Erie study narrows airport connector options as staff weigh costs, safety and community feedback

Town transportation staff presented the AirPark North–South Connectivity Study at the Erie Airport Economic Development Advisory Board meeting on March 19, outlining three retained options for a new or modified north–south connection near the airport and asking the board for stakeholder feedback.

The study, guided by the town’s transportation‑mobility plan, looks at alternatives to relieve shifting traffic patterns after the realignment and partial closure of County Line Road. Miguel (presenter, Transportation Planner) told the board the consultant evaluated five to six potential alignments and council narrowed the field to three: two town‑led alignments (alternative A and B) and a developer‑led completion of Coal Creek Boulevard (Alt 0). "We were directed by council...to conduct the study to look into an alternative connection through or around the airport," the planner said.

Why it matters: staff said the study addresses traffic shifted into Vista Ridge and other neighborhoods, regulatory constraints near the creek, and airport and FAA safety requirements. The study will feed a cost‑benefit analysis due from the consultant in early April, with a presentation to council now tentatively set for May 5.

Key findings and community input: staff reported that an airport open‑house drew 22 attendees and that about 80% of those who attended opposed constructing a new connector; most supporters were Vista Ridge residents seeking relief from diverted traffic. The planner said residents favored a "shared‑use path" in constrained rights‑of‑way — a 10‑foot path for both cyclists and pedestrians — because standard collector cross‑sections do not fit between the creek, private property lines and utilities.

Constraints and safety questions: presenters emphasized that FEMA floodplain rules, FAA airport regulations and CDOT signal‑spacing guidelines limit where and how a connection can be built. John Ferruzzi, the town’s transportation mobility manager, said the team eliminated several impractical options (including one that would run under the runway) and kept an airport‑only emergency access alignment on the map for further consideration. Board members pressed staff on perimeter security after one member reported damaged fence sections near the Schofield hangars and ad‑hoc trails that reach the taxiways. The planner said fencing and security costs will be included in the forthcoming cost‑benefit analysis.

Property, timing and cost questions: members asked whether it makes sense to build a town‑led connector while the Parkdale developer still has obligations to complete Coal Creek Boulevard. Staff noted timelines and phasing depend on the developer, and that Alt 0 remains a possible outcome if Parkdale builds the road as proposed. One board member said a prior rough estimate for a similar airport connection was $8 million and observed that construction prices have risen; he said, "It's probably $10,000,000" as an illustrative ballpark for a new connector, a figure staff said the cost‑benefit analysis will refine.

Next steps: staff repeated that the study’s second phase—detailed cost‑benefit analysis and estimated construction costs—was underway and that refined numbers will be presented to council in May. The town is accepting public comments via the project page on the town website through the period before the council presentation.

The advisory board provided detailed feedback on security, right‑of‑way and whether alternative A or B would displace the developer‑funded signal at Airport Drive; staff said they will factor those concerns into the April cost‑benefit results and the May council briefing.