RSS Feed
 |
|
||||||||||||
|
Public Commentary Dear Editor: This letter is in response to your February 7, Editorial, Struggle between Republic Airport and communities needs a new direction. Our community has attempted to peacefully co-exist with Republic Airport ever since the airport was transferred from the MTA to the DOT. Unfortunately, we feel betrayed by many deceptive actions; especially DOT's proposal, in its last unapproved Master Plan (MP) to change Republic's "design aircraft" to Design Group C-III which includes 200,000 pound 727s. On August 3, 2005, 800 people attended a Public Information Meeting to soundly reject the proposed MP and the relocation of Taxiway B. It is not the public but rather the DOT's unreasonable/inconsistent proposals that are hindering the creation of a Master Plan. In 1982, when Republic was transferred to the DOT, it was identified as "an allweather, public use, general aviation airport having FAA classification BT (Basic Transport); Accommodates business jets and aircraft with gross weights up to 60,000 lbs." The transfer legislation included a hard-won but short-lived 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew which was subsequently replaced by a Noise Abatement Plan that included a 60,000 pound aircraft weight limit, (Rule 78-14). Since Fairchild was still manufacturing aircraft at its adjacent factory, an exception was included for critical industry if prior written permission was granted. Liberal interpretation and/or implementation of this Rule encouraged a variety of larger aircraft to use Republic. Later after public outcry, DOT decided to strictly enforce this rule and a subsequent court challenge resulted in an injunction that has been in place for more than 10 years. During these years DOT's representatives have repeatedly stated that they are "vigorously defending" the 60,000 pound aircraft weight limit rule; but their actions do not support their statements. Why are they proposing and supporting plans to design the airport for large planes while they are defending the 60,000 pound rule? In 2005 DOT attempted to relocate Taxiway B form its current 200 foot runway/taxiway separation to 400 feet and stated that it was needed for safety reasons; but the May 10, 1999 draft of the latest MP attempt states, "...This situation is a factor in operational delays because Group III aircraft are many times forced to "back taxi" on a runway to provide taxiing aircraft wing tip clearance." Once again hundreds of people came out to exercise their right to object to this poorly advertised, detrimental project that could have an enormous effect on their quality of life. It is common knowledge that airports are major causes of air and noise pollution so it is vitally important that DOT honors its past commitments to prepare, complete and adopt both a Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Republic Airport. Republic Airport has never had an approved Master Plan or completed an EIS process with its required Public Hearings. We do not want piecemeal changes and misinformation. Residents in surrounding communities, and their elected government officials deserve a comprehensive Master Plan that is compatible with the densely populated communities surrounding the airport. We recommend that no further changes take place at Republic Airport until a MP and EIS are completed. For decades, communities around Republic have been virtuously under siege from DOT's expansion plans. We counted on DOT to operate Republic as promised, but are now extremely disappointed by their actions, including their decision to scrap the Master Plan. There is still time for DOT to reclaim its focus, it should vigorously defend Rule 78.14 and maintain the airport in its current configuration, in order to discourage an increase in large aircraft operations. They should begin the process for a real MP, not an update of an unapproved MP. The plan should enable DOT to operate Republic as a safe, first class airport for small private and corporate aircraft that have been squeezed out of nearby airports that are capable of handling larger aircraft. When DOT proposes changes we have learned to ask, "Safe for what size planes?" Robert Queen President Woodland Civic Association
|
for larger version       Ads have a Patent Pending. Click Here for More Information |
|||||||||||
