As an aviation enthusiast myself, Boise is growing. People are moving here whether you like it or not. Cutting back airport growth is not going to do a single damn thing about it. We need airport growth to accomidate all of these people coming in. Have you seen the statistics of our airport growth? every year we get about 7-10% more passengers flying through here, and trying to bring down the airport plane is pure insanity.

You know why flights are delayed when there is smog? Its because we only have CAT I status, which is the lowest of the lowest of the lowest quality landing system, which can easily close the airport. In the maste plan, we’re upgrading to the highest landing system designed – CAT III, which will allow airplanes to land in virtually any fog condition, even 0/0 visibility.You guys are acting like complete lunatics.

Boise is growing, and if you’re too blind to see this, which apparently many of you are, then please get out, because you are doing nothing but trying (and sometimes succeeding) to bring down Boise growth, and to me, that’s absolutely ridiculous!

EDITOR NOTE–Anthony, talk to Team Dave and the council about a bond election as required by the Constitution. They steadfastly refuse to hold the election and “you guys” hold the pursestrings. They have spent tens of thousands denying people a chance to vote on parking. Your landing system upgrade has been approved I think.

The downtown area ,unfortunately resembles a nascar rally,especially at rush hour.If your a pedestrian or on a bike be very careful. We do have a very bad inversion, pollution problem as one result of so much traffic congestion.. now we’re going to add to that with the noise,pollution and safety concerns of greatly increased air-traffic?

Boiseans, lets ” save our City” keep the developers “controlled” and the problems created by increased traffic ( on streets that were built to meet 1950 standards) as well as letting Reno or Salt lake handle the problems of a major air-hub.

Boise’s Visibility issues would be a non-issue had the former airport director (JA) had the foresight to build one of the newest military hangers a few feet farther from the runway.

Because of this error the lowest allowed visibility for landing opps at BOI are something like 1800 feet. If the runway environment was less obstructed it could go much lower. At some airports it’s at 0 feet. More common is either 300 or 600 feet depending on aircraft equipment….that’s so low that finding the gate after landing is the biggest problem.

The point is; the visisbility commonly goes below 1800 feet but very rarely below 600 at BOI. The new runway to the south should allow for very low visibility opps. If JA and friends didn’t plan it that way the new man had better.

As for polution… Your right, Jets do burn huge amounts of fuel…several truck loads for a big jet on a long trip. The biggest Boeing holds 53,000 gals!!

Oh but JetA (Kerosine) exaust smells good… much cleaner than diesel. If one stands at the end of the runway fence you can even get little dropplets blown onto your cloths.

But just imagine this… More junk comes from a super-volcano eruption (like Yellowstone) in 30 minutes then all pollution, from all humans, from all time… somehow Mother Nature always cleans up the mess.

I’m gonna move anyway because the Boise pollution is bad…no getting around that one.

With the possible exception of the Gowen Road relocation (which is mentioned in the Airport Master Plan 2001 Update) all the items mentioned in the BG article were presented by Airport officials at a Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce Aviation Forum meeting back in August 2005. That’s over a year ago. The presentation is available on the Airport web site http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/Airport/PDF/MasterPlan08-03-05.pdf.pdf. The 2001 version of the (Airport) Master Plan is also available on the airport web site.

If I recall correctly, the Gowen Road realignment was the subject of public meetings held earlier this year by ACHD. There’s no big secrets here.

I agree “Improvement and expansion are not synonymous.” For my money most of these projects are improvements. The third runway, which has been discussed for at least 30 years that I’m aware of, looks to the future and the next generation of aircraft – passenger and cargo. If the air cargo area is moved to the new runway area the current air cargo hodge podge (in my opinion) is transformed and air cargo operations become more efficient for both vehicles and aircraft. The noise level moves further south (won’t all those future homeowners out on the desert be thrilled?). Other facilities date, literally, from WWII. Even the expansion on the Orchard Street side of the airport may be a good thing. General aviation has long been a mainstay of the airport. Perhaps some of these new facilities will provide more general aviation hanger space.

The BG article, and the master plan, help explain what appears to be preliminary work for Orchard Street relocation. That work has been underway for several years now. The mini golf course is gone, utility lines have been laid across the current Orchard Street alignment, and the old sewer holding ponds have been abandoned and, it appears, are currently in the process of being dismantled. Surveyors can be seen working in the area on a regular basis.

Growth in the Valley will come. It can be slowed but not stopped completely. How we plan for and manage the growth is a good subject for discussion in this forum. Is it better to plan now for future growth now or be reactive to it when it occurs? I’ll opt for planning.

Speaking of planning, it appears from the Airport web site that they are soliciting public comments (probably because Federal regs require a public comment/hearing process) on their current Master Plan update. Granted this is another exercise in futility for the public, but the opportunity to comment is being offered. If you’re interested, comment.

JQP

The airport will be larger, there will be an additional parking garage(or two), the roads will get wider, the traffic will increase, the crime will increase, etc., etc. I think the problem we have is two-fold. First, As long as 20-30% of the citizens vote, we are screwed. And secondly, we don’t have any confidence in the bunch of “dip-sticks” that have been elected to come up with the BEST way to handle this growth.

I read this blog for one very simple reason. It is the BEST source of alternate news we have. We all owe the BG gratitude for bringing the “other side” to the light of day. So, as long as the “G” continues to bring the other side to the table, the best thing any of us can do is try to guide other citizens to this site and hope we can increase the involvement of our fellow citizens. Oh, and keep the heat on the dip-sticks!

As “Not Dave” says above, once the playing field is a bit more level, we can demand a vote.

Regarding the rental car thing, that is kind of a non starter argument as far as I’m concerned. The convenience and long term savings of having them on-site far outweighs the negatives.

Not Dave, I’m glad to know that I’m not the only one takes Dave’s name in vain due to the airport parking situation.

EDITOR NOTE–Jon, have YOU demanded an election to voice your support of a plan–40% of which is dedicated to the rental car companies?

Maybe once the airlines quit going broke, quit torturing their passengers with seats a 5-foot-2 person can hardly squeeze into, quit starving them, etc., maybe, just maybe, the airline industry might get better.

And then, yeah, by golly, everybody and his aunt will want to fly to Boise! (Heck, SLC, NYC, Chitown, Honolulu etc. might just as well turn their airports into cow pastures … ain’t nobody gonna wanna go there when they could go to Boise!