newsobserver.com blogs
So what made Site H the top contender for a new UNC-led airport in that consultant's study three years ago?
We got a copy of the 2005 T&B study this week. It helped me understand what many residents have been telling us since we began reporting about the airport authority recently.
The consultants assigned points in 11 categories. They included distance from UNC Hospitals and the nearest airport, zoning, social and environmental impacts, and room for expansion, among other criteria. The maximum possible score was 78.
Site H, in White Cross, scored 60. The study said it was 11 miles west of UNC, just outside the 30 minute travel time from Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport, 15 minutes from UNC Hospitals and had room for an expanded runway and terminal in the future.
(The study also said its zoning would allow an airport with a special use permit -- we'll have to call county Planning Director Craig Benedict back again Monday. In interviewing him for our story tomorrow, he told me some of the rules have changed since a failed 1982 airport project and that he and the county attorney are now researching what existing zoning categories an airport might be able to fit into)
The next highest-scoring sites were an upgraded Horace Williams Airport with 57 points (UNC says keeping Horace Williams is not an option with Carollina North), followed by Site 9, near Site H, with 53 points.
But the top scorer? Raleigh-Durham International Airport with 68 points.
We asked to speak with Chancellor Holden Thorp this week about the airport issue. He was out of town and unavailable, a spokesman said. We'll try again next week.
Member of the
Real Cities Network
© Copyright 2008, The News & Observer Publishing Company
A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company
Comments
But Zippo!
Mon, 10/06/2008 - 18:54 — elvisboy77It will pay back in a couple of years with all the economic development it will bring. Trust me.
UNC is going to do this the way they want, where they want. I know this for a fact, so talk all you want but it will do no good.
Sorry but I typed this on a Microsoft Browser, and it seemed to work okay, at least for me. LOL
This just keeps getting crazier and crazier
Sat, 10/04/2008 - 13:12 — ZippoI can't believe it - the university's own study shows that RDU is the optimum place to relocate AHEC's operations, and they're still looking for a place to waste $60M?
Somebody stop these guys!
Microsoft-centric
Sat, 10/04/2008 - 13:01 — CitizenWillFYI, the Talbert/Bright report linked to is a non-standard HTML (optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer). Just another example of why the Chapel Hill Technology Board (now defunct) wanted Chapel Hill to mandate use of open standards for document creation so that the public would have the widest access to analyses, like these reports, they paid for.
 I'm working on a conversion to open standards making the content visible in Safari, Opera and Mozilla browsers. I will post a link when I'm done.Â
UNC site report
Sat, 11/01/2008 - 11:14 — chandler (not verified)any luck?  I can't make out any locations or text on these tiny, faint screens.  mac user, safari. Â
Not yet....
Sat, 11/01/2008 - 14:06 — CitizenWillI requested the original but haven't heard back. Great example why public records should be in non-proprietary open standards formats.