697 replies to this topic

[mental757]

As long as it meets their safety and security requirements, they won't care.  I recently learned that the tunnel will actually be cheaper than re-routing the road all the way around the runway extension.  The other thing to remember with these alternatives is that they are the "extremes."  They will study all the alternatives and the "preferred" alternative will be the one that has the least environmental imopacts overall.  I think rough cost estimates are in that calculation as well.

[Dan]

Lone Ranger, on Mar 16 2006, 06:29 PM, said:

How deep a tunnel are we talking about for Main Ave?  Because I have to think the FAA isn't going to be happy about that idea.

I wouldn't sweat the FAA, Mayor Avedisian never saw an airport expansion plan he didn't oppose.  This one has a long way to go.

[Recchia]

Public meeting held last night regarding runway extension  [Projo.com]

Avedisian continues to oppose:

Quote

"What are being presented tonight are five of the most costly and environmentally insensitive alternatives available to meet what has become essentially a single, no-holds-barred attempt to provide nonstop West Coast service to 100 percent of the future fleet mix," Avedisian said.

The expansion scenarios would cut out the heart of some of Warwick's neighborhoods, Avedisian said, and mean, "In short, the loss of a vital piece of Warwick's societal, cultural, and historical fabric. They may be lines on a map to VHB, FAA, and RIAC. They are families to me," Avedisian said.

I have yet to hear what Avedisian would propose.  Not saying that I totally disagree with him, but if he opposes this so much, what does he propose instead?  He never says.  And how are these five alternatives all the most "environmentally insensitive"?  

Also, does this statement not sound like the biggest load of bullsh!t ever?  "They are families to me"!! C'mon, that is ooozing with b.s.  votes votes votes....

[Frankie811]

Recchia, on Mar 23 2006, 07:33 AM, said:

Public meeting held last night regarding runway extension  [Projo.com]

Avedisian continues to oppose:
I have yet to hear what Avedisian would propose.  Not saying that I totally disagree with him, but if he opposes this so much, what does he propose instead?  He never says.

He supports the projects that are in place or proposed that will make Green more efficent and conveniet for travlers. He's also on record as being supportive of the train station/garage/people mover.  I don't think he'll ever publicly come out in favor of runway expansion.

[Lone Ranger]

Quote

The expansion scenarios would cut out the heart of some of Warwick's neighborhoods, Avedisian said, and mean, "In short, the loss of a vital piece of Warwick's societal, cultural, and historical fabric.

a) You have none in Warwick, so don't worry.

b) You have none in Warwick, so don't worry.

c) You have some areas of historical value in Warwick, but not in any of the neighorhoods in question.

[Dan]

Recchia, on Mar 23 2006, 07:33 AM, said:

Public meeting held last night regarding runway extension  [Projo.com]

Avedisian continues to oppose:
I have yet to hear what Avedisian would propose.  Not saying that I totally disagree with him, but if he opposes this so much, what does he propose instead?  He never says.  And how are these five alternatives all the most "environmentally insensitive"?  

Also, does this statement not sound like the biggest load of bullsh!t ever?  "They are families to me"!! C'mon, that is ooozing with b.s.  votes votes votes....

He has nothing to propose.  That's the problem.  He's like Hillary Clinton on illegal immigration.  Blast the guest worker program but suggest no better plan.  Avedisian opposes any alternative which expands the runway - the environmental remark was a load.  

Frankie811, on Mar 23 2006, 10:20 AM, said:

He supports the projects that are in place or proposed that will make Green more efficent and conveniet for travlers. He's also on record as being supportive of the train station/garage/people mover.  I don't think he'll ever publicly come out in favor of runway expansion.

The projects in place are all in the works for one reason - to handle increased traffic.  A longer runway is the only component of the master plan that will enable the additional flights.

The train station will to connect PVD with downtown Providence and Boston.  In fact, the new rail link could double traffic at Green over the next 20 years if the line is expanded to the south and west into CT.  Can the state afford to turn away all of these west coast business travelers who will stay, dine out, and rent cars in Rhode Island?  That's in addition to those new passengers who will take the commuter rail to depart Green for the convenience.

