[Long-time lurker, first time poster]
Two paths diverged in the woods and I took the third.
It occurrs to me that there might be another way to meet (or even exceed) AHEC's needs while also preserving land and avoiding a protracted debate and a souring of town-gown relations.
So far the paths being argued are: 1) Build a new airport in the county or 2) Base all operations from RDU. I believe there is a third path that hasn't been considered.
In short, build a heliport. Let that sink in for a minute and then read on for more...
We all know helicopters don't need much space to operate, so this is an easy one. In fact, it could even be sited on the existing Horace Williams airport while still allowing for plenty of space for the new campus.
Drastic reduction in trip time for AHEC physicians. Not only could AHEC potentially keep helicopter or tilt-rotor aircraft at UNC Hospitals, but it could deliver passengers directly to many of the hospitals they service throughout North Carolina instead of landing at their regional or local airports and then driving to their ultimate destination.
Potential thickets on the path...
The third way wouldn't provide a fixed-wing runway in Orange County. Local pilots,the flying club and alumni wanting to come in for game weekends would need to use RDU, Burlington, Sanford-Lee or Person County. It does, though, allow the question to be asked if the new airport is for AHEC or for the aforementioned groups. This could be considered a pro or a con depending on how you feel about the issue. If it is primarily for AHEC then a vertical take off and landing solution would be great. If it isn't then we have to ask ourselves how important is it to cater to non-AHEC groups?
Noise. I haven't looked a the noise profiles of the Barons that AHEC operates versus the two aircraft suggested below. The rotary aircrat may be noisier but there would be less traffic, so again a trade-off. That being said someone with more experience in this area could research that and let us know
It would require purchasing and maintaining fleet of executive helicopters (http://www.sikorsky.com/sik/products/commercial/s76/s76c_executive.asp) or civilian tilt-rotor (http://www.bellagusta.com/air_ba_main.cfm) which are going to have a significantly higher operating cost than the fleet AHEC currently operates.
That being said, my sense, given from what I have read about the new airport being 6000', is that the plan is to operate more jet aircraft. In other words, the existing fleet of Barons may be due for replacement at some point with jets so that may negate the "greater cost for a new fleet" argument. Further offsetting the cost of a new fleet would be the reduction of cost in maintaining a hangar and helipad versus a general aviation airport with 6000' runway.
It also warrants discussion that AHEC's fixed wing pilots would need to be trained as rotary wing (or tilt-rotor) pilots which is going to take time and effort.
Lastly, leasing these new aircraft, training pilots and operating hospital to hospital operations could begin well before the first foot of tarmac is paved on a new airport. At the very least, the larger community could take the third path to see where it leads. I hope it would be to a place with more efficient patient care in our state, better use of space, and improved town-gown relations.
NorthStateBlue
Issues:
Comments
Landing
More landing places
I suspect many AHEC flights are to other hospitals in those remote communities and many of those likely have pads for medivac helicopters.
Right now the Barons go to airports in those areas and then the physicians then have to be driven to their destination.
Maybe what you are wondering is if helicopters can also land at "regular" airports (like RDU, etc..) and indeed they can. In fact, RDU is where some of the local TV stations base their helicopters. In other words having vertical take off and landing aircraft opens up more landing opportunities (both helipads and runways).
Does that answer your question? If it does, then I think I probably glossed that over in my OP.
northstateblue
I didn't realize that
Since both UNC and Duke have
Since both UNC and Duke have helipads (and I believe both are supposed to be enlarged and improved with extra "parking" space, etc., although I'm not current on that), I'm wondering how the idea of another helipad in Chapel Hill improves on what already exists -- why even mess with a hop between point of origin, HWA, and then the hospital? How is that better than the hop betweeen the hospital and RDU?
Second, what is the distance range of these helicopters -- is it equal to what fixed-wing aircraft can do?
Third, following Ruby's point, there's the question of appropriate landing sites elsewhere with good access to transport to training sites (which are sometimes not in hospitals) -- but do note that truly "remote" NC communities are not usually where AHEC flights currently go. The vast majority of trips are to places like Fayetteville, Charlotte, etc.
