Plain and simple, the petition had two problems: not enough valid signatures, and it came in too late. The petition reports are here.

The petition did not get the 78,244 valid signatures required by provincial law to force a binding plebiscite. I put no stock in the conspiracy theories concerning the petition verification process – the City’s clerks are among the most fair-minded process-driven people you’d ever meet. Suggestions to the contrary are insulting to the integrity of hard-working City staff.

There was a lot of speculation about how many signatures would be enough: 50,000; 60,000; 75,000? In the end Council stuck to the threshold set out in provincial law. It is a high threshold, but for good reason, and it should not be undermined.

It became apparent to me in the discussion yesterday that the other problem with the petition is actually more serious: timing is everything, and the Envision Edmonton petition was submitted far too late. Under the Municipal Government Act, petitioners desiring to overturn a Council decision must submit their petition within 60 days of the decision. That clock started running in July of 2009. No doubt that is onerous but the reason for the deadline is that it’s costly and difficult for a city to stop once it begins to implement a decision like this, particularly a decision with impacts upon third parties and that calls for significant city investment.

The date of closure set for the first runway (16/34) was known months in advance. The fact that lease buyouts were under active negotiation is common knowledge. The LRT planning to and through the Airport lands has been ongoing. Key decision points have come and gone, and yet Envision waited to begin their campaign until this summer, and submitted their petition only weeks before this fall’s election.

Mr. Allard, the petitioners’ spokesperson, said Democracy doesn’t have a best before date, and while I have to say that the 60 day rule would be an unduly harsh standard to judge their efforts by, waiting 350+ days was clearly a political move to prime this election season and push Council to take easy political cover by putting the issue on the ballot as a non-binding plebiscite.

A motion was put forward to put the issue on the ballot that might have provided just that political cover. It was roughly: “Do you want the city keep the City Centre Airport open for general aviation – yes or no.” The practical problem with the question is that an affirmative vote means the airport would limp along with one runway for another 10 years, until the question of the airport’s viability inevitably arose once again. This cycle could conceivably repeat until the expiry of the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority lease in 2052. Under that lease, opening it back up to scheduled air service is  out of the question, and all costs to enhance the airport would bear upon the City.

One point raised over and over that I need to address is that the 1995 plebiscite question included an afterword that read: “Under both options the City will continue to own and offer general air services (e.g. private planes, small charters, air ambulance) at the Municipal Airport.” So did 100% of people vote to keep the airport open in 1995 as has been argued? Not necessarily. The question was on consolidation of scheduled service at the International. People had no way to give their opinion on closure so we can’t make any conclusions about the public’s will. The statement simply reflects that the Council of the day said they intended to keep it open either way.

So we tried that for 13 years until the question of the Airport’s sustainability was raised at Council 2008. After lengthy study in 2009, my conclusion was that the City Centre Airport was in inexorable decline, and that’s why I supported closure then. That decline has only accelerated with the implementation of Council’s decision over the past year. The appropriate time for the public to petition, or for Council to put it on the ballot, was sometime last year.

Phased closure will continue, and I’m prepared to defend that decision in this fall’s election.

This post follows up my previous ‘Leaning Toward Closure‘ post from two weeks ago. In the end I did support the phased closure motion from Cllr. Gibbons along with nine of my colleagues (I’ve pasted the full motion at the bottom for your convenient reference).

I wanted to paraphrase a sentiment I put forward in my closing arguments about the business impacts, which is that there are many reasons why the North does business with Edmonton, and as many reasons why Edmonton does business with the North. Just about all of those reasons are still in play without the ECCA. There may be some bruised relationships after this decision, but they will heal. Some business leaders may indeed follow up on their threats and take the rash step of relocating their business, or even moving away from Edmonton. Confidently, we can hope that these overreactions will be few.

With regards to Medevac, now there are years to make the alternate arrangements that will ensure that comparable service is offered to patients coming in to Edmonton. ERAA will begin to install ILS at Villeneuve to make it an eventual all weather alternate to Edmonton International (EIA), and in the meantime they will install a GPS landing aid on the remaining runway at ECCA.

