Is it worth building the Runway 17-35 Expansion Project and then tearing it down?
Before any Federal Action can even be approved, the FAA is required to conduct a benefit-to-cost analysis before Federal funding for any Project can be received. This benefit-to-cost analysis not only takes into account the cost of the Proposed Project but also factors in the expected lifespan of the Project. For the Runway 17-35 Extension Project, a relatively short lifespan of 7 years was given to the Project and the anticipation that a long-term fix, like the Capacity Enhancement Program, would be needed to handle the anticipated future capacity. The result of the Runway 17-35 Extension Project cost-benefit analysis was that even with the short lifespan of 7 years for the Runway 17-35 Extension Project, there was still a high benefit to cost ratio.
