Ok, remind me. What was the number one economic development priority for the Erie region? Juice plant? Nope. Koehler project? Not-a. Parade Street grocery store…community college…convention center? No, no, and no. The agreed on number one priority for our region’s future since the turn of the century has been the runway expansion at the Erie International Airport. This is a project now ten years in process, without a parcel of land purchased or bulldozer scraping. Now there is a major conversation going on whether we can actually afford the local dollars needed to do the whole project, with estimates now hovering around $20 million. It looks like our political ADHD has put this unquestioned top priority in jeopardy.

According to reports, it’s said that a 920 feet addition is needed just to be legal with the FAA. Another 1000 feet is desired to allow heavier cargo planes and larger passenger jets to take off and land. Now since I’m an infrastructure guy I did a little poking around to see our Erie would stand with our larger market neighbors as far as runway length and what kinds of planes are we talking about.

Currently ERI Runway 6-24 is 6500 feet long. Add the 920 to be legal and we are at 7420, and with the total plan of 1920 we would stand at 8420 feet. In comparison:
Buffalo: 8827/7161
Cleveland: 9000/8999/7096
Pittsburgh: 11500/10502/9709
Youngstown: 9003
And for kicks, I looked up Memphis, home of the FedEx “SuperHub”: 11120/9320/9000

So what kinds of planes can takeoff at 7420 (takeoffs take more runway than landings)? According to a study done for San Diego’s airport, here are some of the jets we could handle at the safe length (100% max. takeoff weight):

  • Embraer Emb 120
  • ATR 42-500
  • Airbus A320

Now if you add the other 1000, we start looking at:

  • McDonnell-Douglas MD-81
  • Airbus A300-600R

According to the San Diego study, a CRJ-200 needs 8800 feet, and we wouldn’t get into the range for Boeing 737’s or 757’s until over 10,000 feet. Of course, they are showing for highest payload and lowest engine thrust rating, reflecting the greatest potential distances.

With this analysis, I don’t see how we can settle for 7420; no airport that we compete with for passengers has a runway so short. While we were spending millions on old breweries and juice plants, we neglected a priority that should have been handled in the 1990’s, not the 2010’s. Find the money and get it done.