The Glorious and Inept State of New Jersey delivered their first State Airport System Plan in something like 20 years.
It is a model of photography that would make any high school proud!
However, it wallows in fluff with a few useful facts. Like this one:
77% of airports lack adequate safety areas.
46 % of airports lack adequate Runway-Taxiway separation.
35% of airports lack adequate Runway Width.
Newark, Teterboro, and Morristown are over 80% of capacity. Newark? isn't this more like 120% capacity?
Then there is a little snide remarks like this: "Of the 28 privately
owned, public use airports, seven are eligible to receive
federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding; five
of these seven are currently obligated. NJDOT supports
and advocates public ownership and operation of Core
airports as appropriate."
"Upgrading all airports to meet 100 percent of their identified objectives will entail significant investment over the coming years. Funding priority should be given to those airports and projects considered most essential to the success of the State’s airport system."
"New airports would help to resolve potential operational capacity shortfalls."
"The following airports should be developed to the maximum extent feasible based on local development, financial, environmental, ownership, and community considerations:"
This in a state that is rapidly approaching BANKRUPTCY.
Why should the state make the huge investment to purchase PRIVATE airports to PUBLIC OWNERSHIP?
The state has NEVER, NEVER created a "new airport". Nearly all of the airports in New Jersey started as PRIVATE airports.
Instead, the state should encourage private ownership and investment, and instead, put any available funding into safety and capacity improvements.
The contradictions in NJDOT are ASSSSSSTOUNDING. We need to pawn off the Parkway, Turnpike, and the AC Expressway for 75 years to raise $40 Billion in new Debt, but we then need to spend an additional $350 Million to buy airports that are already airports?
Clearly, this system is broken. "Privately-owned Public-Use" airports should have the legal standing and opportunity to play exactly the same role as public airports. In fact, the FAA, State, County, and MPO's have significant discriminatory practices AGAINST privately owned public use airports.
Even more interesting is that NJDOT has flip-flopped on airport improvements because they never released this report. Therefore, they could (and continuously did) flip their position on airport improvements in order to manipulate the price they paid to purchase airports. First they would give the airport a certain role. The airport would begin planning to meet this role. The town would object and begin Eminent Domain proceedings to "take" the airport. NJDOT would clam up, and hide the FEDERALLY FUNDED Environmental Impact Statement that would validate safety issues. Then the town would use the lack of this data to incriminate the airport.
Its very slimy and very insidious. And TOTALLY unconstitutional. NJDOT creates a conflict of interest by both REGULATING and OWNING airports. This makes them a MARKET PLAYER as well as MARKET REGULATOR.
Friday, January 11, 2008
State Role in Transportation
Who is responsible for a Safe and Efficient transportation system?
This is an important question.
In the current showdown over Sikorsky Airport, the state of Connecticut wants to ensure that Sikorsky Airport is safe and can meet the transportation needs of the state. The airport, however, is owned by the city of Bridgeport. In order to make the improvements, the state is making the necessary motions to purchase the airport from Bridgeport. The town cries that this "does an end-run around home rule." Home rule is a fine policy when dealing with things that all towns have to deal with, but airports are a regional issue, and elements in a national transportation system. Home Rule control of airports violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
Interstate Commerce:
The town politicians have very little responsibility for transportation. They have no interest in state or national transportation planning. In fact, the town or city has significant responsibility for compatible land uses around airports, and they don't even do that well.
In the effort to make Aviation safer and more efficient, airports and runways need to be safer. These decisions should not be compromised by hand-wringing, favoritism, and the political ambitions of the local mayor or dog-catcher.
In comparison, cities have very little control over other transportation. Congress understands that if a railway had to negotiate and compromise with every local town, it would be impossible to have a national standard of safety or a cost-effective system.
First the Mayor argues that the State purchase would hurt the "economic and tax income" to the town, but it is obvious the town has prevented improvements to the airport that serves over 270 based aircraft.
"Sen. Bill Finch, D-Bridgeport, one of the sponsors of the measure to sell the airport to the state, insisted that it has been "Stratford's policy to limit development at the airport.""
I find it very hard to understand the Republicans who normally favor business interests but don't support the economic value of airports or public safety. In many towns Republicans are voted out of office for opposing airport use and improvement, sometimes replaced by Democrats!
This is an important question.
In the current showdown over Sikorsky Airport, the state of Connecticut wants to ensure that Sikorsky Airport is safe and can meet the transportation needs of the state. The airport, however, is owned by the city of Bridgeport. In order to make the improvements, the state is making the necessary motions to purchase the airport from Bridgeport. The town cries that this "does an end-run around home rule." Home rule is a fine policy when dealing with things that all towns have to deal with, but airports are a regional issue, and elements in a national transportation system. Home Rule control of airports violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
Interstate Commerce:
The town politicians have very little responsibility for transportation. They have no interest in state or national transportation planning. In fact, the town or city has significant responsibility for compatible land uses around airports, and they don't even do that well.
In the effort to make Aviation safer and more efficient, airports and runways need to be safer. These decisions should not be compromised by hand-wringing, favoritism, and the political ambitions of the local mayor or dog-catcher.
In comparison, cities have very little control over other transportation. Congress understands that if a railway had to negotiate and compromise with every local town, it would be impossible to have a national standard of safety or a cost-effective system.
First the Mayor argues that the State purchase would hurt the "economic and tax income" to the town, but it is obvious the town has prevented improvements to the airport that serves over 270 based aircraft.
"Sen. Bill Finch, D-Bridgeport, one of the sponsors of the measure to sell the airport to the state, insisted that it has been "Stratford's policy to limit development at the airport.""
I find it very hard to understand the Republicans who normally favor business interests but don't support the economic value of airports or public safety. In many towns Republicans are voted out of office for opposing airport use and improvement, sometimes replaced by Democrats!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
