For those that would like to have input on what reuse plan takes place at the Navy Base

An Email from Rich Dougherty (former township council member, local business owner and still policically inclined) as well as a response from me……….

All:

For those that would like to have input on what reuse plan takes place at the Navy Base, it is VERY important to show up and participate at the next few HLRA (Horsham Land Reuse Authority) meetings. The next meeting is Wed, April 20th at the Community center behind the township building. There will only be a few meetings that will determine the eventual outcome so we need to make sure we participate.

For those that are not familiar with what is happening, there are two formidable groups (Montgomery County and Buck County Airport Authority) that have submitted official requests (NOI’s) to continue using the airport which creates a real threat to Horsham. Horsham Township govt. is doing everything in their power to prevent this but community input is extremely important to the redevelopment process. To help prevent an airport from happening in our township, we need as many people to come out and tell the HLRA at least what we do not want at the Base.

http://www.hlra.org/news/article.aspx?aid=70

Please forward to anyone who you feel should be made aware of what is taking place. We need help spreading the word.

Best Regards,

Richard Dougherty

President

LABREPCO

Many Companies • One Solution

101 Witmer Road, Suite 700

Horsham, PA 19044

Phone: 1-800-521-0754, ext. 113

Fax: 215-442-9202

rich.dougherty@labrepco.com

“Partnering With You For The Advancement of Science”

http://www.labrepco.com

************************* And I say********************
Rich, I understand your concern with a general purpose commercial airport. What about the possibility of having an airport that housed some kind of a hi tech industry or an industry that possibly would refit a large aircraft for military duty, or science. It could be a service facility for aircraft or another aviation industry that does not have multiple daily flight operations (take off and landing). The aircraft would be brought in and possibly be there for a week or even months while it is being repaired or refit for a new purpose. The engineers, technicians and other personnel that are employed would pay taxes in the area, along with the support industries, which would further expand employment and the tax base. These are some aspects for consideration.

It would be a shame if the runway were to be destroyed since an infrastructure like that can’t be duplicated in the area again. The possibility of an air strip being there to invite industries that will create jobs and tax revenues can not be ignored. Mixed uses at the facility might just be the answer. Many of the residents are up in arms about the loss of $750,000 in tax revenue. I’m sure that you have heard that the American Le Mans Series (IMSA) has approached the powers that be to pay over a million dollars to use the facility once a year for two weeks. This one event alone solves the tax issues without even considering the dollars to be injected to the local economy from the people that would come to such an event. Sebring, Florida and Long Beach, California have the same racing events every year. Thos two towns are certainly not low rent districts, as well as co existing with aviation related industries. There are aviation related industries associated with those air strips (also abandoned military installations) that utilize the runway with limited flight operations.

The notion that an airstrip, just being there, means that it has to be used for any and every purpose for aircraft is nothing more that a slanting of the truth. If a runway can be legislated out of existence then it can certainly be kept to a standard that is acceptable to the community and used as an asset to the community.

What is the threat of having a runway that is not a commercial aviation airport?

This entry was posted in Concerns. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to For those that would like to have input on what reuse plan takes place at the Navy Base

  1. Mike says:

    Is this site sponsored by the military? It sure looks that way from the images at the top of every page.

  2. Joe says:

    Nope it is NOT a military sponsored site. Privately sponsored

  3. Hatboro Mike says:

    Any reuse plan that allows the runway to exist in its current state will at some point in time invite and encourage expanded use by large aircraft that fit the runways capabilities. No one can guarantee what the future would hold in a region where air traffic is already extremely high and major airports like Philadelphia International are increasing their size in an attempt to handle the load. Where will these commercial users look once PHL becomes even busier?!?

