\__[Ô]__/;1161434 said:
I'm not sure how much I support the airport improvement fund though. I've seen and heard of some really wasteful projects. So I don't know what to think here.
I would not say entirely wasteful, but we have 2 little local airports here: A and B. Both have cross-winds, but airport A has a very wide runway. I personally was in a situation where no matter what I do, I just could not land at B (it was in Arrow, which I was unwilling to slam down in a good crab like a 172). Good thing I had fuel onboard... Another time I diverted
to A when an airport next door (say, C) had too much wind. In a taildragger! So... Guess which one suddenly received a new cross-wind runway, go on, guess. Bet a tower isn't too far behind.
P.S. To be fair, AIRNAV.com says A is ~90 ops/day and B is ~40..50 ops/day. Which has nothing with their respective crosswind resistance and traffic uses one runway at a time anyway.
P.P.S. The problem with the raiding of airport improvement fund is that many airports that are teetering on the brink are going to close. For example, Las Vegas, New Mexico (KLVS). This is going to hurt, because we can fly without towers, but not without airports. And every time airport is lost, it's gone. Towers are fungible. One day we close them, other day we open them. But once an airport is closed, its land is going to be reused and that's it.