The Place Where Ludington Talks
Mason County Airport
Views: 747
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eve Alone on
-
Wow. Transient docks for the city, transient runways for the county. Never heard of it, will pass it on.
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
Yours is the first I heard about it, RJE, but I uncovered a bit about these projects that have flown under the radar.
First off, I could find nothing in the archives of the Ludington Daily News about this, even though this project (I later found out) has been bandied about by the County in several commissioner meetings this year. In fact, the minutes of these meetings is about the only public mention of these I could find. Here's a brief chronology of this/these project(s):
Feb. 8, 2010: A previously unheard of "taxiway project" is mentioned when a wetlands permit is got.
April meeting: The taxiway project is further discussed, and the funding percentages are discussed. Almost all Federal dollars to be spent. Great, people in Idaho, downtown Manhattan, Honolulu, et. al. are going to be paying the lions share of this project. I'm sure we'll help them with their foolish projects too.
There's the cost, nearly one million dollars. These are all tax dollars to construct something that has not been shown to have a purpose. You think spending $2.5 million to rebuild the Washington Avenue bridge is insane, at least that has some traffic on it. Will this new taxiway have any use, or just be a runway-to-nowhere, draining energy by its need for lighting, and having to be cleared and maintained throughout the seasons. But also at that meeting:
Note that underground watermains are scheduled to be installed also at the airport in the middle of these three other places in that meeting. They were telling the truth (sort of) when they told you they were installing this stuff, Willie, they just didn't tell you what all was happening.
Why has this been so secretively done? Because it is such a waste of resources, and a big investment of taxes into a project that has no reason for being? Let's find out. I will release more later today about this.
-
-
P.S. Thanks for bringing this to public attention, Willie, noone else I talked with knew anything about it, and we're not ostriches.
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa O'Brien on
-
I personally think it's great they are expanding the airport. Hopefully they are anticipating a need - it's better to be proactive than reactive. I would love for this airport and the one in Manistee to grow . I could work with them on getting a great parking and revenue system with a top notch maintenance agreement.
-
-
Why hasn't the County and its herald, the Ludington Daily Newbs, brought it to the attention of the people that it will be such a great thing then, Lisa?
I would assume that even County Hallers know that this project is just a waste, and that the people around here would look at the scarcity of actual flights at the airport, and the realistic potential of the future, and be upset that Federal Hallers are wasting tax money so freely to put in a taxi way.
A business that operates on the profit motive would not consider this project without some justification that it would pay off soon. You might have a rosy outlook for the future, Lisa, but I don't see our air traffic around here burgeoning anytime soon to need it, and until then, it only drains more money to maintain, repair, and illuminate it.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on
-
It would be one thing if this project was needed but being that the airport is far from being a hub for pretty much any airline, I don't see where this will do any good for anyone. While it might be nice to put a few people to work for a short amount of time, the cost to put them to work I suspect will probably be some where along the lines of $50,000 or so per job.... which of course the actual worker will only make a small percentage of that over the course of the job.
-
-
I'm still going to keep my fingers crossed. For an airport to be effective it doesn't need to be a major hub.
-
-
Dave, the taxiway is being installed for safety and congestion reasons. In the current layout, aircraft are required to "back-taxi" or taxi on the intended departure runway. During the busy summer months, aircraft arriving in Ludington have to circle the airport and wait for the taxing aircraft to clear the runway, or the aircraft on the ground have to wait for the arriving aircraft to land. Adding the taxiway will enable simultaneous taxing and departures/arrivals. Also, its for safety, much the same as previously stated, and stringent FAA regulations are boosting safety at airports.
Secondly, although the jobs may be temporary, at least they're working, and have stopped drawing unemployment benefits. I'd rather see my tax dollars pay for safety and providing jobs to people, compared to people getting my money to sit at home...
Sources:
FAA, I have pilots in my family (who use the airport), and I'm studying Air Traffic Control.
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on
-
Nick
It rarely happens that 2 planes need to use the runway at the same time even in the summer. Check the airport sometime in the middle of the summer and you might see 2 or three planes parked outside the terminal. Not exactly a candidate for taxi runway. That money came from the tax payers who have nothing to say about how it is spent. I would rather see my tax dollars stay in my wallet.
-
-
Yes, its a rarity, but there are times when two or more planes do, and when they do, safety is a big concern, especially because there is no ATC to coordinate ground movement and look out for pilots. Actually very little tax dollars are coming out of your pocket to pay for this project. There is extra taxes placed on aviation fuel to fund airport development, if you check the latest prices, it's well above $5/gallon ($5.69 as of Nov. 1). Plus, the revenue generated from the pilots using the airport (landing fee, tie-down fee, fuel) and our businesses (motels, food, transportation) are dumped directly into the local economy. This more than makes up for the amount paid by tax payers (which is very little).
-
-
Do you think the fees, taxes, ect. are not figured into the cost of doing business and are not passed on to the public. Whenever fuel increases, or fees and taxes are raised or imposed by Government on business, those costs are passed on to the public. We pay them. Every penny spent on that wasteful taxi/runway comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. It is this kind of wasteful spending that is bankrupting us.
-
-
The fees imposed on aviation fuel, parking, and storage are used to fund airport development. Those fees are only imposed on those who use the airport. The public is not held to those fees. Only a small portion of your tax money is used to help cut down the overall cost. The majority is used on other projects throughout the city. Improving transportation factors is a key factor in adding stability to frail economy, especially in an small tourist town like Ludington. Adding a taxiway will increase safety, increase air traffic, and bring more people to Ludington. If you're concerned about your tax money going to the right people, I suggest you start lobbying the government to cut the savings tax. Lowering the savings tax will stimulate growth since more savings = more capital formation. Lower taxes on savings will result in faster economic growth, less lay-offs, fewer bankruptcies, fewer financial crises, and even fewer recessions. What does this mean for the tax payers? lower taxes, cities will be able to make money off the economy, instead of its citizens, and ultimately put more money in your pocket.
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
