"2 sides argue over Rhode Island runway expansion"

Wednesday, February 9, 2005

2 sides argue over runway expansion
The Providence (RI) Journal


WARWICK -- Much of the debate over expanding the runway at T.F. Green
Airport is about noise -- so it's fitting that last night's meeting over
airport expansion came down to which side could make its voice heard the
loudest. 

The Federal Aviation Administration came to Warwick to unveil its plan for
studying an extension of T.F. Green's main runway up to 9,500 feet. 

But the three-hour meeting turned into a contest between leaders of the
business community in pinstriped suits, promising big economic gains if the
longer runway is completed, and local residents wearing "Warwick" hats and
warning of the health and quality of life costs of airport expansion. 

In between, experts from the FAA tried to get a word in edgewise on the
details of their project, without being drowned out by the strong rhetoric
of the two sides. 

The FAA had advertised the meeting as a chance for the public to weigh in on
what should be included in the Environmental Impact Statement study set to
begin in a few months. The EIS is a measurement of the many ramifications of
expanding the runway from 7,166 feet to up to 9,500 feet, to allow for
coast-to-coast service. 

An EIS to expand both runways at Green to 7,500 feet was begun in 2002, but
was then put on hold as T.F. Green's governing body, the Rhode Island
Airport Corporation, changed leadership after Governor Carcieri's election
and reevaluated its plans. In early 2003, RIAC announced that it would
restart the process, but would look into a 9,500-foot main runway. 

The 18-month EIS process is the first step on the 10-year plus road to
building that runway. 

The FAA, RIAC, and their project consultant, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, had
set up a series of placards explaining the project and posted experts at
each station to explain the steps to residents. 

But very few of the 140 attendees were interested in that; instead, they
gravitated to a second room, where the leaders of each side were making the
case for and against airport expansion to John Silva, environmental program
manager for the FAA. 

The EIS will study three possibilities for runway extension and expansion of
the airport's cargo and terminal facilities. 

One alternative would extend the main runway a half-mile to the south,
across Main Avenue. Main Avenue would be tunneled under the runway, a
historic cemetery on Main Avenue would be relocated, and as many as 359
houses would be condemned.

The other two are north-and-south extensions of varying length which would
also require moving Airport Road, but would not affect the cemetery. One
option would affect wetlands. All would require taking hundreds of homes. 

VHB will study the impacts of each alternative, and potentially other
options on several factors: noise, land use, socioeconomic conditions, air
quality, water quality, historic and cultural resources, wetlands, local
ecosystems, surface transportation, and one final factor called
environmental justice, which is the impact of airport expansion on
low-income and minority communities. 

But almost nobody at the meeting spoke about the EIS itself. Instead, both
sides fought over many of the same points they have long argued on airport
expansion: business spoke on the power of T.F. Green as an economic engine
for the state, the locals talked of the potential health and noise problems
that the airport may cause. 

The first salvos came from local government officials -- some of whom said
they were skeptical of the airport-expansion process after the airport
changed its plans for shorter runways two years ago. 

Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian said that there is a history of indifference
on the part of the airport, which will be hard to overcome. "We have more
often than not felt that we were never invited to the table at all. 

"We have been down this road before, and we have been down the road of
trying to reach consensus, only to have everything pulled out from beneath
us," said Avedisian, whose 20-page comment is also online at the city's Web
site. 

And, in one of the few comments of the night on the EIS itself, Democratic
state Rep. Joseph McNamara said that he wanted a full health study of the
surrounding areas included. 

"The exclusion of any data relating to the direct impact that the airport
has on the health of residents in neighborhoods surrounding the airport is a
major structural flaw in this process," McNamara said. 

The legislators were followed by business leaders, all wearing stickers
proclaiming them members of the Go Green Alliance, a pro-expansion group
made up of some of Rhode Island's most prominent officials and
organizations. 

Ronald K. Machtley, president of Bryant University, said that airlines will
continue to overlook T.F. Green -- as Jetblue did last year when choosing to
serve Manchester, N.H., which Machtley said JetBlue's CEO told him was
because of runway length -- unless the runway is extended. 

"We must recognize that the future of Rhode Island is, in fact, inextricably
linked to the extension of this runway," he said. 

Several other business leaders joined with state AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer
George Nee in saying that if the airport does not expand, it will lose
business to Logan Airport, Manchester, and even Bradley Airport outside
Hartford, all of which are expanding their runways. 

"If we stay stagnant, we'll go backwards. That'll mean job loss, that'll
mean unemployment," Nee said. 

Residents tried to counter the benefits to business with environmental and
health arguments. Some also brought up economic considerations of their own.


Warwick resident Dan Murphy said that the overall business community may
benefit, but that Warwick itself would be severely damaged by the loss of so
many homes and the tax revenue they provide. 

"To remove all those properties from the tax rolls will affect all of us in
the city. They estimate it at $2 [million] to $4 million [annually]. Guess
who's going to make up that difference," he said. 

Warwick resident Betty Spinale, who wore a T-shirt reading, "Who is
protecting my home, my health, my hearing, my neighborhood, Warwick's
future?" argued that the economic impact that the Go Green Alliance was
talking about would be minimal. 

"They keep talking about jobs. What jobs? $8 an hour hotel-cleaning jobs. .
. If you really want to talk about jobs, talk about bringing in
manufacturing jobs," Spinale said. 

VHB will continue to take public comments in writing for two more weeks. In
March, the agencies involved will meet again to finalize what will go into
the EIS, and the actual study itself will begin in April or May.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************