Finally, noise and vibration are a considerable issue with helicopters. There are frequently helicopter landings and takeoffs at HWA, including military, media, and private craft. In the near vicinity the vibration can be substantial, much worse than most planes - can sound like Apocalypse Now. Note that some possible research co-tenants of CN raised the issue of how much it would cost to insulate laboratories against aircraft vibration. And the question of insurance and liability would still remain, as well.
Helipads, helipads everywhere!
See comments in-line below... :)
If there was going to be more parking at UNC hospitals then that would be an ideal solution. It keeps that traffic (and noise) there and avoids that extra hop, which would be fantastic. I hadn't heard of expansion for the helipad at UNC Hospitals (though I also hadn't been looking for that information).Then to your second point about RDU, I don't know why I didn't think of that! Now it should be noted that for foul weather operations there need to be approved approaches to the helipads. It might be that there couldn't be one for UNC Hospitals, but there is for IGX and certainly would be for new Heliport in the county. Then we'd be back at physicians needing to drive to and from Chapel Hill to RDU for foul weather trips.
Compared to the Barons (I think they are using 55's and 58's )they have a range of about 1150 miles (~ 1000 NM).
The BA609 (which isn't really a helicopter, it can just take off and land like one) has a stated range of 1000 NM. The S-76C is 345 NM, which might be an issue, but even Asheville is only 200 NM. I suspect there are other executive helicopters with greater range.
Indeed they would be noisier and there would still be the insurance and liability issues. The plus side, though, is that there would be very little transient traffic and no fixed wing traffic at all. So while there would be noisier traffic it would be less frequent.
It would probably be good to talk about the cost of the aircraft themselves. So these aircraft are not (repeat: not) cheap. Figure about $10 million each (new). Operating costs are also going to be (much) higher than the Barons since you'd likely want a pilot and co-pilot and I believe the Barons operate with a pilot only (albeit excellent pilots). These are also using the very latest technology whereas the Barons are close to 30 years (or more?) older.
The savings, though, comes from not having to build and maintain a $60 million airport. So figure if you got used helo's you could have a fleet or 3 or 4 and a new heliport for $45 million. If you can operate from IGX or RDU or UNC Hositals then the costs go down (by varying degrees).
northstateblue
You are right in Helicopters
You are right in Helicopters are on average far more expensive that fixed wing aircraft and far more mechanically complex and therefore more expensive to maintain. Fixed winged aircraft fly because they are aerodynamic and have an engine(s) either prop or turbine(jet) that provides enough thrust. With helicopters the rotor is the wing and does double duty by also providing the thrust. In fact the rotor has a triple function of controlling direction. On fixed wing aircraft the ailerons, elevator, and rudder (or control surfaces) combine to control the direction.
Helcopters are known to require greater pilot skill. When you lose the engine or engines in a fixed wing aircraft the plane "flys" but on a downward glide path (not bad for a light aircraft) and the pilot has a chance to chose an emergency landing place given enough altitude when the failure occurs. While with helicopters the options are not near as many during engine or mechanical failure. It would be interesting to note accident rate differences for commercial pilots with fixed wing vs rotor wing aircraft.
The vertical take off and landing capabilities of the helicopters make them a viable alternative but not without tradeoffs.
Tilt Rotor
Those are all good points about helo's which make the BA609 more attractive. It comes in at about the same cost as a new executive helo but is quieter, faster, has a greater range, ceiling, can carry more passengers and probably has a good single engine performance. Then again, they wont be available for delivery until 2010/2011 (at the earliest).
northstateblue
I don't know the BA609 other
I don't know the BA609 other than I think it's the first civilion VTOL. There have been other VTOL aircraft in the military but they have been problematic. Normally these type of aircraft have to tilt the props into a vertical plane and lift the aircraft off the ground, then tilt back to provide the horizontal thrust. Not simple.
Another alternative is STOL aircraft like the Cessna 208 that I believe requires a runway under 1500 ft and almost nothing for landings. But it is still an airport.
Of course there is the British Harrier VTOL jet which could provide some real thrills if nothing else. :)
STOL
Yes! Now that is some outside of the box thinking! Can you imagine the community meetings on that?! :)
Indeed, tilt rotors have had a less than stellar past (like the V22-Osprey). The BA609 is made by Bell/Agusta. I don't know it's track record so far as its development cycle goes.
