With the comment period for plans to build an extension to Green Airport’s Runway 5-23 and other improvements closing Aug. 8, the city will ask that the Federal Aviation Administration delay a record of decision until it reviews several issues the city claims haven’t been sufficiently studied.
Meanwhile, Mayor Scott Avedisian said yesterday that he intends to meet with the City Council in executive session to review the city’s options, including possible legal action, now that the FAA is expected to render a favorable decision to extend the runway from 7,161 to 8,700 feet. The meeting is Aug. 15. The FAA’s record of decision is expected at the end of the month or early September.
“We will be asking that no record of decision be issued until a supplementary study be completed…until the loose ends are tied up,” City Planner William DePasquale said yesterday.
Among those issues the city feels the environmental impact statement failed to fully address include the loss of affordable single family housing, impact on city tax revenues, the impact on children using the John Wickes School playground and impact on the historical cemetery that is within the obstruction-free area at the end of the runway just within the fence on Main Avenue.
DePasquale also says the EIS does not adequately consider the economic impacts of the project, given the current environment and the possibility that the Rhode Island Airport Corporation may not receive the level of financial aid from the FAA to lengthen the runway.
“It,” he said of the EIS, “Never took a fresh look at the economic constraints.”
The extension is projected to cost $88 million.
RIAC CEO Kevin Dillon sees no need for additional study after more than a decade of debate.
“I think it unfortunate that the city would want to continue to delay a decision. It just continues the uncertainty for the surrounding community.”
As Dillon has explained, the agency will look to use a form of financing, a letter of intent, for the runway extension. Assuming a favorable record of decision, RIAC won’t be eligible to apply for the letter until next March and is not likely to know what level of federal funding, assuming any, it would receive for the project until next year at this time.
RIAC is unlikely to proceed if federal funding is not available and it would need to decide whether it could afford the project at different levels of FAA participation.
As the city has maintained throughout the study for an extended runway, DePasquale reasoned an 8,300-foot runway would enable 90 percent of the airline fleet serving Green the capability of rendering non-stop service to the West Coast while significantly reducing the impact on the city and costs.
“An added 200 feet is not going to make any difference to Wickes School or the cemetery,” said Dillon. He likewise doesn’t see it as impacting construction costs significantly.
“I’m not sure what you really achieve,” he said.
DePasquale further argues there has been “less than full disclosure” on how RIAC will deal with relocating the Winslow Park ball fields and the extent of the cemetery. The Lakeshore Drive neighborhood where RIAC once wanted to locate corporate hangars in an area once occupied by homes is now being eyed as the place for the fields. Previously RIAC was looking at property cleared of single-family homes on Strawberry Field Road west.
“There are questions about lights, traffic [access would be from a service road off Airport Road]…we would like to see more details,” DePasquale said.
Both DePasquale and Avedisian don’t see the city objecting to the safety improvement areas proposed for Runway 16-34, the shorter of Green’s two runways. That project is a priority if RIAC is to meet the 2015 deadline for FAA safety standards. The project requires the relocation of the Airport Road/Post Road intersection to the north and the acquisition of ten businesses on the west end of the runway. To the east, Buckeye Brook wetlands would be altered.
DePasquale said the final EIS reduces the amount of wetlands impacted from 7.3 to 5 acres. He said it doesn’t quantify wetlands mitigation efforts, however.
“It is silly to think they [FAA] would waive concerns over the safety areas,” Avedisian said of the Runway 16-34 project.
That’s not how he sees the extension, however.
“The extension is discretionary,” he said, “and it’s not sure they’re going to have the money.” He said an 8,300 or 8,500-foot runway would do the job at less cost and impact on the city.
“I don’t know how much more analysis you could do,” said Dillon, “it’s time to bring it to a conclusion.”
"As Dillon has explained, the agency will look to use a form of financing, a letter of intent, for the runway extension. Assuming a favorable record of decision, RIAC won’t be eligible to apply for the letter until next March and is not likely to know what level of federal funding, assuming any, it would receive for the project until next year at this time. RIAC is unlikely to proceed if federal funding is not available and it would need to decide whether it could afford the project at different levels of FAA participation."
Not only is federal funding not available for this runway extension project, the whole airport improvement division of FAA is shut down. FAA Reauthorization failed to pass Congress. There is nobody at FAA to answer the phone.
How can we be in the middle of a major FAA SNAFU in the making while Mr. Dillon keeps whining about making a decision? He and his RIAC Board are totally out of touch with reality. The FAA has ordered work stoppages all over the country including at Green Airport. But Dillon and the RIAC Board ignore all of this and keep saying the ROD is coming, the ROD is coming.
Come next March there won't be one penny of federal money for the runway extension. So, the RIAC Board should make a decision right now to forget about this useless runway extension
Anothercity hall attempt to throw a wrench in the works of a job that should have been completed 15 years ago when the rest of the medium size airports in the country did it. Then we wonder why industry jobs and productive population leave Rhode Island and new business stays away.
To Latitude41:
Here is the future that you envision.
From concerned JFK Airport neighbors regarding its shortest runway, barely over 8,000 feet long. More and more flights are picking this short runway every day because it is all that is needed by modern passenger and freight aircraft. As I have posted before, Jet Blue operates off of Logan's 7,000 foot runway. Now it is going for the 8,000 foot runway at JFK with the following impact. Bottom line - if RIAC had built the extension it would be bankrupt now over a doubling of debt service and the airlines would still only need 7,156 feet to operate where ever, even Europe.
