T'su Tina Vote

[Dado]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Hmm, pretty sure Crowchild won't enter into the equation (although I'd love it to be so). There's just too much to remove for that to be even remotely feasible.

Perhaps I'm missing something crucial here but... 37th would seem to require the removal of 69 houses (some look to be semis) and a couple of townhouse complexes whereas with Crowchild at worst about 40 houses and a small number of other structures would need to be removed. Would a tunnel under Crowchild and the reservoir work? That would eliminate most if not all property requirements. It seems to me that connecting Crowchild with 37th south of the reservoir would work better anyway. It would also reduce the problems of creating an interchange at Glenmore and 37th, though the use of something that looks like a spiral might help there. I could see that Crowchild could be more expensive overall, but surely not because of property requirements.

Why not use the 37th corridor for a SW LRT spur off the West LRT after going through MRC to serve Providence rather than forcing Providence transit users to go to the South LRT?

[mersar]

Biggest issue with Crowchild is the fact your so far into the middle of the residential area to the south. Once you cross the reservoir if you cross straight south (which would be the shortest possible span of ~600m) you'd pretty much need to then run straight west on 90th ave then turn south on the existing right of way thats there. Fortunately that wouldn't require removing much on the south side, though it would cut slightly into the park space. If you cut across the resevoir at an angle to come out further west you'd be looking at possibly a 1km span depending on where the bridge starts, and you'd end up cutting both south and north glenmore parks in half with a freeway down the middle.

As for the crossing, either a bridge or tunnel would be doable from my view, tunnel likely quite a bit more money though.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by mersar

Biggest issue with Crowchild is the fact your so far into the middle of the residential area to the south. Once you cross the reservoir if you cross straight south (which would be the shortest possible span of ~600m) you'd pretty much need to then run straight west on 90th ave then turn south on the existing right of way thats there. Fortunately that wouldn't require removing much on the south side, though it would cut slightly into the park space. If you cut across the resevoir at an angle to come out further west you'd be looking at possibly a 1km span depending on where the bridge starts, and you'd end up cutting both south and north glenmore parks in half with a freeway down the middle.

As for the crossing, either a bridge or tunnel would be doable from my view, tunnel likely quite a bit more money though.

There would also be some additional expropriation necessary at the Glenmore-Crowchild interchange, as it would involve freeways in all direction, as opposed to a freeway downgrading to a minor arterial.

Would 66th Avenue provide enough spacing for another interchange? There is less room on the Crowchild routing as opposed to along 37th Street.

[freeweed]

Hearing rumours that the band is looking to re-open negotiations in some capacity. Coming this quickly, it re-affirms my belief that the whole thing was a bluff for more money, and they got caught by surprise when the city didn't "blink". Assuming there's anything to this, of course.

Interesting article in the Herald today about the Weaselhead. The usual "we must preserve this protected wetland" discussion, but this time with some actual history - it was used as a military training facility very recently, so it's not exactly some pristine wildlife habitat. I get a real sense that Pincott and a lot of those pushing the environmental angle are actually just NIMBYing out hardcore, and covering it up with "won't someone think of the endangered cougar!".

[93JC]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I want that bridge designed by a STARchitect!

I want it designed by a civil engineer.

[93JC]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Interesting article in the Herald today about the Weaselhead. The usual "we must preserve this protected wetland" discussion, but this time with some actual history - it was used as a military training facility very recently, so it's not exactly some pristine wildlife habitat. I get a real sense that Pincott and a lot of those pushing the environmental angle are actually just NIMBYing out hardcore, and covering it up with "won't someone think of the endangered cougar!".

Pincott would push the environmental angle no matter what.

The most hilarious thing about this cockamamie "zOMG endangered wetlands!!" argument is that it's man-made! Before Glenmore Dam was built the Weaselhead was no different than the rest of the Elbow River Valley.

