David Beall's assertion in the 11/10 Times-Union article that the runway at our airport is only 4,084 feet is only partially correct.
According to http://www.airnav.com/airport/KASW runway 9/27 is actually 6,002 feet. Runway 9/27 is the runway that goes east and west, hence the runway that they propose to expand.
In my research into all of this, the necessary length of a runway is determined by many factors. According to documents listed on the FAA website, "Airplanes today operate on a wide range of available runway lengths. Various factors, in turn, govern the suitability of those available runway lengths, most notably airport elevation above mean sea level, temperature, wind velocity, airplane operating weights, takeoff and landing flap settings, runway surface condition (dry or wet), effective runway gradient, presence of obstructions in the vicinity of the airport, and, if any, locally imposed noise abatement restrictions or other prohibitions."
So to Mr. Beall's credit, in adverse weather conditions a 7,500-foot runway would be much safer for small aircraft. However, under ideal conditions it would be large enough to land a DC-9.
As we all seem to be pondering the necessity of this expansion, I offer another theory for the conservative types out there. American airports are in line to receive federal stimulus money via the FAA to improve taxiways and runways, thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the official name for the $787 billion federal stimulus package), which has designated more than $1 billion for airport improvements. Of that, $474 million will be directed toward runway improvements and $205 million for taxiways. A provision of the law requires that 50 percent of the funds must be obligated within 120 days of the signing of the law, perhaps the reason behind the mad rush to push this through.
So, maybe this is more about a government money grab, sort of a runway to nowhere. I would think that local conservatives should be willing to consider the fiscal prudence of this expansion.
In that alone, I would not care except for the insanity of closing the busiest portion of 100E in the process. It's not a matter of an inconvenience, it's a matter of public safety. If there was consideration for building an alternative eastern route like a runway bypass directly around the expansion, this proposal might not seem quite as heinous. But as the article reads I don't believe that has been considered. Mr Beall's statements give the impression that this project is a done deal and that's simply not true. Residents in the area pay heed there is still time to throw your collective weight against the closure of 100E.
