For Comparisons Sake Edmonton City Centre Airport (#YXD) versus Laguardia (#LGA) in New York City...
#YXD
Length
|
Surface
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
ft
|
m
| ||
12/30
|
5,870
|
1,790
| |
Statistics (2010)
| |||
Aircraft Movements
|
66,746
| ||
#LGA
| Runways | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Direction | Length | Surface | |
| ft | m | ||
| 4/22 | 7,001 | 2,134 | Asphalt/Concrete |
| 13/31 | 7,003 | 2,135 | Asphalt/Concrete |
| Helipads | |||
| Number | Length | Surface | |
| ft | m | ||
| H1 | 60 | 18 | Asphalt |
| H2 | 60 | 18 | Asphalt |
| Statistics (2010) | |||
| Aircraft operations (ACI)[1] | 362,137 | ||
| Passengers (ACI)[1] | 23,983,082 | ||
It seems that #YXD would have been adequate to replace #YEG almost entirely (#YEG moved ~6,100,000 passengers in 2010, #LGA ~23,000,000). Of course it would have needed to expand the runways and aprons to match what's available at #LGA, but with the $900,000,000.00 spent on #YEG expansion and renovation we probably could have renovated, expanded, and had half the money left over for, I dunno, an arena? a contribution to a regional high-speed rail system? LRT expansion?
Instead we are going to tear down #YXD to build a replica river valley only a few kilometres away from the real one while leaving the areas in need of revitalization along the real river valley in a state of disrepair. In addition the new fake river valley will be a private park in a private development largely inaccessible to Edmontonians who don't live or work in the new private development on the old public airport lands.
UPDATE:
Orange rectangles are the necessary extensions to make YXD runways the same length as LGA (two possibilities, only one extension required on 12/30, 16/34 would require overpass to train yards)
Posts
2 comments:
Les - an interesting comparison. I suppose it could be feasible to fit a Laguardia on City Centre lands, though we would have to account for:
- Expansion of about 1300 feet to each runway, in addition to the aprons;
- terminal expansion to handle the combined load of pre-limitation CCA plus EIA load;
- infrastructure expansion to handle larger flight volumes, including more fuel and repair facilities, parking (as much as we might like it, not everyone's getting to the airport via public transport)
- continuing the maintenance of EIA as a cargo airport, which is accountable for at least some of the upgrades at the site.
We would also have to take into account that unlike LGA, the city center airport is not surrounded by water but by houses. The trouble that Pearson's had in placating local homeowners (who aren't nearly as close to the airport as the people of Prince Rupert, Calder, etc are to CCA), include forced quiet time, restricted use of their most wind-advantageous runway, and the attendant legal costs. I think all the same would apply here, further limiting the overall capacity (number of planes, number of passengers).
The $900 million spent at EIA is not an amount sitting in a bank account somewhere. In part, it was fees collected from passengers. How would you justify telling ERAA or the passengers themselves that part of that money would go to fund an arena or, better yet, a directly-competitive transportation mode?
I'm not going to comment on the merits of plans for CCA except to say nothing is in stone, and the "private park" would be built by the "private developer" that is the City of Edmonton. Are you arguing that all the land on the airport should remain public? 'Cause I see a lot of chain link fence that prohibits my using this public land right now...
All good points:
1. Runway Expansion is totally feasible to the North over the rail yards (many airports employ under / overpasses to mitigate traffic disruption.
2. Terminal Expansion and Cargo capacity - EIA had ~130,000 aircraft movements in 2010, LGA ~300,000
3. LGA has 100% flight restrictions in effect from 0000h to 0600h (no scheduled arrivals / departures) near as I can figure
Was the EIA $900M all collected in fees? or was there a municipal / provincial / federal component?
As for the Private vs Public - the airport is currently public land, albeit limited access for safety reasons. New housing will be private land. I'm not sure what deal the city has / will strike with a developer, but in general developers like to own the land they are developing, unless the city is planning on guaranteeing that it will cover all costs plus profit margin for the developers I can't see the developer volunteering to build a park for free (especially one of the size indicated on the drawings.
Post a Comment