As an alternative to closing it down,  I would be interested in learning if could be “shifted” north east.  Hundred of acres of infill have been added since Burke opened.  

If its feasible to “shift” the runways, then not only could land adjacent to North Coast Harbor be developed (private or

park) but land west could build taller buildings.

I dont expect this to happen, but it might be worth running the numbers

7 hours ago, punch said:

As an alternative to closing it down,  I would be interested in learning if could be “shifted” north east.  Hundred of acres of infill have been added since Burke opened.  

If its feasible to “shift” the runways, then not only could land adjacent to North Coast Harbor be developed (private or

park) but land west could build taller buildings.

I dont expect this to happen, but it might be worth running the numbers

The numbers suggest Cleveland doesn’t need an airport on the lakefront at all. The simple solution is to give the FAA 30-day notice based on population and air traffic decline and close Burke.

 

We can split the charter flights between Hopkins and County airports. 

 

The land Burke sits on becomes a 450 acre park, the land north of downtown shoots up in value and Cleveland starts to grow again. At this point I’d even be okay with putting Jackson’s controversial dirt bike track on one edge of the property.

 

The lakefront is our lost or best opportunity. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/08/should-burke-lakefront-airport-close-coalition-keeps-important-question-alive-steven-litt.html

 

#WaterfrontGate

 

Imagine Burke Lakefront Park. 

Edited September 7, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

9 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Arguments that have been offered for keeping Burke in operation over the years:

✅ it is a needed reliever airport

✅ it is necessary for organ transplants at the Clinic

✅ it is built on a toxic landfill

✅ focus on infill downtown first

✅ the Federal Reserve uses it daily

✅ there is “strong demand” for downtown air travel 

✅ it is an economic engine

✅ Haslam and Gilbert fly home from Burke

✅ there is a commercial flight to Cincinnati

✅ people have argued to close it every year for 30 years 

✅ the FAA will not allow the City to close it

 

^^^ These issues have all been addressed, most of them in the 2002 GCBL study.

✅ it is the only way sports teams can get into Cleveland

✅ $400,000 in payroll taxes

✅ why are you so obsessed with Burke?

✅ do you work for the Cleveland Foundation?

Edited September 7, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

Let’s shift the burden of proof. Post your Line One Item.

 

What is the Best Reason (only one) to keep Burke Lakefront Airport open? 

4 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

✅ it is the only way sports teams can get into Cleveland

✅ $400,000 in payroll taxes

✅ why are you so obsessed with Burke?

✅ do you work for the Cleveland Foundation?

There is one person obsessed with Burke and that's you and your ranting to yourself is getting old. This discussion is going nowhere besides the thread being locked over and over again. If you're so passionate about it, how about you start doing something about it. Go to the next meeting that discusses Burke options for the future and voice your reasons for why they should close. Posting on this forum won't take it anywhere.

Edited September 7, 20195 yr by WindyBuckeye

There's high end housing along the lakefront in our suburbs and Edgewater.  Clearly lakefront living is desirable here.

2 hours ago, X said:

There's high end housing along the lakefront in our suburbs and Edgewater.  Clearly lakefront living is desirable here.

 

With that kind of acreage given to any developer in Cleveland, my fear is Burke would become a suburban gated community, much like happened on the Buffalo waterfront: 

 

 

Edited September 7, 20195 yr by Cleburger

10 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

✅ it is the only way sports teams can get into Cleveland

...so you're telling me I don't have hundreds of photos and videos of Browns, Indians, and Cavs sports charters on Delta, United, Hawaiian, Virgin Atlantic, etc. Only short/med haul can land at Burke usually (aside from bizjets). Even the Saudi Royal Family uses Hopkins for CLEclinic visits. From today...

^^ You don't give them carte blanche on how much acreage to develop.  Make a master plan for the area to figure what and how much of each use makes the most sense.

3 hours ago, X said:

^^ You don't give them carte blanche on how much acreage to develop.  Make a master plan for the area to figure what and how much of each use makes the most sense.

 

Ok we'll get 3 acres of suburban condos, and 447 of "parkland" that the city won't maintain.   