FYI
nm = NM
Sorry, what I should have written was NM for "Nautical Miles". I'll go back and fix my lower casing. :)
northstateblue
AHEC destinations and other issues
First re: the destinations of AHEC flights: The Talbert&Bright study tabulated AHEC flights for a 2 week period in 2005. The destinations and numbers of round-trip flights were as follows: Wilmington and Asheville (9 each); Fayetteville (6), Charlotte (3), Rocky Mt/Wilson, Lumberton, andWinston-Salem (2 each), and (1 each:) Beaufort, Lexington NC, Tarboro, New Bern, and Rutherfordton. Not so "remote." But I don't know how many of the hospitals in these areas have helipads.
As for bad weather conditions, one of the reasons AHEC has such a laudable safety record is that if the weather is at all questionable, the trips are likely to be turned over to ground transportation instead -- which says something both about distance (not so much) and urgency (not so much).
As for relative costs, certainly the least expensive option is to proceed with the construction at RDU for AHEC facilities, and leave it at that.
The effort to find a middleground in the discussions and particularly to separate the interests of AHEC from non-AHEC groups is laudable, and I daresay your proposal is likely to capture the imagination of some involved in CN planning, if it hasn't already.
However, limiting use of a "new" HWA to helicopter traffic still opens it up far beyond AHEC users to private helicopter owners and pilots, of whom there are a growing number (as I'd guess you already know, given your expertise in aircraft). In truth, I can imagine this option being very attractive to the corporate research partners in CN, as well as private contractors, heli-taxi services, etc., which would keep the "new" airport quite busy; and there would be no way to make approach patterns any less onerous on neighbors than they now are. Thus,from the town's point of view, it would not really be any more attractive than keeping "old" HWA open, given the abiding concerns of noise, liability, risk, and demand on infrastructure (to come full circle in my comments).
Great information
The traffic data is really informative for the conversation. I suspect most of the major hospitals like in downtown Asheville (which I think might just be one hospital now), Fayetteville, etc.. have helipads. Others could do with some research. I'm also not sure in how many cases those trips are directly to hospitals or are perhaps for conference or presentations or small clinics in which case having vertical take off and landing wouldn't help much.
If IFR operations are rarely taken then basing the helo's or BA609's out of RDU looks like a pretty solid solution. On VFR days they can make the hop to the hospital and pick up physicians for the trips around the state. On IFR days the physicians would need to make the call as to whether to drive (to say, Fayetteville) or fly (to say, Asheville). That assumes, of course that their couldn't be IFR approaches to UNC Hospitals.
Indeed, for me at least, separating these uses is a good step on a different path in the discussion. At least it can get on the agenda of the Airport Authority for them to conider as another model to consider. As we all know, IGX exists not just for AHEC, but also for private pilot owners, alumni and donors wanting to visit, and, formerly, a flying club. It isn't clear to me how their usage will be ranked in a decision relative to AHEC.
I don't have any data on private helicopter traffic at IGX. I'm fairly certain the University could exclude transient private helo traffic if it wanted to, though that may likely result in the loss of federal funding. Given the relative cost of a Heliport, that might be acceptable to the Airport Authority.
I don't have traffic data on those kind of services now into and out of RDU (e.g. for RTP destinations). It's hard for me to think of a way to project with some confidence how much traffic that might be in 5, 10, or 20 years. More than it is today (certainly) less than IGX currently has (maybe?).
Certainly if the traffic couldn't be limited then we could end up with just a louder IGX. In that case, RDU would be the ideal location. The "third path" would then be building a new heliport elsewhere in Orange County. It would take up less land, but would still bring the noise factor. It might be acceptable to the Airport Authority and less unpalatable to citizens than the 6000' strip, which would likely have more traffic than a heliport.
northstateblue
My mother had a stroke on
My mother had a stroke on the Outer Banks 8 years ago. They wanted to send her up to Va. Beach. My dad got on the phone and talked to her heart doctor at Duke. They were going to send a life flight from Duke but there was a weather front moving through eastern NC at the time. So they sent a fix wing plane that came from Charlotte to Manteo Airport and bought her RDU where she was transpoted to Duke.In any event Manteo Airport was where she had to be picked up, no matter how she was flying.
