Tweed Proposal Flies Out Of Committee

Runway 14/32 HAS BEEN CLOSED for some time now; at least since 2015. NOT a gesture of good faith.

Let's be clear too -- the removal of all language about the limits of the runway length (currently set into law at 5,600 feet) in this bill -- means that Tweed Airport will not stop at 6,000 feet. The Tweed master plan calls for 7,200 feet.

Officially closing 14-32 is opposed by professional pilots, pilot orgs, and Tweed's own tenants Robinson Aviation, as well as Tweed expansion fans TweedFacts (though 14-32 has been closed for all practical purposes for years). The solar plan is objected to by the OCC and conflicts with other bills that are currently being discussed in the Energy and Technology Committee. Add all of that testimony against the raised bill to the pile of filed opposition by neighbors, and it makes zero sense that this bill has progressed to the House of Representatives.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmyBillAllComm.asp?bill=HB-05537&doc_year=2018

Democracy at work.

Broken Faith Notes:

Noteworthy, what does having tens of thousands of visitors who fly here on American each year, enabling our city's hotels, restaurants, caterers, and businesses to stay in operation and other ordinary people to visit their family members, have to do with "luxury travel"?

Since Connecticut isn't going to be spending $5 billion anytime soon to create a reasonable mass transit option to Bradley, and NYC is probably never going to have high speed rail from the suburbs to its airports, allowing this airport to pave safety areas so that it can continue to have a few flights each day is a no-brainer.

Quick reality check - This is ostensibly a bill about solar energy in municipal airports (plural). The testimony in support is about the expansion of Tweed's commercial runway. All of the arguments are about a one-liner snuck into the bill about Tweed's (and only Tweed's) runway length.

Why the deception? Does anyone wonder why Cove residents react badly to City Hall? They only mention us when they're sneaking plans behind our backs. Harp is clearly afraid of community meetings after the last round didn't go her way.

Our politicians are snakes in the grass. I own snakes and that's not fair to them.

Hey here's a compromise Don't break the promise you made with the Indians (for a change) and break this dumb promise with some good ol' Americans.

@anonymous There's nothing in the bill limiting runway expansion to the safety areas. Which, if you know about the past few years of small plane crashes at Tweed, are not something to dismiss callously.

BDL may not be the solution. But pretending that an hourly shuttle would cost $5 billion is quite a stretch.

Tweed, in best case scenario, has four hubs to connect to and none overseas. Let's not overstate the potential economic impact... There was an economic impact study in 2011 and it barely mentioned anything but an increase in low-pay, part-time jobs.

It's pretty patronizing for political elites to seed the discussion with suggestions that locals who oppose the expansion "knew they were buying a house near an airport" and therefore shouldn't mind disturbance. Fact is, neighbors bought houses next to a provincial and relatively quiet airport. Their opposition is valid.

@ Sean O'Brien, quote, " There's nothing in the bill limiting runway expansion to the safety areas."
First there would be no need to expand the runway beyond the safety areas as the current plan which stays within the airports boundaries would be sufficient to meet the needs of the airlines that would add new service.
Second, Tweed will never have international flights so no need for longer runways and besides, JFK airport provides the best selection of international flights in the area.
Third, the current planned runway upgrade would bring Tweed to the level of the White Plains airport and that airport enjoys service to hub airports such as Atlanta,Chicago,Charlotte,Washington Reagan and several flights to Florida cities. There would be no incentive or benefit to extend the runway beyond what is planned.
Tweed will never be a very large airport but it certainly can support more than the three flights to Philadelphia. Did cove residents think Tweed would stay stuck in time forever, over the years area roads and highways have been widened and more people are flying than ever before. The complexion of the local area will not change drastically as some fear but area residents will be able to have a close by airport that will eliminate the trek to New York or almost up to Massachusetts.
Its almost childish to hear, "You broke your promise" as if situations never change. Almost any project has to deal with changes,cost overruns,material substitutions,obtaining additional land,revised building plans,etc.Tweed tried to get new service but the airlines have said they more runway and without more runway,service will be limited to the 3 flights to Philly.
There needs to be reasonableness on all sides, the runway project is not one that will require the closing streets and the massive taking of land, but it will stay within the airports boundaries.
Stop and think of the jobs that will be created and air travel will be stress free at a nearby airport.

Remember when Lemsr used to worry about plastic bags, beads and windmills. At least his concern was more genuine then - now he's a solar dude dressed like a tool of the emission producing, carbon footprint increasing elites. Sneaky is as sneaky does.watch Lemar run on " transparency."

As for tourism - lol - really? The food trucks? Q nridge or the Farmington trail? At best they come here for Yale and Yale New Haven Hospital and last time I checked, there wasn't an attendance problem.

@Noteworthy
Spot on as usual, I love you, too funny.

Who remembers when Roland used to fight for much needed chicken coop reform!
He managed to push that controversial piece of legislation thru the BOA.
IMO, That was his best & most important work to date.

