Scenario 3: Airport with Neighborhood Serving Uses and Housing Lite
Scenario 3
This option is garnering discussion, perhaps because it presumes to preserve the airport for those the benefit from it now, while simuntaneously giving something to the community. With the restrictions that accompany FAA grants, it is not clear how this would work. It might not evern be possible, with so many levels and branches of logistics, liability, FAA restrictions and regulations.
Like Scenario 2:
Additionally, Scenario 3 offers new airport attractions (museum, cafe, etc.), which will promote growth and expansion of outside flight traffic. Bringing more amenities brings more air traffic. Have you heard of the $100 lunch/hamburger/burrito? That's when pilots fly to lunch. Can you say "privilege"?? Amenities promote this.
Housing will very likely be market rate, rather than affordable, because the FAA is not likely to involve itself in housing policy. Maybe some folks love living inside airport grounds, but it would seem most people, especially those that can afford market rate, would not choose to do that.
Like Scenarios 1 and 2, who decides how this turns out? The industry and the FAA.
This option is garnering discussion, perhaps because it presumes to preserve the airport for those the benefit from it now, while simuntaneously giving something to the community. With the restrictions that accompany FAA grants, it is not clear how this would work. It might not evern be possible, with so many levels and branches of logistics, liability, FAA restrictions and regulations.
Like Scenario 2:
- New and more hangers = more planes = more impact = growth and expansion.
- "Enhancing glider facilities" will PROMOTE THE INCREASE OF TOW TRAFFIC. Towing is a highly problematic, noisy operation. Tow planes, with their noisy (cheaper) two blade propellers can be heard 1.5 miles away. It takes a lot of leaded fuel to haul two planes up into the sky. The tow plane path is a gap in the noise sensitive area designations, a gift to tow plane operators. Residents living under the tow plane path suffer this activity day and and day out over and over. See BDU tow planes for an image of tow plane flight tracks, and BDU noise abatement to see the gap in noise sensitive areas for the tow planes.
Additionally, Scenario 3 offers new airport attractions (museum, cafe, etc.), which will promote growth and expansion of outside flight traffic. Bringing more amenities brings more air traffic. Have you heard of the $100 lunch/hamburger/burrito? That's when pilots fly to lunch. Can you say "privilege"?? Amenities promote this.
Housing will very likely be market rate, rather than affordable, because the FAA is not likely to involve itself in housing policy. Maybe some folks love living inside airport grounds, but it would seem most people, especially those that can afford market rate, would not choose to do that.
Like Scenarios 1 and 2, who decides how this turns out? The industry and the FAA.