[Beltliner]

Not to mention that in addition to giving Pinhead the toughest job in town all of a sudden, the Weaselhead Viaduct option opens up a chock-full-o'-silt-and-chlorophyll political minefield for the provincial justice minister, whose constituency includes Lakeview, and for whoever wins the Nursie-Shrinky slapfight in Calgary--Glenmore this autumn.

Of course, the sitting federal Member of Parliament for Calgary--Southwest doesn't give a wet slap about the situation.

[AirGuitarChampion]

Originally Posted by 93JC

Pincott would push the environmental angle no matter what.

The most hilarious thing about this cockamamie "zOMG endangered wetlands!!" argument is that it's man-made! Before Glenmore Dam was built the Weaselhead was no different than the rest of the Elbow River Valley.

LOL, true. I would suggest (i'm not a biologist or anything) the man controlled water levels wreak havoc on the habitat too. One week the dry land extends to nearly the sailing club and the next week it's all under 6ft of water. I'm pretty sure the only thing that would change would be the noise level once a bridge is put in, and that can be mitigated. It's been demonstrated that type of work can occur on a body of water as sensitive as the Glenmore, i.e. the causeway re-construction.

[wild wild west]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Hearing rumours that the band is looking to re-open negotiations in some capacity. Coming this quickly, it re-affirms my belief that the whole thing was a bluff for more money, and they got caught by surprise when the city didn't "blink". Assuming there's anything to this, of course.

I hope not. Now that the band has voted, it's time to move on. Negotiating with the Tsuu Tina has gotten us nowhere...time to find an alternative option.

[Wentworth]

Sounds like they will have to throw the brakes on the Stoney Trail extension from Hwy 1 to Hwy 8 as well as it is dependent on routing of the Tsuu Tina segment. At least, that is what is implied in this Herald article

Other than the routing issue, I would think that if they proceeded with the Stoney Trail extension first, you'd end up with absolute mayhem on Glenmore Trail, which is already a circus at rush hour.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Wentworth

Sounds like they will have to throw the brakes on the Stoney Trail extension from Hwy 1 to Hwy 8 as well as it is dependent on routing of the Tsuu Tina segment. At least, that is what is implied in this Herald article

I don't see that in the article at all. And really, it doesn't affect that routing, as any option will route traffic onto extended Glenmore for a section.

I guess it would affect how the interchanges on Glenmore would be designed. Sarcee/Glenmore will be significantly different with either a 37th or a 14th alignment.

[Wentworth]

You're right, the article only says that the Province will need to "reroute the Stoney Trail southwest leg." I can't really see proceeding with the extension on its own.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Interesting article in the Herald today about the Weaselhead. The usual "we must preserve this protected wetland" discussion, but this time with some actual history - it was used as a military training facility very recently, so it's not exactly some pristine wildlife habitat.

You do realize that over 80% of the natural wetlands across the prairies have been drain for development and destroyed for the sake of "progress" right? We were taught in college that the weaslehead is a very important ecological area for elk and waterfowl along their migration. So in this case, I would say that the "protect the wetlands in this case, or really any case, is a valid argument. Wetlands provide critical habitat for a plethora of species, both endangered and not endangered. They also provide a natural filter for when floods occur, such as in the Red River Valley here in Manitoba. I think some people don't understand just how important or critical wetlands are to us and our economy in the long term.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I'm quite ambivalent to the no vote by the tsu tina nation. On the one hand traveling from one quadrant of the SW to the other (Ex:Woodbine to Westhills) is a giant pain in the ass. On the other hand, I am quite thankful the reserve is situated where it is as it has remained the only barrier to urban sprawl in this city's history. And who are we to call them stupid for rejecting development on their land and saying that it's a waste of space (this sounds like thinking from the earlier part of the 20th century not today). I think bridging the Weaslehead is a disaster waiting to happen.

Finally, someone with some with some understanding the point of view of the natives.

Originally Posted by 93JC

The most hilarious thing about this cockamamie "zOMG endangered wetlands!!" argument is that it's man-made! Before Glenmore Dam was built the Weaselhead was no different than the rest of the Elbow River Valley.

