C.A.R.E CITIZENS AGAINST RUNWAY EXPANSION AT VANCE BRAND AIRPORT - LONGMONT
40 REASONS NOT TO EXPAND THE LONGMONT AIRPORT RUNWAY
Note: Numerous runway expansion proponents have stated that the studies cited below are not relevant to Longmont’s Vance Brand Airport because of size, geographic location or type of airport. Yet, those same proponents defend hiring the airport consultant (Jviation) because of the variety of consulting experience they have at airports not at all similar to Longmont’s airport such as Denver International Airport. This is not an issue where you can have it both ways.
In addition, the proponents of runway expansion continually advocate for making Longmont's airport larger and more similar, not less, to the various types of airports cited in the studies below.
1) Expansion proponents claim that neighbors moving into the area should have known they were moving near an airport. True – but residents moving near the airport knew it was a small rural airport, not a commercial jet facility. They want to keep it a small rural airport. The situation is similar to changing the rules in the middle of the game, or moving the goal posts, to suit their purposes. It is a disingenuous argument that is being made to hide the real agenda of a few special interests.
2) In the last 20 years over 4,000 homes have been built within the recreational airport’s influence zone -- with City Council’s approval -- despite the Airport Advisory Board (AAB) efforts to stop it. Twenty years ago the AAB lost the battle to create a corporate airport. The City Council voted in favor of building bedroom communities around the airport rather than reserve the land for a corporate park or for the airport. Since then, the City Council has voted several times, as recently as 2004, not to extend the runway and to maintain the airport as a small recreational facility.
3) Runway expansion also creates compatibility issues with the existing residential uses of the areas surrounding the airport.
4) Runway expansion restricts property rights because runway expansion necessitates an expansion of the airport influence zone and easements known as “avigation easements.” These easements dictate what can and can’t be done with property and land in relation to the airport. The City of Longmont suggests the use of these property right restricting easements in the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan .
5) Airport/airplane noise harms healthy development of children. Over 3,600 children attend 6 schools (5 within Longmont City limits) within the Airport Influence Zone. Five of these schools were built in the last ten years with the City’s blessing.
6) The vision of an extended runway at this recreational airport, with thousands of nearby homes and families, is inconsistent with the City of Longmont’s mission statement, which reads, “Our mission is to enhance the quality of life for those who live in, work in, or visit our community.”
7) On-airport safety concerns are not a reason to extend the runway, FAA Compliance Records show, and the FAA is not recommending that the runway be lengthened for safety reasons. The airport has an impeccable runway safety record. Recently, the Township Board opposed a proposed runway expansion in Ann Arbor, MI. because it would DECREASE safety. Some recreation pilots see increased commercial air traffic at Longmont Municipal Airport as dangerous for private recreational flying.
8) Runway extension will decrease community-wide safety for people on the ground. Given the residential nature of the areas surrounding the airport, an increase in air traffic increases the likelihood of a public safety issue concerning airport related activity.
9) In 2006 the City of Longmont was #61 in Top 100 best places to live in America. In 2008 that ranking shot up to #50. How did Longmont move up 11 notches with a simple recreational airport?
10) No data exists to support the theory that the proposed runway extension will bring new jobs to Longmont. Outside of a few current jobs at Longmont’s recreational airport, no data exist, showing how many jobs Longmont will get if the runway is extended, including CDOT’s 2008 Airports Colorado Economic Impact Study.
11) The City of Longmont attracts Fortune 500 companies without an extended runway.
12) Increased airplane noise is detrimental to the quality of life and health of nearby residents. Runway extension will attract more air traffic that is larger and noisier than we have now.
13) Longmont/Boulder has the most concentrated number of software jobs in the nation - more than Silicon Valley. This distinction has been achieved without an extended runway.
14) Expanded runways reduce nearby property values up to 18%.
15) Even the announcement of a runway expansion reduces nearby home values, sometimes as much as 9.2% within a 2.5 mile radius, as seen at Greensboro Metropolitan Airport in North Carolina.
16) The FAA has been using ARRA (American Recovery and Reconstruction Act of 2009) stimulus funds ($1.1 billion in 2009-see page 6 of FAA budget) to fund its Grants-In-Aid to Airports program from which the Airport Master Plan is funded. The FAA (annual budget = $15.9 billion in 2010). The FAA was still distributing the stimulus funds as of September 2010. Extensive discussions among the Treasury, Congress and the FAA have taken place regarding additional ARRP fund infusion into the FAA budget. In addition, CDOT received $500 million in stimulus funds from the ARRA to be spent 2010-2012. CDOT granted the city about $37,000 to fund the AMP study in 2010.
17) The FAA is a pro-airport organization funded primarily by excise taxes on the aviation industry. The aviation industry should not be dictating local government affairs. The FAA does not exist to shut down airports or reject expansions that would cost them budget allocation dollars or their jobs. The FAA will use their calculus to determine whether or not Vance Brand needs an extended runway. There is potential for conflict of interest, here.
18) Corporate air travel is decreasing because of the negative public image it connotes and due to the poor economy. Taxpayers’ money should not be spent to expand the runway when demand is decreasing. Linda Bruce, the FAA representative to Longmont Municipal Airport, clarified at a September 16, 2010 Airport Advisory Board meeting what has been well-published data: air traffic is down in the Colorado area. Recent flight data support her statement, as air traffic is down at Rocky Mountain Airport, it is down at Ft. Collins/Loveland Airport, and it is down at Longmont -- according to Tim Barth, the Longmont Airport Manager.
