Tunnel CR 100E
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
Though I don't believe this matter is being done decently and in order, it has been proven that the project to expand runways is needed in the first place. However, if the airport manager, Mayor Wiggins and the commissioners plan to go ahead with the project, why haven't they considered adding a tunnel to the final project?[[In-content Ad]]As of now, they have caused more poor publicity caused by their inadequate planning. Had they factored in the cost of a tunnel in the government grant, they wouldn't be receiving as much flak over this issue. It appears to me that the proposed plan for the airport is not as much as a "necessity as a want" and it is beginning to show how poorly this matter is being pushed on people.
If the proposed plan may not occur for three years, it would appear that it gives ample time for proper planning. Why aren't studies being done that would permit the construction of a tunnel under the 100E? A tunnel will add a significant expense to the project, which is understandable, but no one has said a tunnel is impossible from a construction standpoint. Financing should be included in the overall project. Financing is likely to require private and public funds for which meetings should be held. A tunnel added to the project is a "win-win" situation for everyone.
Three years provides ample time to plan for a tunnel construction and financing while providing input from the public. This matter will be a highly-fought battle between all parties if 100E is closed on a whim. The way it is being proposed to the public is more like "shoot, aim, ready" without sufficient planning/implementation, which is just not right. The public deserves better than this. A tunnel is likely to be a "win-win" situation for all parties causing less aggravation and litigation.
We can all look back many years from now and say the airport project was done right instead of shaking our heads for lack of proper planning.
Lloyd M. Fletcher
Warsaw, via e-mail
Latest News
E-Editions
Though I don't believe this matter is being done decently and in order, it has been proven that the project to expand runways is needed in the first place. However, if the airport manager, Mayor Wiggins and the commissioners plan to go ahead with the project, why haven't they considered adding a tunnel to the final project?[[In-content Ad]]As of now, they have caused more poor publicity caused by their inadequate planning. Had they factored in the cost of a tunnel in the government grant, they wouldn't be receiving as much flak over this issue. It appears to me that the proposed plan for the airport is not as much as a "necessity as a want" and it is beginning to show how poorly this matter is being pushed on people.
If the proposed plan may not occur for three years, it would appear that it gives ample time for proper planning. Why aren't studies being done that would permit the construction of a tunnel under the 100E? A tunnel will add a significant expense to the project, which is understandable, but no one has said a tunnel is impossible from a construction standpoint. Financing should be included in the overall project. Financing is likely to require private and public funds for which meetings should be held. A tunnel added to the project is a "win-win" situation for everyone.
Three years provides ample time to plan for a tunnel construction and financing while providing input from the public. This matter will be a highly-fought battle between all parties if 100E is closed on a whim. The way it is being proposed to the public is more like "shoot, aim, ready" without sufficient planning/implementation, which is just not right. The public deserves better than this. A tunnel is likely to be a "win-win" situation for all parties causing less aggravation and litigation.
We can all look back many years from now and say the airport project was done right instead of shaking our heads for lack of proper planning.
Lloyd M. Fletcher
Warsaw, via e-mail
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092