Airport Benefits and Costs
Cross-posted from TalkRadio101 Forum…
I wrote the op-ed that started the discussion on the Feb 1 show, and I appreciate the response. Listeners should understand that I am (or was) an airport professional and I have no axe to grind about growth or economic development. That said, the claims about stimulation expected from moving this modest airport with declining traffic are almost hysterical. FAA is funded to enhance and operate the national aviation system, not to build speculative infrastructure that may improve local prospects. Can you imagine how far the Aviation Trust Fund will go if it becomes a “honeypot” for every Chamber of Commerce in the country?
Building a new airport for Northwest Florida is much more an aspiration of local and state interests than a need of the national aviation system. It will no longer be the Panama City airport - THAT airport will be plowed under for less money than it takes to grade the new site (and that’s another story - we could have two airports if this is handled right). FAA’s benefit-cost test is a hurdle the airport must clear to obtain federal funds that are reserved for adding capacity (more flights, not runway length) - one of those “silly rules” in place to ensure the trust fund has resources to address the choke-points of the national system, and to protect the trust fund from abuse.
FAA must use a conservative method to screen hype from documented prospects. I have always approached big choices with this philosophy: “The facts are friendly.” It is also helpful if the facts are in writing - I think you will agree if you have ever signed a contract. The consultants on a big project are always torn between dealing in facts and saying what their client wants to hear. National aviation consultants also have to preserve their credibility with FAA because their future business depends on credibility. Thus, the case they develop to claim huge grants is often much different from what local boosters believe or yearn for. Consultants will spin the facts as much as possible for their client but they cannot just fabricate a case.
My article was a commentary on whether the study made its case for certain federal funds - NOT on the merit of the local aspirations. It is a STONE FACT that this project will cost hundreds of millions and destroy significant environmental resources UP FRONT, and an interesting SPECULATION that it will improve local prospects. Its a shame that it took six years and $40 Million to narrow the discussion from overblown political ads about “safety” and “jobs” to whether this project adds enough aviation value to offset its considerable cost.