It would be interesting to know how many hospitals have heliport now and there are usually small airport like Manteo's all over the state. I was surprised at the AHEc flight data being from 2005. I would think there should be more up to date figures.
bad weather and helo's
I am sorry to hear about your Mother's stroke but I am glad she was able to get to a great hospital.
I suspect that the life-flight helicopters aren't rated to fly into bad weather, whereas the S76 and the BA609 (which isn't really a helicopter at all) both can. That isn't to say they would, just that they could. Wheather they could land at a helipad in bad weather is another question (I suspect not) since it would require an IFR approach.
Like you, I wonder how many of the smaller regional clinics have helipads. I guess it woudn't be too hard to find out.
northstateblue
linkage, transients, and up-to-date data
1. It isn't clear to me how their [private, general aviation] usage will be ranked in a decision relative to AHEC. The two continue to be inextricably intertwined when the legislature is involved, thanks to lobbying money and effort. In fact, gen. aviation has driven a preponderance of the planning and legislation, using AHEC as their wedge issue. Moreover, there is overlap in that some of those involved in AHEC administration are private pilots who share sympathies with other ardent advocates for private aviation's access to any and all airports.
2. I'm fairly certain the University could exclude transient private helo traffic if it wanted to, though that may likely result in the loss of federal funding. See #1 above. Doubt it would ever happen; and indeed the first thing that lobbyists would do would be to warn about the threat of lost funding. It's hard to guess, however, how much difference excluding transient use would actually make in the total air traffic burden - especially if CN became a magnet for corporate traffic.
3. I would think there should be more up to date figures. There probably are, but this was from the 2005 Talbert&Bright report, which is most easily accessed and which has been the basis of a lot of planning regarding AHEC. In any case, more recent figures probably could be obtained but someone would have to get access to the raw data, which -- although theoretically supposed to be available to the public -- aren't easily retrieved without full support and cooperation of AHEC and IGX interests (which there was for the T&B report).
I will say that, as a HWA/IGX neighbor for many, many years, I can't say anything about changes in destinations (have the impression from intermittent FlightAware checks that things aren't much different), but I do believe there hasn't been much change since 2005 in amount of total traffic.
Harrier jets and helicopters
Helicopters primarily serve Med-evac purposes, not the AHEC mission. AHEC doesn't transport patients. This misperception has prevailed throughout many months of new airport discussion.
It could be argued that AHEC saves lives by sending medical faculty to outlying Area Health Education Centers. They cancel those regularly scheduled clinic flights when bad weather intervenes.
Executive class
I hadn't realized folks thought AHEC was transporting patients. Indeed that is quite a mispercention.
Both the BA609 (a vertical take off / landing airplane) and the executive class helicopters come with interiors designed for passenger transport as opposed to med-evac.
Here's an ecample interior layout for that mission:
What I wonder is how many of the regional AHEC's have the capability to accept VTOL aircraft as that would reduce trip time for physicians as they make their rounds to the AHEC's. Sorry if that was missed earlier.
First class !
Wow, that is a first-class interior. Far nicer than some of those old Cessnas!
AHEC would have to recruit a whole new fleet of helicopter pilots. This is not like a trucker's license where you learn how to drive a bigger thing farther. It's a different mode of piloting altogether. I wrote a piece about flying Cessnas once. It's like flying a washing machine, but at least it's got wings and flaps. Helicopters drop.
Indeed, the OP spoke about
Operating Expenses!
There's far more to the difference between helos and fixed wing planes than just up front cost. Helos are FAR more expensive to maintain. I think you're oversimplifying the math on this one by a lot. Helos are simply vastly more expensive to operate than FWA. If they weren't, well, you'd see a lot more of them running around!
Also, I tend to think you're oversimplifying the issue of weather and AHEC flights. I doubt it's simply "IFR vs VFR" as someone implied. It's about potentially dangerous weather...there's a big difference.