"Runway 22L into JFK, which has seen a dramatic increase in arrivals - from 14.5 percent in 2004 to 29.2 percent in 2011 - has become a main focus of the group, which includes representatives from Floral Park, New Hyde Park, East Williston, Inwood, Atlantic Beach, Valley Stream, Cedarhurst, Hewlett Harbor, Island Park, Lawrence, Long Beach, Stewart Manor, Woodsburgh and Garden City. Garden City, one of the newer members, is among the villages affected by the rise in aircraft utilizing Runway 22L."
“We did not buy houses underneath runway approaches,” said Laurence Quinn, a Garden City trustee and member of TVASNAC. “The traditional pattern had had no flights coming over at night.”
To you and whomever supplies you with your data: JetBlue and every other carrier in Boston has a choice of the 7000' runway or Logan's other longer runways whenever distance to be traveled, weather, load or type of aircraft dictates. No responsible airline captain will choose a 7000' runway to depart for a medium to long distance flight when the aircraft is full or mostly full of freight, mail fuel, and passengers when there is a choice. Of course at Green we have no such option. Let us also not confuse a one time, lightly loaded sports charter on one specific day on one particular type of aircraft as justification that regular all weather flights coast to coast, deep in the Caribbean, or to Western Europe could be scheduled from T. F. Green, with any type of practicality as is. Runway 22L at JFK may have seen an increase in activity when, HELLO, load, aircraft type and weather conditions permit. JFK has alternatives that aircraft with blown tires, engine issues, full loads or bad flying conditions can take advantage of.
Latitude41:
Check your facts. I know it sounds reasonable to think that the longer runways at JFK would have the best instrumentation. But, that is clearly not the case. The shortest runway has the best ILS system. Also, everybody knows that taking off at Logan from any runway other than the 7,000 foot Runway 9-27 clearly gums up the works. One very dangerous near miss between a Europe bound 747 going down the longer runway and a 737 going down the shorter runway was an eye opener. And the recent hit of a regional jet headed for the shorter runway by the only 767 operating at Logan headed for the longer runway take off to Amsterdam shows why it is much better for Jet Blue to go with the flow and take the shorter runway.
Here is the ILS rating for JFK "ILS/DME (CAT. III) RWY 22L" This is the bad weather runway for JFK. For those who don't know, that is the most accurate Instrument Landing System around the East Coast. It is on the shortest runway at JFK. Why? because planes don't need a lot of runway to land, even with flat tires. Snow will always be an issue no matter how long a runway is. That is because a plane could easily loose its way after touchdown and skid off a runway -- short or long.
Regarding Jet Blue. Its Airbus 320 aircraft are rated to take off fully loaded on a 6,000 foot runway. That is why it can use Logan's 7,000 foot runway. Clearly Jet Blue could operate West Coast flights out of Green today as could any other airline.
Here's a post on airliners.net that shows the real situation about loads. Day in and day out operations from a 5,600 foot runway with reasonably long over ocean flights. You will see that the airliner can easily go to California from Green with a full load of passengers. Freight restrictions are based on the need to add fuel for a cross country trip - not a runway consideration.
"In the airport that I work, Horta International Airport in the Azores Islands (LPHR), we have the Tap Airbus 320 daily from Horta to Lisbon (1050 nm) full pax (156) and freight (2 or 3 tons (depends on the weather conditions), and the runway is 5600 feet long (1700 meters).
"I know (and I have seen many times)that the A320, must be the A320-214 version (engines are CFM56 with 27000 pounds thrust each) is able to take off with a max takeoff weight of 74 tons (in this case the actual runway lenght used before rotation is about 4500 feet) (in no wind condition).
"(74 tons is the max standard takeoff weight) of the A320 so there are no penalties due to the runway lenght, the only trade off is that if you want to fly much farther than 1000 nm, you have to reduce the freight weight for extra fuel needed. The max range of the A320 from the Horta airport is 2200 nm (acounting with 85%) headwinds (no freight, only 150 pax) with the normal fuel reserves.
"The Horta runway is almost sea level. The normal anual temperature is around 17 degrees celsius.
"What I can say is that Airbus builds excelent airplanes, the Airbus 320-214 is an excelent airplane, very, very powerful engines.
Before we had the 737 both the 200 version and the 300 version, the A320 is much better (more pax, more comfort, less noise, more cabin width, cargo in containers, etc). The A320 uses less fuel now with 156 pax than a 737-200 with 118 pax used to do the same trip, thats truly a great economy. Sorry to all the Boeing fans, but thats the truth."
Regarding Jet Blue. Its Airbus 320 aircraft are rated to take off fully loaded on a 6,000 foot runway. That is why it can use Logan's 7,000 foot runway. Clearly Jet Blue could operate West Coast flights out of Green today as could any other airline.
then why don't they?
Kevin Dillon, RIAC's president and Linc Chafee will be meeting with Jet Blue in a couple of weeks to make that point -- among other issues.
iIn the meantime Congress has now allowed the FAA shutdown of airport improvement tax collections and associated projects funded with these taxes including the T.F. Green runway extension EIS process to be put on hold. The FAA staff handling this EIS has been put on furlough until mid-September, at the earliest.