  4. Bill Lipp says:

    @Mike – The bogeyman that NAS WG would become another Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) has no basis in reality. A local airport would be realistically be home to one, MAYBE two airlines with a max of perhaps eight gates. By comparison, PHL has 126 gates….our local airport wouldn’t even have half as many gates as one terminal at PHL. Traffic: PHL had approximately 460,000 takeoffs and landings last year (over 1,000 per day). The max that NAS WG would have would be about 8,000 per year or 20 per day. One A-10 in training would do 20 touch and go’s…which was much noisier than a regular landing. We have to look at this reuse through the prism of this airport becoming something like Lehigh Valley International Airport (LVIA). Add to that the companies that would expand their presence in Eastern Montco/Western Bucks due to the availability of nearby, no-hassle air transportation and we’re looking at an economic engine that would be virtually impossible to duplicate in any other way. What would this mean? For area residents, hassle-free travel (LVIA, two minute walk from parking to security, two minutes to go through security and you’re at your gate); a bigger employment pool offering greater work and career opportunities, and lower property taxes as companies move into the areas to benefit from the transportation availability, paying property and payroll taxes for their business and employees.

    A commercial airport at NAS WG would offer a LVIA-type transportation alternative (I WANT to be able to leave my home twenty minutes before a flight and still make it!) as well as outstanding opportunities from an economic standpoint….much more so than it did operating as NAS WG and without the noise level that NAS WG generated while it operated.

    Folks, let’s drop the NIMBY aspect of this and look at it as the once in a lifetime opportunity that it is. We don’t need another shopping center or residential development (which would further tax the resources of area school systems) and we don’t need more green space which requires local or county resources to maintain and provides no tax revenue nor employment opportunities.

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      a) I never said it would turn into PHL, just that Willow Grove – with an 8000 ft runway – would remain a possible site for relieving the “pressure” at one of the busiest airports in the country. Doubt you could convince me that possibility would remain given the fact that PHL is currently adding a runway and executing eminent domain rights to relieve that same “pressure”.
      b) I’ll take – and never had a single issue – with an A-10 performing touch ‘n gos at the air station over the potential for continuous or partial commercial operations. For people who criticize those for not wanting an airport when we have lived with an naval air station all this time are being disingenuous. We KNEW what we had with NAS Willow Grove. There is no telling where we’d end up once the airport genie is let out of the bottle.
      c) I can appreciate YOUR DESIRE to hop an a plane 20-minutes after leaving your house (although you leave no time for a TSA “happy ending”). My desire is to not have to listen to constant air traffic from my house, or to deal with the increased traffic and all its associated problems and requirements, or to see my real estate values (Funny that no one on the airport side wants to touch this issue with a 10-foot pole.) decline, because no one with a young family wants to live near a commercial airport. I could go on here.
      d) NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) is ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT of every Horsham resident! Nobody else in the region, who purports to benefit from an airport in OUR BACKYARD, is going to give a crap about Horsham quality-of-life or $0.02 towards relieving whatever problems, added costs, etc. that results once any decision is made to turn that facility into an airport. NIMBY is the PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE attitude for us in Horsham to have, especially those of us who live in closest proximity to the base.
      e) Frankly, I’d even PREFER added residential areas or even a shopping center – if it came to that. At least those potential developments would be literally “under the radar”, closed-ended, and predictably maintained.

      In other words, I have no confidence that anyone can accurately predict where would end up should an airport concept for the JRB actually see the light of day. BTW … If you already have LVIA, why is another one in Horsham truly necessary??

      • Hatboro Mike says:

        a) above should read “Doubt you could convince me that possibility would NOT remain given the fact that PHL is currently adding a runway and executing eminent domain rights to relieve that same “pressure”.”