 

 

15 hours ago, Boxtruffles said:

...so you're telling me I don't have hundreds of photos and videos of Browns, Indians, and Cavs sports charters on Delta, United, Hawaiian, Virgin Atlantic, etc. Only short/med haul can land at Burke usually (aside from bizjets). Even the Saudi Royal Family uses Hopkins for CLEclinic visits. From today...

This is not my argument. It is an absurd argument that has been made to keep Burke in operation. I’ve realized there is no good reason to keep Burke open. I’m making a list of every debunked argument I’ve seen in search of one I haven’t seen.

22 hours ago, WindyBuckeye said:

There is one person obsessed with Burke and that's you and your ranting to yourself is getting old. This discussion is going nowhere besides the thread being locked over and over again. If you're so passionate about it, how about you start doing something about it. Go to the next meeting that discusses Burke options for the future and voice your reasons for why they should close. Posting on this forum won't take it anywhere.

^^^^^ This is not an argument. This is a rant from someone who has lost the argument.

 

I have talked to people IRL. When talking they realize that we are arguing with phantoms, debunked arguments, non-arguments, ad homs, and no-data assertions like you offer here. That’s why City Hall can’t talk about it: public scrutiny would expose that Cleveland has been played. 

 

Burke will be a park. 

Edited September 8, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

9 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

Ok we'll get 3 acres of suburban condos, and 447 of "parkland" that the city won't maintain.   

 

 

Dream small but stay out of the way.

 

Go to Millennium Park in Chicago, Battery Park in NYC, Balboa Park in San Diego, Boston Common. That’s what we’re talkin’ about. Next level MetroPark stuff.

Edited September 8, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

I’ll repost this to keep this thread focused. Seriously cannot find a single debunked argument to keep Burke an “airport.”

 

Take a shot at answering:  

 

What is the best reason to keep Burke Lakefront Airport open?

Edited September 8, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

^Why stop at Burke? Everyone loves parks--fun to play in and good for the air--let's bulldoze everything from W. 9 to E. 40---Lake to Carnegie---Imagine how great that would be. Give me just one good reason why that shouldn't be done.

8 minutes ago, Pugu said:

^Why stop at Burke? Everyone loves parks--fun to play in and good for the air--let's bulldoze everything from W. 9 to E. 40---Lake to Carnegie---Imagine how great that would be. Give me just one good reason why that shouldn't be done.

Too expensive.

 

Your turn...

51 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Too expensive.

 

Your turn...

 

Too expensive? How much do you suppose it would cost to turn Burke into a park.

 

And who is paying you to post here again?

1 hour ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Dream small but stay out of the way.

 

Go to Millennium Park in Chicago, Battery Park in NYC, Balboa Park in San Diego, Boston Common. That’s what we’re talkin’ about. Next level MetroPark stuff.

 

Go to Battery Park in Cleveland.   Flats East Band (also in Cleveland).   Developments that started decades ago, and still aren't fully finished.   I'm not saying Burke could never be developed, but at our current pace it would be 150 years to ever get it filled in.   So you'll never see it.  That's why they're called "dreams."  

 

Until then, I prefer to work in the constraints of reality in Cleveland.  Would love to see our acres of vacant land and parking lots fill in before we worry about Burke.  

Just now, Mendo said:

 

Too expensive? How much do you suppose it would cost to turn Burke into a park.

 

And who is paying you to post here again?

Burke will lose $30 million over the next decade. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2014/03/burke_lakefront_seen_through_n.html

 

This is all pro bono. Even if I was being paid by Mike White to post here the argument remains the argument. The facts remain the facts.

 

Full disclosure so you are not confused: I WANT TO CLOSE BURKE.

1 hour ago, Cleveland Trust said:

^^^^^ This is not an argument. This is a rant from someone who has lost the argument.

 

I have talked to people IRL. When talking they realize that we are arguing with phantoms, debunked arguments, non-arguments, ad homs, and no-data assertions like you offer here. That’s why City Hall can’t talk about it: public scrutiny would expose that Cleveland has been played. 

 

Burke will be a park. 

LOL whatever. There is one person ranting here and its not me.

I really hope you do something about closing Burke IRL. Good luck to you.

