) – 11,000 feet
YYC (Calgary) – 12,675 feet
Namao (Edmonton) – 15,000 feet – 41 km from YEG
ECCA (Edmonton) – 5,868 feet – 30 km from YEG
Josephburg (Edmonton) – 4,560 feet – 59 km from YEG
Villeneuve (Edmonton) – 3,500 feet – 44 km from YEG
Springbank (Calgary)– 5,000 feet – 25 km from YYC
http://archive.copanational.org/PlacesToFly/index.php?pr_id=2
How much space does a 747 need to take off and land? It really depends, according to the debate I could find, but it relies on whether it’s fully fueled or loaded. So, would a fully loaded 747 partially fueled be able to stop at ECCA in an emergency? Might be better off going to Namao, even though the runways are apparently technically closed, but are still able to be used.
dmoar says:
Jul 26, 2010
No problem, MarkF.
The question now will be whether council respects the will of the people enough to wait to start the demolition process until after the deadline to have enough signatures in to force this to be an election issue.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 29, 2010
The city laid out the process and is following it. Envision Edmonton has had plenty of warning. Why didn’t they try to get the 85,000 signatures sooner? Sounds like someone slipped on strategy.
Keith says:
Aug 27, 2010
Or someone has an agenda that has yet to be revealed.
Follow the money… find out who is bankrolling Envision Edmonton to the tune of half a million dollars and you’ll be able to piece together the real motivation for this campaign. Someone clearly stands to profit handsomely from the ignorance of the masses that have bought into EE’s message. Wonder who?
Mark F says:
Jul 24, 2010
I had a call from an Edmonton councilor a year ago. She said that one reason she was siding with with the closure side was that one of the people at the public hearing was just screaming loudly to close the airport. She really emphasized that he was screaming.
How often are alternate airports used?
For any aircraft on a IFR flight plan (most commercial airplanes are on IFR flight plans), they are required on every flight plan. The requirements are very specific. There are many criteria that must be met in regards to instrument approaches and number of runways. I would bore you to death to explain it all. The list of runway lengths you provided is virtually useless when determining an alternate airport. You can browse through the CAP general if you want to understand it better. These requirements alter the amount of fuel you must carry which in turn alters the passenger load.
No knowledgeable person in this debate ever suggested the ECCA as an alternate for heavies such as 747′s, however it can be used as a flight plan alternate by light to mediums such as 737′s. This enables them to reduce their fuel load even though they may never actually use the airport.
Josephburg and Villenueve generally do not meet criteria as alternates.
Namao’s 12000 foot runway has been turned into a helicopter pad and can’t be used as an alternate. I’m not joking. They put huge X’s to close the runway and a little circle with an H in for the helicopter to land.
Alternates are a huge part of flight planning even though they are very rarely actually landed at.
I can give you an example of how an alternate affects my line of work even though I am absolutely sure you don’t care.
If I leave Whitehorse with a critical medevac patient on board bound for Edmonton I can safely and legally go direct to city center without a fuel stop. If the city airport is removed I would most likely be stopping at either Peace River, Fort Nelson, Watson Lake, High level or Grande Prairie for fuel to maintain alternate minimums. The extra time to come down from 25000 feet refuel and get back up is at least an hour.
But then I must not know what I’m talking about.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 25, 2010
“No knowledgeable person?” Well, I guess we better just turn this decision over to the “experts” and stop the whole debate now… or not. I, unlike some people (and not pointing at anyone in particular), use debate as an opportunity to learn as well. Sorry, but the appeal to authority is one that’s never convinced me.
I’m not sure if 747s fly into YEG right now but it would appear that there is only one other airport in Edmonton capable of handling them should they need an airport close by. I’m not sure if Namao’s runway has been fully decommissioned.
And you’re absolutely sure I don’t care? Nothing like assuming, is there?
Mark F says:
Jul 26, 2010
I was convinced you don’t care based on your previous remarks. I could be absolutely wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
I thought I was just stating the obvious about 747 not landing at the City Center. I wasn’t trying to be condescending.
Aside from that the army put their buildings on the runway at Namao. I suspect they did that to prevent the air force from reacquiring control of the base, pretty much the same reason the city is in such a hurry to dismantle the runway 34 and its instrument landing system. Military politics may not be that different than civic.
Namao’s runways don’t have a instrument landing system. Alternates require an ILS for landing in low visibility weather so the as big as they are the runways at Namao can’t be used as an alternate.
To develop Namao as an alternate for civil use would first require wrestling control of it from the military which is unlikely, then installing the ILS which costs money, and even then I’m sure EA would prevent it from happening for the same reasons they don’t want the city center airport to thrive.
Namao is an interesting subject but if was to replace the city airport I think you would need to accomplish the above things before destroying the city runways. Namao is really a separate subject unless those things happen.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 29, 2010
I’m not saying Namao should replace ECCA, but could be used as an alternative. In an emergency, I’m sure any lengthy patch of asphalt is a good candidate for landing.
I don’t think control has to be taken from the military, and frankly I don’t care about military politics. Perhaps there could be arrangements made. If there’s some political will, I’m sure it can be done. Or, some money can be put into some of the other surrounding airports.
Mark F says:
Jul 24, 2010
So far as the civil debate you are talking about. I’m not really the type to go online just to debate. You and others are trying to seriously drive myself and others out of Edmonton. There are many ramifications. I accept you may win and I guess if I leave, you should be a very happy man. I don’t know what your line of business is. Is it something that needs be removed from the city too or do you believe you have a positive contribution?
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 25, 2010
Again, you’re assuming or is it just a game of brinksmanship?
This isn’t about driving anyone or any business out of Edmonton. It’s about changing how things go here. It’s not an all or nothing proposition. To suggest that is absurd.
