Warwick Beacon
Online
Editorial: For
airport, shorter is better
Written by
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Finally, the Federal
Aviation Administration and the Rhode Island Airport Corporation have arrived
at the same conclusion city officials reached years ago – a major extension to
Green Airport’s main runway would not only require the acquisition of more than
350 homes, but would be outrageously expensive as well.
In endorsing an
8,700-foot alternative to the 9,350-foot runway proposal, the RIAC board
reasoned last week that the shorter runway could effectively provide nonstop
service to the West Coast at less cost. That really shouldn’t come as a
surprise as calculations made by consultants working for the FAA and released a
year ago showed a 8,700-foot runway could offer 91 percent of the fleet serving
Green with nonstop transcontinental service, or the same percentage as a
9,350-foot runway. The difference is that by the year 2020, consultants
forecast about 80 percent of the fleet could offer the service on the shorter
runway as compared to 84 percent on the longer one.
That’s 4 percent
more – and don’t forget these are best guess estimates of consultants – for an
additional $69 million.
It’s those added
dollars, not the 200 fewer homes that would need to be acquired or the city’s
east-west road traffic that would be dramatically altered, we believe finally
tipped the balance. All options of the 9,350-foot runway, except the
alternative RAIC left on the table, would have required a
That’s part of it.
The 9,350-foot proposal also requires alteration to Buckeye Brook wetlands. As
the City Council has the authority to grant wetlands applications, the FAA and
RIAC would have faced protracted hearings and possible litigation with no
guarantee of an agreement. Even now, RIAC could face that hurdle.
This is not exactly
news and reason enough for the city to say, “I told you so.”
But how
We are encouraged by
RIAC’s decision to look at a shorter runway
extension. Now we hope the city is truly included in an examination of that
alternative. After all,