Edited September 8, 20195 yr by WindyBuckeye

10 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

Go to Battery Park in Cleveland.   Flats East Band (also in Cleveland).   Developments that started decades ago, and still aren't fully finished.   I'm not saying Burke could never be developed, but at our current pace it would be 150 years to ever get it filled in.   So you'll never see it.  That's why they're called "dreams."  

 

Until then, I prefer to work in the constraints of reality in Cleveland.  Would love to see our acres of vacant land and parking lots fill in before we worry about Burke.  

Suit yourself. You take care of the vacant lots downtown, that will be your role. 

 

Let me worry about Burke.

 

If we don’t make Cleveland a magnet for talent and have a plan for growth, all those developments downtown will wither on the vine. The Lakefront is our magnet.  

17 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Too expensive? How much do you suppose it would cost to turn Burke into a park.

 

And who is paying you to post here again?

It has to be 
Stark's son or something. Or a master Cleveland.com poster.

Just now, WindyBuckeye said:

It has to be 
Stark's son or something. Or a master Cleveland.com poster.

Do you have an argument to keep Burke in operation based on the facts, statistics, market projections or data? Post it. 

 

Me: 2+2= 4

 

You: 4!!??? Who is paying you to say that? You must work for someone who wants it to be 4!

Thoughts on this:

 

1) If we keep Burke Lakefront Airport and go Big League with it, should we give TSA complete oversight now, spending an additional $5 million per year to screen all passengers and all luggage and provide 24/7 security?

 

2) What airline should we try to hub there?

 

3) Is everyone happy with the present level of service offered by Burke?

 

4) What is the Keep the Airport Open vision for Burke?

 

5) What is the minimum number of flights at Burke before we should consider closing? 30,000? 20,000? 10,000?

Edited September 8, 20195 yr by Cleveland Trust

20 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Burke will lose $30 million over the next decade. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2014/03/burke_lakefront_seen_through_n.html

 

This is all pro bono. Even if I was being paid by Mike White to post here the argument remains the argument. The facts remain the facts.

 

Full disclosure so you are not confused: I WANT TO CLOSE BURKE.

Pro bono, huh. Then on who's behalf are you posting?

 

Answer the question: How much do you think it will cost to demo Burke, remediate the land, and convert it to a park? For honesty's sake include whatever infrastructure that would go along with it, like new access roads, parking lots, commercial use, etc. And the money that has to be returned to the FAA.

 

From your article:

• Burke operates at a loss -- $1.3 million in 2013 alone -- deficits that are paid for with landing fees charged to the airlines at Hopkins.

 

Hopkins will have something like 10 million passengers this year. So each passenger is contributing 13 cents to subsidize direct Burke operating costs.

 

The article doesn't include income and sales taxes generated on site. I wouldn't expect it to be much, but when you have a narrative to push you don't miss a chance to exclude data not in your favor.

4 minutes ago, Mendo said:

Pro bono, huh. Then on who's behalf are you posting?

 

Answer the question: How much do you think it will cost to demo Burke, remediate the land, and convert it to a park? For honesty's sake include whatever infrastructure that would go along with it, like new access roads, parking lots, commercial use, etc. And the money that has to be returned to the FAA.

 

From your article:

 

 

 

Hopkins will have something like 10 million passengers this year. So each passenger is contributing 13 cents to subsidize direct Burke operating costs.

 

The article doesn't include income and sales taxes generated on site. I wouldn't expect it to be much, but when you have a narrative to push you don't miss a chance to exclude data not in your favor.

Thanks, good points to consider.

 

Let’s return the money to the FAA.

 

Even if we mothball Burke and don’t touch it we free up land north of downtown. See what happens.

 

What if we close Burke and those 13 cents remained at Hopkins?

 

Do you have numbers on “income and sales tax”? That money would still go to city coffers if those jobs and sales moved over to Hopkins wouldn’t they?  

 

I do have an agenda and I am pushing a narrative, I don’t deny that. I think we should close the airport.

 

Everybody on this board has an agenda in some shape or form. Your posts, on the other hand, have the stink of somebody else's agenda, which makes it impossible to have an honest discussion. You present opinions as facts and then move the goalposts when somebody calls you on it. For example, you want Burke developed as a park but when asked about the cost involved, you instead just want it mothballed? Sure...

