Considering the close distance between Albert Whitted airport’s main runway and the university, campus buildings are limited to growing vertically.
A plan to study the feasibility of extending Albert Whitted Airport’s main runway got the go-ahead from the St. Petersburg City Council last week.
But at least three council members expressed reservations about the plan, which might make it possible for USF St. Petersburg to have taller buildings in the years ahead.
At issue is the small airport’s northeast-southwest runway, which begins just across First Street S from the university. Since the airport is so close, buildings in the city’s so-called Innovation District cannot exceed certain heights – a longstanding concern of USFSP, the Poynter Institute and two nearby hospitals.
If the runway were extended to the east, into Tampa Bay, it might also be possible to move the runway’s takeoff and landing points farther east, airport manager Richard Lesniak told the City Council.
That would “give more clearance between the aircraft and the ground,” Lesniak said, and encourage “vertical development” in the area around the airport.
Council member Karl Nurse agreed that more clearance would benefit the nearby area, especially the university.
When he was on campus years ago, Nurse said, “I remember being able to count the teeth of pilots … who were just above the trees.”
The feasibility study approved by the council, at a cost of $40,000 to the state and $10,000 to the city, would take several months.
After that, the city would need the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration, followed by environmental studies and then the construction project itself – a process that would take several years.
Although the council voted unanimously to proceed with the feasibility study, some members expressed doubts that the plan would ever get off the ground.
Nurse said the city should request early input from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which plays a major role in any construction project involving waterways, to determine the effort’s worthiness.
“We want to see if it is worth spending on,” he said.
Council member Steven Kornell said he was concerned that extending the runway into Tampa Bay might harm the bay. He is a member of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, which seeks to restore and protect the bay’s water quality, seagrasses and marine life.
“I don’t want to see us destroy a part of our economy to make another part of our economy better,” he said. “In the end, I’m not going to vote on anything that is going to destroy a significant portion of our marine life.”
Council member Darren Rice questioned Lesniak about the airport’s federal funding and public input. She said she doubted the project would clear federal government obstacles and gain public support. Like Nurse, she requested more early information on the proposed extension.
“I don’t see this going over well with the public,” she said. “But I’ll vote for this to go so we can let the facts guide our decision.”
Council members Jim Kennedy and Bill Dudley sounded more enthusiastic about the proposed extension, which Lesniak and airport backers predict would attract larger corporate jets and make downtown more attractive for economic development.
“I think it’s important that we go ahead and see what our options are,” Dudley said.
Jack Tunstill, a veteran pilot and member of Albert Whitted’s Advisory Committee, joined Lesniak in stressing the advantages of an extension.
“With longer runways, airports are safer,” he said.
John Dickson, USFSP’s director of facilities services, said later that gaining room for taller campus buildings would help the university. But he said he would have to examine the feasibility study’s findings first.
“It might improve the possibility, but we need to look first at what the study shows,” Dickson said.
“This is just the preliminary step of a long process,” Lesniak told the council.