  5. David says:

    Hatboro Mike,
    a) Your concerns are understandable however there are many technical and social reasons that your concerns are not a concern to me. For instance, Willow Grove is too close to Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark etc. There is already a major lack of airspace issue with large commercial planes and adding another airport so close is far worse than expanding Philadelphia. Given that Northeast Philly, Trenton, and Wilmington have trouble attracting commercial carriers, this concern is a non-issue. Horsham could and should be part of the airport board that decides what to do with the airport, including applying for FAA approval to conduct commercially flights. Another of the many reasons is that some of the airport supporters are pilots because pilots are familiar with airports and the benefits they can provide to the community however these same pilots do not want more controlled airspace and therefor would fight any idea of that happening at Willow Grove. The idea is to use it to attract taxpaying businesses and to keep it available for use during regional emergencies. Regarding Eminent domain, that is Philadelphia doing that, in the case of an airport in Horsham, Montgomery County and Horsham would have to decide to do it, which is extremely unlikely and certainly would not affect you in Hatboro.
    B) Again, your concern is understandable however any future use of Willow Grove airport (short of military jets) will be far better than what was there before. At most, there would be a similar level of operations to the last few years of base use, with smaller and quieter aircraft. In fact, electric aircraft are just now being developed and many of the smaller aircraft in the future could very well be electric, at least for takeoff and landing. That will make the aircraft even quieter. No, pro-airport people are not disingenuous since local residents DO have a say in the airport use. Most airports are opposed by a very few number of people, otherwise towns would have shut most of them down a long time ago. Instead, they close because a developer wants to make money building houses and they convince the town officials to support it. In the case of Marlboro airport in NJ, the Mayor and developer went to jail for bribes and the town is upset that they lost the airport. Bucks County residents (non pilots that live next to the airport) did not want to lose the airport land to housing and insisted that it become an “airport” park, which it became. The alternative was far worse than the airport and residents recognized that the airport was not hurting their property values and had been there when they moved in.
    C) Housing prices will not “decline” unless you have seen a “jump” in value since the base closed. If anything, the reduced noise and safety concerns of a civil airport would make your house go up in value compared to when you bought, however, the fact is the airport noise has minimal impact on property values. That will be an unhappy revelation if the airport is blocked since I suspect there are people counting on their home values going up since they were “smart” enough to buy a “cheap” home by an airport and “created value” by shutting it down.
    D) I hope you don’t use Philly International to fly anywhere and you don’t use electricity from local power plants because they are far far far worse for the residents to live near. An airport in Horsham will attract business that will in turn attract residents that will need houses and therefor increase home values. The no airport option will allow major housing development that with change the supply/demand ratio and likely depress housing prices in the short term.

  6. Hatboro Mike says:

    a) I do live in Hrosham, the Hatboro thing is a zipcode issue. And it sounds better than Horsham Mike. I know next to nothing about flying and commercial aviation, other than not carrying a nail clipper in my carry-on and wearing loose clothing for my TSA rubdown.

    However, from what I know about the New York area and its triumvirate of major airports in that airspace (Laguardia, JFK, and Newark), I don’t totally buy the “too crowded for another major airport” theory. I also am suspicious of my understanding that the current PHL expansion is THE LAST ONE that can be accomodated there. So where do they go next? I don’t think you or I know that answer. And even if it’s “only” commuter air services that might end up here, it’s too much in my opinion.

    You fellow pilots may not want more controlled airspace; but exactly how much control do you have over that?

    b) I can see your argument when it comes to a small muni airport like I imagine Marlboro was, but all I see is (one of?) the longest runway on the East Coast, just begging at some point for larger aircraft, flying in more frequently. I have severe doubts that the level of activity will be on the same level as the airbase over the past 10 years. (I’m not sure which Bucks airport you’re referring to. Did it have an 8000 ft runway?)

    As I have mentioned here a few times already, no one can preclude the possibility that bigger, more active air operations could end up at Willow Grove at some point in the future, regardless of whether Horsham residents or private pilots (wanting unrestricted airspace) agree with it or not. In my opinion, I don’t see how you run an “airpark” that size, off of whatever fees private and corporate flyers might pay, without bringing in much bigger and active users.

    And my understanding is that FAA money comes with its own requirements for operations and accessibility that might preclude the image of a small, sleepy municipal airport.

    c) and d) I have no doubt you might be right, given the vision you have of an “airpark” now; but I plan to live here for a few more decades, and I am more concerned about the long-term prospects of having that large a runway existing so close to my house. And no, I never had a problem with the military using it, even with full afterburners on. That kind of activity was infrequent with the exception of airshow weekends, which I actually found interesting. I just don’t want to take the chance of that becoming an everyday reality however.

