Some of those in favor of the closure of 100E suggest that the only consequence is a minor "inconvenience" to those on the north side of Warsaw. I am not only concerned with being "inconvenienced" by any required detour from CR 100E but am also concerned about emergency response times.
Travel times between the north side and the hospital will necessarily be delayed as emergency vehicles are diverted from 100E to either 175E or Ind. 15. Neither of these alternate routes should be considered appropriate by our local officials, as emergency vehicles attempting to access Ind. 15 may encounter yet further delays with trains while 175E appears inadequate to safely handle the expected heavy volume of diverted non-emergency traffic much less emergency vehicles rushing to and from the hospital. Police and fire response times would be similarly affected. Why isn't anyone addressing the safety involved with closing the road? Indeed, highlighting the seemingly poor planning, no traffic counts or safety studies have been completed to date concerning the proposed runway expansion and closure of 100E.
There also appears to be a question as to whether the proposed runway expansion is even addressing a true need. The airport authority has principally relied upon a claimed need for the runway expansion to avoid diverting planes to other airports in inclement weather due to runway contamination.
In a recent interview separately reported in the local media, however, the airport manager was asked how often planes were diverted to Fort Wayne or South Bend due to runway contamination and he responded, "Not often." Consistent with the airport manager's response, the Times-Union reported DePuy's chief pilot as acknowledging there "are very few times" that they have had planes diverted. As far as support by corporate tenants of the airport, I note the Times-Union also reported that Biomet is neutral on the proposed runway expansion, DePuy's chief pilot opposes the proposed runway expansion, and Explorer Van's president stated, "I am 100 percent dead set against it."
While it is great to have local corporate growth, part of having a growing, healthy, prospering community includes having safe routes to healthcare, schools and businesses. Successful progress involves having a good plan that has been thoroughly researched from several angles. Part of representing one's neighbors in local government includes making contingency plans for those who may be displaced by the local government's decisions.
How does cutting off a major arterial road without any proper contingency plan in place help Warsaw grow? How is forcing thousands to compromise their safety and well-being good and comprehensive government planning? How is spending our tax dollars on a multi-million dollar project that is not supported by any specific numbers, studies, or research, good stewardship of our government tax dollars? (On a side note, for a future letter to the editor, how does our government have millions to expand airport runways while our schools are forced to make severe cuts to their budgets? How's that for progress?)
