Airport Expansion Still On The Table
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
I’m not sure they were really planning to talk about the runway extension, but last month, Tony Miller, an ardent opponent of the project, showed up and wanted to talk about it.
The aviation commissioners suggested that since Miller wasn’t on the agenda, he should return this month. Apparently, judging by the ad Miller took out in today’s edition (see page 5B), he will be there.
Miller wants some questions answered before the city and the aviation board go ahead with the project.
I think that’s fair. I think lots of people want some questions answered.
I said from the outset of this controversy that if it meant closing CR 100E, I would be against the project. And initially, that’s precisely what the project entailed.
Spilling all the residential traffic – and there’s a ton of it – from CR 100E onto Ind. 15 to the west or CR 175E to the east, in my view, was simply unacceptable. Ever try to pull out onto Ind. 15 at 7 a.m.? I do it every day. It’s not fun. And 175E? It’s hilly and curvy – more like a goat path than a thoroughfare.
So I was always against closing CR 100E. A year ago I wrote about this and ended my column with this thought: No one is opposed to a longer runway. They're opposed to closing the road. Can’t we work toward a solution where we have it both ways?
Well, it appears we can. Engineers since have decided they could extend the runway without closing the road. A loop would be made around the east end of the new runway.
It would lengthen a commuter’s trip trip by 30 to 45 seconds. I could live with that.
And that’s where things stand today. The airport has been talking about this for a long time and there is a compelling reason to keep the project moving.
The Federal Aviation Administration is picking up 90 percent of the tab. The total is somewhere around $6 million. If the airport doesn’t do it now, the FAA will withdraw the offer and the airport will be on its own in the future.
Which means a runway expansion likely never will happen.
But even if the FAA pays for 90 percent of the project, the city is still on the hook for some serious money. That begs the question. Is it worth it?
Miller says absolutely not. He says the runway is fine the way it is. It’s not an issue of safety, it’s an issue of convenience. He says there’s no documentation – ever – of runway length causing a problem at the Warsaw airport. He says even if the loop around the east end adds only a mile a day per trip, at 22 miles per gallon it adds up to $130 per year for the average driver and five or six hours more per year for a student sitting on a school bus.[[In-content Ad]]Plus, he says, the money could be used more wisely, like for updating the terminal.
Proponents say that a longer runway is safer, could accommodate larger aircraft and make the city more attractive to existing and potential manufacturers in the future.
Proponents also say that it is a government-funded hedge against the cost of future expansion. Do it now while the government is willing to pay, in other words.
My sense of all this is that we are likely going to have a longer runway. The aviation board will likely make that recommendation and the city council will have to vote on it if there is going to be any money spent.
I think the overriding feeling by talking to some of the folks charged with making these decisions is that they don’t want to be judged harshly in the future.
They want to avoid the chance that 20 years from now somebody is going to say, “Why didn't those idiots extend that runway back in 2011 when the FAA was going to pay for it?”
And they’re probably closer to being right than they are wrong.
But if you care about any of this, you might want to poke your head in the aviation board meeting Tuesday. It should be interesting.
I’m not sure they were really planning to talk about the runway extension, but last month, Tony Miller, an ardent opponent of the project, showed up and wanted to talk about it.
The aviation commissioners suggested that since Miller wasn’t on the agenda, he should return this month. Apparently, judging by the ad Miller took out in today’s edition (see page 5B), he will be there.
Miller wants some questions answered before the city and the aviation board go ahead with the project.
I think that’s fair. I think lots of people want some questions answered.
I said from the outset of this controversy that if it meant closing CR 100E, I would be against the project. And initially, that’s precisely what the project entailed.
Spilling all the residential traffic – and there’s a ton of it – from CR 100E onto Ind. 15 to the west or CR 175E to the east, in my view, was simply unacceptable. Ever try to pull out onto Ind. 15 at 7 a.m.? I do it every day. It’s not fun. And 175E? It’s hilly and curvy – more like a goat path than a thoroughfare.
So I was always against closing CR 100E. A year ago I wrote about this and ended my column with this thought: No one is opposed to a longer runway. They're opposed to closing the road. Can’t we work toward a solution where we have it both ways?
Well, it appears we can. Engineers since have decided they could extend the runway without closing the road. A loop would be made around the east end of the new runway.
It would lengthen a commuter’s trip trip by 30 to 45 seconds. I could live with that.
And that’s where things stand today. The airport has been talking about this for a long time and there is a compelling reason to keep the project moving.
The Federal Aviation Administration is picking up 90 percent of the tab. The total is somewhere around $6 million. If the airport doesn’t do it now, the FAA will withdraw the offer and the airport will be on its own in the future.
Which means a runway expansion likely never will happen.
But even if the FAA pays for 90 percent of the project, the city is still on the hook for some serious money. That begs the question. Is it worth it?
Miller says absolutely not. He says the runway is fine the way it is. It’s not an issue of safety, it’s an issue of convenience. He says there’s no documentation – ever – of runway length causing a problem at the Warsaw airport. He says even if the loop around the east end adds only a mile a day per trip, at 22 miles per gallon it adds up to $130 per year for the average driver and five or six hours more per year for a student sitting on a school bus.[[In-content Ad]]Plus, he says, the money could be used more wisely, like for updating the terminal.
Proponents say that a longer runway is safer, could accommodate larger aircraft and make the city more attractive to existing and potential manufacturers in the future.
Proponents also say that it is a government-funded hedge against the cost of future expansion. Do it now while the government is willing to pay, in other words.
My sense of all this is that we are likely going to have a longer runway. The aviation board will likely make that recommendation and the city council will have to vote on it if there is going to be any money spent.
I think the overriding feeling by talking to some of the folks charged with making these decisions is that they don’t want to be judged harshly in the future.
They want to avoid the chance that 20 years from now somebody is going to say, “Why didn't those idiots extend that runway back in 2011 when the FAA was going to pay for it?”
And they’re probably closer to being right than they are wrong.
But if you care about any of this, you might want to poke your head in the aviation board meeting Tuesday. It should be interesting.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092