New Haven Independent

Posted by: ParkStTaxPayer | February 18, 2009 7:27 PM

I'm sure a major part of the operating budget is electricity. Landing, taxiway, and terminal lighting as well as AC, heating, etc are all reliant upon the electric company.

What airports do NOT lack is open space, between runways, taxiways, and on the roof of the terminal.

Are there any funds available from the CT Clean Energy Fund for solar electric panels (on a grand scale) to produce power AT A PROFIT at Tweed?

The airport could be the first to TOTALLY offset their electric usage at a profit in the nation.

Time to rethink how the real estate is being used. Airplanes will continue to fly. The budget is crashing; get creative, and the airport will survive!

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | February 18, 2009 8:54 PM

If the city were smart, it would cut its losses on Tweed and lobby the state instead for a cross town light rail system, relocation of the train station to a central downtown hub location, and fast train service to Bradley. Gotta let Tweed go - it's been on life support for decades now.

Posted by: Streever | February 18, 2009 9:11 PM

I'm dissapointed in our legislators, who don't have the time to listen when the Mayor of one of the largest cities in their State shows up to testify about our city.

It's not just Rell & the Capital that are failing New Haven's cities but also the Legislators we've voted in, apparently.

Sorry, you don't get a pass on this, I don't care what else you had going on today. I'd like to know who didn't show: if they are in New Haven, I think we know who not to vote for in the upcoming election.

The issue of Tweed New Haven is a very important one to the entire region. Do the job you agreed to do, or step down from your posts.

Posted by: iwasthere | February 18, 2009 10:14 PM

It is time to close the airport. Over 23 years being here I along with many others have not used this airport. This airport is basicly a prop for the mayor to say he has an airport that no one uses. Bradley , TF Green, JFK, Newark, Laguardia airports are far better. Quicker routes fewer layovers. much more sensable to have better means to the bigger airports. Schedule more trains to access these airports people will follow. This would take away for both the state budget from collapsing to the city able to close there budget gaps. Sell it to a developer like Madison did even though it was privately owned. You can create more tax revenue this way.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | February 18, 2009 10:53 PM

The New Haven contingent has been crying wolf and claiming the sky is falling for nearly 20 years. Statewide taxpayers are footing most of the bill for the school construction; Gateway; and parking garages, train stations and even has money in on Taxpayer Towers at 360 State to mention but a few. The city also gets the lion's share of PILOT dollars and ECS funding for schools. Meanwhile, the city is banging on the state for prisoner money, homeless money and a lot more. Now, Tweed. The state through its various funding sources pays more than half the cost of operating the city.

Do you think maybe we are wearing out our welcome with the constant chant about the state owes us this or that and always have our hand out?

Posted by: robn | February 19, 2009 8:54 AM

CHW,

1) PILOT funding is owed to the city by the state because it forces the city ot give an anachronistic property tax exemption for multi-billion dollar corporations like Yale.
2) ALL CT citys have, at some point in time gotten state assistnace for rebuilding schools.
3) Trains are a regional asset and so are planes.
4) That being said I've never really seem any evidence to support the economic development numbers that Tweed supporters throw out. It seems to serve a very small upper cruust of the population. I do think that if the airport had profit potential it would have showed it by now.

Posted by: nutmeg | February 19, 2009 9:24 AM

metro-north and the q-bridge don't turn a profit, either. maybe we should shut them down, too.

Posted by: M. Piscitelli | February 19, 2009 9:27 AM

Hi Len-
Thank you for covering the story and staying to the end. As to the last comment, please note I am referring to the people who appeared today, as well as the 30 others who wrote or emailed in support of Tweed. City staff, airport personnel and Susan Godshall at the Chamber sincerely appreciate the extra effort.
Best, Mike.

Posted by: JackNH | February 19, 2009 10:09 AM

Dillon is right. Philly airport is the worst in the nation. If you can even get there from Tweed-- those prop lanes won't fly in bad weather. I stopped using Tweed years ago. Close it down, put all the state's marbles into Bradley. It's the best we can hope for.

Posted by: robn | February 19, 2009 10:50 AM

How about a high speed rail from Union Station to Bradley right up the median divider of I-91? No eminent domain, local service during rush hour to take commuting burden off of highway. Profit sharing agreement with Windsor Locks - Bradley Airport and other stakeholders in exchange for shutting Tweed down and supporting the rail connection. City sells Tweed real estate for immediate profit and long term tax base renewal.
Doesn't this make sense?

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | February 19, 2009 11:57 AM

Jacknh
The delays at Tweed are caused by problems in Philadelphia nine times out of ten, so we need to address that. I don't see that as a reason to close Tweed though.