    I’m more interested in keeping things as they are now. So I concern myself less with the business development potential. Just keep my taxes where they are now, lower if you can from limited development of the JRB property, and cover the costs of maintaining and infrastructure for whatever ends up going in there. I find that much more predictable and less threatening than a “Welcome” mat at the business end of an 8000 ft runway.

  7. David says:

    Wings airport would meet the need if the runway could be further extended however that is unlikely due to the lack of a large runway buffer like Willow Grove has. That means only the very smallest business jets can land there. Other airports have similar issues or are so far from civilization that they are not reasonable alternatives to Philidelphia airport. I suppose you have a point that no one can 100% say that Willow Grove will not be expanded to accomodate airliners but my humble opinion is that there is no chance that Horsham and Montgomery County would condem the hundreds of acres on and off the base that would be required along with the businesses and houses and Roads (611, Horsham Rd. Maple Ave. etc.) that sit on that acreage. Can you imagine the number of lawsuits that would be filed? You are right that the Base land is currently not big enough for commercial airliners or cargo planes. Keep in mind that in the case of Philadelphia International, it is Philadephia condeming homes in Essington which is in Delaware County. That is a really extreme case that is not going to happen given that Horsham and Montco would be on the Horsham Airport Board and have a say in what happens. You could be on that board. Pretty much everyone would stand in opposition (myself included) to the eventuality you are worried about and I would not expect any politician would support it.

  8. Hatboro Mike says:

    I think that’s part of the reason for Horsham Council moving out post haste to re-zone the areas around the airbase. Just another obstacle for any future attempts to put something bigger – air services wise – at the airbase.

  9. David says:

    Fair enough, but why not put the onus on the NOI submitters by asking them to answer that concern? Maybe the Township Council has asked? http://horsham.patch.com/articles/traffic-signalization-project-moves-forward
    If not, they should.

    Also, in order to make the base any kind of useful commercial airliner airport, Horsham would have to expand the zoned area to accomodate the second runway that would have to be built so Horsham would have the option to choose not to do that at that time. Personally, I view the chances to be so exceedingly unlikely that for all intents and purposes it is a non-issue. On the other hand, if the land does not remain an airport, the future potential uses of the land by an interested private or public enterprise and the pitfalls and controversy that use might bring are not currently known to us.

  10. USMCVETERAN99 says:

    You all have some pretty valid points. I personally love planes, airports and the noise they make. My answer to those who live there now that don’t want more planes flying in,…..MOVE!! I’ll gladly buy your house. You should’t be complaining about a free choice you made live near a military base. You could have settled your family anywhere, but you chose this spot why? For this land, I offer you…More jobs = lower unemployement. More business = less taxes. Both seem like a + to me.

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      There’s a BIG difference between choosing to live near an airbase that was at it’s busiest no more active than a small muni airport. It’s quite another to allow an open-ended civilian airport development at the same locale.

      And you can get “more jobs = lower unemployment. More business = less taxes” without an airport being necessarily the best solution for EVERYONE involved.

  11. johnfrom horsham says:

    Reusing the base is a no brainer. As a corporate hub, it would not use township services,
    nor add more children to our schools. This would help lower our taxes while providing jobs. Somehow I think the powers to be in Horsham could care less as a certain political party has earmarked land for homes. Political contributions can almost assure this happening. Look at what happened at the Babylon golf course. Our illustrious council members voted to double the density for Cutler. Councilman Nesbit said doubling the density for the open space was a good deal. Be prepared for the same warped logic.

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      Careful there … Any development on the base in whatever form is going to require police and fire protection, water and sewage service, road maintenence, L&I compliances, etc. That comes from the municipality.

      Doubtful that any developer or other entity, even should they own the base in whole which is unlikely, wouldn;t be providing these services themselves.

  12. Brian says:

    After reading the article from the horsham.patch.com ,one has to feel Horsham has had a plan with land owners of the crash zones for years.Would it be proper to let building start on ground that has certain restrictions?If this happens before the HLRA and the residents make a decision from three plans RKG offers ;I think an investigation may take place!