Considering how much destruction the non-natives have created in the name of "progress", and how destructive their actions were/are on wetlands, there should be more wetlands created to help restore what was taken from the land and the native peoples in general. Protecting this "man made" wetland is now just as crucial as protecting what is left of the natural wetlands from destruc.......... I mean "progress".

[lubicon]

The City and the Province have said 'no more negotiating' so let's assume we can take their word on that (and I certainly hope that we can). That leaves only 2 alternatives - Plan 'B', or the Tsu Tiina going back and somehow accepting the deal that they rejected. The second alternative may not be as dead as we think. Apparently the band is meeting this week to discuss the issue. Now I can't see them unilaterally deciding to accept the deal against the wishes of the band vote, BUT there may be a way oout of this. The proposed deal was between the City, Province, and the band with the assumption that the Feds would be on board and come through with the land swap since it is up to them to deal with that issue. It sounds like this was one of the issues that caused the 'no' vote. If (and it's a big IF) the Feds can come out and say that the land transfer is 100% gauranteed then it is possible that the band could take this back to their members and they could vote again.

It is a long shot, but that is the only way I can see this proceeding. Than banc council has to respect the vote result, and the City and Province have said there is nothing more to negotiate. The only way out is to clarify one of the big sticking issues and maybe that is enough to justify another vote.

[mersar]

Yeah, lets hope that is what happens. The only way to rescue the deal is for the band to lead the charge now. I'd almost wonder if the band leadership didn't forsee the land issue being the sticking point it obviously was.

The one thing I'd love to get more clarification on is the concerns over gravel rights related to the deal, theres been pretty much nothing said as to what that concern was really about (I'm assuming they want to keep or somehow be involved in the removal of any excess material from the construction, the latter I'd potentially have issue with if they somehow got the province to guarantee that their gravel company would get a mandatory contract for that work in the project)

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Wentworth

You're right, the article only says that the Province will need to "reroute the Stoney Trail southwest leg." I can't really see proceeding with the extension on its own.

No, that west section won't go ahead on it's own. It doesn't really provide a connection that doesn't currently exist, as you can use Sarcee Trail to get to Glenmore.

[Jay in Cowtown]

I think the taxpayers of Calgary should vote on closing all roads into the city from the reserve... including the Grey Eagle Casino entrance.

[Calgary1]

Originally Posted by lubicon

The City and the Province have said 'no more negotiating' so let's assume we can take their word on that (and I certainly hope that we can). That leaves only 2 alternatives - Plan 'B', or the Tsu Tiina going back and somehow accepting the deal that they rejected. The second alternative may not be as dead as we think. Apparently the band is meeting this week to discuss the issue. Now I can't see them unilaterally deciding to accept the deal against the wishes of the band vote, BUT there may be a way oout of this. The proposed deal was between the City, Province, and the band with the assumption that the Feds would be on board and come through with the land swap since it is up to them to deal with that issue. It sounds like this was one of the issues that caused the 'no' vote. If (and it's a big IF) the Feds can come out and say that the land transfer is 100% gauranteed then it is possible that the band could take this back to their members and they could vote again.

It is a long shot, but that is the only way I can see this proceeding. Than banc council has to respect the vote result, and the City and Province have said there is nothing more to negotiate. The only way out is to clarify one of the big sticking issues and maybe that is enough to justify another vote.

The main problem with this solution other than it being a long shot is that what if a new band chief comes in and nullifies this deal or the band changes its mind this could be problematic. I think we have to move forward with the 37th street option as if it is the only option (14th st could only ever be an interim option). This option will require the lack of access to the reserve and casino from 37th. This should be closed for the interest of Calgarians safety and not for spite.

There has been much talk about the outer ring road, I recall seing a draft at a SW Ring Road Open House 2-3 years ago but cant locate a reference online. does anyone know the exact boundaries of the draft?