A little-discussed provision of a bill before the General Assembly to repeal a ban on extending Tweed Airport’s main runway would also permanently close its second and only other runway.
The proposal is sparking strong resistance from small plane and charter interests, who account for most of the airport’s traffic. The runway has been shuttered since 2014 because of maintenance problems and funding shortages, but aviation businesses say they have been told repeatedly over the years that it would reopen.
As recently as last December, Tweed’s then-manager assured listeners at a Tweed New Haven Airport Authority meeting that the facility was working to put the runway, used by smaller aircraft in crosswinds, back in service, according to meeting minutes.
The closure has caused significant financial losses for aviation businesses based at Tweed, reduced the airport’s revenue and contributed to a 35 percent drop in landings and takeoffs between 2012 and 2017, Evan Warren, operations manager of Robinson Aviation, told a legislative committee last week.
Permanently closing the runway would be “short-sighted and dangerous” and hurt the airport’s long-term viability, Warren said in testimony posted online.
Sean Collins, eastern regional manager of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, agreed, warning another legislative committee that closure “would result in loss of an important safety asset, reduced utility and inhibit future growth opportunities,” online testimony says.
Reached for comment Monday, city and airport officials emphasized that their focus is on lengthening Tweed’s runway so more commercial passenger jets can fly further and to more locations, which they and others say is vital to the region’s economic growth. Many neighbors, meanwhile, have long opposed the expansion.
“It (extending the runway) is critical because the reason to have an airport is to fly people places they want to go,” New Haven Director of Economic Development Matthew Nemerson said. “People don’t want to take two flights when they can take one.”
Nemerson and other officials, however, struggled to explain the reasons for the runway closure provision, which would still need Federal Aviation Administration approval even if lawmakers approved it. Airport authority Executive Director Timothy Larson spoke of limited resources, balancing various needs of the community and the importance of a longer main runway. The secondary runway wouldn’t necessarily close under the legislation, even though the bill specifically says it would, Larson said, saying that a study would likely be done first. He pointed to three other bills concerning the airport before the legislation that don’t shutter the runway, including one that would study a closure.
Mayor Toni Harp, the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce, Yale University and others, however, have all testified in favor of the bill that would close the runway.
What would happen to the shuttered runway is also unclear. Another provision of the bill would allow construction of a solar farm at the airport, with this electricity to be shared locally. Authority Chairman John Picard last week urged lawmakers to close the runway “to accommodate solar panels,” according to testimony, but Larson couldn’t confirm that was the plan.
Picard didn’t return calls seeking clarification.
State Rep. James Albis, D-East Haven, said the airport, which wrote the bill, spoke with him about the solar farm part of the legislation, which he enthusiastically supports. But he said officials never told him about the runway extension, which he opposes.
Albis lamented what he said was the longstanding failure of the airport, which is owned by the city of New Haven but is partially in East Haven, to be forthright in its dealings with the community, which Larson denied.
“I can appreciate how he might interpret that as such,” Larson said. “That’s not the case. I try to keep all of our legislative delegation as informed as I can.”
Legislation that the city and airport are pushing would overturn the ban on lengthening the runway beyond 5,600 feet that was part of a 2009 agreement reached by New Haven and East Haven to end a long-running dispute over safety zones at the facility. The airport authority unsuccessfully challenged the ban in federal court – Larson said the case cost $190,000 in legal fees – and is now seeking legislation to overturn it.
East Haven Mayor Joseph Maturo, whose administration negotiated the settlement that led to the ban, did not return a call Monday asking for his position on the legislation.
Neighbors long opposed to expansion at the airport, meanwhile, have also weighed in against lifting the ban in recent testimony before the General Assembly. They reiterated long-held concerns about increased traffic, noise and pollution as well as environmental degradation.
“It is outlandish to think that the airport can become a true commercial airport where it is located,” Patrick Solomine of New Haven told lawmakers. “The impact on the enjoyment and value of the surrounding communities is far too great.”
Christopher Hoffman can be reached at news@newhavenbiz.com