Why is HWA traffic stagnant? In an attempt to appease the neighbors (I believe), HWA is priced higher than other local places to fly in and out of. I believe this keeps it fairly limited to those who more or less need to fly in and out of HWA as opposed to being able to fly out of other airports close by. I've driven to Burlington and Sanford both because it was cheaper to charter a plane from those locations.
--Donnie
Expenses everyewhere
Certainly helo's and even the BA609's would be far more expensive to operate. Not the least of which would be the need for two pilots instead of one.
I don't know how much a 6000' airport would cost to maintain over time verus a VTOL pad/hangar, but there would likely be some savings there.
I also don't know when the Barons will be life-cycled to jet aircraft (or just newer aircraft). Ceratinly a 6000' runway would make jets for AHEC a greater possibility. That would also bridge the difference in cost of a VTOL fleet.
A VTOL solution saving 15 to 30 million dollars in up-front costs in building an installation or in housing at RDU would pay for some number of years of operating costs.
Some consulting group would need to develop a complete proposal to really nail down the costs.
Without a doubt. I wouldn't suggest flying into known icing conditions or through a line of thunderstorms is something that is analagous to IFR. Those kinds of calls get make by, approrpiately, the Pilot in Command. You might be referring to the posting about the med-evac that happended from the Outerbanks and required an FWA instead of a helo from Duke. I don't know what the bad line of weather was referenced in that post and if it would have prevented a less circuitous trip to Duke had there been an IFR capable S76 or BA609.
You're just pulling numbers
You're just pulling numbers out of the air. I still feel like you may not completely understand the expense required for helo maintenance and operation.
VTOL planes are still years away IF they even happen for civilian use. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that they'll have an even larger maintenance and operations bill.
Doesn't it seem likely that if helo operation made so much sense that we'd see more of them?
Oh, and just because the Barons are 30 years old doesn't mean they're going away any time soon. There are many companies out there stripping planes like that to the metal and rebuilding them with all new everything and selling them for a good bit less than a truly new counterpart. Other than having 30 year old aluminum, they're every bit as "new" as a new plane. Same engines, electronics, etc. Been shopping a bit on that front myself. Would never even CONSIDER a helo, even though most of my travel would be in state as well.
--Donnie
Air Numbers
You are totally correct, but the only numbers I have to work with are the ones that I have found on-line. I suggested in my earlier post that a consulting group would need come up with real numbers.
I think BA would differ with you in that they are already developing the BA609 for delivery in 2010/2011. You are correct that maintenance costs are unknown and would be higher, but I'm not arguing that point. :)
I'm not sure. I don't think I've ever seen a VTOL solution mentioned to address the AHEC issue.
I'm not suggesting the Barons would be replaced rather the possibility would be greater were a 6000' airport built in rural Orange County and that if they were replaced with Citations (or something similar) that would bridge the cost gap.
Getting back to the reasons of the OP, though: is VTOL a viable third path?
It looks like basing AHEC from RDU is a non-starter (e.g. the creation of the Airport Authority would seem to make the intentions clear).
The only other option we can reasonably expect is a new airport somewhere in Orange County with all that brings (more traffic, more jets, displacing rural residents, cost to build and maintain).
UNC's Position
Huge missing part
So eminent domain is supposed to be used to take land or resources to advance the greater, common good. Without debating whether or not resorting to eminent domain indicates a failure of democracy, diplomacy, and deal-making, where is the greater good here?
What makes stealing a large section of land from a lot of people and dramatically altering a rural community a step toward the greater good?
At the end of the process, AHEC people will have to drive about the same distance as they would to RDU. Fat cat alumni would save a few minutes on their trips to football & basketball games. Fat cat corporate partners in the Carolina North economic expansion project (this is not about higher education) would also save a few minutes off their trips.
Obviously, this slight time savings for the fat cats is valued higher than the integrity of our rural community that is targeted for an airport.
Where is a thoughtful explanation? Maybe His Fat Catness Roger Perry would deign to explain why we are pawns in his game?
Definition: Public Good
The missing part is the sillyness
Some people at the university and definitely the state legislators have exhibited a reckless disregard for the people directly affected by passing S1925. The governor has line item veto authority and chose not to use it. Shame on him, but I guess he would not want to alienate his wife employers, especially when she is up for a raise.