 

About the income and sales tax, not necessarily if they move to the county airport or disappear entirely.

Edited September 8, 20195 yr by Mendo

Why do you guys continue to feed this person?

Just now, Htsguy said:

Why do you guys continue to feed this person?

Burke is not going to be closed in the foreseeable future.  Basically, there are no alternatives to it.  Yes, Hopkins has plenty of capacity and Burke is underutilized but the fact remains that Burke provides additional runway capacity and facilities that will not be easily replicated.  Runways are horribly expensive to litigate and construct. Akron-Canton is over 50 miles away and Cuyahoga County is poor substitute. Plus Burke does have a terminal and I beleive is designated as an airport of entry. There are arguements brought up about Meigs Field in Chicago. This is a bad comparison. Chicago has both Ohare and Midway and others. Meigs was not necessary and could be closed.  Perhaps one day Loraine County could be enlarged, but with residential growth nearby, that is now probably not possible.  The FAA is not going to permit Burke to be closed - returning money or not. 

15 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Why do you guys continue to feed this person?

I know I was doing well with holding off. I’ll try harder now. Ha

17 hours ago, Mendo said:

Everybody on this board has an agenda in some shape or form. Your posts, on the other hand, have the stink of somebody else's agenda, which makes it impossible to have an honest discussion. You present opinions as facts and then move the goalposts when somebody calls you on it. For example, you want Burke developed as a park but when asked about the cost involved, you instead just want it mothballed? Sure...

 

About the income and sales tax, not necessarily if they move to the county airport or disappear entirely.

Sorry, I was just pointing out that even if you didn’t spend a dime after closing Burke there would be an economic benefit north of downtown. The newest proposal is for the western edge to be sold to developers for housing and Burke to be a city park created by a public/private partnership. 

 

Here is a link: https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/08/should-burke-lakefront-airport-close-coalition-keeps-important-question-alive-steven-litt.html

 

Operations at Burke have fallen 66% since 2000 (also above article). This trend is not a good indication for revenue of any kind.

17 hours ago, B767PILOT said:

Burke is not going to be closed in the foreseeable future.  Basically, there are no alternatives to it.  Yes, Hopkins has plenty of capacity and Burke is underutilized but the fact remains that Burke provides additional runway capacity and facilities that will not be easily replicated.  Runways are horribly expensive to litigate and construct. Akron-Canton is over 50 miles away and Cuyahoga County is poor substitute. Plus Burke does have a terminal and I beleive is designated as an airport of entry. There are arguements brought up about Meigs Field in Chicago. This is a bad comparison. Chicago has both Ohare and Midway and others. Meigs was not necessary and could be closed.  Perhaps one day Loraine County could be enlarged, but with residential growth nearby, that is now probably not possible.  The FAA is not going to permit Burke to be closed - returning money or not. 

Yes, these capacity concerns are addressed in a 2002 GCBL study. It is one of the only studies funded to underscore Burke’s negative impact on the local economy. Despite this bias it is pretty balanced in pointing out the difficulties with shifting traffic to Hopkins and County and (I think) Lost Nation. We would need some degree of Regionalism in place to close Burke. I think the lack of cooperation is our greatest weakness. 

 

A reliever airport was closed in Cincinnati that is more analogous to Burke. I talked to the people on the Cincinnati thread about its closing and most thought it had a net benefit and made air service in the region better. That’s the goal.

2 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Yes, these capacity concerns are addressed in a 2002 GCBL study. It is one of the only studies funded to underscore Burke’s negative impact on the local economy. Despite this bias it is pretty balanced in pointing out the difficulties with shifting traffic to Hopkins and County and (I think) Lost Nation. We would need some degree of Regionalism in place to close Burke. I think the lack of cooperation is our greatest weakness. 

 

A reliever airport was closed in Cincinnati that is more analogous to Burke. I talked to the people on the Cincinnati thread about its closing and most thought it had a net benefit and made air service in the region better. That’s the goal.