IMO it is absurd to support the train station and oppose expansion of the runway.  We need the Anti-NIMBY crew on board with this one!  

[mental757]

Dan, on Mar 24 2006, 03:44 AM, said:

He has nothing to propose.  That's the problem.  He's like Hillary Clinton on illegal immigration.  Blast the guest worker program but suggest no better plan.  Avedisian opposes any alternative which expands the runway - the environmental remark was a load.  
The projects in place are all in the works for one reason - to handle increased traffic.  A longer runway is the only component of the master plan that will enable the additional flights.

The train station will to connect PVD with downtown Providence and Boston.  In fact, the new rail link could double traffic at Green over the next 20 years if the line is expanded to the south and west into CT.  Can the state afford to turn away all of these west coast business travelers who will stay, dine out, and rent cars in Rhode Island?  That's in addition to those new passengers who will take the commuter rail to depart Green for the convenience.

IMO it is absurd to support the train station and oppose expansion of the runway.  We need the Anti-NIMBY crew on board with this one!  

Yes we do.

Again - what is not understood by some of the anti-runway expansion folks is that the alternatives are the "worst case scenarios" for the lack of a better phrase.  There is nothing in how the EIS process is run that says they can't take the LEAST environmentally insensitive alternative and scale it down even further.  It's a step by step process but these folks think every alternative drawing is the final plan!  Maybe the runway ends up only being 9000 feet - who knows, but let the process take its course!

[Frankie811]

FAA considers options for runway extension

The latest report from the Federal Aviation Administration on T.F. Green Airport is a case of pick your poison, Warwick residents and officials say.



The Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce and the R.I. Economic Development Corporation, among others, are pushing for the extension because they view it as crucial to maintaining the state’s economic competitiveness.



http://www.pbn.com/c...s.php/id/120113

[jencoleslaw]

i'm coming late to this party, but i was involved with the expansion stuff several years ago, and i was wondering whether any of the airlines have signed on to the longer runway? The last i heard no airline had pledged to have coast to coast flights if the airport runway was expanded, and i think that was one of the issues a lot of folks had with the expansion--that it was too speculative. Again, this was a few years ago and perhaps one of the airlines has been tugging on the hem of the state for sometime now asking for an expansion, but considering that we seem to losing SHORT flights out of Green (independance air the most recent loss) i wonder just what the market need really is for longer flights?

[Mij]

jencoleslaw, on Mar 25 2006, 08:12 AM, said:

i'm coming late to this party, but i was involved with the expansion stuff several years ago, and i was wondering whether any of the airlines have signed on to the longer runway? The last i heard no airline had pledged to have coast to coast flights if the airport runway was expanded, and i think that was one of the issues a lot of folks had with the expansion--that it was too speculative. Again, this was a few years ago and perhaps one of the airlines has been tugging on the hem of the state for sometime now asking for an expansion, but considering that we seem to losing SHORT flights out of Green (independance air the most recent loss) i wonder just what the market need really is for longer flights?

If you build they will come. I'm sure that these people wouldn't be displacing naiborhoods if there wasn't a real sence of urgency to do so.

[Garris]

Mij, on Mar 25 2006, 09:29 AM, said:

If you build they will come. I'm sure that these people wouldn't be displacing naiborhoods if there wasn't a real sence of urgency to do so.

I no airport expert by any means (I hope some of those posters here like Mental757 chime in) by my impression from the decades of airport renovation/expansion battles at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, NY was that airline use of gates, routes, etc is virtually a minute to minute issue and they never commit long term to anything.  Opponents of the White Plains expansion made the same point about the lack of airline committment.

Once the expansion/renovation was done, airlines filled the gates/routes/etc in a New York minute...

Again, I've lived in several towns with airport expansion issues...  The pattern always, without question, is...

- Rational expansion proposed...
- Neighborhood groups battle forever over issues of noise, traffic, light, etc, etc, etc...
- It drags on for ages...
- Expansion happens...
- Everyone in town says, "Boy this is great.  Why didn't this happen a decade ago?"

Again, in my opinion, this is what eminent domain is really for...  1.5-2 million (if not more) people depend on that airport for travel and as an economic engine.  As long as individuals there are well compensated for their homes, then the airport needs to expand.  Period...

