C. Massey wrote:
"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?
Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see solid (white?)
lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75 feet apart.



OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 8:02:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com



It's probable a money issue. Marking the GA runway as 75 feet wide
means you only plow & maintain the inside 75 feet. I've seen other
reports that say the runway was cracked and in poor condition. I
guessing that they just did not have enough money for the full width
maintenance. Also, for a 3500 foot runway 75 is more then enough.
Looking at a aerial shot it appears there is also a unused runway at 33
( or so ) Both of these runways appear to be ~3500 long and 150 wide.
The width vs length does not appear to work out. Was this a former
military base? Maybe for helicopters? I would not be surprise to see
that the military would build a short wide runway for helos.