A reliever may have been closed but Lunken is still open. Lunken is a closer comparison to Burke. It's not a question of shifting traffic. It's a question of runways as a resource. Once closed,  it cant reopen after the runways are gone. Granted, there are no capacity issues at present, but it Burke closes,  the options shrink when capacity does become a problem. 

41 minutes ago, B767PILOT said:

A reliever may have been closed but Lunken is still open. Lunken is a closer comparison to Burke. It's not a question of shifting traffic. It's a question of runways as a resource. Once closed,  it cant reopen after the runways are gone. Granted, there are no capacity issues at present, but it Burke closes,  the options shrink when capacity does become a problem. 

 

When will that be? Air traffic has been declining here for years. How many airports does Northeast Ohio need? Let's not try to project the future. That's impossible. Let's try to build for the future we want.

5 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

When will that be? Air traffic has been declining here for years. How many airports does Northeast Ohio need? Let's not try to project the future. That's impossible. Let's try to build for the future we want.

 

Building the future we want is easier said than done, of course. But regarding 'project[ing] the future' and its impossibility, it is not something we should do, it something, we MUST do in aviation. There are FAA mandates. You take away capacity and you could kill Cleveland's future. Aviation is actually doubling nationally and Cleveland is finally picking up after decades of decline. Now is certainly not the time to lose aviation capacity and Cuyahoga County airport and Akron are not operational  (CGF) or commercial (CAK) alternatives to BKL.

7 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

When will that be? Air traffic has been declining here for years. How many airports does Northeast Ohio need? Let's not try to project the future. That's impossible. Let's try to build for the future we want.

Tell that to the FAA.  Give another 5-10 years and you may have a case - especially if a Hopkins replacement is ever built. Unfortunately  you do have to project the future somewhat. Like I said,  once those runways are gone they ain't coming back. At some point in the unprojected future, you may need the capacity. Where would you add it?  Whose backyard will be selected?  Dont get me wrong, Burke's land could be a great gem for the City but right now the resource has direct replacement. 

37 minutes ago, B767PILOT said:

Tell that to the FAA.  Give another 5-10 years and you may have a case - especially if a Hopkins replacement is ever built. Unfortunately  you do have to project the future somewhat. Like I said,  once those runways are gone they ain't coming back. At some point in the unprojected future, you may need the capacity. Where would you add it?  Whose backyard will be selected?  Dont get me wrong, Burke's land could be a great gem for the City but right now the resource has direct replacement. 

On page 24 of that 2002 study it states that “the FAA is not wedded to Burke as a reliever airport.” This is based on the healthier numbers from almost 20 years ago. The plan consolidates operations from 3 airports to 2 to increase efficiency and also brings Akron and Lost Nation airports into the mix. I think Lorain was mentioned somewhere as a potential reliever as well. 

 

There are plans to expand Hopkins if Cleveland ever begins to add population and sees a demand for air travel. But with Hopkins operating at almost 1/3capacity expansion plans shouldn’t be a pressing concern in 2019.

4 hours ago, Cleveland Trust said:

Sorry, I was just pointing out that even if you didn’t spend a dime after closing Burke there would be an economic benefit north of downtown. The newest proposal is for the western edge to be sold to developers for housing and Burke to be a city park created by a public/private partnership. 

 

Here is a link: https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/08/should-burke-lakefront-airport-close-coalition-keeps-important-question-alive-steven-litt.html

 

Operations at Burke have fallen 66% since 2000 (also above article). This trend is not a good indication for revenue of any kind.

 

How much will it cost the public to close Burke and convert it to a park? You complain about how much we subsidize it every year but won't acknowledge how much the alternatives will cost.

 

You can't mothball Burke without spending a ton of money. Starting with returning money to the FAA that's already been spent. Then ongoing security, HVAC, etc, all adds up.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you are backed by someone at the county airport.

56 minutes ago, Pugu said:

 

Building the future we want is easier said than done, of course. But regarding 'project[ing] the future' and its impossibility, it is not something we should do, it something, we MUST do in aviation. There are FAA mandates. You take away capacity and you could kill Cleveland's future. Aviation is actually doubling nationally and Cleveland is finally picking up after decades of decline. Now is certainly not the time to lose aviation capacity and Cuyahoga County airport and Akron are not operational  (CGF) or commercial (CAK) alternatives to BKL.