  13. Pat says:

    The JRB is largely self-contained– it has it’s own functioning sewage treatment plant, power, sewers, fire and police stations. The 8000-ft runway would make it an exceptional opportunity for an aircraft retro-fit/repair facility where large aircraft would sit for extended periods of time while being serviced or upgraded. Such aircraft would rarely take-off and land and companies could make use of the existing facilities. I understand that there are also well-organized Le Mans style racing organizations that would pay serious money for using the base just once or twice a year, probably drawing crowds like the airshows used to (but with serious tax revenue!).
    To destroy that runway and build more houses or shopping centers would be an incredible waste of an asset that could never again be duplicated.

    • Mark Lawlor says:

      What makes you believe there’s a need for such an aircraft facility? Plus, what do you propose doing with the remaining land that this repair facility would not need? Further, there’s a lot of privately owned land in the crash zones that could not be developed under your proposal? Is this fair to the owners of this land if the aircraft facility is now a privately owned corporation? Should this company compensate these owners? Also, you mentioned “serious tax revenue” for a racing event. First, how would the base be suitable for racing in its current layout? Do you have any data on the tax revenue that could be generated from such an event? Perhaps the runway is really not an asset but an impediment to a better plan.

  14. stephaniefeld says:

    There seem to be a lot of people who would rather see commercial or housing development as opposed to an airport because they don’t want to deal with the noise from the airplanes. Personally I’d rather deal with a few dozen airplanes overhead every day, rather than the hundreds or thousands of extra cars and trucks on the roads that the other sorts of development would bring. Think about it; if you built two hundred houses that would bring in about four hundred additional cars, school buses etc. Similar extra traffic would result from commercial development. Let’s keep the traffic up in the air!

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      I’ll take ground traffic over air traffic.

      • Nicole from County Line says:

        I do not have a firm opinion as to which I would prefer but I can say that when we moved in over 15 years ago, ground traffic was nothing. Today it can take over 20 minutes for me to get from Rt 611 to my home just a little bit past Happy Tymes… The new condos which have been built and which are scheduled to be built soon have caused County Line to explode with traffic. Honestly, I can not see it taking much more. They have spoke of widening the road which would take away from our front lawn… air pollution is a thought but honestly after all of the horrible accidents I have seen and the time consuming traffic, detours and road closures I tend to think that the airport idea is way better… 20 planes or less taking off everyday is not unlike the traffic of the military planes which took off and landed everyday…. I do believe our house is in the crash zone and never once in 15 years have we had a plane come through our roof; yet I have had cars crushed and pinned in my driveway, on and in our trees, etc. I would opt for less car accidents, less traffic and travel time, easier access to my home and the same amount of air traffic that has always been since I have lived here.

      • Hatboro Mike says:

        Do you REALLY believe that such a large airport property can be supported with 15-20 flights a day?!?

        It would only be a mater of time before more and more air traffic, including commercial airflights for both people and cargo would be added.

        What do you think a commercial air operation will do to traffic congestion and safety on 611 and County Line Road then? Have you seen how large the traffic pattern has grown at Phily International??

        It would be but a matter of time …

  15. Bob says:

    Yeah
    Ground traffic does not crash through your roof and explode.

  16. Carolyn Steiert says:

    Don’t forget air pollution as well see From http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/airport_noise.htm “Living near an airport also means facing significant exposure to air pollution. Jack Saporito of the U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association (CAW), a coalition of concerned municipalities and advocacy groups, cites several studies linking pollutants common around airports–such as diesel exhaust, carbon monoxide and leaked chemicals–to cancer, asthma, liver damage, lung disease, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, and even depression”

  17. Carolyn Steiert says:

    As far as the Navy Base goes, we need to think outside the box. Instead of pleasing the wealthy few with their personal interests at the expense of questionable tax revenue for Horsham, the base could set the standards for the nation with renewable energy. This could lead to revenue for Horsham which will benefit the all residents. Why not consider getting state and federal aid to build a solar energy complex. See Solar Power At Former Norton Air Force Base at http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Solar_Power_At_Former_Norton_Air_Force_Base_999.html “The installation, including American-made solar panels, adds nearly 20 clean-tech jobs to the community, provides an annual savings of $90,000, and offsets the emission of 7,825 tons of pollutants over 25 years.”