- Garris

[jencoleslaw]

i am very uncomfortable with eminant domain (and street abandonments and other "takings") for speculative purposes, however.  If the airline industry was healthier i might feel differently (and i'm not necessarily opposed to the expansion--just believe the ECONOMIC due dilligence needs to be done as well as the Environmental) but the airline industry is having a tough go of it right now and unless a runway expansion is a magic bullet, i can see why the warwick neighbors are digging their heels in.

That said, anyone who within the last 25 years bought a house near the airport, should just shut their yaps about airline traffic and noise!  I liken that kind of complaining to folks who started smoking 15 years ago and now are suing tobacco companies because it made them sick.  No time at all for folks like that. You don't get to cry NIMBY when you MOVED into the airport's back yard.

see, bet that surprised ya! I'm not always anti-everything.

[Lone Ranger]

Garris, on Mar 25 2006, 11:47 AM, said:

Again, in my opinion, this is what eminent domain is really for...  1.5-2 million (if not more) people depend on that airport for travel and as an economic engine.

Well yes, that's great for those 2 million or so people, but the 500 or so folks in Warwick say no, so it's no.  "The answer's always no."  What's more important here, the needs of the many or the needs of the few?

There is no emoticon to express the level of sarcasm I reach when I think about this issue.

[Garris]

jencoleslaw, on Mar 25 2006, 12:42 PM, said:

If the airline industry was healthier i might feel differently...  unless a runway expansion is a magic bullet, i can see why the warwick neighbors are digging their heels in.

Well, the airline industry is probably the most cyclical of all US industries, so just because they're down now doesn't mean they won't be healthy and robust in 10 years, and as others have pointed out, if expansion goes through, 10 years might well be the lag time between project start and planes landing and taking off on a new runway.  

There's never a "magic bullet."  All things economic are to some degree a speculative gamble...

jencoleslaw, on Mar 25 2006, 12:42 PM, said:

That said, anyone who within the last 25 years bought a house near the airport, should just shut their yaps about airline traffic and noise!  I liken that kind of complaining to folks who started smoking 15 years ago and now are suing tobacco companies because it made them sick.  No time at all for folks like that. You don't get to cry NIMBY when you MOVED into the airport's back yard.

see, bet that surprised ya! I'm not always anti-everything.

  Color me shocked!  I thought I'd never read that!

- Garris

Edited by Garris, 25 March 2006 - 05:52 PM.

[Cotuit]

As always, the media is happy to highlight the people who are outraged. I'm sure there are many people living in the airport's shadow who have cookies freshly baked and lemonade freshly squozed for the government officials they are hoping will be knocking on their doors with eviction papers. At this point, the houses near the airport are worthless, you couldn't sell one. So the only way these people can get out is through eminant domain.

[Dan]

"wondering whether any of the airlines have signed on to the longer runway? The last i heard no airline had pledged to have coast to coast flights if the airport runway was expanded, and i think that was one of the issues a lot of folks had " --- jencoleslaw 3/25/06

OK, just imagine what would happen if, say, American Airlines announced something like "we are very pleased with the prospect of new service to West Coast destinations to be made possible by the expansion of PVD."  Avedisian would scream that AA is a menace to the environment, they'll pave over Buckeye Brook, the character and quality of life in Warwick will be forever compromised, and the NIMBY's would cheer.    

Green can take care of itself.  I don't think we need any meaningful assurance from the airlines at all.  Mij took the words right out of my mouth: "if you build it they will come."  Southwest Airlines came, an assortment of new hotels opened along Jefferson Blvd., and the long-awaited train station is about to finally become a reality.  The market is already there!  In fact, traffic increased in the last year for the first time since the WTC attacks.  

PVD airport is better-positioned to succeed than any other in the region.  Its also a business and the most important thing is to remain competitive.  PVD will beat Logan and Bradley on the West Coast / London ticket sales because of its convenience.  As far as the Winslow Park neighborhood... those homes are in the process of being bought out, which is the right way to do things.  

