As most of you probably know, there is an ongoing debate in our fair city – the likes of which none of us have probably seen in our lifetime. I speak of the debate over the closure of the Edmonton City Centre Airport. On July 8, 2009, Edmonton City Council voted (Nine to three, I believe) to initiate a phased closure of the downtown airport. As per that decision, one of the two runways was permanently closed following the Indy this summer. The other runway will be closed within a number of years, to facilitate the relocation of businesses at the City Centre Airport (henceforth referred to as ECCA) to the Edmonton International Airport, or to a general aviation airport, Villeneuve, near St. Albert.
During the initial council debates, there was a strong push against the closure, largely from the likes of the Alberta Enterprise Group, the Kingsway Business Association, and various aviation industries at the airport. Following council’s vote, things seemed to quiet down, save for a lawsuit or two that didn’t go anywhere. That was until we witnessed the rise of Envision Edmonton, a “grassroots” organization led by a variety of businessmen from around the province, with the goal of forcing the issue to a plebiscite on the October 18th civic election.
Unfortunately, Edmonton happens to be filled with Albertans – roadblocks to progress. So now they have the signatures to force a plebiscite, supposedly. Never mind that the law states that petitions for plebiscites must be filed no more than sixty days after the council decision. Also, I’m not a huge fan of direct democracy. I far prefer our representative form of government. With direct democracy, important decisions can be left up to an unfortunately usually ignorant populace, creating a form of mob rule, as seen with Proposition 8 in California in 2008, where voters voted to ban same-sex marriage in the state. That said, the plebiscite will most likely go ahead this fall, so there’s no use crying over spilt milk.
I will outline the reasons that Envision Edmonton (henceforth referred to as EE) wants to keep ECCA open, and I will debunk those reasons. I will also intersperse my personal positions where appropriate. If you haven’t figured out my position yet, this is it – completely close ECCA, and develop it into a cutting-edge, world-class, high-density, mixed-use, green community.
One of EE’s core reasons to keep ECCA open is the medevac issue. This would have to do with medical flights transferring patients from Northern Alberta to the city. EE argues that if the airport is lost, people will DIE. They make that very clear – City Council will have blood on its hands. But let’s look at some facts:
· The majority of critical medical cases are handled by STARS Air Ambulance, which doesn’t require the ECCA – it can land right on top of the University of Alberta Hospital or the Royal Alexandra Hospital. According to the Edmonton Regional Airports Authority, victims of a car accident in Grande Prairie were flown directly by STARS to the U of A, with no stop at the ECCA.
· The majority of fixed-wing medevacs are not time-sensitive. That is, the extra 10-15 minutes of transport time to the hospital will not kill them. These flights will land at the Edmonton International Airport, where patients can be easily transferred by ground ambulance to city hospitals. If, in fact, there is a critical, emergency situation, new helicopter facilities are being built at the International. Critical patients can be transferred directly from the fixed-wing aircraft to a helicopter and flown to a hospital. This would add an estimated six minutes of travel time. Additionally, it should be noted that in nearly every case critical patients are stabilized before the flight. AN extra six minutes will not kill them.
· The healthcare and well-being of Northern Albertans is NOT the responsibility of the City of Edmonton. If Northerners are concerned about reduced access to medical care due to the ECCA closure, they should talk to the Province of Alberta, which has that responsibility. Interestingly, Alberta Health Services has stated that the closure of ECCA will not affect medevacs in anyway.
Another argument that EE likes to use is that the closure of ECCA will cripple Edmonton business. They claim that not only will a driver of economic output be crushed, but business will prefer the convenience of Calgary. They claim that Northern Alberta business will use Calgary rather than Edmonton since they will lose their central airport. To be honest, some of the one thousand people that work at the airport might lose their jobs in the relocation of the businesses based there. However, in comparison to the economic growth the city as a whole will experience, those job losses will not really matter in the long run. Here are some reasons:
· Currently, ECCA produces only $18 million in tax revenue – to all three levels of government. A new development could net as much as $900 million in tax revenues.
· Would business move to Calgary if ECCA was closed? I can’t see any factual basis for that argument. Calgary International Airport is not particularly close to their downtown, about a 20 minute drive. EIA is further, but I don’t think an extra 10-20 minutes is going to prompt a business to move to Calgary.
· One could argue that ECCA is actual responsible for moving business to Calgary. Before the 1995 plebiscite, there was scheduled service from ECCA to various destinations – Vancouver, Regina, but mostly Calgary. In 1995, Edmontonians voted to consolidate scheduled service to EIA. Despite what EE and Danielle Smith of the Wildrose Alliance say, this consolidation was not a failure. EIA has more direct destinations than ever before, is one of the fastest growing airports in the world, and is currently expanding. I’d say that counts as some fairly significant economic growth – though ECCA supporters tend to reject the successes of EIA, instead calling it the Leduc International Airport and claiming that economic growth from the International only benefits Leduc County. Sure.
· In 1995, Shaw Communications famously moved its corporate headquarters from Edmonton to Calgary. J.R. Shaw’s departing words? “Get one airport”.
· I have read some arguments from pro-ECCA people that EIA is so far away that you may as well drive to Calgary. That really confused me – 40 minutes versus three hours. Of course that is comparable. Some people must have a very poor sense of time.
· The argument that ECCA is the gateway to the north is a moot point. I believe that about 78% of passenger flights from the North already fly to the International, not ECCA. EIA has more northern destinations, and of ECCA’s allotted passenger seats, only 7.8% are actually used.
· Of ECCA’s 80,000 aircraft movements, 41% landed at ECCA. That is, they flew in a circle. Another 10% landed at Edmonton area airports, such as Villeneuve or EIA. Fort McMurray is the second largest destination after ECCA itself, followed by Calgary International.
· The closure of ECCA would remove height restrictions on our downtown. This is largely why our tallest building is only 146m tall with 36 stories, while Calgary has 12 buildings taller than that.
· EE argues that other cities have ‘downtown airports’ and love them. They cite the following cities on their website – Phoenix, Boston, Atlanta, New York, Stockholm, Florence, and Rotterdam. I’m not quite sure what airports they’re looking at, to be honest. I have been to Atlanta, New York, and Florence. New York’s airports are nowhere near Manhattan. Atlanta’s airport is also a fair distance away. While Florence’s airport is close, you cannot even tell it’s there from the middle of the city. EE also cites secondary airports of Canadian cities – Calgary’s Springbank (which is way outside the city), Toronto City Centre (which doesn’t affect building height and is not particularly popular with Torontonians), Montreal’s Mirabel (closed to passengers due to distance), and Regina has Moose Jaw. I’m not sure what their argument is with those examples, since most of them are further away than Villeneuve, which will become our regional general aviation airport.
As I see it, the benefits of redeveloping the airport lands into a cutting edge community far outweigh the costs of closing it. An extremely small proportion of the metropolitan population utilizes this airport. Once redeveloped, it will be a world-renowned green community, home to 30,000 residents with ample green space and connections to public transit. As the head of a Swedish development company vying for the redevelopment contract recently said, this development opportunity is ‘huge’ in North America. Coupled with additional LRT expansion, a downtown arena, and the World’s Expo in 2017, the redevelopment of the City Centre Airport is a crucial part of turning Edmonton from a standard city into a world-class one.
