|
|
| Post Number: 51
|
|
|
| Post Number: 52
|
|
|
| Post Number: 53
|
jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 13 2010,10:32 am |
|
    |
Alfy QUOTE All I can say is, "I don't fly, but some people around here who do thought it was needed."
So for all the WHYS I have heard last year, I'm asking you why? We've been through this before, but here goes--again.
Albert Lea's runway has no taxiway. When the original pavement was laid down in 1955, the plan was to put down another strip later, and use the old one as the taxiway.
In the 1960s, the City allowed houses to be built off the end of the existing runway, in opposition to state and federal laws. Their rationale was that they were going to put down the new strip, and the houses weren't going to affect that strip. See photo of original pavement, 1955.
In the early 1970s, the State--acting as the agent for the Federal government--found the City to be non-compliant. They cut off state aid to the airport--not just for new projects, but for things like lighting and utilities as well.
The City and the State worked out a plan to construct the planned-for new runway. The State restored aid to the City. The runway plan was engineered by HNTB.
The State ran short of money in the Carter-era recession, and the project didn't qualify for Federal aid. Plans were put on hold.
During this interim, the airport was patched and overlaid with State funding 2/3 and local funding 1/3.
About 20 years ago, we applied for and were granted Basic Transport Status by the FAA, and included in the National Improvements for Airports plan--making us eligible for aviation trust fund money.
About 15 years ago, in the mid-nineties, the State looked at the houses and obstructions again, and again threatened to with hold money, curtail night operations, and shorten the runway to give the required obstruction clearance. The City selected Mead & Hunt as their airport engineers and consultants.
Mead & Hunt considered all options, including the "do nothing" option. Leaving the runway in place would require buying 16 properties or easements--relocating homes.
The runway was now deteriorated--asphalt rots from the bottom up as the binding material dissolves. It had been overlaid at least 4 times in the 48 years I've been flying from here. There is a limit to how many times it can be overlaid--you develop "reflection cracking"--overlaying a crack soon has a new crack in the new surface. The runway would have to be excavated to a depth of 4.5 feet and reconstructed--just as Owatonna and Austin runways were.
The runway lights were obsolete--they are not even in conduit. The strobe lights and visual approach lights are obsolete--When new units were installed at Owatonna and Faribault, I brought down the old units to keep our own lights running here when I operated those airports.
The Fire Marshal wanted the heavy-duty electrical equipment moved out of the office and into an electrical vault as it is a fire hazard.
The insurance companies do not let many of their insureds operate on airports of less than 5000 feet as a matter of policy--even though it may be legal. This has become the default standard for airports--enough so that the people that produce approach plates have an edition that simply omits any airport with a runway of less than 5000'. The FAA Basic Transport default is now 5000' (there are some exceptions)--and having 5000' gets access to Federal Aviation Trust Fund money. Albert Lea currently has the shortest runway for a city of its size in the state of Minnesota.
The FAA changed the regulations. Every jet takeoff requires calculation of the accelerate/stop distance--an engine failure at the worst possible time, and either stopping on the runway or accelerating and flying off with an engine out. Though piston airplanes and turboprops weighing under 12,500 pounds do not have to comply with this, jets do. If operated under the same rules as piston airplanes, jets can operate out of smaller fields. The FAA also instituted a 60% safety requirement for any jet operated for hire--like charter flights and fractional ownerships--a big part of corporate travel. That means that a jet must have at least 60% more runway for landing than the book says it needs. The Cessna Citation has perhaps the least runway required--about 3000' for most models at typical landing weights. Adding 60% makes it 4800'--and that's on a dry runway. If the runway is wet, or snow or ice covered, the runway required goes up again. Another reason for the 5000' minimum nullrequirement.
Given the need to relocate homes, excavate the runway in place, replace lighting and approach aids, and update zoning, it made no sense to rework the present runway--and we STILL wouldn't have a taxiway. Mead & Hunt recommended going along with the 1953 plan and the plan by HNTB, and construct the new runway.