I agree. Most of the proponents of closing Burke have safety and ease of travel their primary concerns. What if closing Burke meant better service at Hopkins, a windfall for the County Airport and a spike in development downtown? That is the vision. I’m looking at it as a big win-win-win for the region and Cleveland.

 

If a case can be made that Burke is better for Cleveland than high rise housing, corporate jobs, a hospital, restaurants and hotels, I will concede. Deal?

1 hour ago, B767PILOT said:

Tell that to the FAA.  Give another 5-10 years and you may have a case - especially if a Hopkins replacement is ever built. Unfortunately  you do have to project the future somewhat. Like I said,  once those runways are gone they ain't coming back. At some point in the unprojected future, you may need the capacity. Where would you add it?  Whose backyard will be selected?  Dont get me wrong, Burke's land could be a great gem for the City but right now the resource has direct replacement. 

 

Yes, it bugs me when public sector agencies try to project future needs, which are invariably based on past trends. The only thing that it (and the firewalled aviation and highway trust funds) leads to is more of the status quo, the stifling of modal competition and the narrowing of innovation, without regard to changes in market demand or socio-economic needs or environmental constraints.

 

Among airports with a minimum 5,300-foot-long runways that can handle your namesake aircraft @B767PILOT per https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/list-of-aircraft-runway-requirements/107832 , we have three airports in Cuyahoga County, two in Summit County (a third, KSU, is 4,000'), one in Lake County, and one in Trumbull County. That's seven airports within a 1-hour drive of downtown Cleveland. Seven. And all of them are well below capacity. The region's population and air travel would both have to explode exponentially to put a strain on that dramatically overbuilt infrastructure.

 

BTW, most intercity travel is to places less than 500 miles away. If we had a true mulitmodal transportation system that wasn't based on past trends and fire-walled by mode-specific trust funds, we'd be riding high-speed trains to Chicago, Toronto, Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York City, Detroit, Cincinnati and the many towns and cities in between. We'd clamor for ridding of Burke (and probably a few other airports) if we built for the future we wanted rather than the one based on inertia.

Edited September 9, 20195 yr by KJP

8 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

On page 24 of that 2002 study it states that “the FAA is not wedded to Burke as a reliever airport.” This is based on the healthier numbers from almost 20 years ago. The plan consolidates operations from 3 airports to 2 to increase efficiency and also brings Akron and Lost Nation airports into the mix. I think Lorain was mentioned somewhere as a potential reliever as well. 

 

There are plans to expand Hopkins if Cleveland ever begins to add population and sees a demand for air travel. But with Hopkins operating at almost 1/3capacity expansion plans shouldn’t be a pressing concern in 2019.

That was 2002. And by the way, did the FAA disclose what the conditions precedent would be to not be wedded?  

20 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

How much will it cost the public to close Burke and convert it to a park? You complain about how much we subsidize it every year but won't acknowledge how much the alternatives will cost.

 

You can't mothball Burke without spending a ton of money. Starting with returning money to the FAA that's already been spent. Then ongoing security, HVAC, etc, all adds up.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you are backed by someone at the county airport.

If we need to return money to the FAA then we have to return money to the FAA. If we agreed to terms for grant money we have to live by those terms.

 

Put it on ice. Don’t use it. Like Aviation High School is just sitting empty, let Burke sit empty. See if it is missed. See if it shakes up our (comparatively) sleepy market. If it does we win without a penny spent. 

 

Even if I was posting for County Airport how would that change the the economic data at Burke? 

5 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Yes, it bugs me when public sector agencies try to project future needs, which are invariably based on past trends. The only thing that it (and the firewalled aviation and highway trust funds) leads to is more of the status quo, the stifling of modal competition and the narrowing of innovation, without regard to changes in market demand or socio-economic needs or environmental constraints.

 

Among airports with a minimum 5,300-foot-long runways that can handle your namesake aircraft @B767PILOT per https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/list-of-aircraft-runway-requirements/107832 , we have three airports in Cuyahoga County, two in Summit County (a third, KSU, is 4,000'), one in Lake County, and one in Trumbull County. That's seven airports within a 1-hour drive of downtown Cleveland. Seven. And all of them are well below capacity. The region's population and air travel would both have to explode exponentially to put a strain on that dramatically overbuilt infrastructure.

