By Clifford Lavine
If you do not like the East Hampton Airport, referred to by pilots as KHTO, my guess is that you are really going to hate what would follow its closure.
Rather than saying “NO to KHTO,” let me suggest that you read this article and, if you agree, work with the East Hampton Community Alliance and the East Hampton Aviation Association to make the airport more acceptable to your tastes.
The arguments for closing the airport usually go this way: It is too noisy, it is too dangerous, it is too environmentally unfriendly.
I would strongly argue that closing the airport will worsen all those conditions. Big time.
Let me explain.
First, closing the airport does not mean that all the planes and air traffic will suddenly disappear. Remember that pilots have spent hundreds of hours training and flying. They are not simply going to put their planes and all their training into a recycling bin.
The planes will simply move to other, adjacent airports, and the pilots will continue to fly to and from those airports — and their flight paths are likely to pass right over the old airport and the neighbors who objected to the noise and activity.
Closing the airport will mean that pilots will have to spend more time commuting in their cars, too. So road traffic and congestion and pollution will increase. Because the airplanes are farther away, they will need to be in the air longer and travel farther than they had before. In my opinion, traffic congestion, air traffic, and pollution from increased automobile and air traffic all will increase.
Second, automobile accidents will increase, and air traffic could get more dangerous. I read an article that cited the number of air “incidents” over a 15- or 20-year period; that number was almost equal to the number of automobile accidents and DWI arrests in a one- or two-week period.
More people on the road inevitably leads to more accidents. And noise. And pollution. I also think that air traffic could get more dangerous. If you force more flights into a smaller number of airports, the risk of “incidents” can only increase.
Third, clearing and cleaning out the airport, even just removing the runways and taxiways, will be incredibly costly, noisy and environmentally dirty. You want to make a nature preserve with hiking trails on that site? That sounds lovely. One problem: There is an airport, with runways, service buildings and fuel storage facilities. All those things need to be removed and remediated.
For instance, you are going to have to remove the runways. The airport has two active runways, totaling over 6,000 feet in length and averaging 90 feet in width. If they are 3 feet deep, that is well over 1,600,000 cubic feet of asphalt, concrete and whatever else was used. It is going to take a lot of jackhammers, big hoes, steam shovels and workers to “unbuild” those runways.
Let us not forget the airplane taxiways, the tie-down area and all the ancillary roads. Once all that asphalt and concrete has been loosened, it needs to be removed, as all that refuse cannot stay on the ground. I have no idea how many diesel dump trucks it is going to take to cart it away.
Let me rephrase that: I have no idea how many thousands of diesel-belching and -snorting dump trucks it will take to cart all that tainted dirt, asphalt, concrete and other stuff. Those trucks will have no choice but to move through all the neighborhoods that have objected to the sounds of the airplanes. It is not hard to imagine, with every up-and-down-shift of the trucks, and every backfire, that every day of the refuse removal will sound quite a bit louder and more intrusive than the entire population of Blade helicopters. All the deconstruction will create lots of dust and dirt in the air that will not be healthy, either for the environment or for anyone’s health.
So far, I have just mentioned the runways, taxiways and ancillary roadways. Now, the building and the fuel storage facilities need to be removed. Those, you just do not pick up and take away. There will be a lot more noise, dirt and construction traffic to get rid of all that infrastructure.
All of this will take a considerable amount of time, even without the inevitable lawsuits, counter-lawsuits, environmental studies, disputed environmental and economic studies, and permitting process. “Shovel ready” this will not be.
Fourth, now, we must build a new park. What could go wrong? You mean besides more lawsuits, more environmental studies, budget issues and construction delays?
One more thing: Who is going to pay for all of this? As I note below, the airport makes a significant economic contribution. If that economic contribution is removed and a large, costly project needs to be funded, it is obvious who is going to pay.
Actually, two more things: All the dirt and material that was removed will have left huge, gaping areas that need to be filled in. It will probably take as many diesel dump truck loads returning with fill dirt as were required to remove the old stuff. More noise, more dust and dirt, and more pollution and health issues.
Fifth, a beautiful new park and hiking trails can only attract more crowds, more noise and more trash. Hmmm, how many people try to go to the beach on a beautiful day? Now, how many cannot get to the beach because they do not have beach passes or do not want to sit in the sun?
A hike? That sounds wonderful. “Honey let’s load up the SUV and go to the park. Don’t forget to pack a lunch and take the pedal bicycles, too. Maybe, a little music player, because we cannot let the kids be bored. Perhaps a Frisbee, a kite, roller blades and roller skates? Oh, we’ll need the baby stroller, too.”
All those visitors are going to be traveling on the same, narrow roadways, so there will be more traffic jams and backups, impatient travelers honking, and all the extra pollution from SUVs, cars and motorcycles just sitting there idling.
Unless, of course, they are all electric powered. Then, we must worry about how our local electric grid can service all those recharging vehicles. Perhaps we could install some wind machines? Some people like the “whoop-whoop-whoop” sound of the blades. It kind of sounds like a helicopter hovering overhead.
Sixth, the airport makes a significant economic contribution to the area. One study estimated that the airport was responsible for creating 872 jobs and adding $77.5 million to the local economy.
Now, take that economic contribution away, and add the cost of cleaning and clearing out the airport. Then, add the cost of building a new park — and please do not forget that the lives of 872 people, and all the people that depend on those 872 people whose lives will have been seriously disrupted.
Conclusion: I understand that there are objections to KHTO. My argument is simple: It will be better, safer, less costly and more environmentally friendly to keep the airport. Let us work out a compromise.
Clifford Lavine is a resident of Sag Harbor and a member of both the East Hampton Aviation Association and East Hampton Community Alliance.
More Posts from Viewpoint