The plans were all in place--the engineering done, and the first Federal dollars done (to rework Plaza Street on the north end of the airport--also from the FAA funding). The FAA would pay 95%. Because airports take so many years to plan, develop, and jump through the regulatory hoops, when the Stimulus money became available, the administration seized on airports as "shovel-ready"--something that could be done right away. Albert Lea got one of the first STimulus projects in the country--and stimulus money funds at 100%. It will pay for about 1/4 of the project--the FAA funds will fund the rest.
We got 10 to 15 years more out of our runway than any other city--but it's time to replace rather than patch.
Attached Image
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 54
|
gljoefan
Group: Members
Posts: 275
Joined: Jun. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 13 2010,10:14 pm |
|
|
Jim,
I don't know as much as you about the airport, but I am ok with the new runway. But you leave yourself open for critisism because you are always on the the other side of government spending. People here are doing to you what, in my view, you did during the debate over the new high school. The old buildings, and don't forget it was not just one, was a piece of crap and needed to be replaced. I was never too moved by the build it and they will come pitch, it just needed to be replaced.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 55
|
hairhertz
Group: Members
Posts: 3489
Joined: Dec. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2010,7:36 am |
|
|
Good explanation, Jim.
--------------
metis movement
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 56
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2010,1:42 pm |
|
|
QUOTE But you leave yourself open for critisism because you are always on the the other side of government spending.
I AM for less government spending--I'm always consistent on that--but there ARE big differences:
This isn't my decision. I have no budget authority. Whether the airport is expanded or not is not up to me. Along with the consultant hired by the City, I make recommendations and answer questions.
Unlike the school building, this is funded by FAA and MN/DOT Aviation Trust Funds--paid for by the users--no money from the General Treasury UNTIL the Stimulus money was doled out. A check on this site will show that I said "The conservative in me doesn't want the stimulus money because it comes from the general treasury--but it allows the project to be completed in fewer years at less cost to the city."
Unlike the school building, pavement wears out much faster.
Unlike the school building, there is no "remodeling". Buildings can last for centuries with remodeling--pavement rots and de-bonds. Proof: Austin and Owatonna built new airports, but both remodeled their school buildings.
As previously mentioned, the "do nothing" option WAS given to the Council. It was hardly an option given the age of the asphalt surfaces, the threatened cutoff of funds, the competition from other cities, and the need to buy homes and displace people if the airport remained open. "Close the airport" was also an option. The consultant and the council chose to go ahead with the 1953 plan--updated to fit current state and federal requirements.
Rebuilding on the present runway site never was an option due to the houses being built off the end. That was done in the early 1960s--I was not part of the permitting process then as I was attending Southwest jr. high--(ANOTHER 50-year-old building)on the other side of town. 
The City got a lot out of the runway for minimal expenditure over the years--be glad of that--but it's time that we update to something more modern--after all, the present runway was laid down in the day of the Hudson Hornet, and you don't see many of THOSE in everyday service!
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 57
|
Botto 82
Group: Members
Posts: 6293
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2010,2:33 pm |
|
|
How does one explain all the centuries-old buildings in Europe and Asia still standing? The oldest part of the old high school would have been less than 90 years old, and the WPA core much less, never mind the 1968 additions.
Those that argue that the building was maintained poorly while it was still being used as a school better take a look at the maintenance overhead at the new school, to see if everything that can be done to prevent this again is being done, as I doubt the new facility can boast the engineering and craftsmanship of the old one.
A small adjustment to maintenance budgets now will avoid a big adjustment in building construction costs later.
--------------
Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 58
|
hairhertz
Group: Members
Posts: 3489
Joined: Dec. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2010,3:37 pm |
|
|
You talking about the wall separating in the new high school's auditorium?
--------------
metis movement
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 59
|
|
|
| Post Number: 60
|
hairhertz
Group: Members
Posts: 3489
Joined: Dec. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2010,7:27 pm |
|
|
It appears to be similar to high way funding. If you want the federal $$$ you need to meet federal guidelines for airport runways. Seems simple to me.
--------------
metis movement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
