To tunnel or not to tunnel

Aldermen, bureaucrats debate supposed discovery of $123-million fund

The debate over whether Calgary should build a transportation tunnel at the airport reared its head again with three aldermen’s “discovery” of $123 million tucked away in an untapped provincial fund.

Aldermen Andre Chabot, Ray Jones and Jim Stevenson have suggested the city uses the money to build the tunnel — a proposal city council shot down in July — before the airport authority begins its $1.8-billion expansion.

“If we had known this municipal financing initiative money was uncommitted in advance we would have brought it forward on July 19,” says Stevenson, who as the airport-area alderman has long-fought for the tunnel. “But the only thing given to us by administration as a possible source of funds was delaying other projects.”

Barlow Trail, one of the main arteries to the airport, is slated to close in April 2011 to make way for a fourth runway. The proposed tunnel would run east to west connecting 96th Avenue and 36th Street N.E.

Building a tunnel now could cost about $500 million when factoring in road and interchanges; doing it after the new runway is built would require boring underground and doubling the price tag.

Stevenson proposes the city borrows the money now and pays off the loan as the Municipal Sustainability Initiative funds trickle in as early as 2012. According to city officials, borrowing the money could cost the city $30 million in interest.

Stevenson says it took a significant amount of digging to discover the MSI funds were not tied to any project.

The general manager of the city’s transportation department takes issue with Stevenson’s “troublesome” suggestion that administration “hid the money” from council. “The innovation fund that Ald. Stevenson mentioned, that money was allocated by council,” says Mac Logan. “It wasn’t $123 million that we didn’t tell council about.”

“Did they forget about it or are they deciding that there are other priorities now and they don’t want to spend it on innovation, but instead, transportation?”

Although the $123 million is allocated to the innovation fund, which could be used for pilot projects such as citywide compost recycling, it is not committed to any project and can still be moved into the “transportation bucket,” says Logan. Council, he says, was told in July that it was now or never to allocate funds for the tunnel.

Mayoral candidate Ald. Bob Hawkesworth, who recently launched an anti-airport tunnel petition, says the city has no money left in the bank. The province and the federal governments will not commit any money toward the tunnel.

“To suggest that the city, all by itself, should build an airport tunnel is a stretch in my view and we can’t do it,” he says. “I don’t think Calgarians would want to double our tax-supported debt for this one project with such little benefit.”

Without a tunnel, travellers could easily access the airport from the north, says Hawkesworth. But Stevenson paints a nightmare scenario of clogged and frustrated travelers, which will get worse as the city’s northeast grows.

“It’ll be like a MacLeod Trail,” he says. “When you put in an extra 80,000 people in on the eastside of Metis Trail and you create another 30,000 jobs over the next 25 years on the west side of Metis Trail then we’re talking about a major delay to get people up and around there.”

Email: thowell@ffwd.greatwest.ca

***UPDATE***

Ask and ye shall receive. Here's a City of Calgary map detailing the layout of the proposed airport tunnel.

LargeMap_airporttunnelmap

 


Comments: 3

ertman wrote:

No article or conversation about the airport tunnel should ever be published without a map. Ever. A tunnel will never replace the major North-South route of Barlow Trail. It will shave a few minutes off the commute from the NE to the Airport. If it is not built before the runway construction is started, then it is still possible to build a PROPER road from the NE, around the top of the new runway, to the airport. Rerouting everyone up to Country Hills Blvd. would not be necessary.

Is the tunnel necessary? Could we make due without it? What would the cost of the new interchanges without the tunnel be? Without showing everyone a map during this conversation, no honest debate can occur.

on Aug 26th, 2010 at 11:43am Report Abuse

Just Jonathan wrote:

I concur with Ertman. I am always surprised that with a society that is visually orientated...or at least the majority, that we are perpetually fed audible descriptions.

It is easier to visualize something and process the image.
A picture tells a 1000 words....

That being said, it is difficult to grasp the implications of traffic flows and population projections without a "clearer picture".

on Aug 26th, 2010 at 3:03pm Report Abuse

WatchDog wrote:

I think we have to stand back and look at the bigger picture. An express bus service was introduced early this year for MacKenzie commuters but it took them over 1 hour to get downtown while the tunnel will save a few minutes travel time to a relatively few NE residents when they occasionally fly out-of-town. I would have to conclude the tunnel money would be far better spent on the SE LRT leg for the benefit of many more commuters who desperately need better public transit on a daily basis, not for occasional pleasure trips. The Airport Authority published a map last week in both newspapers showing several alternatives routes to the airport beside Deerfoot Trail once Barlow Trail is closed. The NE residents are clearly not being left high-and-dry with the Barlow closure.

on Sep 6th, 2010 at 9:55am Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © Fast Forward Weekly 1995-2011

About Us Contact Us Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use