This legislation is clearly an inappropriate use of eminent domain and people should feel misrepresented by the elected officials that snuck S1925 through the legislature and bypassed elected county officials. The 2005 Talbert and Bright study was correct in asserting RDU was the proper place for AHEC. With a modicum of creative thinking (as exhibited in this forum) any concerns over commuting could be easily and less expensively solved and should have been prior to the upset S1925 has caused.
People in this county feel betrayed by the fact that this forcible land taking would result in a county, state and possibly federal tax increase by fiat.
AHEC doctors and staff should resent the people behind this legislation who are using AHEC as political cover to force an airport for the convenience of people with airplanes.
Yes, Ted Stevens would be proud of this airport crowd. They do not care about the environment, the reputation of AHEC, miss appropriating other people's hard earned tax money, taking working farmland that has been in families for generations off of the tax roles and the uncalculated ongoing absurd costs of this "airport to nowhere". It's all OK as long as hey have a place to keep their plans with out the "hassle" of RDU.
At the end of the day, taking land for and building another airport is not "….essential to support the missions of The University of North Carolina"
Any place would be better
Than the current location, where schools are in the flight path. I think a rural Orange location would be best. RDU is too busy and expensive.
Of course, someone's solar collectors may be shaded as the planes fly over, that is the cost of progress!
Taking an airport away from
Taking an airport away from Orange County takes tax dollars away from Orange County. A lot of them. It also takes away a lot of "status" as an attractor for businesses and research institutions, which donate money and resources to places like UNC. You know, a lot of important work in the medical field goes on at UNC.
I love it how it's "stealing" land, too. Hah! Those folks will get paid a nice price for that land, which makes it far from "stealing." And every new development going in (and there are plenty working that way already!) is altering that rural landscape far more than a small airport would. If anything, the airport will HELP keep the surrounding community rural for longer.
Yes, I do hate it for those who get displaced due to eminent domain. It is sad to be somewhat forced to move, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it theft.
--Donnie
A big "how so" to you
A big "how so" to you Donnie? Show me the tax revenue to the county from IGX please.
UNC's own Talbert and Bright study pointed to RDU as the best choice for AHEC. Money and status is fostered by intelligent decisions and being smart with resources. Business and resources are attracted to this area for the RTP and universities, not yet another airport. Non equator Donnie.
I know this is probably terra incognito for you Donnie, but some people don't care as much about money and status as you apparently do. Some people have other priorities. In a market where the buyer forces the seller to pay the price the buyer sets, it is theft. The only thing threatening to alter the landscape out here is people like you who think they can force themselves on others. Your logic for how an airport would help keep the surrounding community rural longer is positively Orwellian. Hah I know you love it Donnie, I noticed that you don't vote in Orange County do you have an airplane?
No. Sadly Donnie you don't hate it. You don't even get it. If you did you would realize that any viable development does not require eminent domain snuck into a bill and the "airport to nowhere" will cost the taxpayers and university millions of dollars better spent elsewhere. The impact of this environmental disaster will add to pollution in every way, water, air noise and create traffic bottlenecks in Carrboro and Chapel hill with all the alumni trying to get from their planes to the game and back again.
the future of AHEC
Theft
is when somebody takes something from you without your consent. How about if I come to your house and go away with your dining room table, but leave a couple of hundred bucks? Not theft?
Donnie - Not locating the airport in a rural community in no way stops the travel activities related to the airport.
You don't know what you are talking about in terms of development altering the community more than an airport.
But tell us how much tax money is at stake here?
In all seriousness
In all seriousness, what businesses have located here because of Horace Williams Airport? I suppose there might be some, but I think most businesses require access to an airport where you can buy an airplane ticket - in other words RDU.
It's not if you have eminent
It's not if you have eminent domain power. :-)
I have no idea what your comment means about "Not locating..."
HWA is closing no matter what. That's a done deal. So either another airport gets built in Orange County, or OC loses an airport. I believe you are fine with OC just losing the airport, but I don't get your point about travel.
How much tax money? Beats me. But it's something positive and therefore losing it could be considered "bad", which goes against the "greater good" concept.
--Donnie
The price tag that I have
The price tag that I have been hearing about is something in the tens of millions of dollars to build a small airport. And no matter whose tax dollars are to be spent on such a project, my question is: How will the public benefit to the tune of tens of millions of dollars?
