CRJ200 FLT CREW HAS CONCERNS WITH TXWY LIGHTING/MARKINGS FOR RWYS 22/26 AT LEX.

Narrative

TAXI CLRNC FROM GND CTL WAS TO TAXI TO RWY 22. AT XA:00 IT IS COMPLETELY DARK WITH ZERO MOON ILLUMINATION. RWY 26 WAS NOTAMED CLOSED. WE TAXIED OUT ON TXWY A TO THE TXWY A5 RWY 26 HOLD SHORT AND OBSERVED AN ACFT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF US ON RWY 22 AT THE TXWY A5 INTXN. LIGHTING AND MARKINGS WERE SUCH THAT IT APPEARED THAT WE WOULD HOLD ON THE CLOSED RWY 26. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH HOLDING ACROSS A RWY SO WE HELD SHORT OF RWY 26. WE CALLED TWR AND STATED; 'WE WERE HOLDING SHORT RWY 26.' TWR SAID; 'ROGER; TAXI TO HOLD SHORT RWY 22.' AS WE TAXIED ACROSS RWY 26; WE FOUND A SET OF 18 INCH HIGH BARRIERS BLOCKING TXWY A TO RWY 22; THE DIRECT RTE. WE THEN OBSERVED HOLD SHORT MARKINGS FROM TXWY A5 TO RWY 26 AND ANOTHER SET OF HOLD SHORT MARKINGS FOR RWY 22; MAYBE 100 FT AWAY. THE NEXT CALL WAS; 'ACFT XXXX; RWY 22; CLRED FOR TAKEOFF.' WE TAXIED ON TO RWY 22 AT TXWY A5 AND SAW 200 FT OF RWY AVAILABLE TO OUR RIGHT. WE WERE NOT TOLD TO BACK TAXI. THE RWY WAS PAINTED; BUT NOT WITH CHEVRONS. IT WAS UNCLEAR IF THAT WAS USABLE FOR TAKEOFF OR NOT. NOTE: I DISCOVERED THAT LATER LEX FLTS WERE DISPATCHED WITH TEMPORARY DATA. THE RWY HAD PERIMETER LIGHTS ONLY; NO CTRLINE LIGHTS; NO DISTANCE REMAINING MARKERS; NO RWY POINT OF INTERCEPT MARKINGS; NO RWY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS; NO VASI; AND NO PAPI. FROM OUR VIEWPOINT IT LOOKED IDENTICAL TO RWY 26 IN DISTANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SURROUNDING LIGHTS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE TAXI RTE SHOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT. THE DIAGRAM PAGE IS NOT TO SCALE AND SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE AN EXPLODED VIEW OF THE TXWY A5 HOLD SHORT AREA. WHILE TWR CALLS WERE CONCISE; THEY WERE NOT HELPFUL ENOUGH TO RESOLVE THE CONFUSION. I HAVE BEEN TO OTHER ARPTS WHERE MORE HELPFUL INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED REGARDING CONSTRUCTION. THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ME IS THAT EVEN KNOWING ABOUT PRIOR EVENTS AND BEING VIGILANT; I STILL FOUND IT CONFUSING TO SAFELY GET TO THE CORRECT RWY.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT HIS MAIN CONCERN WAS THAT THE ARPT DIAGRAM DID NOT DEPICT THE CHANGES OR THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS PRESENT. HE INDICATED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SEPARATE CHART; SUCH AS THEY HAVE AT LARGER ARPTS; THAT SHOW THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION OR THE TEMPORARY TAXI RTES AND IS HIGHLIGHTED OR EXPANDED. HE FELT THAT ALTHOUGH THE GND CTLR DID GIVE SPECIFIC TAXI INSTRUCTIONS; IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DISCERN THE CORRECT WAY TO THE ACTIVE RWY. HE INDICATED THAT HE HAS FLOWN OUT OF THE ARPT NUMEROUS TIMES; HOWEVER; WITH THE CHANGES TO THE TAXI RTES; IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IN LOW LIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES.