Questions readers ask: How much does a digital control tower cost compared with a traditional one?

A digital control tower costs substantially less all-in than a traditional tower. Digital systems put cameras at height and controllers at ground level, avoiding much of the cost of a staffed elevated structure. For small airports, lower construction costs can make air traffic control affordable, although operating savings depend on how the service is organized.

Why the cost question matters for the thousands of airports that have never had a tower

Roughly nine in ten U.S. public-use airports have no tower. Traditional towers have been priced and staffed beyond their reach, rather than excluded because those airports have no traffic. For airport operators, policymakers, and pilots, the cost question is therefore a question about access to ATC. Reason Foundation’s May 2025 brief presents remote tower deployment mainly as a way to save on capital costs because it costs a fraction as much to build as conventional towers.

Johnston Regional Airport director David Harris illustrated the coverage gap by comparing it with removing every stop sign and traffic light from a city’s downtown and expecting drivers to navigate safely. The analogy makes the stakes readily understandable. An airport considering its first tower may be choosing between a less expensive way to provide control services and remaining without them.

What a traditional tower actually costs to build, with two recent anchors

Conventional U.S. tower construction spans tens of millions of dollars at the low end to nearly a hundred million at the high end. Two recent projects provide concrete reference points. The FAA dedicated Teterboro Airport’s 157-foot tower in New Jersey in 2024, with its cost well into the tens of millions of dollars. Charlotte Douglas International’s 370-foot tower, dedicated in 2022, approached a hundred million dollars.

Both projects reflect construction at busy facilities. They sit toward the upper half of the stated range because modern construction, instrumentation, and site complexity shape the final bill. Costs also vary widely with a tower’s height, where it is built, the soil conditions, and the supporting infrastructure already there. These are useful anchors, but neither is a universal budget for a small airport’s first tower. Colorado Transportation Commission staff cited conventional new-tower construction in the low tens of millions for the airport types they were discussing.

What a digital tower system costs, from technology-only to fully installed

Technology alone runs in the low millions of dollars. That covers a different proposition from an airport installation requiring a camera mast, cabling, and a ground-level control room. Colorado Transportation Commission staff estimate that initial installations cost $5–6 million when airport-side infrastructure is included. The staff characterized those figures as preliminary and dependent on vendor, scope, and FAA certification requirements.

The all-in cost varies, with $5–6 million serving as the more specific planning reference supplied for initial installations with airport-side infrastructure. A technology-only price cannot stand in for that installed budget, even when both are described informally as the cost of a digital tower.

Local comparisons can also depart from the headline ranges. Harris estimated Johnston Regional’s digital remote tower at roughly half the cost of the traditional tower the airport had been approved to build. That is a substantial reduction, but not the same ratio suggested by comparing a small digital installation with Charlotte’s tower. Project scope remains the basis for a useful comparison.

What actually drives the gap: where the money goes in each model

A conventional tower must place people high enough to see across the airfield. That requirement governs much of the construction budget. A tall concrete or steel structure needs foundations and structural capacity suited to its height, as well as a cab designed for controllers. HVAC, power backup, equipment rooms, and elevators add building systems to the project. Communications hardware, lighting controls, and other instrumentation then have to be integrated into that fixed structure, while site preparation, permitting, and FAA certification make each installation a custom undertaking.

Bartow makes the physical contrast unusually clear. Its old tower opened in 1943 as a six-story structure with outdoor stairs, and adding an elevator was too expensive. The digital arrangement instead uses a 76-foot camera mast and a ground-level building roughly 600 feet away. Screens arranged in an arc reproduce the panoramic view of a traditional cab.

That shift changes where the money goes. Digital installations require high-definition cameras, infrared sensors, microphones, processing hardware, secure data links, and redundant backup systems. Their sophistication lies in combining sensor data into a unified visual presentation. A ground-level room still needs displays and data infrastructure, but it avoids the elevated cab, its glazing, and its access requirements.

Operating costs: where the digital advantage is real but more complicated

A lower construction bill does not guarantee proportionately lower running costs. Each traditional tower costs an estimated $1–2 million per year to staff, plus the cost of maintaining a tall, complex building. Digital towers reduce that structural burden but introduce recurring costs for camera maintenance, software licensing, network operations, sensor calibration, and cybersecurity. Those costs can accumulate over time. On a single-airport basis, the maintenance comparison is therefore less decisive than the capital comparison.

The economics change when a remote center serves several airports. Reason Foundation’s brief identifies this arrangement as the source of “significant staff and operating cost savings” because low-activity airports can share a pool of certified controllers. Controllers certified for multiple airports control only one at a time under that model. The gain comes from using the staffing pool more productively rather than maintaining separate on-site personnel at every location.