 

BTW, most intercity travel is to places less than 500 miles away. If we had a true mulitmodal transportation system that wasn't based on past trends and fire-walled by mode-specific trust funds, we'd be riding high-speed trains to Chicago, Toronto, Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York City, Detroit, Cincinnati and the many towns and cities in between. We'd clamor for ridding of Burke (and probably a few other airports) if we built for the future we wanted rather than the one based on inertia.

Then build the future and make Burke redundant. Remember, this is a runway issue. They already exist- albeit in a terrible place. There two parallel one over 5,000 and the other over 6000.  And these runways aren't in another county.  It isn't that easy. I suspect you would have an easier time decommissioning Lost Nation or Loraine County. Well, after the 2020 Census you may have an easier time closing Burke as the Regions importance and population further erode

5 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

If a case can be made that Burke is better for Cleveland than high rise housing, corporate jobs, a hospital, restaurants and hotels, I will concede. Deal?

 

Who believes this crap? Burke existing isn't preventing any of that from happening.

21 minutes ago, Mendo said:

I'm beginning to wonder if you are backed by someone at the county airport.

 

One HUGE benefit that Burke has which County airport and others do not is it is not surrounded by an army of NIMBYs.   It took County years to get a 500' runway extension pushed through.   I'm not sure how Cleveland Trust and his Burke Lakefront grasslands proponents would convince all the very politically active residents around County, Lost Nation, etc to absorb all the traffic from Burke.   

1 minute ago, Cleveland Trust said:

If we need to return money to the FAA then we have to return money to the FAA. If we agreed to terms for grant money we have to live by those terms.

 

Put it on ice. Don’t use it. Like Aviation High School is just sitting empty, let Burke sit empty. See if it is missed. See if it shakes up our (comparatively) sleepy market. If it does we win without a penny spent. 

 

Even if I was posting for County Airport how would that change the the economic data at Burke? 

 

You can't mothballed it for free. Returning money to the FAA that's already been spent is spending money. Security and maintenance is spending money.

 

You posting on behalf of somebody else explains why you are here spinning opinion as facts. Based on the dwindling numbers maybe we should close the county airport first.

Just now, Mendo said:

 

You can't mothballed it for free. Returning money to the FAA that's already been spent is spending money. Security and maintenance is spending money.

 

You posting on behalf of somebody else explains why you are here spinning opinion as facts. Based on the dwindling numbers maybe we should close the county airport first.

By the way, returning funds to the FAA ain't the problem. To close Burke you need viable alternatives. Lost Nation, Cuyahoga County, Lorain County, Summit County really aren't. Could you make one of those airports into a viable alternative. Sure. Can you afford the litigation to do so?  

4 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

You can't mothballed it for free. Returning money to the FAA that's already been spent is spending money. Security and maintenance is spending money.

 

You posting on behalf of somebody else explains why you are here spinning opinion as facts. Based on the dwindling numbers maybe we should close the county airport first.

 

12 minutes ago, Cleveland Trust said:

If we need to return money to the FAA then we have to return money to the FAA. If we agreed to terms for grant money we have to live by those terms.

 

Put it on ice. Don’t use it. Like Aviation High School is just sitting empty, let Burke sit empty. See if it is missed. See if it shakes up our (comparatively) sleepy market. If it does we win without a penny spent. 

 

Even if I was posting for County Airport how would that change the the economic data at Burke? 

Lol put it on ice??  Burke is open 24/7. One doesnt put airports like Burke on ice. It has Federal Control Tower, is an airport of entry, etc, etc

Just now, B767PILOT said:

 

Lol put it on ice??  Burke is open 24/7. One doesnt put airports like Burke on ice. It has Federal Control Tower, is an airport of entry, etc, etc

He just has a lot of hot takes.

14 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

Who believes this crap? Burke existing isn't preventing any of that from happening.

 

To be fair, putting high-rise housing north of First Energy Stadium is prevented by Burke.