"C. Massey" wrote in message news:tVWIg.3722

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.

Probably something as simple as their ongoing maintenance budget. Most
planes that can operate in 3500 ft don't need a 150 ft width, and most
planes that need this width probably couldn't function on a 3500 ft runway.
Couple that with weight bearing capacity limitations, and the Lexington folk
probably figured there was no point in continuing to require maintenance and
upkeep on the outer areas of the pavement. In fact, I gather from some
reports that there hasn't been a great deal of recent maintenance performed
on that entire runway.