@robn, quote "neighbors bought houses next to a provincial and relatively quiet airport." What a quaint way to paint a commercial airport. Do residents think that Tweed is locked in the past and has no chance for improvement? Every other commercial airport over the years has grown, improved runways, new terminals, an increase in the number of flights and yet a few want to deny Tweed the chance to upgrade its facilities and be a true regional airport for area residents.
I have noticed those opposed are painting an inaccurate picture of the runway project.1. That it will cause flooding in the area around the airport. Not true.Tweed occupies a very small piece of land and the the runway project will affect an even smaller piece of land that will have no effect on flooding. 2. It will result in an increase in respiratory problems. Not true.Today's regional jets are equipped with cleaner engines than those of the past and Tweed will never have a constant flow of airliners landing and taking off. 3. As far as noise is concerned, newer airliners are quieter and have a smaller ground noise footprint. The average noise time window for takeoffs and landings is about 20-30 seconds. There is more noise from motorcycles and diesel pickups.
Some still don't get the concept of paving portions of the runway overruns. After paving, the overruns will remain as such meaning landing planes cannot touchdown on the overruns and this means there is not 7200 feet of usable runway for landings but it will be 6100 feet for runway 2 landings and 6250 feet for runway 20 landings. However, this will remove the last impediment for increased service as the runway is the only issue left that needs upgrading.
I see some topics regarding other issues that I might have an interest in, but I refrain from posting my opinion because of my lack knowledge on the subject, it might be a good idea to fact check before we post. I see many posts that are outright wrong regarding Tweed. Too sad.

@steve
"Do residents think that Tweed is locked in the past and has no chance for improvement?" No, we think Tweed should honor its agreement with its neighbors.
"Every other commercial airport over the years has grown." No, many regional airports have closed due to changing air traffic demands.
"Tweed occupies a very small piece of land and the runway project will affect an even smaller piece of land that will have no effect on flooding." The referenced flooding is storm surge flooding during superstorms & hurricanes. Tweed is at the bottom of a coastal floodplain. Wetlands mitigate this. More paving reduces this mitigation. Check out the Cosey Beach devastation and the Pardee Seawall Park restoration.
"Today's regional jets are equipped with cleaner engines than those of the past and Tweed will never have a constant flow of airliners landing and taking off." New Haven has major asthma rates. We know a lot more about the impact of AVGAS than we used to. Paving allows for the possibility of more airlines, hence more air pollution.
"After paving, the overruns will remain as such meaning landing planes cannot touchdown on the overruns and this means there is not 7200 feet of usable runway for landings but it will be 6100 feet for runway 2 landings and 6250 feet for runway 20 landings." There are 2 more phases in Tweed's master plan: 1. extend the runway to 6,100 feet. 2. Extend the runway to 7,200 feet.
"This will remove the last impediment for increased service as the runway is the only issue left that needs upgrading." Review the Tweed Master Plan before you get complacent. Tweed has decades of expansion, paving, fencing, land grabs, mature tree removals, and major public funding drains in its history.

@RHeerema, Quote,"New Haven has major asthma rates".So do other New England cities and in New Haven,I-95 & I-91 are major Polluters. Not Tweed with its small operation.
Quote "Tweed is at the bottom of a coastal floodplain. Wetlands mitigate this". Tweeds present overruns are grassy areas, not wetlands. Paving them will not reduce wetlands.Reread," there is not 7200 feet of usable runway for landings but it will be 6100 feet for runway 2 landings and 6250 feet for runway 20 landings." Again,aircraft will not be able to land on paved overruns.
Quote,"many regional airports have closed due to changing air traffic demands". Not True. Some have lost airline service but are still in operation. Tweed is doing very well with the flights to Philly, but more service is needed.
Quote "Tweed has decades of expansion, paving". Not true. Runway 2-20 has been the same length since 1967 and no expansion has taken place. There has been a new terminal and a fire station,all on airport property.
Quote "No, we think Tweed should honor its agreement with its neighbors." No one talks about the other parts of the 2009 MOA, having up to 6 airlines and a limit of 30 daily flights. The present runway will not permit those portions of the MOA to happen. Its not too hard to see that the MOA was flawed and needs to be corrected.
Your distaste for the airport is very apparent by your unfounded claims but your wording veils your lack of knowledge on the subject. You have chosen to oppose Tweed when in reality it is not the harbinger of death you try to portray. Tweed can support more service but will not become a large operation and it would go a long way to make travel easier for area flyers, add jobs, increase patronage at area businesses, keep travelers money in the local area and end the dependence on Bradley.
Tweed will not go away as some hope it will, but with the runway upgrade it would be less dependent on public funding and be a true regional airport for the Metro New Haven area.

@RHeerema,I missed 2 other points of misinformation on your post. Quote,"fencing, land grabs". All commercial airports are fenced in, its a security issue required by the FAA and the TSA. Tweed sold land to East Haven for its industrial park some years ago and the airport has remained about the same size it has been for years.
To show how far some airport haters would go, there was opposition to both an on airport fire station and the instrument landing system, both safety issues that were not expansion issues, but would enhance safety for all users of the airport.
What some do not realize that the major portion of Tweed's daily operations are private and charter flights and these will always be the major part of Tweed's traffic. All upgrades to the airport increase the safety margin for all types of aircraft.
I could point out many small airports that co-exist with the community and offer a good number of flights to hub airports and there is nowhere near the ruckus that exists regarding Tweed. It seems to be in fashion to protest every type activity today with marches, sit-ins, blocking traffic, signing petitions, vandalism, etc. While it may seem to be noble to some, look at the effects or should I say the no effects that have resulted. In my lifetime I have seen many, many protests but conditions in all areas of life are decaying, not improving. Its been my experience that the greater good can realized by people helping people on a local level.
Tweed is not your major problem, look around the city, the state, the country, and the world, an airport looking to upgrade its facilities is not the threat some make it to be. In the past some misinformed folks have said larger planes would cause the runway to sink into the ground, that larger planes are louder, and years ago that Tweed wanted to bring in 747's. All the products of overactive imaginations coupled with no knowledge of the subject. And yet some believe these outrageous musings. So sad.