New Airport Plan

The widening of the main runway at the East Hampton Town Airport is a done deal; the contract was awarded Tuesday. Objections, particularly to the effect that this project is a component of a much larger improvement plan and should be subject to comprehensive environmental review and a public hearing, are therefore moot.

Judging from the statements of the East Hampton Aviation Association and the Federal Aviation Administration, the work is needed. They agree that the present condition of the runway (runway 10-28) "could, in the near future, raise questions of safety." Furthermore, the F.A.A. suggests that a decision against the project "after funds have been set aside and a design completed, must be viewed as a breach of faith. . .and will weigh heavily in our consideration of future funding support. . . ."

Accordingly, the existing 75-foot-wide runway and its two 12-and-a-half-foot-wide shoulders, which are highly deteriorated, are to be brought up to F.A.A. standards for an airport of East Hampton's size and to a width of 100 feet.

Although the entire Town Board approved this project at various steps along the way, its Democratic minority and the Town Planning Department now say such approval was a mistake. They have argued that there have been no accidents due to the condition of the runway, that widening it could attract larger planes, and that, since the project is part of a bigger plan to bring in a costly global positioning system, it should not go ahead in a piecemeal fashion.

Councilman Thomas Knobel, who spearheaded the recently completed $4.5-million renovation of the airport, and Supervisor Cathy Lester, who have argued about the runway and are opponents in this year's race for Supervisor, agree on one point: A new airport master plan is needed.

The decision to move ahead without environmental review may reverberate through the coming campaign, but it was understandable. However, the issue that underlies the runway 10-28 debate has not been resolved. That is, does safety require the 16 additional improvements the F.A.A. has recommended and can they be made without significant environmental damage, or are they evidence of a scheme to expand the airport and accommodate more or larger planes regardless of the impact?

It is clear, given these unresolved questions, and the costs that could be involved, that the town should impose a moratorium on construction at the airport following the widening of runway 10-28. Any further improvements should be taken as a whole, studied closely by independent experts, and the resulting plan brought to the public for a hearing.