    Germany will abandon nuclear energy by 2022 see The Intelligencer Tuesday May 31 2011 page A7. Germany already produces 30% of their electric from solar energy. Germany is the size of Montana and is the 4th largest economy in the world! How will America compare to Germany in 2022? Why can’t we start solar energy at the base, we can sell to all the electric companies. Pennsylvania is already home to the worst nuclear disaster in America and our nuclear plants are getting old. We are fracturing to get natural gas with 350 different chemicals in a water base solution. 25 of these chemicals are proprietary so the public doesn’t know how bad they are see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/hydraulic-fracturing-penn_n_760788.html. The water is “treated” and put back into the environment. Next time you drink or cook with water, think about if we are drinking that chemical-laced water! Do you think electric, natural gas and gasoline are going to stay below $4.00 a gallon? If we don’t use solar energy on a large scale we will soon be a third rate economy with chronic high unemployment, pollution and skyrocketing energy prices.

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      I definitely think a solar farm would be an interesting option. But green technology should definitely be implemented in any development there. That would set apart any development from almost anything available in the area (to my knowledge), making office space vacancy rates less of an issue for any corporate development.

  18. Carolyn Steiert says:

    Well it looks like we are getting an airport. Bucks and Montgomery County commissions have formed a partnership to take over of the runway since they “ARE THE ONLY LOGICAL ENTITY TO DO SOMETHING.” front page Intelligencer June 1.
    Looks like going to a meeting is just for show! The airport is a done deal and the voices of the residents are meaningless. $ win again!

    • Hatboro Mike says:

      No, Carolyn … The article plainly states that they are interested only should it be decided that an airport would be part of the reuse plan. That ship hasn’t nearly sailed yet. My read of the HLRA is favorable towards a “no airport” decision, in my opinion.

      And federal law is on the side of the recognized Local Reuse Authority when it comes to making redevelopment decisions.

      DO NOT give up the fight!

  19. Carolyn Steiert says:

    Thank you, Mike! I sure hope we don’t get an airport especially after the airport yes brochure came in the mail today. I guess our $ pockets are not as big as the money people who want the airport.

    It is amazing that the brochure does not mention pollution and yes jet planes are noisy especially for any one who stands or sits in traffic at the end of Wings or NE Philly and gets a whiff of wonderful smells and sounds!

    I hope the people in Blue Bell know that their houses are worth more now that they have jets flying over head!

    People should listen to the stories of the older residents who had planes land around them like my Uncle who was waiting at a traffic light when the Navy jet landed on the next street from him or an old neighbor who had a piece of glass blown into her chest when a plane went down.

  20. rick says:

    San Francisco

    Three employees of Tesla Motors, the high-end Silicon Valley electric car maker, died when their twin-engine Cessna 310 airplane collided with power lines and then crashed into an East Palo Alto, Calif., neighborhood Wednesday morning.
    Skip to next paragraph
    Related Stories

    Airline safety: The next generation of smart planes
    Northwest Airlines flight leads to probe of pilot professionalism

    The accident destroyed a children’s home daycare center, damaged three homes, and caused massive power outages throughout neighboring Palo Alto, where the company is based. No one was killed or injured on the ground.

    The cause of the crash has yet to be determined – and the names of those killed had not been released as of Wednesday afternoon – but many have blamed the dense fog that blanked much of the San Francisco Bay Area Wednesday morning.

    Some reports following the crash suggest the victims included a Tesla executive and two of the company’s engineers.

    In a brief statement, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the accident was a “tragic day” for the “small, tightly-knit company.”

    The company, which is known for its expensive, high-performance electric sports cars, has yet to be profitable and is on the verge of going public.