Regarding public transit to EIA, I put the following motion forward after the vote on the main motion:

That Administration and the Mayor advocate to the Capital Region Board, the benefiting municipalities, the Province and the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority to jointly develop rapid public transit service to the Edmonton International Airport, and bring a progress report on this work to Transportation and Public Works Committee in November 2009.

It passed 11/1. I am hopeful that we can at the very least achieve a bus link to EIA from Century Park LRT station by the time it opens next spring, but I’m not betting the farm on it. I should say that I do not expect our LRT system to reach EIA for many years if ever. It’s not really the preferred technology, since it tops out at 80km/h and you would ideally want to go faster, and perhaps from a more central point of origin in the city than the southern terminus of LRT. But I do think a rapid transit link of some type is an important part of improving the convenience of EIA. Cllr. Sohi also successfully put forward a motion aimed at dealing with the vexatious taxi deadhead situation at EIA, which I supported.

This was a fractious decision, but much has been made of the fact that young Edmontonians mobilized, using a new suite of communications tools, and took this issue head on. Few of the 13 members of council will be around long enough to see this decision through to its end result, but I’m sure that some of the passionate advocates for an urban vision of the ECCA site will wind up living there, doing business there, as proud Edmontonians.

The full ‘phased closure’ motion as passed on July 9th:

Phase 1 Closure of Airport Lands

1.    That a phased closure of the Edmonton City Centre Airport be approved, and the City Manager negotiate with the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority to immediately amend the lease agreement to entrench the following activities as part of Phase 1 of closure:

• Immediately undertake to close runway 16-34 and adjust general aviation business activities to accommodate a one-runway airport, with Medevac service to be maintained at this time.
• Determine the parcel of lands adjacent to runway 16-34 which can, once air services on this runway cease, be surrendered to the City.
• Conduct a Phase 2 environmental analysis on these lands as well as a remediation plan.
• Work with ongoing users to mitigate impacts, ease immediate transitions and work with users to develop a suitable business plan to operate Edmonton City Centre Airport as a going concern until final closure date is determined, and ensure that upon the expiry of the current licenses in regards to scheduled air service that no renewals are negotiated.

Development of Airport Lands

2.    That the City Manager immediately begin to undertake the following activities:

• Immediately begin negotiation with Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and the Province of Alberta regarding Northern Alberta Institute of Technology expansion on-site.
• Position the City of Edmonton as developer of the airport lands, with Administration to immediately begin to set out long-term visioning plans for the airport lands in their entirety, including plans for community consultation, and for an international design competition for an ecologically-advanced, transit-oriented, medium- to high-density, mixed-use development (business and residential).   Provide process plan to Council by November 2009.

Realignment of NW (NAIT-LRT)

• Administration to submit plans for realignment of NW(NAIT)-LRT based on available access to lands currently impacted by 16-34 runway, and report to Council no later than September 2009.

Removal of Overlay Impact over Downtown

• Administration to make adjustments to the downtown plan in anticipation of immediate removal of the overlay impact over the majority of downtown, before finalizing the Municipal Development Plan/Transportation Master Plan in November 2009.

3.    That prior to a final closure date being determined and as part of a Phase II, Edmonton Regional Airport Authority to have completed work with Alberta Health Services on long-term system design to facilitate Medevac operations at Edmonton International Airport (or other regional airports).

4.    That a date for full and final closure of the airport will be determined by City Council during Phase II, with input from Edmonton Regional Airport Authority, at a point at which the lands are required to support the long-term land development plan and the needs of the City.

5.    That once the final closure date is set in Phase II, final environmental remediation of the remaining airport lands will occur followed by the final surrender of lands to the City following complete decommissioning of the airport.

6. That Administration immediately develop a communications strategy to inform and include relevant public audiences (including external audiences) about the impact of this decision, timelines, milestones, land development and transit impacts, as well as things that do not immediately change in order to ensure citizens, stakeholders and current airport users have easy access to complete, accurate information.

7. That the City Manager further negotiate with Edmonton Regional Airport Authority to negotiate mutually acceptable lease amendments to entrench Phase II and all aspects of the intent of this motion.

I’ve worked to keep an open mind about this question since it was reopened after the election. I’ve said until last week that I was still waiting for both sides to make their best arguments, as I didn’t think we had heard them yet. Having heard again from the public and city staff, I’m prepared to say that I’m leaning strongly toward closure.