19) In recent months, the FAA stopped three airport runway extensions and communities or citizens groups halted two other runway extensions. Reasons for halting them included environmental concerns, bad data presented by expansion proponents, citizen revolt against increased costs for the airport, and concerns that the extension would decrease safety.
20) Only a few special interests in Longmont want the runway to be extended. According to Tim Barth, the primary advocate for runway extension is a charter pilot who wants to be able to carry enough fuel to fly to Florida and Canada without having to refuel.
21) Demand for corporate jet travel is coming under more public and private sector scrutiny. GM executives were roundly criticized for traveling to Congressional hearings in their jet. They made the next trip in their GM cars.http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/Story?id=6285739&page=1
22) There is no support for claims that corporations would locate in Longmont if the runway were lengthened. Mayor Baum said in a June 2010 public radio announcement that eight companies wanted to relocate to Longmont but the runway was too short to accommodate their corporate jets. However, the airport manager himself denied that those claims had any merit. To this date no corporate demand has been verified.
23) Expansion is unnecessary because both Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (Broomfield) and Ft. Collins/Loveland Airport are less than 30 minutes from Longmont. Both airports serve corporate and private jet aircraft.
24) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen have stated that the national debt is the #1 threat to our national security. Since 95% of the funding for runway expansion would come from the Federal Government, Longmont should decline federal funds in an effort to reduce the nation’s debt, thereby enhancing our national security.
25) A longer runway does not guarantee improvement to the local economy. Mayor Baum has said he does not know the economic impact of runway expansion and has only a “…crystal ball estimate.” Pilots might land at Longmont Municipal Airport, fuel a plane and leave, or simply “touch-and-go” without even setting foot in Longmont. An increase in this type of traffic at Longmont’s airport will have negligible, if any, impact on the greater Longmont economy.
26) Runway expansion proponents state the proposed expansion would enhance Longmont Municipal Airport, as an asset. To be an asset, it must produce more income than expenses and liabilities. Yet a recent FOIA request confirms that the City of Longmont does not have, nor has it conducted, cost-benefit analyses or studies demonstrating a need for the runway extension.
27) The Doing Business in Longmont page of the City of Longmont website doesn’t even mention the Longmont Municipal Airport. What the City of Longmont Website does boast of on its Homepage, rather proudly, is this: “With over 1500 acres of parks and open space, Longmont is perfect for outdoor enthusiasts.”
28) Runway expansion threatens the preservation of nearby Open Space.
29)Increased air traffic threatens the environment. More planes mean more deicing materials, more fuel spillage, more oil and chemicals on the runways.
30) Runway expansion will threaten wildlife that is naturally attracted to the open space, wetland and natural habitats near the airport. Birds themselves can be dangerous to aircraft and the FAA has increased mitigation procedures nationally since the “Hudson River” plane crash landing.
31) The Colorado Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division, current Colorado Airport System Plan does not recommend runway expansion for Longmont’s airport.
32) The current Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan (LACP) does not call for it. 33) The current Vance Brand Municipal Airport Master Plan (AMP) does not call for it.
34) The current Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (BCCP) does not call for it.
35) Runway expansion contradicts nearly every objective of Longmont’s Sustainability Vision. This includes: land use that is compatible with the built and natural environment, meeting community and individual well-being, improving energy efficiency in balance with social, economic and environmental concerns, preserving community investment, enhancing cost effective and environmentally responsible transportation and, finally, minimizing potential environmental impacts, especially to our community’s water
36) Light jets are noisy too. Remember, Longmont’s Vance Brand Municipal Airport cannot pick and choose what aircraft types can land. We’ve been told again and again that the new light jets do not make much noise. The Learjet 40/40XR is the latest executive light jet produced by Learjet that could make use of Longmont’s extended runway. Its official operating db range is between 75.5 and 93.4! Refer to this FAA chart to see when db levels start to annoy people. This aircraft’s noise levels would negatively impact close to 100% within range.
37) It is the community's responsibility to monitor changes at LMO, NOT a government agency. Consider BP and the Gulf spill. The likelihood of this accident occurring was considered low-probability, but high-impact. Both BP and federal regulators told local residents deep water oil drilling was safe. The regulators were wrong. The FAA is not accountable if it is wrong. If the FAA is wrong about noise levels from planes, wrong about the amount of air traffic, wrong about environmental impacts, wrong about the impacts on school children, and wrong about the impacts on housing values they can just say “sorry” and walk away as they did in the Gulf where regulators who were at fault resigned/retired and could not be held accountable. Furthermore, if the FAA is wrong about the community’s continued safety, despite allowing more air-traffic (more jumpers, more “slow” planes, more “fast” planes) above neighborhoods and schools in Longmont, similar to the recent Gulf oil spill, a terrible aviation related accident at Longmont is not a matter of if, but when.
38) When Linda Bruce, Airport Planner for the FAA, was recently asked, “In consideration of the 3600 children enrolled in six public schools in the Longmont Vance Brand Municipal Airport’s (LMO) Airport Influence Zone (AIZ), will the impact of airplane noise on children’s learning behavior be studied as part of the Airport Master Plan Study?” She replied. “No.”
39) Per a recent FOIA request submitted to the City of Longmont, the City stated it has no economic data related to runway extension.
40) When Tim Barth, Airport Manager at Longmont’s Vance Brand Municipal Airport asked Linda Bruce, Airport Planner for the FAA Denver Airports District Office “whether the Airport Master Plan can include analysis of housing values surrounding the airport,” she stated, “No, the master plan can’t include an analysis of housing values.”