newsobserver.com blogs
This time state Rep. Bill Faison called me. He'd heard about the meeting on Coleman Loop Road in northern Orange where some property owners came together Sunday to organize against an airport.
Faison lives out there and says he was just floating a trial balloon when he suggested a new airport panel look out that way. Some neighbors wondered if the lawmaker was trying to deflect attention away from his own land. Faison said he was not and that any airport near Coleman Loop Road would impact his property. He says an airport there could lead to a bypass around Hillsborough that would solve that town's vexing traffic bottlenecks.
But Faison also said a site that far north is a long shot and is now suggesting a new location. He says the airport panel should look at a site parallel to I-40 between the new Durham Tech campus and the highway. That sounds a lot like the general area the county had eyed for a solid waste transfer station, which the town quickly rallied against.Â
Faison said he's tossing out suggestions because "I would be surprised if an [airport] authority asked me where it ought to go." He says this new location would be within the 25 minute driving distance the university says it needs to serve its medical fleet.
Not that residents believe that's what's driving the search for a new airport in Orange County. They say it's for alumni, a charge the university denies.
"If they've got a big donor flying in, it's a convenient airport," said resident Al Banes, who owns a local biotech company. "It will be couched in other terms, [as being] 'for the good of the university.'"
Residents are concerned because the airport authority will have the power to take land by eminent domain and UNC wants the panel's members picked by January.
"We got to get on our ponies here," Banes said.Â
Member of the
Real Cities Network
© Copyright 2008, The News & Observer Publishing Company
A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company
Comments
Did you vote for him?
Wed, 11/26/2008 - 18:27 — elvisboy77Wow, fear of the NIMBYs is palpable.
No one seems to be relating travel time to TOTAL travel time. Yeah, you can drive to RDU in 20 minutes. Then wait, and wait, and wait in line to take off. And pay a hefty fee.
A local airport does not suffer the logistics of a large commercial one. The NIMBY arguements completely miss this point. It is way more convenient to land at a local rather than regional airport.
The red herrings are running it would seem.
Wait times at RDU from private facilities...
Wed, 11/26/2008 - 19:04 — CitizenWillEB77, I recall that the issue of wait times for pilots and passengers using private RDU facilities is quite different than the regular flying public (whom are treated like feedlot cattle).
Facts
Wed, 11/26/2008 - 19:16 — elvisboy77Please, to back up your statement.
Opinions are, like, you know.....
Here's where to ask....
Wed, 11/26/2008 - 22:49 — CitizenWillhttp://www.rdu.com/genaviation/gaserv.htm
2005 Alumni comments
Wed, 11/26/2008 - 22:54 — CitizenWillhttp://alumni.unc.edu/article.aspx?SID=3009
Here you go, good one!
Thu, 11/27/2008 - 06:37 — elvisboy77Everyone I know, except Moeser, understands that making AHEC doctors drive to RDU and fly out of that airport, which is tower-controlled and extremely busy at rush hours, will decrease the time AHEC docs have to see their distant patients by at least 25 percent, not counting the traffic tie-ups that are becoming legendary on I-40 between Chapel Hill and RDU. Even a 25 percent reduction in time available to see patients at distant clinics translates into 3,000 to 4,000 citizens AHEC doctors will not see if this airport is closed and tens of millions of dollars of revenue annually to UNC Hospitals lost.
Air operations are a tiny part of AHEC
Thu, 11/27/2008 - 10:41 — TBlakeThe great majority of outreach is by distance learning and travel by car. Only about half of the tiny portion of AHEC that is flight related is to partent clinics:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/628288.html
From that article:
Thu, 11/27/2008 - 11:26 — elvisboy77"We really do try to reach those rural and underserved areas," said Nadine O'Malley, AHEC's associate director for administration and finance. "That is one of the reasons why AHEC exists."
In the 12 months prior to June 2006, AHEC trained nearly 184,000 medical professionals in more than 8,000 continuing education courses across the state. AHEC's Medical Air Operations transported instructors from Duke or UNC-CH to 400 of those, serving about 12,000 students.
O'Malley acknowledged that Medical Air Operations serve a small number of AHEC's total programs but said they're still important.
"You've got to really look at who's attended and where they're from," she said. "Those three doctors in that rural area aren't going to get that information anywhere else."
So, TBlake, what part of this service do you propose to eliminate if it goes to RDU?
400 education courses in a year is more than one a day. Not an insignificant number to me.
Your demagogy is a bit
Thu, 11/27/2008 - 17:08 — TBlake......much. Why are you being so silly elvisboi77?
No one proposes the elimination of *any* of it. The points are that 1) AHEC flights are a small portion. 2) Of that small portion approximately half are continuing education and training which are much more efficiently served by other technologies and 3) ALL of it can be served by RDU.
Are you an AHEC pilot? C'mon tell the truth….
No, I am not a pilot
Thu, 11/27/2008 - 17:20 — elvisboy77Nor a NIMBY.
Yes, it could be served by Dulles Airport, too, or Dallas Fort Worth for that matter.
Your continued efforts to obscure or minimize the facts of the program in question cry NIMBY.
Sad, really.
Cost of a new airport in
Thu, 11/27/2008 - 07:56 — ClaudiusCost of a new airport in OC: $60 million
Cockeyed, inane rationale for building it: Priceless.
In the interest of reporting the facts
Thu, 11/27/2008 - 17:23 — elvisboy77Let it be known that most of the cost for this airport would come from Federal money, not local.
Priceless indeed!
Let be further known
Thu, 11/27/2008 - 22:41 — TBlake.....that even a cursory research on the subject reveals the federal monies available for airports have to follow FAA order 5090.3c "Field Formulation of the NIPIAS" and guess what? These sites don't.
Facts
Thu, 11/27/2008 - 11:24 — elvisboy77Appear to be Optional, at least in this discussion.
Faison's deep commitment to rural representation
Wed, 11/26/2008 - 10:02 — marcoplosWhen Faison first ran for his seat, a major campaign issue was securing fair representation for rural Orange County voters.
Now he sponsors a bill to creat an Airport Authority that gives the rural citizens of Orange County a political kick in the head by ensuring that they will have no say in the process and could end up with their land being taken.
Rural Representation
Wed, 11/26/2008 - 19:00 — CitizenWillI was disappointed that Rep. Faison wasn't interested in going all the way on opening rural representation. Instead of the balkanizing districting (in which we already have seen one predicted negative consequence) we could've gone with cumulative voting and non-partisan representation ( %22 of folks in the OC are unaffiliated). He prefered the method that would sharpen differences instead of encouraging coalitions.
I'm Confused
Tue, 11/25/2008 - 20:44 — peterkouryIt's still not clear to me why they're looking for an airport location within a 25 minute drive of UNC. Isn't RDU even closer than that?
Why are they contemplating spending 50+ million dollars for an airport that doesn't buy them much (if any) additional convenience?
Mr. Faison's scrambling to find a new site seems totally unnecessary, doesn't it? Â
To: I'm Confused
Wed, 11/26/2008 - 11:52 — ClaudiusYou must be new to the area. This has been a major topic of discussion for several years. You can find a relatively accurate historical perspective by reviewing the blogsite: http://orangepolitics.org/tags/airport
Most of us are confused
Wed, 11/26/2008 - 10:30 — TBlakeBecause of the lack of dialog and information. Bill Faison chooses to bypass the county commissioners and democratic process. The University commissions a study, then displaying circular logic ignores it's conclusions and commissions a new one.
This is not what I would call representative government or being neighborly.