    Mr. Musk took some heat recently for using a private jet to fly to Washington to secure a $465 million federal loan after Detroit automakers were criticized for doing the same thing.

    In East Palo Alto, the accident is raising fresh concerns about the safety of living near a general aviation airport, such as the one where the Tesla employees departed en route to the Los Angeles area.

    “The crash shows that this is dangerous,” Marie McKenzie, an East Palo Alto resident who lives near the scene of the crash, told NBC News. “Individual pilots are different than commercial pilots. The foggy conditions are inappropriate to fly in.”

    Ms. McKenzie said he has been working for years to no avail to keep planes from flying directly above the neighborhood.

    Last April, a twin-engine propeller plane, taking off from an airport near Fort Lauderdale, Fla., crashed into a home near the runway. According to the Associated Press, two other planes taking off from the same airport crashed in nearby residential areas shortly after takeoff.

    In October, a small plane crashed into a house near Atlanta after it took off from a nearby airfield. The accident killed both the pilot and a woman inside.

    According to the National Transportation Safety Board, 1,466 general aviation accidents occurred in 2009 resulting in 473 fatalities. In 2008, there were 1,566 small plane accidents and 494 deaths.

    —–

  21. Carolyn Steiert says:

    People for airport in Horsham say we don’t need another shopping center, office building, or housing development. However, do we need another airport! Do you all realize how many Airports or Heliport pads there already is in Montgomery County and Bucks County! Yes, I do realize some are small and some are private. Most are available for an emergency. From these 2 sites http://pennsylvania.hometownlocator.com/features/cultural,class,airport,scfips,42091.cfm & http://www.tollfreeairline.com/pennsylvania/montgomery.htm they list in Montgomery County 53 airports or Heliport pads. Here are just a few Asplundh Airport, Abington Memorial Hospital Heliport, Holy Redeemer Hospital Heliport, Horsham Township Police Airport, Horsham Valley Airways Inc Heliport, Keystone Helicopter Corp/Toll Brothers Airport, Lankenau Hospital Heliport, Perkiomen Valley Airport, Pitcairn Heliport, Pottstown Municipal Airport, Wings Field Airport, Prudential Business Campus Airport, Worcester Heliport, etc. Bucks County has 5 sites officially on their tourism http://www.visitphilly.com/counties/bucks but they have 49 airports and heliports from http://www.tollfreeairline.com/pennsylvania/bucks.htm. Some of their names are Beaver Run Heliport Quakertown, Stefanik Airport Perkasie, Total Rf Heliport Bensalem, Buckingham Airport Doylestown, Richland Acres Ultralight Quakertown, Sugan Pond Heliport Solebury, Hoge Farm Airport – L. Pitcairn Tinicum, St Mary Medical Center Heliport Langhorne, Wicker Wings Aerodrome Airport Trumbauersville, etc. Don’t forget we have planes in the sky from Philadelphia Int’l & Northeast Airport plus those from other states.
    How much more congestion do we need in the skies?

  22. Sqrt99 says:

    Reusing military bases are a costly business and NASJRB WG is no exception. EVERY base in the US has some type of Superfund site somewhere on base. For years bases disposed of oil, contaminated fuel, other waste either intentionally or unintentionally burying it in unused parts of the base. This is a cold hard fact. I worked at the base for a few years and I can tell you none of the buildings meet todays code, are in varying states of decay and are loaded with asbestos. The roads are too narrow by todays standards, often barely 8ft wide. Most of the buildings are all fed by a central steam generating plant for heat. The runway alone is 8000 ft long by 200ft wide. the parallel taxiway next to it is a foot longer and 75ft wide, both are in excess of 3 ft thick with service tunnels for the runway lighting running the length. That is an insane amount of asphalt, concrete and rock to remove. And thats just the runway. All the ramps and taxiways where the airplanes parked are about 20+ acres of concreted parking lots. And this is just the airfield! I dont think the township could afford to maintain an antiquated airport or develop portions themselves. Sell this money pit while you have the chance!

Comments are closed.