Jump to content

T.F. Green Airport Developments

Frankie811

By Frankie811
in Rhode Island

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 690
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Lone Ranger Burg

Lone Ranger

Posted
Posted

Actually, I'd almost guarantee that Cincinatti's airport hasn't been as much of a headache to Cincinatti as Providence's to Providence. And the fact that Cincinatti's airport is in Kentucky just goes to prove the point: the airport exists because of, and for, Cincinatti.

There can be no confusion about that fact. Take a look at a map of the area. Dayton lies, I'd say, maybe 30 miles to the north of Cincinatti, and Columbus is another 20 or so miles beyond that. Both are too far away from Cinci to rely on Cincinatti's airport. Besides, Dayton has its own major airport, as you can see here, and if you click here you'll see that Columbus has not one, but two of them. Lexington, Frankfort, and Louisville all lie in a line about 50 miles south of Cincinatti, even farther than Dayton and Columbus, and you can see here that both Frankfort and Lexington have their own airports. Of course Louisville does as well.

Those are all of the major cities surrounding Cincinatti, and they're all too far away from Cincinatti to be reliant on Cincinatti's airport: hence the fact that they all have airports of their own.

In other words, that Cincinatti airport, although in another state, clearly exists for one reason, and one reason only: to serve Cincinatti.

So the FAA, at least, isn't concerned with state lines. Cincinatti needed an airport, and the likeliest site for it happened to be in Kentucky. Made no difference. It's still Cincinatti's airport. There are probably some legislative & financial difficulties to circumvent because of the boundaries involved, but there still can be no confusion about the reason that airport exists. It's all about Cincinatti.

Point being, I don't know why Warwick might think TF Green exists for any other reason than to serve Providence. Warwick seems to want to view the airport as being its own, and that's clearly not the case. If not for Providence, would Warwick have an airport at all? Undoubtedly, no. Because Warwick is, quite frankly, a pretty nondescript place. :whistling:

Perhaps the small size of the state itself lends to the confusion: Warwick might see the airport as being the "Rhode Island airport," not the "Providence airport," so to speak.

Either way, I don't see how that really makes a difference. Warwick is still being self-serving, petty, and small-minded in its protestations, and it makes no difference to me whether it's the city of Providence specifically or the whole state of Rhode Island generally that Warwick deprives by its actions. Actually, the larger the amount of territory, and the greater amount of people, you involve in the discussion, the worse the case gets for Warwick.

But maybe I'm going too far with this. Could be that they're not even thinking that far. Maybe they really do just think that TF Green is Warwick's airport. To which I have only one response: :rofl:

Yeah. Anyway, I've boycotted Warwick. For what that's worth. Which is actually a bit inconvenient for me, lving where I live and working where I work, so it's not like I'm just making a token gesture here. Or maybe I am. But at least I have my principles to keep me warm. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

I feel as though the talk of TFG in the 110 thread has done what Warwick is doing to the airport - swayed way away from the topic at hand...

I digress - maybe Cotuit can move these last few posts to the airport thread - sorry 110!

BTW, I agree totally with your last post but, I'd double check those milage figures you used for the surrounding cities of the Covington, Kentucky airport - they seem a bit closer than they what I remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

All done by eye ... on the fly ... with a poor map to boot. Eh, so sue me.

No, no, not at all - just didn't think those figures were exact - no big deal.

In fact here they are:

CVG to:

Columbus: 116

Dayton: 64

Cleveland: 221

Louisville: 83

Lexington: 70

Indianapolis: 98

Akron: 214

Providence: 721

pretty darn close though - good job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

I find it quite amusing. Warwick needs to get a reality check...it is a suburb OF Providence...people do not fly to "Warwick" - it is not a destination...Providence is. One of many examples: I fly to Baltimore-not the little city the airport sits in.