I think you can use ED to take a street that runs through a parking lot, but you can't seize someone's land.  I think the homeowners will all take the money anyway.  The airport was there first and that's what made the house a great deal in the first place.

[jencoleslaw]

you absolutely can use eminent domain to take someone's property. It is easily challenged in court but it doesn't mean it hasn't been done. Just look at New London, and North Smithfield.

btw, who pays for the expansion? do they float a bond for it? Yes, the airport is a business,  but it is also quasi gov agency known as RIAC. So, does the state pay for it? Does it have enough profit to pay for it itself? how does that work?

While i believe that the airport is an important economic engine, i just would like to see the actual economic feasibility study done in advance, just as we require an Environmental Impact Statement. The "If you build it, they will come" doesn't really work for me. I'd rather see "if you build it, the state will realise x dollars in revenue, y dollars in taxes, surrounding businesses within a 10 mile radius will appreciate z dollars etc."

Just as we like to see reasons we're going to war in advance (even if they ended up being lies in the end), i would like for someone to run the numbers to ensure that an airport expansion makes financial sense BEFORE it is done.

And i've heard from folks as far away from the airport as Edgewood, complaining of being in flight patterns and being too loud and those people definately do NOT want an expansion, so the NIMBYs are quite far flung...

[Lone Ranger]

jencoleslaw, on Mar 26 2006, 09:26 AM, said:

And i've heard from folks as far away from the airport as Edgewood, complaining of being in flight patterns and being too loud and those people definately do NOT want an expansion, so the NIMBYs are quite far flung...

I've lived in Edgewood for 15 years.  It's never been a problem.

[Recchia]

If a project is in an Airport's Master Plan, then the FAA will fund (I beleive) 95% of a capital improvement project, usually with a state and local match.  This is for non-hub airports though, and Green definitely is a hub, so the federal share may be more like 90%.

[Mij]

jencoleslaw, on Mar 26 2006, 09:26 AM, said:

you absolutely can use eminent domain to take someone's property. It is easily challenged in court but it doesn't mean it hasn't been done. Just look at New London, and North Smithfield.

btw, who pays for the expansion? do they float a bond for it? Yes, the airport is a business,  but it is also quasi gov agency known as RIAC. So, does the state pay for it? Does it have enough profit to pay for it itself? how does that work?

While i believe that the airport is an important economic engine, i just would like to see the actual economic feasibility study done in advance, just as we require an Environmental Impact Statement. The "If you build it, they will come" doesn't really work for me. I'd rather see "if you build it, the state will realise x dollars in revenue, y dollars in taxes, surrounding businesses within a 10 mile radius will appreciate z dollars etc."

Just as we like to see reasons we're going to war in advance (even if they ended up being lies in the end), i would like for someone to run the numbers to ensure that an airport expansion makes financial sense BEFORE it is done.

And i've heard from folks as far away from the airport as Edgewood, complaining of being in flight patterns and being too loud and those people definately do NOT want an expansion, so the NIMBYs are quite far flung...

Miss Coleslaw,
While I will admit your stance is admirable I dont sit with you. I think RI needs this. As far as studies go they are under way.  here is a quote from them, them being The TF GREEN EIS
"Economic Impact

Does the Rhode Island Airport Corporation have an estimate of how many new flights and the number of new jobs that will result from the expansion?

The economic benefits from the proposed airport projects are not identified at this time. The Rhode Island Airport Corporation is updating its Economic Impact Analysis for T.F. Green Airport. When the results of this study are available they will be posted on the Rhode Island Airport Corporation’s website. The future forecasts relating to the number of airport operations and passenger activity levels will be re-evaluated as part of the Environmental Impact Statement, but are not available at the moment."

It seems to me that asking for more studies and tests is the equvalent of a philabuster. Make them wait as long as humanly possible. Then when you have no other option give in. Thats very nimby of you. I dont claim to be the brightest bulb, i would think that the longer you wait the more it will cost. Inflation of goods, lost oppurtunities due to others acting in our haste, and frustration from developers. All in all, i think for all parties involved, a quick painless settalment would be the best case. For the airport, for the nimby's, for the region. Get it over with and let every one get on with their respective lives.


Thats just what i think I could be wrong
Mij