I’ll admit that the city report from last year painted a pretty rosy forecast for what repurposing the land could mean for the city, and in retrospect folks were right to call it exaggerated. I think this year’s analysis conducted by city administration and consultants is much more realistic (thanks to Mastermaq for compiling all the reports in one place). There are no certainties with land development, but the assumptions and the reasoning appear appropriately conservative after my thorough review. So the argument for the redevelopment scenario has improved from last year. (Edmonton Regional Airport Authority has added some background papers as well here.)

Some of the advocates for saving the airport, including the Alberta Enterprise Group (AEG), raised some fair questions about the analysis, but nothing damning. AEG also retained ASCEND Aviation Consultants to build an ‘Economic Potential’ case for the Muni. They have also argued based on a 2005 study that the airport enables province-wide economic activity of:

• 2,300 jobs (nearly 2,200 person years of employment);
• $164 million in GDP; $388 million in economic output; and
• $99 million in wages.

AEG implies that this economic activity is only possible because of the airport. There is a logical error here since the airport is not a necessary condition for all of this activity, only a portion of it (like aircraft refueling). The airport is merely an enabler for the rest. I questioned AEG representatives about this and they admitted that they didn’t know what the impact of closure would be on the local economy, only that it would affect some of this business, and that the rest would just move around to other airports in the region as people shifted their activity. I would argue that most of this business would still happen, it would just happen differently.

Where Airport Advocates are divided is the question of whether the status quo is working. Most air industry speakers argued that the status quo is untenable. Leisure flyers can live with it as is, but still felt that the airport is slowly dying under the restrictions placed upon it.

Many want the 10 passenger cap for scheduled service raised to 19, restoration of cargo service, easing hanger development restrictions, and resuming customs services for international charters. Lifting these restrictions would be needed for the airport to begin to meet its theoretical potential. They argue philosophically for competition between the airports, forgetting that this is not a true market — it’s a regulated one where the field is among other cities’ international airports, not individual airports within our region.

The Airport Authority takes the position that they’re operating the airport according to the lease with the city, which takes direction from the 1995 referendum on consolidation of scheduled service at the International (or the Leduc Airport, as many Muni advocates refer to it). Some Muni advocates think it’s time to revisit the question of consolidation of scheduled service. Short of a petition with 75,000 signatures on it forcing a plebiscite I don’t see how this is ever going to happen (and I’m fairly certain the consolidation regimen would prevail).

So follow my logic: if the status quo is untenable for all but the jet set, and if expanding scheduled service is not going to happen, that really only leaves one option: closure. This of course should be subject to a number of further conditions about improving access to other airports (Instrument Landing System at Villeneuve for flight training and as an all-weather Medevac alternate for one, express transit connection from South LRT to the International for another).

Will using Villeneuve or the International be less convenient for charter flyers, private pilots and scheduled air users, who use the Muni now? For some, undoubtedly yes. Will all of them take their business elsewhere? It is a risk that some may, however we may reasonably assume that the many reasons why people do business with Edmonton or from Edmonton are strong enough for most to continue to do so.

Incidentally, Villeneuve is only 6 mins further from our Downtown than Springbank general aviation airport is from Calgary’s Downtown.

So what of Medevac? Surely this has been the most sensational issue in the debate. However, I believe from what we’ve heard that Medevac can eventually be accommodated at other airports in the region with no time delay for those who are time critical. First, though, I believe we need written assurance from the Minister of Health that they will make the necessary investments in helicopters, landing pad upgrades, traffic signal priority systems, etc. The issues here are financial, logistical and jurisdictional — and all are Provincial.

In sum, I believe the risks to Medevac patient outcomes and business relationships from eventual closure are low. Intensification of the airport land into a transit-oriented green community for tens of thousands, the end of the height-limiting Airport Protection Overlay over Downtown, plus the unique opportunity to facilitate NAIT expansion combine into a strong case for seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity for city building.

If there’s one thing everyone agrees on, the historical city-building significance of the site and its heroes ought to be recognized and celebrated.

Council will debate the matter, and may make some decisions on the 8^th of July.