It’s like the oilsands and the rest of the petroleum industry in Alberta. Just because most people want the operations to take place with as little pollution as possible does not mean that all of those people want them shut down if they’re not perfectly clean. People want industry to be responsible and government too. The people who work in the oil and gas business here also like to hunt and fish in Alberta. They have homes near oil and gas wells and processing plants. They have kids that go to school in range of them.
Businesses can change how they operate and where they operate. Businesses that fail to change fail to survive. I’m sure that all of the businesses at ECCA would like to survive and it will mean change. Sometimes with change there is also new opportunity. Did the businesses at ECCA have much room to grow there? Perhaps at new locations they’ll have more space to grow.
I’m sure if AHS or EIA was concerned about alternate airports and medevac not being up to standard, then they would have tried to stop the ECCA closure. It seems that they’re not concerned.
Who ever said that medevac or the businesses at ECCA don’t make a positive contribution? Certainly not me.
Mark F says:
Jul 26, 2010
I understand you trust the politicians direction so far as AHS and EIA are concerned. Of course you are entitled to that.
Again, if I assume wrong you can just say so. The change you are speaking of is all aviation business leaving Edmonton. My perspective is simply one you don’t relate to. I have spent 26000 hours in the cockpit of airplanes. That little patch of land in Edmonton that allows me to land and deccelarate the plane means a lot to me. The change you refer to means not only not being able to land here but also not even close to the city. Change means keeping airplanes farther from Edmonton then any city I have so far researched in North America. I still wait your response concerning that point.
Without close proximity to cities many aviation businesses simply shrink or even vanish. The businesses at ECCA have almost as much room to expand as they are allowed. The way in which the previous plebiscite was manipulated and implemented meant the commuter airline market in Alberta was drastically curtailed. Most potential airline commuter travelers within Alberta now just take the higher risk and drive. From my observations this regularly has fatal results. I find that quite disturbing and I wish I could be part of the solution.
Finally I do appreciate the concept that you use debate to learn. I did not realize that.
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 29, 2010
Mark, I typically approach debates with an open mind. I like this definition of debate: to consider different sides of a question. Given good evidence as to why I might reconsider my position on an issue, I will. To simply present your argument with no consideration for the opposite view is simply an argument. To this point nobody’s made a compelling argument as to why ECCA should stay.
Perhaps more people should consider a debate in this manner.
The fact is that times change and so do land uses. ECCA just had no growth potential, which is why EIA opened. There is no longer scheduled passenger service at ECCA. Yes, there are other businesses there and alternatives can be found for them. I highly doubt that they’re just going to pack up and head off to some other city. It may happen, and that would be unfortunate. It would be preferable if reasonable attempts are made to ease their transition locally and in fact give them room to grow.
On your point about distance to downtown from ECCA, sure, that’s great it’s close to downtown. All the scheduled traffic is out of EIA and it still comes here. Closing ECCA, really, will affect a comparatively small number of people. The city didn’t dry up when EIA opened. In fact, there is more room for businesses to grow there.
I’d like to hear from the businesses located at ECCA now to find out what they’re going to do.
As for trusting politicians, I don’t trust many of them at all, but that doesn’t change my mind about what I think should happen to ECCA.
Mark F says:
Jul 26, 2010
I did some checking on the stats for flying on sched flights as opposed to driving your own car. As I suspected driving your own car is about twenty times more likely to kill you. I have both driven and flown northern Alberta for thirty years. The stats are certainly consistent with the impression I have developed. The last commuter sched flight fatality I recall in Alberta was in 1984 on a trip into High Prairie (6 fatal).
Alain Saffel says:
Jul 29, 2010
While the last commuter scheduled flight fatality may have been in 1984, it’s rather irrelevant to the discussion. EIA handles all scheduled commuter flights, as I understand, in accordance with a vote some years ago to consolidate scheduled service at EIA.
Generally flying is safer, so what? There have been a number of instances of private pilots dying in Alberta in recent years.
I’m sure if many more people were flying (as many as are on the roads) there would be a lot of deaths. God help us if they ever really make flying cars.
I can’t help it if the invincible, high-ball, to-hell-with-everybody-else mentality rules Alberta roads. What are we going to do? Force everyone to fly or take the bus? Perhaps if our fellow Albertans showed some concern for other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and other users of the road, we wouldn’t have such a problem. I don’t foresee that changing though.
Should Edmonton close the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA)? | alainsaffel.com says:
Jul 29, 2010
[...] post: Summer 2010 – With the city moving ahead with its decision to close ECCA – Edmonton Centre Airport & Envision Edmonton calling for a plebiscite, there’s a debate on again about what should [...]
Mark F says:
Aug 3, 2010
All those tax calculations have to assume that those houses wouldn’t be built elsewhere in the city.Tthere certainly does not appear to be a land shortage. I am saying that the airport brings in extra money into the city. Land in itself does not do that. Extra money causes extra land to be developed and of course taxed. You must also remember that extra tax simply goes to service the extra land. There is no profit nor should there be.
Victoria’s main airport is just as far as Edmonton’s International, however they do have a downtown harbor aerodrome that provides regular scheduled floatplane air service to downtown Vancouver and other places.
They use Twin Otters on floats which take up to 18 passengers.
In spite of being a much smaller city Victoria has better air access then Edmonton even now, The floatplanes can also make the transition to land airports if they are amphibious. It all comes down to supply and demand based on the cities location and where people want to go. In this case they usually wants to walk on a plane at downtown Victoria dock then step off at Vancouver’s downtown dock, in both cases a short walk. I wish everybody could see the value in commuter air service here too. Commuter air service would not destroy the international airport as it’s opponents always say. It is smaller planes going shorter distances with higher convenience.