If the new airport is tax-exempt, then it will cost the County real estate ad-valorem taxes, not the other way around. Some have suggested that there will be economic development benefits from an airport, but I can't help wondering what are the marvelous private sector economic benefits that have come from the airport that we already have in Orange County?
Don't get me wrong, lots of good public sector work is done through Horace Williams - I am clear about that. But how is it developing our local economy? From what I gather the private sector economic development from Horace Williams is mostly from bringing a few extremely wealthy tourists to town for athletic events. I am sure those folks drop some serious money in our community when they come, but can it really justify millions and millions of dollars in government investment?
I wonder, in all seriousness, how the cost of operating Chapel Hill Transit would compare with the cost of building and operating an airport - particularly when measured by passenger-miles traveled?
Good Question
I don't think the dollar questions can be answered with hard facts, but these are the type things the government folks always have big answers to that make you scratch your head and say "wow, that's a lot more than I'd think it would be." I'd love to see real economic impact numbers. We certainly would see those if this were anything but a university running the show, too. Which is where I think a lot of the frustration lies.
As for the tax thing, yes, it does take property tax dollars on the land out of the equation. But anyone who "homes" their airplane there is now paying property taxes on the airplane in the county. Doesn't take many nice airplanes there to more than make up for the lost revenue on the land.
--Donnie
The tax rate for a plane
The tax rate for a plane is exactly what it is on a home, so to equal real estate tax lost, theoretically you'd need pretty much as many planes at approximately the same assessed value as the potential home sites lost by appropriation. If the planes cost less than a house, then obviously you'd need more of them to arrive at tax equivalence.
Based on existing land-use guidelines, the proposed airport (with >6000' runway) would require reserving approximately 800 acres of land for runway, apron, etc., on which no residences should stand, plus recommended restrictions on another 5000 acres to residential density less than 1 residence per 5 acres.
The density of housing right now in the locations under consideration isn't such that every acre is developed; however, it still seems to me that you'd need a LOT of planes to equal what could be realized from tax revenues on residential property. Moreover, last I looked, planes depreciate while houses -- in most economies other than the current one -- don't.
That statement is just plain
That statement is just plain cynical and silly. If it were "bad" for everyone then UNC would keep IGX open. The truth is the land is more valuable for Carolina North, and their own study pointed to RDU as an even better alternative to IGX (read it). The only people it is "bad" for are the alumni and moneyed interests that who want to have their cake and eat it too. This has nothing to do with greater public good or the mission of the university.
I have the BEST plan for the UNC Airport!
The Governor's Club Golf Course!
VERY conveniently located minutes from Kenan Stadium AND the property has already been pre-cleared!
If not there then how about
If not there then how about Finley? That is UNC land, right?
Perhaps geography wouldn't permit that but still, 1/3rd of UNCs 11,000 employees commute at least 10 miles to work each day and yet there are three golf courses (that I know of) within three miles of the UNC campus. Considering that people go to work five times a week but golf much less often, it seems it'd make more sense to have UNC workers living on land that close to UNC and have the golf courses farther away.
Flight Path & Hours?
Not knowing exactly where she lives I can't really give specific details, but if anyone has a map that shows its flight path I could share that with her.
Proposed?
Where is this "proposed" airport and who said it was? See this morning's CHN: No site chosen for new Orange County airport.
Are you saying Thorpe and Roper are not being truthful?
A 2005 study
ranked several potential airport sites. Site H in the White Cross community was ranked first.
Thorpe & Roper did not technically lie if they are actually intending to start the search from scratch. Maybe one reason they want to start the search from scratch is that the Talbert & Bright report also concluded that AHEC should be based at RDU. This of course greatly undercuts the argument for a new airport. It also undercuts the notion of the airport as a university owned entity. The go-go growthers want a new airport. This fits right in with their bigger-is-better corporate growth schemes.
While Thorpe & Roper may not have technically lied, it was certainly disingenuous of them to act innocent and not even mention the Talbert & Bright report and the very real reasons why people are worried at the sites that were targeted.
Thanks, Mark
Could be worse !