Streever
The Appropriations Committee held lengthy, important, detailed hearings on Gov. Rell's cuts to human services at the same time Transportation met. Those cuts will hurt New Haven people and programs and are important. Judiciary was meeting as well. That's only two, and there are more.
I did stop by the Transportation hearing but do not sit on the committee so listened from the back.
And I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they had to leave for a vote elsewhere. Your comment, in my view, is harsh.

Posted by: The Count | February 19, 2009 3:41 PM

How curious that the Tweed's funding requests should be challenged by the man who has fought Tweed for the past 20-plus years. The same man who is pushing for a Shore Line East station in his town.
Question, Mr. Lawlor: How many jobs will a completed Shore Line East station provide? How many out of state businesses will locate in East Haven because of that station's presence? How do you propose an East Haven-Springfield route when the trains must come to New Haven first? How much tax revenue to the town will your Shore Line East station generate? And how many people do you expect to use it? I recall then-mayor Bob Norman had the same plan in his administration. When he submitted his proposal to the state DOT, here was their response: "An East Haven train station will attract only flies, as it is too close to New Haven." Little has changed since then. Tweed-New Haven can be a great little airport if only people the likes of Mr. Lawlor and State Rep. Fasano would get on board. The fact is, East Haven has challenged EVERY attempt by Tweed to improve its lot as "expansion," even attempting to extract tax money from the on-site crash/fire/rescue station. That attempt cost East Haven $100,000 in legal fees and failed miserably.
If Tweed's detractors want the airport closed, then let them lobby for Section 8 housing to be built on the site so EVERYONE can enjoy the East Shore's "quality of life." Any takers?

Posted by: anon | February 19, 2009 4:49 PM

Tweed is the closest airport for 2-3 million people. The entire town of East Haven should be bulldozed in order to expand it into an airport worthy of a metro area the size of Southern CT.

Save the few historic houses left in that town and incorporate them into the new terminal building.

Pay the homeowners a nice relocation fee and they can move to Branford, where they'll be within an easy commute distance of the tens of thousands of new jobs that an expansion of Tweed would create almost immediately.

Is the state really so short-sighted not to fund Tweed so it can continue to operate, and not to try to expand it?

Posted by: Streever | February 19, 2009 6:34 PM

Rep. Dillon,

Why schedule so many important things for the same time?

My commentary may be harsh on this, but I believe it's fair. It's hard for me to understand why our local Reps were not present for the Mayor of their City to testify on an issue which concerns their City.

If we're going to send delegations to the Capitol we'd like to know that the people we voted in are there to hear them. That's all. I appreciate that you all have lots of other issues to attend to but am unhappy that schedules could not be opened up to hear a delegation from your City.

Posted by: ParkStTaxPayer | February 19, 2009 6:52 PM

Anon-

I hope for the sakes of the people who have saved ALL their lives to live on the beach in East Haven (my parents are two of those people), your callous suggestion isn't heeded.

Expanding a venture that is so clearly not making money, or that cannot compete with JFK or BDL is just plain silly.

I think relocating the Police Department in favor of using that area for parking is a better idea in terms of cost. All those metered spaces out front now occupied by non-paying patrol cars would be generating revenue (and parking ticket money). Convert the structure into parking garage, and there you go. Expand the railroad, more trains to NYC, Boston, Hartford, and build a line to BDL, and you'll not only see fewer cars on the highway, but also greater use of the major hubs already in existence.

Tweed's days are numbered. If it can't compete (think GM, Chrysler, Ford and their lack of interest in hybrids) then it should be allowed to fail.

It'd be nice to enjoy an evening meal without an airplane screaming overhead too.

Posted by: Tweedsupporter | February 20, 2009 11:46 AM

ParkStTaxPayer

Tweed will be viable when the runway safety zone is completed. Airlines could not make money on such a short runway. Tweed is the most underutilized airport in the Country and given the safety zone it will thrive

The State needs to support the Airport for the entire New haven region and the citizens of East Haven should not stymie the growth by being so shortsided. The politicians of the State should not be afraid to support the facility.

5 airlines and 100 passengers a year is not a dream but a reality in the short term.

Posted by: anon | February 20, 2009 4:02 PM

I agree with Tweed Supporter. Once the runway is completed next year, the airport will be an attractive place for many more airlines. Passenger traffic will easily increase to where it was about a decade ago, e.g., well over 100K per year.

That said, the airport should be expanded even further than what is currently planned.

Posted by: Streever | February 24, 2009 3:07 PM

Sorry Rep. Dillon: I've just learned the Mayor, was not here to speak on this issue, but was merely popping his head in to say hello to some of the employees there. His name was not submitted for testimony nor was he on the list of speakers. Apologies. I based my comment on the article.