Bartow’s control center is designed to manage Winter Haven Regional Airport, seven nautical miles away, as well. If that arrangement proves out, it could provide a model for regional clusters. It is not yet a settled U.S. operating-cost result. With domestic digital towers only newly entering service, the longer-term economic case rests substantially on the European operating record.

What Norway’s Avinor network shows about costs at scale

Avinor’s network provides the most mature operating reference for this approach. Its Digital Towers Centre opened in Bodø in May 2022 and now manages the great majority of the airports in its first-phase target of 15. Avinor describes the facility as the world’s largest center for digital towers. The primary economic objective has been to avoid expensive renovations or new tower construction at remote airports. Shared facilities address that obligation before any further staffing savings are counted.

Avinor began a multiple-operations trial at Bodø in February 2026 with four selected pairs of airports. It describes the trial as the first of its kind in the world. The multiple-operations approach allows up to three airports to be managed from a single controller position, extending beyond the pooled-staff model in which a controller handles only one airport at a time. An operating network and a trial of a different staffing arrangement are not the same evidence.

Norway’s numerous small airports serve isolated communities. That makes the network relevant to the U.S. small-airport problem rather than simply an example from a different national system. The network shows most clearly how airports can avoid building costs when spending to replace or renovate a physical tower at each site would not have been approved.

The five U.S. airports now funded for digital towers, and what their costs signal

The FAA’s funded expansion covers five additional airports beyond Bartow and Kenai. Those additional projects have funding and await operational deployment. Bartow and Kenai reached their November 6, 2026 go-live milestone under the agency’s newly approved digital tower program, with Kenai Municipal Airport in Alaska the second FAA-confirmed deployment.

Johnston Regional offers the clearest comparison of costs among the airports in the expansion. Harris had pursued an approved traditional tower costing well into the tens of millions, while the digital alternative, estimated at roughly half that cost, is now funded instead. Unlike a comparison between airports of different sizes, this reflects alternative paths for the same airport. Those commitments will become more useful benchmarks as their scope and completed costs, including a final installed price for every funded project, become available.

The 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act directed the agency to establish a clear framework and timeline for approving and deploying digital and remote tower systems. The first deployments mark an operational milestone under that framework. Federal funding is now committed for seven airports, but the additional five cannot yet be treated as completed demonstrations of the headline cost range.

The legitimate objections to the cost case, and how to weigh them

The strongest financial objection concerns lifetime expenditure: digital towers rely on cameras, software, and networks that may in time cost nearly as much to maintain as conventional towers. That objection has merit for a single airport. A much lower initial capital requirement can preserve an economic advantage even if annual maintenance costs converge. The supplied estimates do not establish a universal lifetime break-even calculation, and the multi-airport model remains early-stage domestically.

Capability also affects what an airport receives for its money. Traditional towers provide direct real-world visual and auditory perception, while digital systems depend on video and audio feeds that can degrade in fog, heavy rain, or snow. Networks and servers add ways for the system to fail, and digital systems face more cybersecurity risks than the physical cab. Backup cameras, backup data links, and degraded-mode procedures address those dependencies, while infrared cameras may improve awareness over direct vision in some low-visibility conditions.

Capability objections are most consequential at high-complexity, high-traffic facilities, whereas the cost case here concerns small, low-activity airports. Their alternative is often no tower rather than a fully instrumented major-airport facility. Operational approval is still needed, and the value comparison must reflect the service actually available to the airport.

The FAA’s revised model projects a smaller controller shortage than the earlier model developed collaboratively with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. NATCA was left out of the revision, so the staffing baseline is in dispute. A smaller projected shortage changes the scale of the productivity argument, but not its direction. Even under the revised estimate, a shortage remains, supporting the case for more productive use of certified controllers without proving a particular level of savings.

What the numbers mean for an airport operator deciding today

For a small airport without a tower, the decision begins with a practical funding constraint. A traditional tower may be technically available while tens of millions in construction costs, years of building work, and continuing staffing requirements keep it out of reach. For a digital installation that includes the airport-side infrastructure discussed here, the starting estimate for planning is $5–6 million. That is a different capital proposition. It still requires a credible operating model rather than an assumption that cheaper construction will automatically deliver cheaper service.

A regional approach could strengthen that proposition. A single operator or state aeronautics division could potentially serve a cluster of small airports from one facility, spreading capital and staffing costs across several beneficiaries. The relevant distinction is between a standalone installation and a shared service. eVTOL and advanced air mobility operators also plan to use remote tower technology at vertiport infrastructure, giving digital ATC a potential role in future traffic as well as present coverage.

Affordable, purpose-built digital ATC is now operational domestically for airports long excluded by the traditional tower model. The funded scope and service arrangement must fit the airport’s needs. For many small airports, the choice is no longer confined to an unaffordable conventional tower or indefinite operation without ATC.