They need to embrace the role they play as an air transporation center for the PROVIDENCE Metro.

now that this discussion is in the right thread, i'll jump in...

the city of warwick doesn't oppose the expansion, the residents do, or at least that's how i see it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

now that this discussion is in the right thread, i'll jump in...

the city of warwick doesn't oppose the expansion, the residents do, or at least that's how i see it...

the city planner - Mark Carrulo - is one of the biggest opponents of the runway extension. There are several other elected officials in Warwick that are openly against it as well. The residents you hear about are a small but very vocal group which makes it seem there is a big stance when there really isn't. The media plays it all up big time as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

the city planner - Mark Carrulo - is one of the biggest opponents of the runway extension. There are several other elected officials in Warwick that are openly against it as well. The residents you hear about are a small but very vocal group which makes it seem there is a big stance when there really isn't. The media plays it all up big time as well...

well, we all know the media plays up the naysayers...

i don't understand why the city gov't is so against this. this would be major for warwick (and all of RI) if we got non-stop flights from the west coast. the hotels would fill up, the restaurants would do more business, and i imagine warwick could possibly put an end to some of the sprawl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gusterfell Burg

Gusterfell

Posted
Posted

And has Cincinatti's airport (in Kentucky) been such a headache to Cincinatti as Providence's airport (in Warwick) has been to Providence?

Probably not.

Probably true, but on the other hand, I'm sure the mayor and citizens of whatever municipailty in Kentucky hosts the airport are just as opposed to any expansion as Warwick is. Airport expansion is one of those things that is almost guaranteed to be a NIMBY issue with immediate neighbors. The problem with T.F. Green is that it happens to be smack in the middle of the second largest city in the state. Local opposition there will inevitably carry more clout in the overall picture than local opposition in some small town in Kentucky will.

The airport will be expanded sooner or later. In the long run, it is too important to the state as a whole for it not to happen. Warwick needs to realise that and start working with the state and FAA to come up with a plan that all parties can live with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
webbage Hamlet

webbage

Posted
Posted

Probably true, but on the other hand, I'm sure the mayor and citizens of whatever municipailty in Kentucky hosts the airport are just as opposed to any expansion as Warwick is. Airport expansion is one of those things that is almost guaranteed to be a NIMBY issue with immediate neighbors. The problem with T.F. Green is that it happens to be smack in the middle of the second largest city in the state. Local opposition there will inevitably carry more clout in the overall picture than local opposition in some small town in Kentucky will.

The airport will be expanded sooner or later. In the long run, it is too important to the state as a whole for it not to happen. Warwick needs to realise that and start working with the state and FAA to come up with a plan that all parties can live with.

Well, CVG's pretty well expanded already...

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=k&ll=39.0462...3,0.139046&om=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Ranger Burg

Lone Ranger

Posted
Posted

No, no, not at all - just didn't think those figures were exact - no big deal.

In fact here they are:

CVG to:

Columbus: 116

Dayton: 64

Cleveland: 221

Louisville: 83

Lexington: 70

Indianapolis: 98

Akron: 214

Providence: 721

pretty darn close though - good job!

Questionable how close I was, but thanks for doing the legwork. The important thing that I see in those numbers, as far as I'm concerned, is that I didn't understate the distance between any of those places and Cincinatti. Which, therefore, adds that much more emphasis to the original point: that airport exists solely for, and solely because of, Cincinatti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
webbage Hamlet

webbage

Posted
Posted

Sounds good, SFZ really needs some work, but I hope they can get the runway work done quickly. When they work on 5/23 (the longest runway) corporate jets won't be able to land (according to my friend who works there).

Any news of TF Green train station? I think we're officially past "early 2006." <_< By the way, how are the terminal rennovations going, Mental?

Cheers,

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

the train station could be announced any day or in 2 months. The final negotiations between agencies involved is apparently a delicate situation. I was told that something HAS to be finalized by the end of this month due to some financing issue.

The renovations are moving forward on schedule and the inside of the terminal is noticeably under construction. The first 'milestone' should take place at the end of August when they open the relocated escalator and stairs near the sailboat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

buying the NIMBYs out is very important since once you remove the airport from some of these people's backyard (well you know - they are really moving as a whole), they are never heard from again. The 'group' of outspoken NIMBYs will continue to dwindle down to the core folks the faster the buyout can take place.

In all honesty, it's good that these people who voluntarily want to leave and get away from the airport will be able to do so sooner rather than later and with few exceptions, these folks get pretty well taken care of in these buyouts...

Oh yea, it does provide more room to expand to some degree too :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

is this really to help the expansion effort or more to move people who area affected by the noise?

this money is and has to be used to purchase property identified in FAR Part 150 noise study that was completed several years ago for homes in the 70 DNL noise contours as depicted in the study (might be 60 - I forget). Homes just outside these zones but in the next noisiest level were sound proofed at no expense to the owner - that includes central air, new windows, new doors and additional insulation for the house. Certain homes were added in if they were to be the last few houses on a street or in a neighborhood.

Nothing can be done for runway expansion until the airport gets through the EIS currently underway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.