(It’s amazing what passes for public policy in this day and age. Government at all levels is experiencing a serious crisis of “not getting it”. The writing is on the wall, and airport expansions are not our future. – promoted by eli_beckerman)
The Pittsfield Municipal Airport is situated within the 4th Berkshire District, where I am a candidate for the November 2, 2010 election for State Representative. The Pittfield City Council is preparing to vote on whether or not to approve an initial $6 million package for the airport improvement and expansion project, $1 million of which will be paid by city taxpayers. Ultimately city taxpayers are projected to pay $3 million of the total costs. An additional $13.4 million total in public funds are part of the investment, with the FAA contributing another $6 million.
The environmental impact of this project would be serious, while the economic development argument has been flimsy, in my opinion.
Taxpayers have been presented a shifting series of arguments for why the runway expansion is necessary. First, it was a safety issue mandated by the FAA, then it was for the prospect of attracting commercial service, and most recently taxpayers have been told that businesses will not re-locate to the area if the airport cannot accommodate aircraft that CEO’s prefer to travel in.
Citizens have since learned that the FAA has granted waivers and exceptions for other airports that are similar in size and layout to Pittsfield’s. Instead of learning from the experiences of others and asking for a few waivers and exceptions, the city obtained dozens of waivers to nearly all sections of DEP wetlands codes.
I remain opposed to the runway expansion program at Pittsfield’s airport and urge the City Council to reject the loan. There are far better ways to invest public monies for economic development that will serve more businesses and people than will the expansion of the runway at Pittsfield Airport.
The first of the following two letters was sent to the MA Department of Environmental Protection following a public hearing on December 15, 2008, where I made the same points verbally. At such public hearings elected officials are invited to speak first. The incumbent of the 4th Berkshire District was not present to make his position known. The second letter that follows was written by me on June 19, 2008 to the incumbent of the 4th Berkshire District. I do not recall receiving a response.
Letter 1
December 15, 2008
Lisa Rhodes, Environmental Analyst
MassDEP, Wetlands Program
1 Winter Street – 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02108-4747
Re: Pittsfield Airport
Dear Ms. Rhodes
My name is Lee Scott Laugenour of Lenox, MA. I spoke against the plan to extend the runway at this morning’s public hearing in Pittsfield.
Until five years ago I was a Regional Vice President for Marriott International who made at least four business trips a month that involved commercial air travel. The Albany and the Hartford airports very adequately served my business travel needs. Those two airports are easily within 60-90 minutes drive from most parts of the county, accessible through local limo services at rates that are within most corporate travel policy guidelines. Indeed, had more “commercial” service been in place at the Pittsfield Airport at the time, I doubt that my corporate travel policies would have allowed me to utilize the airport because commercial fares from such small airports tend to be very high and service very unreliable.
Our political and business “CEO’s” are presently able to use the airport, and we know that the FAA has approved other kinds of safety plans elsewhere that do not rely on such expensive and ecologically disruptive runway expansion. My colleagues in the corporate hierarchy, in business centers around the world very typically need the same 60-90 [minutes] to get to their airports as I do to mine. Indeed, it is far easier and less stressful to travel to and from Pittsfield to Albany than it is across the New York or Boston metropolitan areas. A colleague of mine from a toy manufacturer in Milan has made regular business trips to Pittsfield from Italy, flying into Albany airport and taking ground transportation to Pittsfield with no real hardship.
I am a taxpayer at the federal, state, and local level. A better investment of tax dollars which would serve more people and more businesses would be to improve the ground transportation infrastructure from nearby population centers and from the Albany Airports. I have contacted both Senator Downing and Representative Pignatelli to express my opposition to this project. Because they were absent from today’s hearing I will make sure that they are aware of my testimony to your committee and my position on the issue.
I also have environmental concerns that – even with the best of intentions – the artificial creation of replacement wetlands will not be a viable substitute to nature’s creation. The cost is not worth it for the benefit that is clearly not there.
Please do not approve the variance to our wetlands protection laws. The “overriding public interest” is simply not there.
L. Scott Laugenour
Letter 2.
June 19, 2008
Rep. “Smitty” Pignatelli
PO Box 2228
Lenox, MA 01240-5228
RE: Pittsfield Airport
I’ve been following the coverage of the proposed extension of runway 26 at Pittsfield Airport with interest. It is clear what the bias is of the editorial board of the Berkshire Eagle, but I am not convinced that my local, state, and federal tax dollars should be spent on this. The Eagle’s reporting presents you as a proponent of the runway extension, but I am sure you are interested in hearing other voices.
I have acquaintances who make business trips to local firms. They fly in to Albany, and arrive in Berkshire County in about as much time as it takes New York City business travelers to make the trip into Manhattan from one of that region’s airports. There really is no more hardship to business travelers to or from Berkshire County than there is to the general traveling public.
The Eagle mentioned in its editorial yesterday the desire to attract “larger commercial airlines” to Pittsfield Airport. As a business person who has done feasibility work in the travel industry, it is almost a no-brainer to observe that we are neither remote enough from other population centers, nor are we a sufficiently large market, to be viable for “larger commercial airlines.”
There are alternatives to expansion that allow for safety, money savings, and wetlands conservation. In particular, an EMAS system (Engineered Materials Arresting Systems) is a ramp-way similar to a runaway truck ramp on highways. Such a system was designed for the Dutchess County airport in New York and was approved by the FAA.
I am unconvinced of the economics of such a significant taxpayer investment, am wary of the environmental impact, and I am suspicious of the accuracy of some of the reporting by proponents. (I find it very hard to believe that there are presently 150 take-offs and landings a day, for example). I intend to participate in as many public meetings as I can to express these concerns and to articulate constructive alternatives.
I would be interested in knowing your views on this issue.
Sincerely,
L. Scott Laugenour