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.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
A draft “environmental impact study” from the FAA released last week lays out five options for extending Green’s main runway – and all would involve some kind of major disruption to 9,350 feet.
An extension is needed, the FAA says, to accommodate a growing number of passengers – an extra 4 million per year by 2020 – driven by an increase from about 250 daily flights to about 630. It also would allow carriers to fly from Green to the West Coast and Europe.
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.
The Manchester, N.H., airport completed a runway extension in 2003 and can now accommodate nonstop cross-country flights, and Boston’s Logan Airport continues to be the regional leader, with 27.1 million passengers last year.
Advocates for the runway extension also say Green’s economic impact cannot be ignored.
A 2003 report said the airport created $1.3 billion in economic activity statewide and $122.8 million in Warwick alone. To ease the city’s concerns about tax revenues it may be losing because the airport is not subject to property tax, Gov. Donald L. Carcieri this year even budgeted a payment in lieu of taxes from the state.
But Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian, a longtime opponent of expanding Green’s runway, says he wishes the FAA would consider a whole other option: leaving the runway as it is. He’s also pushing for review of a less-ambitious alternative, expanding the runway to only 8,600 feet.
A shorter extension “could provide West Coast service for a majority of Green’s fleet by 2012 with significantly less cost and impact than the five alternatives proposed,” Avedisian said in prepared remarks for an FAA hearing on Wednesday.
Three of the options would require demolishing 360 homes, he said, all for a “yet-unproven financial benefit” – and with a substantial negative impact on affordable housing in Warwick. If that’s done, he asked, will the project’s advocates also commit “significant financial resources and assistance” to help mitigate the affordable housing crisis in the state?
John Silva, manager of environmental programs for the FAA in New England, said the plans are not finalized, and the number of homes or businesses that may have to be acquired has yet to be determined. The “no-build” option is also being considered, as required by law, he said.
What the report did determine is that any plans to move Post Road or build a tunnel there so the runway can go above it are not feasible.
But businesses and homes on Post Road are not out of the woods just yet, said Avedisian. Even though the road itself will not be affected, requirements for safety areas and protection zones surrounding a longer runway may still cause businesses to be uprooted, he said.
The FAA will continue studying options to realign or relocate Airport Road and tunnel under Main Avenue to make way for the extended runway, according to the study.
“There are a lot of questions that still need to be resolved, and much more analysis that needs to be done,” said Avedisian.
The plans were the subject of separate public hearings in Warwick and Cranston last week, when the FAA outlined each plan. Each takes a different approach: One would avoid impacts to the north (Airport Road), another would avoid impacts to the south (Main Avenue and Buckeye Brook), another would spare just the brook, and two others would spare the brook and seek to minimize the impact to the north. All but one requires a tunnel for Main Avenue.
The different proposals for extending the runway were determined to be the best to meet the goals of the project: improving safety and airport efficiency. Other options that were considered and dismissed included:
*Greater use of nine neighboring airports.
*Building a new airport.
*Providing greater access to other modes of transportation (rail, bus, or car).
*Raising landing fees to encourage flights at off-peak hours.
*Use of non-construction technology such as teleconferencing as an alternative to face-to-face meetings.
*Implementation of new airplane designs to enhance fuel efficiency and reduce operating costs.
Silva said the FAA will assess the remaining options over the next six months, looking at noise, the impact on wetlands and community disruption, among other factors. The preferred option is to be chosen by early next year.
One of the biggest concerns for the city has been the environmental impact of the airport. To this end, the city and the R.I. Department of Environmental Management combined to conduct the first study to examine the air quality around the airport.
Preliminary results released last month showed local residents are no more exposed to hazardous substances such as black carbon – a component of diesel and jet fuel – than people in other parts of the state. Still, some of pollutant levels exceed environmental standards.
Black carbon levels do not correlate directly with toxicity, and therefore there is no health benchmark determined for exposure to the substance. However, diesel fumes and jet exhaust are likely carcinogens, and levels should be kept as low as possible, the report said.
DEM also examined levels of volatile organic compounds that can pollute the soil, water, as well as the air. While levels for carbon tetrachloride, chloroform and benzene in Warwick are no higher than in other parts of the state, they do exceed the safety thresholds set forth by the R.I. Department of Health.
The study, which began last April, is scheduled to be finished this summer.
